Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5615_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
02.09.2026
Размер:
19 Мб
Скачать
4 PEGylated Nanocarriers forDrug Delivery Applications
117
PEG antibodies, which are highly sensitive in picomolar ranges, can specically bind PEG molecules. In some biological processes, this phenomenon can be utilized to quantify PEG density (Cheng et al. 2005; Su et al. 2010; Zillies et al. 2007). However, this binding could be inuenced by steric interactions in densely packed neighboring PEG chains. Determination of the unreacted PEG molecules could be done with a refractive index (RI) detector or evaporative light scattering detector; hence, the amount of free PEG could be quantied after chromatographic separa­tion, such as HPLC (Nair etal. 2006; Liu etal. 2004). Therefore, HPLC is unable to determine PEG localization within the NPs but is used when coupled with other techniques such as mass spectrometry, evaporative light scattering detection (ELSD), and refractive index detection (RID) due to the lack of a chromophore in PEG for UV detection (Nair etal. 2006; Gauchel et al. 2003; Auriola etal. 1993; Zhang etal. 2007). Comparison of the thickness and particle size of non-PEGylated NPs is employed during the determination of the grafting thickness (Howard etal. 2008).
XPS (X-Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy) This parameter provides useful infor­mation on the elements present on the surface of PEGylated nanocarrier (from the NPs surface, ~ 8–10nm depth with a margin of error of ~10–20%) and is ideal for quantitative determination (Howard etal. 2008; Suk etal. 2016). Here, spectra are obtained before and after PEGylation (Suk etal. 2016). This technique could vali­date the presence of PEG on NPs. Many researchers have utilized XPS to evaluate PEGylated nanoparticles successfully and conrmed that the values obtained cor­responded very well to the amount of PEG added (Churae and Nikologorskaja
1991; Yang and Lai 2015). However, the limitations of XPS here include the dif-
culty in quantifying PEG when the NPs core has a similar composition of elements as the PEG within a probing depth of 1–10nm, and there is the possibility of con­taminants interfering with results (Howard etal. 2008).
Colorimetric Assays This method is utilized in the determination of the localiza-
tion and concentration of PEG molecules (Howard etal. 2008; Hu etal. 2006). The amount of PEG measured before and after alkaline hydrolysis of NPs is compared. Here, the potassium iodide complex method is utilized, and this gives information on the positions of PEG on the surface of the nanocarrier. For particles that have a homogenous surface, the surface density PEG and distance between neighboring molecule chains could be determined with reference to the measured particle size of NPs (Howard etal. 2008).
4.5 Drug Delivery Applications ofPEGylated Nanocarriers
PEGylation of nanocarriers is applied in various routes of drug delivery, including systemic and nonsystemic routes, passive and active targeting, and vaccine delivery, as discussed below.
118
S. A. Chime and M. A. Momoh

4.5.1 Systemic Drug Delivery

The systemic drug delivery of NPs has many advantages compared to the traditional delivery system. NPs have the potential to deliver therapeutic payloads to various tissues and organs of the body, prolonging the blood circulation time and partition­ing into target organs. However, as earlier stated, conventional NPs are generally cleared from the blood circulation within 10min after systemic administration, not­withstanding the composition of the NPs (Suk etal. 2016; Moghimi etal. 2001; Yoo etal. 2010), hence the need to PEGylate. Therefore, PEG molecules are hydrophilic and could be grafted on NPs to create a hydrated environment around the NP that sterically hinders their interaction with other NPs or blood components (Klibanov etal. 1990). The PEG chains are exible, imparting them with high conformational freedom, which opposes the penetration of foreign bodies into the corona of PEG (Vonarbourg etal. 2006). PEGylation improves the half-life of systemically admin­istered drug-loaded NPs and minimizes the liver uptake (Suk etal. 2016; Matsumura and Maeda 1986). Following the systemic administration of PEGylated NPs, it pro­vides enhanced permeability and retention (EPR), resulting in the prolonged circu­lation of PEGylated NPs, which can be benecial in drug targeting of various tumors, for example, Human studies showed that Doxil® provided long circulation half-life of 3–4days and passive accumulation in tumors (Dawidczyk etal. 2014; Nance etal. 2014a). Also, the systemic administration of PEGylated NPs could be used to target other diseases caused by abnormal neovascularization, such as mul­tiple sclerosis, ocular disorders, asthma, and diabetes (Alexis etal. 2008). PEGylated NPs could be decorated with specic ligands for specic targeting to different body organs such as the brain (Suk etal. 2016; van der Meel etal. 2013; Dobrovolskaia etal. 2008).
