- •Drug Product Development for the Back of the Eye
- •Preface
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •1.1 Introduction
- •1.2 A Strategic Overview of Drug Delivery Systems
- •1.3 Specific Approaches to Drug Delivery for the Posterior Segment
- •1.3.1 The Influence of Physicochemical Properties on Drug Delivery and Pharmacokinetics
- •1.3.2 The Chosen Route of Administration
- •1.3.3 Location of the Target Tissue
- •1.3.4 Potency of the Drug
- •1.3.5 Need for Continuous or Pulsatile Delivery
- •1.3.6 Duration of Drug Delivery Necessary to Induce and Maintain Efficacy
- •1.3.7 Type of Drug Delivery System Selected
- •1.3.8 Pharmacokinetic (PK) Properties of the Drug
- •1.3.9 Local and Systemic Toxicity of the Drug and its Metabolites
- •1.3.10 Previous Ocular Use of Excipients
- •1.3.11 Development and Strategic Team Input
- •References
- •2.1 Introduction
- •2.2 Posterior Segment as a Sampling Site
- •2.3 Principle of Microdialysis
- •2.3.1 Extraction Efficiency/Recovery
- •2.4.1 Anesthetized Animal Models
- •2.4.2 Conscious Animal Model
- •2.5 Vitreal Pharmacokinetics in Animals Other than Rabbits
- •2.6 Summary
- •References
- •3.1 Commercial Fluorophotometer
- •3.2 Normal Human Subject and Rabbit Ocular Fluorescence
- •3.3 Fluorophotometry Applications
- •3.3.1 Tear Turnover Rate (%/min)
- •3.3.2 Corneal Epithelial Cell Layer Permeability Methodologies
- •3.3.3 Eye Bath Technique
- •3.3.4 Single Drop Technique to Measure Epithelial Permeability
- •3.3.5 Eye Bath Technique to Measure Epithelial Permeability
- •3.4 Clinical Applications of Fluorophotometry
- •3.5.1 Transscleral Pathways
- •3.5.2 Suprachoroidal Injection
- •3.6 Retrobulbar Fluorescein Injection
- •3.7 Intravenous Fluorescein Injection In Vivo
- •3.8 Ocular Uptake of Fluorescein from Topical Eye Drops
- •References
- •4.1 Introduction
- •4.1.1 Role of the Blood-Retinal Barrier as a Dynamic Interface
- •4.1.2 Potential Approach of Blood-Retinal Barrier-Targeted Systemic Drug Delivery to the Retina
- •4.2.1 Amino Acid-Mimetic Drugs
- •4.2.2 Monocarboxylic Drugs
- •4.2.3 Nucleoside Analogs
- •4.2.4 Folate Analogs
- •4.2.5 Organic Cationic Drugs
- •4.2.6 Opioid Peptides and Peptidomimetic Drugs
- •4.2.7 Antioxidants
- •4.2.7.1 Vitamin C
- •4.2.7.2 Vitamin E
- •4.2.7.3 Cystine
- •4.2.8 Miscellaneous Protective Compounds
- •4.2.8.1 Creatine
- •4.2.8.2 Taurine
- •4.3.1 Organic Anion Transporter 3 (OAT3, SLC22A8)
- •4.3.3 P-Glycoprotein (ABCB1)
- •4.3.4 Multidrug Resistance-Associated Proteins (ABCCs)
- •4.3.6 ABCAs
- •4.4 Conclusions and Perspectives
- •References
- •5.1 Introduction
- •5.2 Drug Distribution
- •5.2.1 Drug Distribution from the Anterior Ocular Surface to the Posterior Segment
- •5.2.2 Studies of Trans-Corneal and Periocular Drug Delivery to the Retina
- •5.2.2.1 The Uvea-Scleral Route
- •5.3 Eye Drops for Posterior Segment Diseases in the Clinic
- •5.4 Summary
- •References
- •6.1 Introduction
- •6.2 Vitreous Anatomy
- •6.2.1 The Inner Limiting Membrane
- •6.3 The Vitreous As a Drug Reservoir
- •6.4 Flow Processes in the Vitreous
- •6.4.1 Flow Patterns
- •6.4.2 Injection and Hydrostatic Effects
- •6.4.3 Diffusion
