- •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
272 |
S.A. Durazo and U.B. Kompella |
increased, the size of the micelles increased. All micelles fabricated with a molar ratio of e-CL to MePEG of 50, 75 and 100 exhibited ~30% cumulative release at day 14, micelles with a ratio of 25 exhibited 15% release at day 6 and plain indomethacin had nearly 100% cumulative release at day 2. Interestingly, micelles were capable of prolonging the release of their contents by a significant factor.
Very few researchers have tested the ability of micelles to improve drug pharmacokinetics in ocular tissues. Gupta et al. in 2000 are among the first to investigate the permeability of ketorolac-loaded micelles made with N-isopropylacrylamide (NIPAAM) copolymer, vinyl pyrrolidone, and acrylic acid (AA) crosslinked with N¢,N¢-methylene bis-acrylamide across the cornea of excised rabbit cornea. The micelles were of < 50 nm in size and the release of drug from the micelles was pHdependent. Slowest release (approximately 40% in 8 h) was seen for acidic pH (pH 5) while pH 7.2 and 10 exhibited faster release. At pH 7.2, about 50% drug was released at 6 h and at pH 10, about 75% drug was released in 6 h (Gupta et al. 2000). The micellar formulation of ketorolac and the aqueous suspension of ketorolac had ~ 7% and 4% cumulative amount of keterolac that permeated the cornea, respectively, after 60 min. The study also found that the micellar formulations were able to prevent ocular inflammation more quickly than plain ketorolac as denoted by lid closure induced by prostaglandin E2 in a rabbit eye. Lid closure was rated as: 0 – fully open, 2 2/3 – open, and 3 – fully closed. At 30 min, the lid closure rating for the micellar formulation and plain ketorolac was ~0.5 and 1.7, respectively. The lid closure rating for the micelle-treated rabbits was consistent up to 3 h after which the lid closure rating was 0 for 4 h and 5 h time points. The lid closure rating for the plain ketorolac did not drop to ~0.5 until 3 h and decreased to 0 at 5 h. The micellar formulation of ketorolac showed increased residence time of the drug in ocular tissues as well as sustained release of the drug from the formulation.
11.2.4 Protein Nanoparticles
Nanoparticles or nanosystems can be prepared using a variety of naturally occurring or synthetic proteins. While naturally occurring proteins are likely safer, all proteins suffer from the potential for immunogenicity, especially when administered in forms that are altered when compared to their endogenous forms in the human body. While immunogenicity remains a challenge, protein-based delivery systems are still viable, given the success of AbraxaneTM, an albumin-based, intravenously administered paclitaxel nanoparticle for cancer therapy. Eye, being relatively immuno-privileged, might tolerate protein-based nanosystems better than some other parts of the body.
Albumin is a commonly assessed protein for drug delivery due to ease of synthesis (Zimmer et al. 1994) and knowledge regarding its biocompatibility, ability to bind various drug molecules, and its nontoxic nature. In fact, one study has evaluated the ocular disposition and tolerance of ganciclovir-loaded albumin nanoparticles after intravitreal injections in rats (Merodio et al. 2002). Albumin nanoparticles were detected in the vitreous up to 2 weeks after injection, and the histopathology of the
11 Nanotechnology and Nanoparticles |
273 |
retina, ciliary muscle, neuronal interplay area, outer and inner nuclear layers, and the vitreous cavity showed no signs of inflammation after 2 weeks. Further, the cytoarchitecture of the retina showed no signs of alteration in photoreceptors or neuronal layers. In addition, the mechanism of degradation of albumin nanoparticles is known to involve phagocytosis by the RES (Schafer et al. 1994). Not only are protein nanoparticles safe and biocompatible, they have a unique inherent ability to bind drugs with various physiochemical properties due to the wide-range of charged, lipophilic, and hydrophilic amino acids.