PEGylation of NPs confers on the NPs the ability to minimize the hemotoxicity of some NPs. The systemic toxicity of NPs is not to be overlooked because NPs administered via systemic delivery route would reach most vascularized tissues in the body. Hence, NPs may directly associate with erythrocytes in the bloodstream, resulting in aggregation of erythrocytes and/or hemolysis followed by the release of hemoglobin (Suk etal. 2016; Fischer etal. 2003). Erythrocytes’ disruption is often seen in cationic NPs because of their interaction with cells that are negatively charged by electrostatic interactions (Ziemba et al. 2012; Eliyahu et al. 2002). PEGylation has been shown to circumvent the hemotoxic properties of nanocarri­ers. PEGylation reduces aggregation and hemolysis of erythrocytes induced by polyethyleneimine (PEI-based) nanocarriers (Petersen etal. 2002b; Rukmani etal.
2009). Hemolysis reduction could be another mechanism of improving the blood
circulation of NPs by PEGylation (Suk etal. 2016).

4.5.2 Nonsystemic Drug Delivery

PEGylation of NPs is not only advantageous in systemic drug delivery, but it could also be employed in the delivery of drugs through nonparenteral routes and controls
4 PEGylated Nanocarriers forDrug Delivery Applications
119
drug release after oral administration. The nonsystemic applications of PEGylation are summarized below.
4.5.2.1 Oral Administration ofPEGylated Nanocarriers
Oral drug delivery remains one of the most convenient, efcacious, and safe routes of drug delivery to the gastro intestinal tract (GIT). The GIT, being complex in nature, requires specialized formulation techniques like PEGylation to target drugs to various locations of the GIT, as well as protect some drugs from denaturation by the acidic upper GIT or design the drug to release at a location of utmost absorption. PEGylated oral insulin NPs protect this drug from stomach-induced acidic degrada­tion (Yuan etal. 2013). Nonsteroidal anti-inammatory drugs, for example, diclof­enac, may be PEGylated, preventing its release in the stomach and avoiding ulceration. Chime etal. prepared an oral PEGylated nanostructured lipid carrier and found out that PEGylation resulted in enhanced physical stability on the NLC, which resulted in signicantly higher controlled drug release over time compared to non-PEGylated NLC.The NLC also showed potential for preventing gastric ulcer­ation often seen in patients on diclofenac sodium (Chime etal. 2022). PEGylation, therefore, improves the oral bioavailability of most orally administered NPs, enhances the hydrophilicity of the SLN, and reduces mucoadhesion (Suk et al.
2009, 2016).
4.5.2.2 PEGylated Nanocarriers forImproved Nasal
andPulmonary Administration
NPs are often administered through the pulmonary route for local and systemic actions in some disease conditions. The mucus layer covers the pulmonary system, which rapidly regenerates and clears via mucociliary clearance (MCC) mechanisms (Suk etal. 2016). In cystic brosis (CF) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the airway mucus creates a complex penetrating barrier due to the visco­elasticity of the mucus barrier. However, PEG coatings on NP enhance its penetra­tion through the mucus membrane of the airways, leading to reduced toxicity and uniform distribution of NPs payload (Lai etal. 2011).