- •6.4.4 Convective Flow
- •6.5 Clearance Pathways from the Vitreous Compartment
- •6.5.1 Charge and Collagen Interaction
- •6.5.2 Aqueous Clearance
- •6.5.3 Retinal Clearance
- •6.6 Transfer Through the Vitreoretinal Border
- •6.6.1 The Role of the Blood–Retinal Barrier
- •6.6.1.1 Amino Acid Transport
- •6.6.1.2 P-Glycoprotein
- •6.6.1.3 Organic Cationic Transporters
- •6.6.1.4 Organic Anion Transporters
- •6.6.1.5 Other Transporters
- •6.7 The Ageing Vitreous
- •6.7.1 Underlying Mechanisms of Vitreous Degeneration
- •6.7.2 Physical Changes Involved in the Ageing Vitreous
- •6.7.2.1 Pre-Clinical Model of Ageing Vitreous
- •6.7.2.2 Effects of Vitreous Liquefaction on Intravitreal Drug Delivery
- •6.7.3 Vitrectomised Eyes
- •6.7.3.1 Intravitreal Drug Distribution and Clearance in Silicone Oil
- •6.7.4 Role of Ocular Movements in Disordered Vitreous
- •6.8 Concluding Remarks
- •References
- •7.1 Introduction
- •7.2 Drug Delivery to Posterior Segment Ocular Tissues
- •7.3 Scleral Structure and Drug Delivery
- •7.4 Scleral Permeability: Initial Studies
- •7.5 Sustained-Release Delivery In Vitro
- •7.6 In Vivo Studies
- •7.7 Conclusions and Future Directions
- •References
- •8.1 Introduction
- •8.2 Background
- •8.3 Posterior Segment Delivery
- •8.4 Transscleral and Intrascleral Drug Delivery
- •8.5 Suprachoroidal Drug Delivery
- •8.6 Summary
- •References
- •9.1 Introduction
- •9.2 Nonbiodegradable Ocular Drug Delivery Systems
- •9.2.1 Retisert
- •9.2.2 Ocusert
- •9.2.3 Vitrasert
- •9.2.4 I-vation
- •9.2.5 Iluvien
- •9.2.6 Nonbiodegradable Matrix Implants
- •9.2.6.2 Punctal Plugs
- •9.3 Medical Applications for Biodegradable Polymers
- •9.3.3 Poly(Ortho Esters)
- •9.3.4 Polyanhydrides
- •9.5.1 Ozurdex™
- •9.5.2 Surodex
- •9.5.3 Verisome
- •9.5.4 Lacrisert
- •9.6.1 Poly(Lactic Acid)-Based Implants
- •9.6.2 PLGA-Based Implants
- •9.6.5 Poly(Ortho Ester)-Based Implants
- •9.6.6 Polyanhydride-Based Implants
- •9.6.7 Other Biodegradable Polymer-Based Implants
- •9.7 Conclusions
- •References
- •10.1 Introduction
- •10.2 Manufacturing of Microparticles
- •10.3 Characterization of Microparticles
- •10.3.1 Morphological Characterization of Microparticles
- •10.3.2 Particle Size Analysis and Distribution
- •10.3.3 Infrared Absorption Spectrophotometry (IR)
- •10.3.4 Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC)
- •10.3.5 X-Ray Diffraction
- •10.3.6 Gel Permeation Chromatography (GPC)
- •10.3.7 Determination of Drug Loading Efficiency
- •10.3.8 “In Vitro” Release Studies
- •10.3.8.1 Additives in Microspheres
- •10.4 Sterilization of Microparticles
- •10.5 Calculation of the Dose of Microparticles for Injection
- •10.6 Injectability Studies
- •10.7 In Vivo Studies
- •10.7.1 In Vivo Injection of Microparticles
- •10.7.2 Ocular Disposition and Cellular Uptake
- •10.7.3 Tolerance of Microparticles
- •10.7.4 In Vivo Degradation of PLA and PLGA Microparticles
- •10.8 In Vitro and In Vivo Correlation
- •10.9 Microparticles for the Treatment of Posterior Segment Diseases. Animal Models and Human Studies
- •10.9.1 Proliferative Vitreoretinopathy (PVR)
- •10.9.2 Uveitis
- •10.9.3 Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD)
