| Literature DB >> 29719776 |
Angela M Wagner1,2, Margaret P Gran3, Nicholas A Peppas1,3,2,4,5,6.
Abstract
Therapeutic proteins and peptides have revolutionized treatment for a number of diseases, and the expected increase in macromolecule-based therapies brings a new set of challenges for the pharmaceutics field. Due to their poor stability, large molecular weight, and poor transport properties, therapeutic proteins and peptides are predominantly limited to parenteral administration. The short serum half-lives typically require frequent injections to maintain an effective dose, and patient compliance is a growing issue as therapeutic protein treatments become more widely available. A number of studies have underscored the relationship of subcutaneous injections with patient non-adherence, estimating that over half of insulin-dependent adults intentionally skip injections. The development of oral formulations has the potential to address some issues associated with non-adherence including the interference with daily activities, embarrassment, and injection pain. Oral delivery can also help to eliminate the adverse effects and scar tissue buildup associated with repeated injections. However, there are several major challenges associated with oral delivery of proteins and peptides, such as the instability in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, low permeability, and a narrow absorption window in the intestine. This review provides a detailed overview of the oral delivery route and associated challenges. Recent advances in formulation and drug delivery technologies to enhance bioavailability are discussed, including the co-administration of compounds to alter conditions in the GI tract, the modification of the macromolecule physicochemical properties, and the use of improved targeted and controlled release carriers.Entities:
Keywords: Carbohydrates; Hydrogels; Mucoadhesion; Oral delivery; Peptide delivery; Protein delivery
Year: 2018 PMID: 29719776 PMCID: PMC5925450 DOI: 10.1016/j.apsb.2018.01.013
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Pharm Sin B ISSN: 2211-3835 Impact factor: 11.413
Figure 1Rise in FDA-approved BLAs for therapeutic biologics over the past decade. The past decade has seen a significant rise in the number of FDA-approved BLAs, and therapeutic biologics are becoming a larger percent of the total FDA-approvals (NME and BLA). The data were obtained directly from www.fda.gov (last accessed January 3, 2018).
Figure 2Schematic of the oral delivery route and intestinal epithelium. Achieving oral delivery is ideal, but it is fraught with challenges at both the organism and tissue levels. (A) The gastrointestinal tract contains many digestive enzymes and a natural pH gradient, with a very acidic, harsh environment in the stomach and a more neutral environment in the small intestine (site of adsorption). (B) Within the small intestine, each villus has its own arteriole and venule pair as well as a lacteal. There is a thick mucosal barrier, and the cell lining is composed mostly of epithelial cells.
Figure 3Pathways for therapeutic drug absorption via the oral route. (A) Protein therapeutic entering the bloodstream via the transcellular pathway (passing through epithelial cells). (B) By altering or disrupting the tight junctions, proteins are able to transport to the bloodstream via the paracellular pathway (in between adjacent cells). (C) Proteins may also enter the bloodstream via transcytosis or cell receptor mediated endocytosis. There is significant literature currently studying this pathway of entry. (D) By entering the M cells of the Peyer's patches, protein may be absorbed into the lymphatic system. Here, antigens can interact with antigen presenting cells (e.g., macrophages and dendritic cells), which are critical for elicitation of protective immunity.
Summary of common approaches to enable oral protein and peptide delivery.
