- •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
202 |
S.S. Lee et al. |
9.3.3 Poly(Ortho Esters)
Poly(ortho esters) (POE) are a class of synthetic hydrophobic, bioerodible polymers that have been under development since the 1970s. The orthoester link of POE is less stable under acidic than basic conditions, and thus, the degradation rate of POE can be controlled by incorporating acidic or basic excipients into the polymer matrix (Park and Lakes 2007). Unlike polyesters, which degrade homogeneously throughout the polymer matrix, POEs are highly hydrophobic and water-impermeable, and as a result, degrade via surface erosion (Fig. 9.4g–l). This property has generated interest in the use of POEs for drug delivery, since they can conceivably be used to deliver drugs at a constant rate (i.e., zero-order kinetics) without the burst effect associated with bulk-eroding polymers.
To date, four POE families have been developed, designated as POE I, POE II, POE III, and POE IV (Park et al. 2005; Heller et al. 2002). POE I, POE II, and POE III have limited applicability in biomedicine due to extreme hydrophobicity and/or difficulties in their synthesis. In contrast, POE IV, a modified version of POE II that has a short segment based on lactic acid or glycolic acid incorporated into the polymer backbone, has the necessary attributes for use as a drug delivery vehicle and can be fabricated to form wafers, strands, or microspheres (Heller et al. 2002; Park et al. 2005). POE has demonstrated good tolerability in animals following suprachoroidal and intravitreal injection, suggesting its potential for use in drug delivery to the posterior segment.
9.3.4 Polyanhydrides
PAHs are hydrophobic polymers with hydrolytically labile anhydride linkages. PAH is characterized by a fast rate of degradation, which occurs via surface erosion, but the polymer composition of PAHs can be varied to produce drug delivery systems capable of providing sustained release for days to weeks (Park et al. 2005; Kuno and Fujii 2010). Degradation of PAHs depends on the rate of water uptake, determined by hydrophilicity and crystallinity of the polymer. PAHs are thought to provide more controllable, near-zero order drug release as compared with polymers that degrade by bulk erosion, because drug release depends mainly on the surface degradation of polymers rather than drug diffusion (Fig. 9.4). PAH polymers generally show minimal inflammatory effects in vivo and degrade into nontoxic monomeric acids (Park et al. 2005). The most commonly used PAH for drug delivery is a copolymer of bis(p-carboxyphenoxy) propane and sebacic acid. Its degradation byproducts are carboxyphenoxypropane, which is eliminated via the kidney, and sebacic acid, an endogenous fatty acid, which is metabolized by the liver and expired as CO2 (Kuno and Fujii 2010).
PAHs will react with drugs containing free amino groups, which limit their use as a drug-delivery matrix, and the thermal and mechanical properties of PAHs are
9 Advances in Biodegradable Ocular Drug Delivery Systems |
203 |
not as useful as those of PCL, since the former contain many more –CH2 groups in the main chain (Park and Lakes 2007). Another drawback is that most PAHs must be stored frozen under anhydrous conditions because of the hydrolytic instability of the anhydride bond (Park et al. 2005).
A PAH copolymer of bis(p-carboxyphenoxy) propane and sebacic acid (80:20 ratio) has been approved by the US FDA as a carmustine delivery system (Gliadel®) for the treatment of brain cancer. PAH has also been investigated as a drug delivery vehicle in glaucoma filtration surgery (see Sect. 9.6); however, the application of PAH for posterior segment drug delivery has yet to be reported.
9.4 Biodegradable Polymers in Nonocular Biomedical
Applications
Biodegradable polymers have a long history of successful use in a variety of medical applications for general surgery, orthopedics, reconstructive surgery, dentistry, and vascular repair (Table 9.4, Fig. 9.6). Sutures and fixation devices composed from biodegradable polymers have been developed to eliminate the need for extra postsurgical removal procedures that would otherwise be required with nonabsorbable materials, thereby providing not only cost and resource savings, but also better healing and greater convenience and safety for patients (Törmälä et al. 1998). Biodegradable polymers, particularly those composed from PLA and PGA, are ideal for such uses because they have a range of physical and chemical properties that can be custom engineered to suit specific biomedical applications. For example, the molecular structure, copolymer ratio, crystallinity, and viscosity of biodegradable polymeric materials can be manipulated to optimize mechanical strength and degradation characteristics.
The first use of biodegradable polymers in medicine was reported in 1966 by Kulkarni and associates, who utilized PLA to develop biodegradable sutures and rods for the repair of mandibular fractures (Kulkarni et al. 1966). In 1971, the first commercial synthetic biodegradable multifilament suture Dexon® (Covidien AG, Switzerland), consisting of 100% PGA, was introduced. This was followed soon after by the commercial introduction of Vicryl® multifilament sutures (Johnson & Johnson Corp., New Brunswick, NJ) composed of PLGA (90:10 PGA:PLA) (Wassermann and Versfelt 1974). Other biodegradable multifilament sutures that were later developed for commercial use include Polysorb® (U.S. Surgical, North Haven, CT) and Panacryl® (Johnson & Johnson), both of which are composed of PLGA. In addition to multifilament sutures, monofilament sutures have been developed using biodegradable polymers; for example, PDS II® sutures, composed from poly-p-dioxane (PDS) (Doddi et al. 1977), and Maxon® sutures composed from PGA and TMC (trimethylene carbonate) (Rosensaft and Webb 1981).