PEGylated NPs are also an effective DDS through the mucosa of the nostrils lined by the mucus. This mucus serves as a barrier to NP and drug absorption. In patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), highly viscoelastic mucus accumulates in the sinuses, leading to immobilization of non-PEGylated NPs in CRS mucus. PEGylated NPs, at about 200nm, could penetrate CRS mucus rapidly (Brooking etal. 2001). Some researchers found that PEGylation reduced intranasal NP uptake attributed to reduced interactions between the PEG-coated nanocarrier and the nasal-associated lymphoid tissue (NALT), some other researchers found that PEG coatings enhance nanocarrier absorption across the nasal mucosa (Suk etal. 2016; Tobio etal. 1998; Kenechukwu etal. 2018).
4.5.2.3 PEGylated Intravaginal Nanocarriers
PEGylation techniques offer enhanced drug efcacy by enhancing dwelling time and increasing the drug concentration at the site of action (Dawidczyk etal. 2014;
120
S. A. Chime and M. A. Momoh
Lee etal. 2005; Ensign etal. 2012). PEGylation could be employed to develop local delivery to the vaginal tract for controlled vaginal delivery of drugs for effective treatment of infections such as vulvovaginal candidiasis and other diseases that affect the female reproductive tract, for example, bacterial vaginosis, cervical can­cer, and sexually transmitted diseases (Suk etal. 2016; Lee etal. 2005).
The primary barrier to NP-based drugs in the vaginal tract is the rapidly cleared mucus layers coating the cervicovaginal area and the viscoelasticity of the vaginal mucosa (Ensign etal. 2012; Cone 2009; Lai etal. 2009). Hence, non-PEGylated NPs are trapped in mucus by adhesive interactions (Lai etal. 2007). Due to their mucoadhesiveness, PEGylated NPs interpenetrate the vaginal mucosa (Suk et al.
2016; Huang etal. 2000; Gu etal. 2008; Sahlin and Peppas 1997). When NPs are
coated with PEG of low MW (2 or 5kDa) and with a particle size of 200nm, PEG rapidly diffuse through the cervical mucous, but when coated with PEG of about 10kDa, PEG becomes trapped in the mucosa (Suk etal. 2016). Also, the dense coat­ing of NP with low MW PEG leads to the shielding of the core of the NP, preventing its interactions with mucin and mucus (Wang etal. 2008).
4.5.2.4 Brain Delivery ofPEGylated Nanocarriers
PEGylated NPs could be used to increase drug-brain delivery. The extracellular matrix (ECM) in the brain presents an extra barrier that prevents drugs entrapped in NPs from reaching target cells (Thorne and Nicholson 2006). However, the density of PEGylated NPs is critical in delivering drugs to the brain. Researchers observed that exceptionally densely coated PEGylated NPs of about 114nm could rapidly diffuse more across the brain tissues of rats (Nance etal. 2012; Mastorakos etal.
2015). In contrast, non-PEGylated NPs of any size were adhesively immobilized in
the various types of brain tissues. Densely PEG-coated NPs also would enhance drug delivery and efcacy in malignant glioma due to increased nanoparticle spread and distribution (Nance etal. 2014b). PEG coatings improve the stability of the NPs in cerebrospinal uid and reduce cell toxicity without signicantly compromising cellular uptake (Suk etal. 2016).
4.5.2.5 Ocular Delivery ofPEGylated Nanocarriers
A good number of barriers prevent the eyes from effectively utilizing various drug delivery systems/dosage forms designed to treat different ocular diseases that may predispose one to blindness. The traditional dosage forms in eye drops undergo poor absorption and rapid clearance; hence, less than 5% of the applied drops reach the intraocular tissues (Jarvinen etal. 1995). Therefore, other more efcient delivery systems, such as NPs and PEGylated NPs, have been explored to enhance drug resi­dence time (DRT) and absorption via the ocular route. PEG enhances mucoadhesion via hydrogen bonding to the mucus and interpenetration (Suk etal. 2016; Wang etal. 2008). Hence, PEGylated NPs could serve as a mucoadhesive to promote DRT in the mucosal area of the eye (Suk etal. 2016; Giannavola etal. 2003). PEGylated NPs are primarily stable with enhanced mobility. Hence, PEGylation increases the mobility of NPs in the vitreous, while non-PEGylated NPs form large, immobile aggregates, whereas most are in the vitreous gel (Martens etal. 2013).