- •10.9.4 Diabetic Retinopathy
- •10.9.5 Macular edema
- •10.9.6 Acute Retinal Necrosis (ARN)
- •10.9.7 Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Retinitis
- •10.9.8 Choroidal Neovascularization
- •10.9.9 Diseases Affecting the Optic Nerve
- •10.9.11 Microparticles in Retinal Repair
- •10.10 Conclusions
- •References
- •11.1 Introduction
- •11.2 Nanoparticles
- •11.2.1 Polymer Nanoparticles
- •11.2.2 Liposomes and Lipid Nanoparticles
- •11.2.3 Micelles
- •11.2.4 Protein Nanoparticles
- •11.2.5 Carbohydrate Nanoparticles
- •11.2.6 Dendrimers
- •11.2.7 Combination Nanosystems
- •11.3 Using Nanotechnology to Improve Ocular Therapeutics
- •11.3.1 Improving Patient Compliance
- •11.3.2 Increasing Drug Retention and Sustained Release
- •11.3.3 Increasing Permeability and Tissue Partitioning
- •11.3.4 Targeting Nanotherapies
- •11.3.5 Intracellular Trafficking
- •11.4 Alternative Approaches to Improve Ocular Therapeutics
- •11.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •12.1 Introduction
- •12.2 Hydrogel Technology
- •12.6 Future Directions
- •References
- •13.1 Introduction
- •13.2 General Design Considerations
- •13.2.1 Administration Site
- •13.2.2 Body Design
- •13.2.3 Port Design
- •13.2.4 Vacuum and Pressure
- •13.2.5 Flushing and Fluid Replacement
- •13.2.5.1 Active Pumps
- •13.2.5.2 Passive Systems
- •13.2.5.3 Solid Refill
- •13.2.6 Contamination Potential
- •13.3 Historical Influences
- •13.3.1 Infusion Pumps
- •13.3.2 Glaucoma Drainage Devices
- •13.3.3 Pioneering of Refill Procedure in the Eye
- •13.4 Ophthalmic Refillable Devices
- •13.4.1 Invasiveness and Refilling Frequency
- •13.4.2 Intravitreal Delivery Through the Pars Plana
- •13.4.3 Episcleral Implantation for Trans-Scleral Delivery
- •13.4.4 Subretinal and Suprachoroidal Implantation
- •13.4.5 Lens Capsule Delivery
- •13.5 Conclusions
- •References
- •14.1 Introduction
- •14.2 Current Methods of Drug Delivery to the Eye
- •14.3 Improved Methods of Drug Delivery to the Eye Using Microneedles
- •14.3.1 Intrastromal Delivery to the Cornea Using Coated Microneedles
- •14.3.3 Suprachoroidal Delivery Using Hollow Microneedles
- •14.4 Microneedle Types and Other Applications
- •14.4.1 Poke and Apply
- •14.4.2 Coat and Poke
- •14.4.3 Poke and Release
- •14.4.4 Poke and Flow
- •14.5 Discussion
- •14.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •15.1 Introduction
- •15.1.1 General Mechanisms of Iontophoretic Drug Delivery
- •15.1.2 The Shunt Pathway
- •15.1.3 The Flip–Flop Gating Mechanism
- •15.1.4 Electro-Osmosis
- •15.2 Ocular Drug Delivery: The Past and the Future
- •15.3 Ophthalmic Applications of Iontophoresis
- •15.3.1 Transconjunctival Iontophoresis
- •15.3.1.1 Transconjunctival Iontophoresis of Antimitotics
- •15.3.1.2 Transconjunctival Iontophoresis of Anesthetics
- •15.3.2 Transcorneal Iontophoresis
- •15.3.2.1 Transcorneal of Fluorescein Iontophoresis for Aqueous Humor Dynamic Studies
- •15.3.2.2 Transcorneal Iontophoresis of Antibiotics
- •15.3.2.3 Transcorneal Iontophoresis of Antiviral Drugs
- •15.3.2.4 Other Drugs for Transcorneal Iontophoresis
- •15.3.2.5 Is Transcorneal Iontophoresis Safe?