| Approaches to oral protein and peptide delivery | Common example | Advantage | Major challenge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Permeation enhancers | Surfactants, fatty acids, medium chain glycerides, steroidal detergents, acylcarnitines and alkanoylcholines, | Enhanced intestinal permeability by disrupting the epithelium’s tight junctions Relatively easy co-administration | Potential to damage the intestinal epithelium Diminished immunoprotective function of the intestinal epithelium in preventing pathogen entry |
| Protease inhibitors | Serpin, aprotinin and soybean trypsin inhibitors, camostat mesilate, chromostatin, ovomucoids, polymer inhibitor conjugates (such as carboxymethyl cellulose-elastinal) | Reduced degradation of protein drugs in the GI tract Maintained stability and bioactivity of more of the drug. | Variability in enzyme presence and activity between the small and large intestine Concerns over predictable dosing and patient-to-patient variability in absorption Long term effects to food digestion have not been fully investigated (enzyme deficiency) |
| Conjugation of protein and peptide drugs | PEG, transferrin, vitamin B-12, FcRn receptor molecules | Improved resistance to degradation Extended half-life in the bloodstream Potential for cell receptormediated transport | With large conjugates such as PEG, increased size may inhibit transcellular transport Long term effects of chronic administration still need to be evaluated (effect on nutrient adsorption) |
| Enteric coatings | Eudragit® systems, hypromellose phthalate | Protect the protein drug from degradation in the stomach Controlled release (pH triggered) | Do not facilitate the absorption process Need to use protease inhibitors and permeation enhancers in conjunction |
| Degradable polymer matrices | Poly(lactide- | Protect the protein drug from degradation in the stomach Controlled release (enzyme or pH triggered) Enhanced stability over noncrosslinked systems | Variability in enzyme presence and activity between the small and large intestine Drug diffusion out of the carrier is dependent on the extent of degradation and susceptible to patient-to-patient variability Need to characterize of the effect of degradation products on the GI tract |
| Mucoadhesive carriers | PEG-grafted polymers, thiomers, chitosan, lectin, sodium alginate, pectin, cellulose derivatives | Protect the protein drug from degradation in the stomach Prolonged residence time of carriers at the site of absorption (increase in drug bioavailabilty) Increased drug concentration gradient at the epithelial barrier | Limited diffusion of the protein drug out of the carrier, which typically necessitates a degradable or envrionmentally responsive component Concerns over adhesion and localization of delivery systems within a specific GI-segment, ideally where the drug has its ‘absorption window’ |
| Complexation hydrogel carriers | Poly(methacrylic acid- | Protect the protein drug from degradation in the stomach Controlled release (pH triggered) Enhanced stability over noncrosslinked systems Amenable for co-delivery of permeation enhancers, etc. Amenable for conjugation with or inclusion of mucoadhesive tethers | Potential for variation in fasted and fed states |
Figure 4Permeability of protein and peptide therapeutics through the intestinal epithelium. (A) Schematic diagram of therapeutic drug diffusion across the intestinal epithelial barrier, described by the equation J = P(CD–CR) (Reprinted from Ref. 15 with permission). The therapeutic drug diffusion (J) is amount per unit time and surface area as a function of the permeability coefficient (P) and the therapeutic concentration on both sides of the transport barrier (CD and CR). (B, C) Permeability of various molecular weight species through a Caco-2 cell model gastrointestinal epithelium (Reprinted from Ref. 16 with permission).
Figure 5Complexation behavior of P(MAA-g-EG) hydrogels. In acidic conditions, P(MAA-g-EG) hydrogels are in a collapsed state with a small mesh size due to hydrogen bonding between carboxylic acid groups and etheric groups. At neutral pH, deprotonation of the carboxylic acid groups leads to electrostatic and steric repulsions which causes swelling and increases the mesh size of the polymer network.
Figure 6Dynamic weight swellg ratio, q, of P(MAA-g-EG) (A) and P(MAA-co-NVP) (B) disks with varying crosslinker composition (PEGDMA-400, TEGDMA, and PEGDMA-1000), in DMGA/sodium hydroxide buffers (Reprinted from Ref. 131 with permission).
Figure 7The secondary and tertiary structure of anti-TNF-α Ab released from P(MAA-g-EG) and P(MAA-co-NVP) microparticles (Reprinted from Ref. 131 with permission). (A) Changes in secondary structure from unencapsulated protein were monitored using circular dichroism spectroscopy. (B) Changes in tertiary structure from unencapsulated protein were monitored using fluorescence spectroscopy.