4 PEGylated Nanocarriers forDrug Delivery Applications
121
4.5.2.6 Vaccines Entrapped PEGylated Nanocarriers
Vaccine-entrapped PEGylated nanocarriers increase the circulation time and, hence, enhance the properties of the entrapped vaccines than the non-PEGylated nanocar­riers. PEGylation is often employed in reducing reactions between nanocarriers and proteins, cells, etc. During circulation to reduce clearance, (Suk et al. 2016) PEGylation will also minimize desirable cell uptake, for example, NP-based vac­cine delivery to antigen-presenting cells (APCs). Coating NPs with PEG protects vectors from existing neutralizing antibodies against the virus (Weaver and Barry
2008). PEGylation of NPs was found to increase the relative ratio of dendritic cells
to B cells. Also, there was an increase in the amount of NPs internalized by the dendritic cell, suggesting a relative increase in cellular uptake invivo (Zhan etal.
2012). Vaccine-entrapped PEGylated liposome, PEGylated lipoplexes, PEG-
polyplexes, and PEGylated nanoparticles could be formulated and administered via nonsystemic routes, including dermal route of administration for improved delivery of vaccines (van den Berg etal. 2010). Also, the intravaginal delivery of vaccines has been recently explored (Xie etal. 2014).
4.5.3 Roles ofPEGylation inPassive andActive Targeting
ofDrugs
PEGylated NPs cause a signicant improvement in the penetration of drugs into various tumors and cancer cells. PEGylation enhances drug solubility and serum stability of drugs; hence, they have been utilized for drug-targeting cancer cells, especially (Deepa and Hitesh 2020). Targeting of cancer cells via PEGylatyed nano­carriers can be active or passive targeting (Sutradhar and Amin 2014).
Active Targeting In active targeting, PEGylated NPs containing therapeutic
agent(s) may be designed to interact directly with the cancer cells. Active targeting is initiated by molecular recognition, which involves surface modication of the PEGylated NPs through antibody–antigen recognition or ligand–receptor interac­tion (Cho etal. 2008; Yezhelyev etal. 2006). Overexpressed receptors on cancerous cell surfaces abound and are different from normal cells at the molecular level. When complementary ligands attach to PEGylated NPs surfaces, it allows them to specically target cancerous cells. Once the ligand PEG NPs bind to these recep­tors, they undergo phagocytosis, or receptor-mediated endocytosis by cells, result­ing in cell internalization entrapped drug in the NPs (Sutradhar and Amin 2014). Some of these receptors and their targeting ligands used for cancerous cells specic targeting include ligand–receptor interaction, viz. Folate Receptor, Transferrin Receptor, Asialoglycoprotein (ASGPRs) receptors and Luteinizing Hormone­Releasing Hormone Receptor (LHRHR). Active targeting can also occur by antibody- mediated targeting. Immunoglobulin (Ig) antibodies have gained popular­ity due to their high specicity and unique invivo properties (Sutradhar and Amin
2014). These classes of Ig could be used as ligands to target different cancer cells,
viz. IgG, IgA, IgM, IgD, and IgE (Sutradhar and Amin 2014), for example,
122
Trastuzumab (Herceptin, Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, California) is a highly puried recombinant DNA-derived humanized monoclonal immunoglobulin G1 used for the design of NPs for (MDA-MB-468 BT-474, NCI-H520, PC9, SK-BR-3) breast and (PC3) prostate cancers (Sutradhar and Amin 2014). Angiogenesis is one of the hallmarks of cancer, as it allows the tumor to gain oxy­gen in large amounts and allows nutrients to thrive (Sudarshan et al. 2005). PEGylated NPs encapsulating anticancer drugs can be conjugated to antibodies that bind to receptors overexpressed in angiogenic endothelial cells, thus majoring in both antiangiogenic and cytotoxic effects to improve therapeutic efciency. The angiogenic targets of antibody-functionalized NPs for cancer include the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and its receptors and matrix metalloproteinases (Ferrara 2005).