- •15.4 Transscleral Iontophoresis
- •15.4.1 Transscleral Iontophoresis of Antibiotics
- •15.4.2 Transscleral Iontophoresis of Antiviral Drugs
- •15.4.3 Transscleral Iontophoresis of Anti-Inflammatory Drugs
- •15.4.3.1 Aspirin
- •15.4.3.2 Glucocorticoids
- •15.4.3.3 Transscleral Iontophoresis of Carboplatin
- •15.4.3.4 Is Transscleral Iontophoresis Safe?
- •15.4.3.5 Transscleral Iontophoresis for High Molecular Weight Compounds and Proteins
- •15.4.3.6 Clinical Application of Transscleral Iontophoresis
- •15.5 Applications of Iontophoresis to Ocular Gene Therapy
- •15.6 Future Developments
- •References
- •16.1 Introduction
- •16.2 Background
- •16.2.1 Intravitreal Injections
- •16.2.2 Impact of Genetics
- •16.3 Better Tools for Delivery and Treatment
- •16.3.1 Barriers to Success
- •16.3.2 Physics-Based Approaches
- •16.3.2.1 Physical Methods to Deliver Drugs to a Target Cell in the Posterior Segment
- •16.3.2.2 History of Electrical Fields in Medicine
- •16.3.2.3 Safety Concerns with Electric Fields
- •16.3.2.4 Definitions of Electric Field Methods
- •16.3.2.5 Advantages of Electric Fields for DNA Transfection vs. Viral Mediated DNA Delivery
- •16.3.2.6 Problems of In Vivo Electric Field Applications
- •16.3.2.7 Possible Strategies to Improve Electric Field-Mediated Drug Delivery
- •16.3.3 Experiences with Iontophoresis
- •16.3.3.1 Examples of Iontophoresis
- •16.3.3.2 Summary of the Strengths and Weaknesses of Iontophoresis
- •16.3.4 Experiences with Electroporation
- •16.3.4.1 Examples of Electroporation in Living Animals
- •16.3.4.2 Strengths and Weaknesses of Electroporation
- •16.4 Outstanding Issues in Electric Fields for the Delivery of Drugs
- •16.5 Summary
- •References
- •17.1 Introduction
- •17.2 Routes of Protein Administration
- •17.2.1 Topical
- •17.2.2 Intracameral
- •17.2.3 Intravitreal
- •17.2.4 Periocular (Transscleral)
- •17.2.5 Suprachoroidal
- •17.2.6 Subretinal
- •17.2.7 Systemic
- •17.3 Advantages and Challenges of Protein Delivery
- •17.4 Current Development Strategies
- •17.4.1 Pure Protein
- •17.4.2 PEGylation
- •17.4.4 Liposomes
- •17.4.5 Stem Cells
- •17.4.6 Implants
- •17.5 Case Studies
- •17.6 Ophthalmic Protein Formulation Development
- •17.6.1 Protein Biosynthesis
- •17.6.2 Preformulation Studies
- •17.6.3 Selection of Excipients
- •17.6.4 Optimization of Process Variables
- •17.7 Specifications and Regulatory Guidelines
- •17.8 Conclusions
- •References
- •18.1 Need for Suspension Development for the Back of the Eye
- •18.2 Background
- •18.3 Development of Drug Suspensions Intended for the Back of the Eye
- •18.3.1 Drug Suspensions
- •18.3.1.1 Physical Pharmacy Principles that Explain the Stability and Formulation of Suspensions
- •18.3.1.2 Formulation Methodology
- •18.3.1.3 Manufacturing Process
- •18.3.2 Factors To Be Considered in Suspension Development for the Back of the Eye
- •18.3.2.1 Formulation Development and Evaluation
- •18.3.2.2 In Situ Forming Suspensions, Selection of Drug Form for Suspension, and Polymeric Microparticle Suspension
- •18.3.2.3 Clinical Studies on Safety
- •18.4 Conclusions
- •References
- •19.1 Introduction
- •19.2 Drug Product Approval Process
- •19.3 Considerations for Back of the Eye Treatments
- •19.4 Adaptive Trial Design