Pioneer research completed by Merodio and colleagues has focused on the ocular use of albumin nanoparticles in sustaining the release of ganciclovir in the treatment of cytomegalovirus retinitis (Merodio et al. 2000). Drug release from albumin nanoparticles followed a biphasic model whereby an initial rapid release of drug was followed by a period of slow release. The nature of the concentration vs. time curve for ganciclovir directly depended on the method of synthesis and the addition of excipients. Three different methods of synthesis were used: Model A, B and C. For Model A nanoparticles, ethanol was added dropwise to a 2% (w/v) albumin solution while continuously stirring. Glutaraldehyde was then added to harden the coacervates. The nanoparticles were then purified by centrifugation to remove unreacted gluteraldehyde and albumin. The pelleted albumin nanoparticles were suspended with a ganciclovir solution and allowed to incubate up to 4 h. Unencapsulated drug was removed by centrifugation. Model B nanoparticles were made by adding ganciclovir directly to a 2% (w/v) albumin solution up to 4 h and afterwards the pH was adjusted to the isoelectric point of albumin (pI 5.5). The coacervates were dissolved with ethanol and then hardened with glutaraldehyde for 2 h. Finally, centrifugation was completed to remove unreacted glutaraldehyde, albumin, and ganciclovir. Model C nanoparticles were made by adding ganciclovir to a 2% (w/v) albumin solution containing a crosslinking agent and incubated up to 4 h. The pH of the solution was then adjusted to 5.5 (the pI of albumin) and afterwards ethanol was added. Again, centrifugation was used lastly as a purification step to remove unreacted compounds.
Addition of ganciclovir to albumin nanoparticles formed 4 h prior to the addition of ganciclovir (Model A nanoparticles) resulted in release of 60% of encapsulated drug within 1 h; however, addition of ganciclovir directly to the albumin solution in the initial step (Model B nanoparticles) decreased the amount of drug released to 40% and only 20% of drug was released from Model C nanoparticles. However, for all formulations of ganciclovir-loaded albumin nanoparticles, percent cumulative release of drug after 1 h remained constant over 5 days. The mechanism of drug release was found to be directly dependent on pH whereby increased ganciclovir release was observed under extremely basic and acidic conditions, but minimal release was observed near pH 7. Thus, sustained release properties in the order of a few days can easily be obtained using albumin nanoparticles by optimizing formulation pH and excipients.
Albumin nanoparticles also demonstrated superiority over lipofectamine in gene therapy. Human serum albumin nanoparticles loaded with the Cu, Zn superoxide dismutase (SOD1) gene were prepared (Fig. 11.4) and tested for their safety,
274 |
S.A. Durazo and U.B. Kompella |
Fig. 11.4 Scheme depicting the methods for preparing human serum albumin (HSA) nanoparticles loaded with the plasmid capable of expressing superoxide dismutase 1 (pSOD1). Degree of crosslinking controls particle size (Mo et al. 2007)
release profiles, and efficacy (gene expression) by Mo et al. (2007). The albumin nanoparticles loaded with the SOD1 gene were synthesized using a modified desolvation-crosslinking method: a 2% (w/v) albumin solution was mixed with pSOD1 (plasmid encoding the SOD1 gene) in a Tris-EDTA solution at pH 8.0 for 5 min at room temperature. The solution was then added dropwise to an ethanol solution while stirring and the nanoparticles were crosslinked by adding 1% glutaraldehyde and stirring for 12 h. Excess glutaraldehyde was removed by addition of ethanol and centrifuging. The SOD1-loaded albumin nanoparticles were ~120 nm with 20 mL glutaraldehyde and ~160 nm if only 1 mL of glutaraldehyde was added as a crosslinker agent. The larger nanoparticles (160 nm) exhibited a biphasic release profile with release of 65% of the DNA in the first 6 h followed by sustained release for the next 44 h. The smaller nanoparticles (120 nm) had a slightly less drastic burst effect by which only 23% of the DNA was released in 6 h, followed by sustained release for 6 days. The nanoparticles were shown to be protective against DNAse I-induced degradation of the plasmid and were noncytotoxic to retinal pigment epithelial (ARPE-19) cells over 96 h at nanoparticle concentrations up to 5 mg/mL. The in vitro data clearly demonstrates that albumin pSOD1-loaded nanoparticles have higher SOD1 activity due to gene expression than pSOD1 + lipofectamine. Intravitreal injection of albumin pSOD1-loaded nanoparticles into mice had high protein levels of SOD1 compared to intravitreal injection of pSOD1 only.