Passive Targeting Nanoparticles and indeed PEGylated nanocarriers can also tar-
get cancer through passive targeting. The size of the pores in leaky endothelial can­cerous cells ranges from 100 to 780nm, depending on the type of cancer. Hence, PEGylated nanocarriers below that size can easily penetrate these pores (Shubik
1982; Baban and Seymour 1998). PEGylated NPs can be targeted to specic areas
of capillary endothelium to increase drug concentration within a particular organ, perforating the tumor cells by convection or passive diffusion (Sutradhar and Amin 2014).
S. A. Chime and M. A. Momoh
4.6 Factors That Affect theCirculation Time
ofPEGylated Nanocarriers
Several factors affect the circulation time of PEGylated nanocarriers. These factors include the molecular weight of PEG used during the formulation, surface density of PEG, physicochemical parameters of NPs, and other physicochemical properties that inuence the systemic circulation of nanocarriers (Suk etal. 2016; Alexis etal.
2008; Vonarbourg etal. 2006; Gref etal. 1995; Mozar and Chowdhury 2018).
4.6.1 Physicochemical Properties ofNanoparticles
The physicochemical parameters of NPs, viz. size and surface charge are important parameters (Albanese etal. 2012). They inuence the interactions between the bio­logical environment and the NPs, affecting internalization, distribution, and clear­ance. The binding of NPs to drug components like the opsonins and particle aggregation in circulation is inuenced by the hydrophobicity of NPs (Mozar and Chowdhury 2018; Karra and Benita 2012; Brigger etal. 2002). In aqueous systems, uncharged and hydrophobic NPs are easily aggregated via hydrophobic and Van der Waals forces, while highly charged hydrophilic nanocarriers maintain their colloi­dal stability due to repulsive forces in them (Tenzer et al. 2013; Mozar and
4 PEGylated Nanocarriers forDrug Delivery Applications
123
Chowdhury 2018). Therefore, PEG coating of NPs is highly desirable to prevent opsonization by serum factors (Bhadra etal. 2002). PEG coating on nanoparticles neutralizes the surface charges, yielding “stealth” properties, minimizing RES opsonization, and improving blood retention time. Hydrophilicity and steric hin­drance offered by surface-anchored PEG prevent nonspecic interactions between NPs and proteins; hence, reducing phagocytosis mediated by opsonin, causing pro­longed residence time of NPs in circulation (Mozar and Chowdhury 2018; Pai etal.
2006; Harrington etal. 2000). Drug encapsulation and loading into NPs may be
affected by factors such as matrix composition and the physicochemical properties of drugs (Mozar and Chowdhury 2018; Govender etal. 1999, 2000).
The physicochemical properties of the NPs core inuence the adsorption of pro­teins and their circulation time. Smaller size NPs interact less with the end groups within cell surfaces of PEG chains. In contrast, NPs of larger sizes at a given PEG surface density may attach themselves to MPS cells more rmly than smaller NPs due to weak, multivalent interactions between the PEG chains and/or terminal groups with cell surfaces (Unsworth etal. 2008). Hence, smaller NPs show more resistance against macrophage uptake than larger NPs and have increased surface curvature, which may need larger PEG density to shield them effectively (Suk etal.
2016; Choi etal. 2011; Perrault etal. 2009; Fang etal. 2006).

4.6.2 PEG Molecular Weight (MW)

PEG MW is crucial for effective shielding of the surface of NPs in order to prevent interactions with MPS cells and serum proteins (Suk etal. 2016). Protein adsorption on PEGylated NPs is affected by the MW.Hence, the association between the ligand and PEGylated NPs is affected by PEG surface coating density on NPs. PEG with MW of 10kDa is more effective in reducing protein absorption than PEG with MW of 2kDa and 5kDa, respectively. Therefore, high MW PEGs prevent phagocytic uptake protein adsorption and increase circulation time (Suk etal. 2016; Fang etal.