- •19.5 Drug-Device Combinations
- •19.6 Product Summary Basis of Approval Reviews
- •19.6.1 OZURDEX™
- •19.6.2 LUCENTIS™
- •19.7 Summary
- •References
- •20.1 Background
- •20.2 FDA Endpoints
- •20.3 Endpoints for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration (Table 20.1)
- •20.4 FDA Guidelines for Other Retinal Diseases
- •20.5 Endpoint for Geographic Atrophy
- •20.6 Endpoint for Retinal Vein Occlusion
- •20.7 Future Endpoints
- •References
- •21.1 Introduction
- •21.2 Ocular Physiology and Pathology
- •21.2.1 Ocular Inflammation
- •21.2.2 Neovascularization
- •21.2.3 Degeneration
- •21.3 Current Therapies for Key Back of the Eye Disorders
- •21.3.1 Age-Related Macular Degeneration
- •21.3.1.1 Pathophysiology
- •21.3.1.2 Therapeutics Either in Current Use or in Clinical Trials
- •21.3.1.3 Current Research Focused on Identifying New Targets
- •21.3.2 Diabetic Retinopathy
- •21.3.2.1 Pathophysiology
- •21.3.2.2 Therapeutics Either in Current Use or in Clinical Trials
- •21.3.3 Retinopathy of Prematurity
- •21.3.3.1 Pathophysiology
- •21.3.3.2 Therapeutics Either in Current Use and in Clinical Trials
- •21.3.4 Degenerative Conditions
- •21.3.4.1 Pathophysiology
- •21.3.4.2 Therapeutics Either in Current Use or in Clinical Trials
- •21.3.5 Opportunistic Infections
- •21.3.5.1 Pathophysiology
- •21.3.5.2 Therapeutics Either in Current Use or in Clinical Trials
- •21.3.6 Autoimmune Disease
- •21.3.6.1 Pathophysiology
- •21.3.6.2 Therapeutics Either in Current Use or in Clinical Trials
- •21.4 Conclusion
- •References
- •22.1 Bile Acids as Anti-Apoptotic Neuroprotectants
- •22.3 Potential Need for Local Delivery of Bile Acids as Neuroprotectants
- •22.4 Preliminary Studies of Ocular Delivery of Bile Acids
- •22.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •Index
17 Protein Drug Delivery and Formulation Development |
427 |
alternative approach to obtain sustained release of macromolecules such as proteins. The cell reservoir within an implant may be an efficient mechanism to slowly release the drug over prolonged periods. However, the long-term safety of any other factors released by these implants has yet to be ascertained.
17.5 Case Studies
Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is a vasoactive cytokine capable of increasing blood vessel permeability and proliferation. The VEGF family consists of peptides VEGF-A, VEGF-B, VEGF-C, VEGF-D, VEGF-E, VEGF-F and placental growth factor (PIGF); all have similar structural domains, but each have different biological and physical properties (Ferrara 2004). Alternative exon splicing of the VEGF-A gene generates eight isoforms and the predominant isoforms are VEGF121, VEGF165 (most predominant isoform), VEGF189, and VEGF206. VEGF plays a key role in angiogenesis and vasculogenesis (Ferrara and Gerber 2001; Takahashi and Shibuya 2005) during embryonic and early postnatal stage. It acts as a survival factor, vasodilator (Ferrara and Gerber 2001) and has a role in glomerulogenesis, renal glomerular capillary function (Eremina et al. 2003), and the female reproductive cycle (Ferrara and Gerber 2001; Takahashi and Shibuya 2005). In pathological conditions, it plays an important role in wound healing (Nissen et al. 1998) including PDR and DME.