204 |
S.S. Lee et al. |
Table 9.4 Examples of nonocular biomedical applications for biodegradable polymers
Application |
Polymer(s) |
Sutures |
|
Dexon® |
PGA |
Vicryl® |
PGA/PLLA |
Polysrb |
PGA/PLLA |
Panacryl |
PGA/PLLA |
PDS II |
PDO |
Maxon |
PGA/PLTMC/PGA |
Monocryl |
PGA/PCL/PGA |
Biosyn |
PGA/PDO/PLTMC/PGA |
Caprosyn |
PGA/PCL/PLTMC/PLLA |
Orthopedic fixation devices (screws, pins, staples, anchors) |
|
Lactosorb® screws |
PLGA |
BiosorbPDX screws/anchors |
PLGA |
Biologically Quiet staples |
PLGA |
SD sorb meniscal staples/anchors |
PLGA |
SmartPinPDX pins |
PLGA |
Biofix pins |
PGA |
OrthoSorb pins |
PDO |
Bionx screws, pins, and meniscus arrows |
PLA |
Biofix meniscus arrows |
PLGA |
Cervical spinal fixation plates |
PLA |
Nonocular drug delivery implants |
|
Nutropin® Depot (human growth hormone) |
PLGA |
Sandostatin LAR® (octreotide) |
PLGA |
Trelstar® Depot (triptorelin pamoate) |
PLGA |
Zoladex® (goserelin acetate) |
PLGA |
Tissue scaffolds |
|
InnoPol |
PLGA |
Other |
Various |
Drug-eluting and nondrug eluting stents |
|
Excel stent (sirolimus) |
PLA |
Cura™ stent (sirolimus) |
PLA |
Biomatrix™ stent (Biolimus A9) |
PLA |
Nobori™ stent (Biolimus A9) |
PLA |
Synchronnium™ stent (sirolimus/heparin) |
ND |
Coronnium™ stent (genistein/sirolimus) |
PLA/PLGA |
Mahoroba™ stent (tacrolimus eluting) |
PLGA |
Bile duct stents |
PLGA |
Igaki-Tamai™ stent |
PLLA |
ND not disclosed; PAH polyanhydride; PCL poly(e-caprolactone); PDO polydioxane; PFF polypropylene fumarate; PGA poly(glycolic acid); PGLC poly(glycolide-co- lactide-co-caprolactone); PLLA poly(L-lactic acid); PLA poly(lactic acid); PLGA poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid); PMM polymethylidene malonate; POE poly(ortho ester); PLTMC poly(L-lactide-co-1,3-trimethylene carbonate); PVP poly(N-vinyl pyrrolidone)
9 Advances in Biodegradable Ocular Drug Delivery Systems |
205 |
Fig. 9.6 Timeline of important milestones in the development of
biodegradable drug delivery systems for ophthalmic diseases
Bioabsorbable sutures have been used in a wide range of applications for the closure of soft-tissue wounds and repair of tendons, ligaments, and dislocated joints. Early research on biodegradable suture materials indicated good tissue compatibility and raised the possibility of using biodegradable polymer implants
206 |
S.S. Lee et al. |
for other clinical applications. Solid, macroscopic, bioabsorbable implants have been used clinically for fixation in orthopedics and reconstructive surgery for more than 25 years. The first clinical studies on applications of this nature were initiated in 1984 by Rokkanen and colleagues, who studied the use of self-rein- forced PGA/PLLA rods for the fixation of displaced malleolar fractures (Rokkanen et al. 1985; Törmälä et al. 1998). Since that time, several biodegradable implant devices have become available commercially for orthopedic use (see reviews by Athanasiou et al. 1996, 1998; Törmälä et al. 1998; Park and Lakes 2007; Chu 2008; Navarro et al. 2008). These comprise pins, screws, rods, and plates for bone fixation; interference screws for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; softtissue anchors; and suture anchors for labrum or ligament reattachment in the shoulder. Examples of commercially marketed products include Biologically Quiet (Instrument Makar, Okemos, MI) and SD sorb (Surgical Dynamics, Norwalk, CT) suture anchors; orthopedic fixation devices such as Lactosorb® (Biomet, Warsaw, IN) and BiosorbPDX (Bionx Implants, Bluebell, PA) screws for craniomaxillofacial fixation; Biologically Quiet staples (Instrument Makar) for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; SD sorb meniscal staples (Surgical Dynamics) for meniscus repair; SmartPinPDX (Bionx) and OrthoSorb (DePuy) pins for fracture fixation. PLGA copolymers are the most common biomaterials used for the manufacture of such devices, although PLA, PGA, PCL, PDS, and polycarbonate have also been employed (Navarro et al. 2008). Polymers such as PLA degrade relatively slowly and therefore retain their strength for a longer time as compared with PGA, which is more brittle and undergoes more rapid degradation (Athanasiou et al. 1998).