2006). Generally, the MW of grafted PEG chains is proportional to the polymer
chain length. Increasing the MW of PEG from 2kDa to 20kDa prevents the adsorp­tion and aggregation of NP to blood components, thereby increasing its circulation time (Suk etal. 2016; Mozar and Chowdhury 2018). PEG with MW of 2kDa or higher could shield particle surfaces, circumventing recognition by the MPS and protein adsorption (Mozar and Chowdhury 2018; Pai etal. 2006).
4.6.3 Surface Density, PEG Content andConformation
The surface density of the grafted PEG layer is a crucial parameter that inuences the PEGylated NPs’ ability to resist protein adsorption and clearance after systemic administration (Suk etal. 2016; Vonarbourg etal. 2006). PEGylated liposomes pre­pared with 10mol % of PEGylated lipids prevented liposome aggregation in whole blood, while formulations with 5 and 3 mol % of PEG agglomerated over time
124
Flor
/
= aN
35
S. A. Chime and M. A. Momoh
(Braeckmans etal. 2010). Also, increasing the content of PEG on nanocarriers may not ensure more excellent surface coverage of PEG.There is a threshold for maxi­mum achievable PEG surface density, which depends on the type of NPs and formu­lation methods. Hence, an accurate determination of the surface PEG density during the interpretation of the effect of PEG density on NP circulation is essential (Suk etal. 2016).
The structural conformation of PEG molecules on the surface and the effective­ness of the PEG in shielding the NP surface is calculated by the average distance between neighboring PEG chains on an NP surface (D). If D is greater than the Flory radius of the PEG chain,
yradiusRF,
(4.2)
In the above equation, N=the degree of polymerization, which increases with an increase in PEG MW, and a=the effective monomer length=0.35nm; then, the neighboring PEG chains are said to be in a “mushroom” conformational regime and will not overlap (RF/D1) (Suk etal. 2016). Increasing the surface PEG density such that adjacent PEG chains overlap (RF/D> 1) will cause the PEG chain to stretch away from the nanocarrier surface, resulting in a “brush” layer. When the surfaces of PEG densities change from mushroom-to-brush tran­sitions, it is benecial to circumvent the adsorption of serum proteins, avoiding NPs uptake by MPS cells (Owens and Peppas 2006; Mozar and Chowdhury 2018; Jokerst etal. 2011). Also, higher RF/D values could result in longer PEG chains ( 10kDa) because of entanglement in the neighboring chains (Suk etal. 2016; Yang etal. 2014a).
Mushroom state conformation results from low-density PEGylation, whereas brush state conguration results from high-density PEGylation and is more effec­tive in prolonging the circulation time of PEGylated NPs by higher anti- opsonization effect (Mozar and Chowdhury 2018). However, having an opsonization effect that is too strong could prevent the interactions between NPs and cells, reducing some properties like their tumor uptake, an effect called “PEG Dilemma.” (Mozar and Chowdhury 2018)

4.7 PEGylated Nanocarriers Products

There are currently so many PEGylated nanocarriers in the market, some of which are shown in Table4.1 (Mozar and Chowdhury 2018; Abdellatif and Alsowinea
2021; Patra etal. 2018). It is also worth noting that an uncountable number of dif-
ferent nanocarriers are undergoing various stages of clinical trials (Mozar and Chowdhury 2018).