Pegaptanib: Pegaptanib (Macugen®; Eyetech Pharmaceuticals, New York, USA) is a PEGylated ribonucleic acid (RNA) aptamer that binds and neutralizes human VEGF165 (Gragoudas et al. 2004). It is made up of single-stranded nucleic acid that is synthesized chemically and PEGylated with two 20 kDa PEG molecules attached at each end. Its molecular weight is approximately 50 kDa. It has a unique threedimensional structure that allows it to selectively inhibit VEGF165, which has role in pathological conditions such as wet AMD. In 2004, pegaptanib was approved by the US FDA for the treatment of all forms of neovascular AMD. It is supplied in a single dose prefilled syringe containing 0.3 mg of the drug in 90 mL of injectable volume. Intravitreal injection of pegaptanib in human patients of 0.3 mg every 6 weeks for 2 years showed delayed neovascular AMD progression in comparison to controlled patients (Gragoudas et al. 2004; Donati 2007). Its vitreous half-life is approximately 4 days and the therapeutic level is maintained for 6 weeks after single injection. Pegaptanib injection, every 6 weeks, significantly reduced mean visual acuity loss by approximately 50% in patients having subfoveal CNV as confirmed by the VEGF inhibition study in ocular neovascularization (VISION). Patients with AMD were reported to gain visual benefits when 0.3 mg of pegaptanib was administered intravitreally every 6 weeks for 2 years; that is, visual acuity was maintained compared to those patient who received standard of care or were discontinued from therapy (Chakravarthy et al. 2006). A clinical study confirmed that pegaptanib is systemically and ocularly safe (Cunningham et al. 2005). However, adverse effects associated with pegaptanib included anterior chamber inflammation,
428 |
R. Baid et al. |
conjunctival hemorrhage, and ocular discomfort, but these adverse effects were mild to moderate and were often due to injection procedure and not due to the drug itself. Further, a rise in intraocular pressure (IOP) was reported due to the intravitreal injection, but the IOP diminished within an hour of injection. Other adverse effects included about 1% incidence of endophthalmitis, retinal detachment, and iatrogenic traumatic cataract, and about 15% incidence of retinal arterial and venous thrombosis. Despite these side effects, pegaptanib is clinically safe up to 0.3 mg dose (Apte et al. 2007).
Bevacizumab: Bevacizumab (Avastin®; Genentech, California, USA) is a full length humanized antibody (148 kDa) from mouse monoclonal antibody expressed in Chinese hamster ovary cells. It can inhibit all forms of VEGF (Ferrara et al. 2004). Its vitreal half-life is 5.6 days (Bakri et al. 2007b). It has been approved for systemic delivery of colorectal cancer in 2004, but it is also used off-label for the treatment of AMD-related CNV (Hurwitz et al. 2004). Typically it is administered as intravenous infusion with a dose ranging from 5 to 10 mg/kg body weight (infusion time: 1 h) every 2 weeks in combination with other drugs such as 5-flurouracil for treating metastatic colorectal cancer. It blocks all forms of VEGF and hence it might impair both physiological and pathological neovascularization, especially after systemic administration. Intravitreal injections of bevacizumab (1.25 mg in 0.05 mL every month) are capable of preventing ocular angiogenesis (Rosenfeld et al. 2005; Avery et al. 2006; Iliev et al. 2006; Spaide et al. 2006). Patients with neovascular AMD reported a gain in visual acuity by 2.2 lines in 6 months when treated with three intravitreal injections of 1.0 mg of bevacizumab every 4 weeks (Weigert et al. 2008). Similar to other anti-VEGF therapies, bevacizumab is also associated with ocular complications such as uveitis (0.09%), endophthalmitis (0.16%), and retinal detachments (0.16%). Further it can result in acute systemic blood pressure elevation (0.59%) and even death (0.4%) (Arevalo et al. 2007). Triple therapy with verteporfin PDT, bevacizumab, and dexamethasone also showed a significant improvement in the visual acuity after a single cycle of treatment in patients with CNV (Augustin et al. 2007).