Most recently, the effects of surface charge on albumin nanoparticle disposition within the vitreous and retina of rat eyes were determined (Kim et al. 2009b). Anionic nanoparticles were found to penetrate the retina after intravitreal injection; however, these nanoparticles could not penetrate the blood–retinal barrier. Cationic albumin nanoparticles were not able to efficiently penetrate the retina as only few
11 Nanotechnology and Nanoparticles |
275 |
particles made it to the retina after 5 h due to the aggregates formed in the vitreous. Neither albumin nanoparticle formulations were found in the choroid or Bruch’s membrane. Depending on the target for the disease to be treated, albumin nanoparticles may not be an appropriate delivery device. For example, for the treatment of wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD), the drug must be able to reach the choroid and therefore, albumin nanoparticles may not be desirable if they are unable to reach the choroid. Further studies are needed to investigate the ability for albumin nanoparticles to deliver drug over extended periods of time and to compare albumin nanoparticles to current treatment regimes. This field of ocular drug delivery is relatively new and will likely expand within the next decade as the necessity for ocular drug delivery vehicles increases.
11.2.5 Carbohydrate Nanoparticles
Chitosan, a polysaccharide, in particular has been investigated extensively over the past three decades as a material for making drug delivery devices (Paolicelli et al. 2009). Chitosan is an acetylated form of chitin, which is found in lobster, crab and shrimp shells as well as in other insects and fungi. In addition, degraded forms of chitin are also found in plant soil to help plants defend against bacterium and other pests including the pine beetle. The chemical structure of chitosan consists of randomly oriented units of b-(1→4)-D-glucosamine and N-acetyl-D-glucosamine.
The method of biodegradation of chitin within the body is relatively well understood and involves both deacetylation and lysosomal degradation (Pangburn et al. 1982). The rate of degradation and cellular toxicity is highly dependent on the percentage of N-acetylation of chitosan (Freier et al. 2005). With 30–70% acetylation, 50% of the chitosan mass was lost by lysosomal degradation over 4 weeks. Samples with extremely high or low percentages of acetylation showed minimal weight loss over 4 weeks. Chitosan with an extremely low percentage of acetylation (0.5%) had the highest cell viability compared to chitosan with more acetylation. Both toxicity and rate of degradation can be controlled by synthesizing chitosan with specific amounts of N-acetylation.
In 2001, it was proposed by De Campos that chitosan nanoparticles may be effective ocular drug delivery vehicles (De Campos et al. 2001). Cyclosporin A (CyA)-loaded chitosan nanoparticles were shown to have at least twofold higher corneal concentrations than CyA in solution at all time points assessed up to 48 h (De Campos et al. 2001). In the conjunctiva, chitosan CyA nanoparticles had ~4,000 ng/g at 2 h compared with only ~900 ng/g at 2 h for the aqueous solution of CyA. At 6 and 24 h, chitosan CyA nanoparticles had twofold higher concentrations than the aqueous solution. The amount of drug in blood, iris/ciliary body, and aqueous humor were nearly indifferent. The same research group reported in 2006 that the cell viability in the presence and absence of chitosan nanoparticles was the same, with no signs of inflammation after cell uptake of nanoparticles (Salamanca et al. 2006). Chitosan nanoparticles are emerging as a new class of drug delivery