Adagen® (Pegademase bovine) is a PEGylated polymeric nanocarrier approved in 1990 for the treatment of severe combined immunodeciency disease (SCID) (Abdellatif and Alsowinea 2021; Patra etal. 2018). Doxil® is a PEGylated liposomal doxorubicin approved by FDA and European Medicines Evaluation Agency (EMA)
4 PEGylated Nanocarriers forDrug Delivery Applications
125
in 1999 and 2000, respectively, (Mozar and Chowdhury 2018; Abdellatif and Alsowinea 2021) for the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer patients with platinum- based therapy resistance. Doxil® has reduced toxicity with ve to tenfold higher tumor levels and improved circulation time, especially cardiotoxicity. Also, various marketed PEGylated protein products are available, viz. PEGylated
Table 4.1 PEGylated nanocarriers products
Loaded drug Pegademase
bovine (Abdellatif and Alsowinea 2021; Patra etal. 2018)
Glatopa Polymeric
Peglgrastim PEGylated GCSF
Peginterferon alfa-2A
Peginterferon alfa-2B
Pegvisomant PEGylated HGH
Pegaspargase Polymer–protein
Pegloticase Polymer–protein
Peginterferon beta-1A
PEGylated factor VIII
Paclitaxel Polymeric
Doxorubicin PEGylated
Nanocarrier Brand (Company) Use
Polymeric nanoparticles
nanoparticles
protein PEGylated IFN
alpha-2a protein
PEGylated IFN alpha-2b protein
receptor antagonist
conjugate PEGylated -asparaginase
conjugate (PEGylated porcine­likeuricase)
Polymer–protein conjugate (PEGylated IFNbeta-1a)
Polymer–protein conjugate (PEGylated factor VIII)
micelle
liposomal
Adagen® (Sigma-Tau Pharmaceuticals)
Copaxone® (Teva) Multiple sclerosis
Neulasta (Amgen) Leukopenia by
Pegasys (Hoffman-La Roche)
PegIntron (Schering)
Somavert (Pharmacia)
Oncaspar (Sigma Tau)
Krystexxa (Horizon)
Plegridy (Biogen) Multiple sclerosis 2014
Adynovate (Baxalta)
Genexol-PM (Samyang)
DOXIL (Ben Venue Laboratories)
Severe combined immunodeciency disease (SCID)
(MS)
chemotherapy Hepatitis B and C 2002
Hepatitis C 2001
Acromegaly 2003
Acute lymphocytic blood clot
Chronic gout 2010
Hemophilia 2015
Metastatic breast and lung cancer
Ovarian, Kaposi’s sarcoma, and Multiple myeloma
Date of approval
1990
1996
2002
1994
2007
1999 and 2000
126
interferon, PEGylated arginine deaminase, and PEGylated L-asparaginase (Mozar and Chowdhury 2018; Abdellatif and Alsowinea 2021; Patra etal. 2018).
S. A. Chime and M. A. Momoh
4.8 Limitations ofNanocarriers PEGylation
Despite an array of the advantages of PEGylation of NPs in drug delivery, it suffers from some major limitations such as particle size enlargement, batch-to-batch vari­ability, high variability, and diversity of results obtained with PEGylated NPs and nonbiodegradability of PEG polymers among others (Howard et al. 2008; Suk etal. 2016).
4.8.1 High Variability andDiversity ofResults Obtained
withPEGylated NPs
PEGylated nanocarriers may show signicant variability in results outcomes depending on the type of NPs PEGylated due to the individual properties of the excipient or composition of the NPs (Sebak 2018). Variability in outcomes of PEGylation may also arise due to the desorption of PEG, nonhomogeneity of PEG on particle surfaces, and the attraction of a variety of plasma proteins (Suk etal. 2016).
4.8.2 Nonbiodegradability ofPEG Polymers
PEG polymers are nonbiodegradable despite their advantages and their biocompat­ibility. Hence, there could be some potential side effects occurring from their non­biodegradability (Sebak 2018). There may be situations that can lead to lysosome bioaccumulation in healthy tissue (Verhoef and Anchordoquy 2013; Lowe etal. 2015).

4.8.3 Disadvantageous Physicochemical Properties

The PEGylation of NPs affects their physicochemical properties and could lead to particle size enlargement, predisposing NPs to enhance RES uptake. This could be worsened by the use of considerable molecular weight PEG, resulting in the sudden release of loaded drugs from NPs. The loaded drugs could be released from PEGylated NPs before degradation of the polymer (Sebak 2018). Hence, particles could be circulating without the loaded drugs before their degradation. There have been several reports of rapid release of hydrophilic drugs from PEGylated NPs, which could be due to the hydrophilic nature of PEG chains, which attract water molecules, causing wetting of PEGylated NPs and faster drug release (Sebak 2018; Chen etal. 2013; Yang etal. 2014b).