Ranibizumab: Ranibizumab (Lucentis®; Genentech, California, USA), a recombinant humanized antigen Fab fragment (48 kDa) of mouse monoclonal antibody, has one binding site for VEGF (Ferrara et al. 2006). It is a globulin G1K isotype monoclonal antibody fragment. It is expressed in the Escherichia coli expression system. It blocks all forms of VEGF and hence it might impair both physiological and pathological neovascularizations, resulting in increased risk for systemic side effects. In 2006 it was approved for treatment of wet AMD by the US FDA. Its vitreal half-life is 2.88 days in rabbit eye (Bakri et al. 2007a). It is three to sixfold more potent at inhibiting VEGF than bevacizumab (Chen et al. 1999; Heier et al. 2006). A phase III clinical trial was done to evaluate the safety and efficacy of intravitreal injections of ranibizumab (Rosenfeld et al. 2006). A dose of 0.5 mg in 0.05 mL was given monthly to patients with classic CNV secondary to AMD. Ranibizumab effectively increased the visual baseline. Another clinical trial ANCHOR (the anti -VEGF antibody for the treatment of predominantly classic CNV in AMD) was conducted in 2006 and it confirmed that ranibizumab was
17 Protein Drug Delivery and Formulation Development |
429 |
moderately able to prevent the vision loss in neovascular AMD (Rosenfeld et al. 2006). Repeated intravitreal injections of ranibizumab were determined to be well tolerated by three clinical trials: MARINA (Minimally Classic/Occult Trial of the Anti -VEGF Antibody Ranibizumab in the Treatment of Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration), PIER (Phase I AMD, Multicenter, Randomized, DoubleMasked, Sham Injection-Controlled Study of the Efficacy and Safety Ranibizumab), and ANCHOR. Transient subconjunctival hemorrhage, minor intraocular inflammation, and transient elevated IOP are few of the minor side effects that have been reported (Heier et al. 2006; Rosenfeld et al. 2006).
VEGF Trap-Eye: VEGF Trap-Eye (Aflibercept®, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, New York, USA) is a 110-kDa fusion protein composed of an extracellular VEGF receptor sequence (VEGF1 and VEGF2) fused with a fragment crystallizable (Fc) region of human IgG1 (Saishin et al. 2003). It binds to all VEGF isoforms more tightly than any other anti-VEGF agent (about 140 times higher than ranibizumab). It also has a longer intravitreal half-life compared to ranibizumab due to its larger size. It is predicted to exhibit a longer duration of activity than ranibizumab at similar doses (Stewart and Rosenfeld 2008). It is predicted that VEGF Trap-Eye requires less frequent administration and hence, there will be multiple advantages including lower medicinal cost, less frequent injections, improved patient compliance, and fewer physician appointments (Stewart and Rosenfeld 2008). Intravenous infusion of VEGF Trap-Eye seems to decrease the retinal thickness in a dose-dependent manner (Nguyen et al. 2006). A single intravitreal infusion of VEGF Trap-Eye (1.0 mg/kg body weight, infusion time – 1 h) improved the visual acuity or at least stabilized the visual acuity in 95% of patients after 6 weeks (Nguyen et al. 2006). In addition, a significant reduction in central retinal thickness was seen after 8 weeks of injection. Currently, phase III trials are being conducted.
Ciliary neurotrophic factor: CNTF is a 64-kDa protein hormone, nerve growth factor, and is also a survival factor for neurons. It has recently been shown to effectively reduce tissue attack during inflammatory response and it is currently in clinical phase II and III trial for the treatment of retinal neurodegenerative diseases including retinal pigmentosa (RP), caused by the loss of retinal photoreceptor cells (Sieving et al. 2006). CNTF has been found to effectively retard retinal degeneration in several animal models including rhodopsin knockout mice (Liang et al. 2001) and Q334ter rhodopsin transgenic mice (LaVail et al. 1998). The formulation of CNTF in the clinical phase I trial was delivered by retinal pigment epithelium cells that are transfected with the human CNTF gene and encapsulated in a capsule that is surgically placed in the vitreous (Sieving et al. 2006). The outer layer of the implant is permeable to CNTF and allows it to secrete from the implant once the encapsulated cells have produced the protein. Two cell lines (NTC-201-10 and NTC-201-6A) were used in the trial and they released 250 and 800 ng protein per one million cells in vitro, respectively. Three out of seven individuals showed an increase of 10–15 letters after 2 months of injection and their visual acuity was maintained for 6 months. In vivo, release rates of CNTF from the implant device remained constant for both the low and high output implant devices at 0.287 ± 0.7 and 1.53 ± 0.54 ng/day, respectively.