Biodegradable polymers also have been used to manufacture various types of nonocular drug delivery systems. Examples of such drug delivery implants, all of which utilize PLGA, include Zoladex® LA (goserelin acetate, AstraZeneca UK Ltd., UK) for the treatment of prostate cancer, Nutropin® Depot (human growth hormone; Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, CA) for growth deficiencies, Trelstar® Depot (triptorelin pamoate) for prostate cancer, and Sandostatin LAR® (octreotide; Novartis AG, Switzerland) for acromegaly (Avgoustakis 2008). The diseases that these drug delivery systems are designed to treat are all chronic in nature and require long-term treatment; thus, sustained drug release using biodegradable polymers can reduce the number of treatments needed as compared with conventional shorter acting treatments, thereby minimizing inconvenience to patients and potentially improving treatment compliance. For example, Zoladex (goserelin acetate), which is a pituitary down regulator used to lower testosterone levels in patients with prostate cancer, is normally administered by subcutaneous abdominal injection every 4 weeks; however, with Zoladex LR, a longer-acting PLGA-based subcutaneous implant, treatment is only required at 12-week intervals. Nutropin Depot is a subcutaneously injected suspension consisting of recombinant human growth hormone (somatotropin) in PLGA-based microsomes. This long-acting, biodegradable formulation, used for the treatment of growth hormone deficiency in children, is administered 1–2 times monthly and offers the potential for improved convenience and compliance by decreasing the number of injections
9 Advances in Biodegradable Ocular Drug Delivery Systems |
207 |
and frequency of administration as compared with conventional once-daily injections of growth hormone (Silverman et al. 2002). However, Nutropin Depot may not be as effective as once-daily treatment in promoting growth rates (Nutropin Depot Prescribing Information 2005).
Stents are devices that are widely used in vascular surgery to maintain blood vessel patency following angioplasty. Bare metal stents, used as a structural scaffold, represent the first generation of devices developed for this purpose; however, restenosis was a frequently associated complication. Second-generation drugeluting metallic stents were subsequently developed for the delivery of therapeutic agents to promote vascular repair as well as to provide structural support; however, these devices were also associated with restenosis, and controversy emerged regarding their value relative to traditional bare-metal stents (Sakhuja and Mauri 2010; Bates 2008). Biodegradable polymer-based stents have been developed as a means of overcoming the limitations of both drug-coated and uncoated nonbiodegradable stents (Rogacka et al. 2008). Such devices can potentially maintain vessel patency as effectively as nonpolymeric stents, while limiting restenosis and other complications and eliminating the possible need for device removal/replacement. Drug-coated biodegradable stents can also be used for drug delivery as an alternative to metallic drug-eluting stents. A variety of biodegradable stents incorporating PLGA and/or PLA have been developed; these include both nondrug eluting types [e.g., bile duct (Xu et al. 2009) and Igaki-Tamai™ (Rogacka et al. 2008) stents] and drug-eluting types to deliver drugs such as sirolimus (Excel, Cura™, and Synchronnium™ stents), Biolimus A9 (Biomatrix™ and Nobori™ stents), genistein (Coronnium™ stent), and tacrolimus (Mahoroba™ stent) (Rogacka et al. 2008).
In addition to the aforementioned commercial applications, biodegradable polymers have been tested as vascular grafts, vascular couplers for vessel anastomosis, nerve growth conduits, ligament/tendon prostheses, intramedullary plugs for total hip replacement, and anastomosis rings for intestinal surgery, and to augment defective bone (Chu 2008). Biodegradable polymers have also shown promise for tissue engineering because they can be fashioned into porous scaffolding systems and carriers of cells, extracellular matrix components, and bioactive agents to facilitate bone grafts and enhance the healing potential of musculoskeletal tissue (Hutmacher et al. 2007). First-generation tissue scaffolds composed of PCL, which have been through extensive clinical testing, have been approved by the US FDA and are available commercially. Tissue scaffolds composed of natural polymers in combination with hydroxyapatite (e.g., collagen-hydroxyapatite composites, chi- tosan–hydroxyapatite) and synthetic polymers (PLA, PLA-polyethylenglycol, PCL) are also being investigated (Hutmacher et al. 2007; Guelcher 2008). To overcome limitations in the use of synthetic polymeric tissue scaffolds in high-load bearing areas, a composite scaffolding matrix system based on PLLA/PDLLA (copolymer ratio 70:30) is under investigation as a carrier for proteins and growth factors (Hutmacher et al. 2007).
Results from human studies on the safety of biodegradable polymeric devices have generally been favorable; reports of severe adverse reactions are rare, and
