| Literature DB >> 30696017 |
Sujatha Muthumariappan1, Wei Cheng Ng2, Christabella Adine3, Kiaw Kiaw Ng4, Pooya Davoodi5, Chi-Hwa Wang6, Joao N Ferreira7,8,9.
Abstract
Dry mouth or xerostomia is a frequent medical condition among the polymedicated elderly population. Systemic pilocarpine is included in the first line of pharmacological therapies for xerostomia. However, the efficacy of existing pilocarpine formulations is limited due to its adverse side effects and multiple daily dosages. To overcome these drawbacks, a localized formulation of pilocarpine targeting the salivary glands (SG) was developed in the current study. The proposed formulation consisted of pilocarpine-loaded Poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA)/poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) nanofiber mats via an electrospinning technique. The nanofiber mats were fully characterized for their size, mesh porosity, drug encapsulation efficiency, and in vitro drug release. Mat biocompatibility and efficacy was evaluated in the SG organ ex vivo, and the expression of proliferation and pro-apoptotic markers at the cellular level was determined. In vivo short-term studies were performed to evaluate the saliva secretion after acute SG treatment with pilocarpine-loaded nanofiber mats, and after systemic pilocarpine for comparison purposes. The outcomes demonstrated that the pilocarpine-loaded mats were uniformly distributed (diameter: 384 ± 124 nm) in a highly porous mesh, and possessed a high encapsulation efficiency (~81%). Drug release studies showed an initial pilocarpine release of 26% (4.5 h), followed by a gradual increase (~46%) over 15 d. Pilocarpine-loaded nanofiber mats supported SG growth with negligible cytotoxicity and normal cellular proliferation and homeostasis. Salivary secretion was significantly increased 4.5 h after intradermal SG treatment with drug-loaded nanofibers in vivo. Overall, this study highlights the strengths of PLGA/PEG nanofiber mats for the localized daily delivery of pilocarpine and reveals its potential for future clinical translation in patients with xerostomia.Entities:
Keywords: drug delivery; dry mouth; electrospinning; hypofunction; nanofibers; nanomaterials; pilocarpine; salivary glands; xerostomia
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30696017 PMCID: PMC6387464 DOI: 10.3390/ijms20030541
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1Structural and morphological comparison of pilocarpine-loaded and unloaded PLGA nanofiber mats, and in vitro pilocarpine release profile from pilocarpine-loaded mats. (A) Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images at 1700× magnification. (B–C) Diameter distribution of the loaded (left) and unloaded PLGA fiber mats (right). (D) Mean porosity distribution of PLGA fiber mats. Error bars represent SD from n = 10. (E) Cumulative pilocarpine drug release from loaded PLGA nanofibers in the short and long term supported a steady pilocarpine release in vitro. The observed drug release profile was about 26% in the first 4.5 h, and increased steadily to 36% after 9 d, to 45% after 15 d, and to 52% after 28 d. This supports a steady pilocarpine release in vitro. Error bars represent SD from n = 3.
Figure 2Biological effects in an ex vivo SG model. (A) Ex vivo SG model experimental set up used for testing the cytotoxicity of pilocarpine and biocompatibility of different nanofiber mats. (B) Glands were treated with therapeutic concentrations of pilocarpine (Pilo) ranging from 0.1 to 20 µg/mL. All gland growth index values at day 1 and 3 were normalized to time 0 (baseline). (C) ATP activity (a readout for gland viability) three days after glands were treated with therapeutic concentrations of pilocarpine (0.1–20 µg/mL). Error bars represent SD from n = 4. * p ˂ 0.05 and ** p ˂ 0.01 when compared to positive control without pilocarpine (0 μg/mL). Negative control (-ve CTL) represent glands damaged by gamma radiation.
Figure 3Biocompatibility of pilocarpine-loaded and unloaded nanofiber mats (PNM and UNM, respectively) in the ex vivo SG culture model. (A) Bright field images of the growing SG glands at 3.2× magnification. Scale bar: 400 µm. (B) SG epithelial viability (readout for organ biocompatibility) was supported by unloaded nanofibers and by 0.5 mm and 1 mm loaded nanofibers. Y axis is a ratio of epithelial bud number at a specific culture time relative to baseline. Error bars represent SD from n = 4–12. * p ˂ 0.05, when compared to positive control without pilocarpine (+ve CTL) at every culture day; ns: not significant when compared to “+ve CTL”. Negative control (-ve CTL) represent glands damaged by gamma radiation. PNM: Pilocarpine nanofiber mats. UNM: unloaded nanofiber mats.
Figure 4Expression of proliferation protein marker (Ki67) in SG after treatment with pilocarpine nanofiber mats after five culture days in the ex vivo SG model. (A) Fluorescence imaging after whole gland immunofluorescence staining showing expression of Ki67 in green (pro-mitotic marker), PNA in pink (peanut agglutinin staining the gland epithelial acini and ductal branched network) and nuclei in blue. (B) Expression of proliferation/pro-mitotic activity by quantification of Ki67 fluorescence after normalizing with nuclear counts. Error bars represent SD from n = 4. * p ˂ 0.05 when compared to positive control. Positive control (+ve CTL) was not treated with nanofiber mats.
Figure 5Expression of apoptotic protein marker (Caspase-3) in SG after treatment with pilocarpine nanofiber mats after five culture days in the ex vivo SG model. (A) Fluorescence imaging after whole gland immunofluorescence staining showing expression of Caspase-3 in red (apoptotic marker), PNA in pink (staining the gland epithelial acini and ductal branched network) and nuclei in blue. (B) Apoptotic activity by quantification of Caspase-3 fluorescence after normalizing with nuclear counts. Error bars represent SD from n = 4. * p ˂ 0.05 when compared to positive control. Positive control (+ve CTL) was not treated with nanofiber mat and only had growth media. CTL (irradiated): gamma radiation treatment was used as a control for Caspase-3 staining since it induces apoptotic damage to the gland.
Figure 6Treatment outcomes during daily intradermal applications of 0.5 mm pilocarpine nanofiber mats versus systemic pilocarpine in an acute in vivo SG model of SG hypofunction. (A) Schematic drawing of the in vivo SG hypofunction model to induce acute dry mouth for the daily proposed intradermal treatment with pilocarpine nanofiber mat and conventional systemic administration. (B) Saliva secretion rate during the first 24 h after daily intradermal application of 0.5 mm-diameter pilocarpine nanofiber mats (PNM) when compared to systemic pilocarpine (SP). (C) Salivary gland weight remained unchanged after intradermal application of 0.5 mm pilocarpine nanofiber mats. Error bars represent SEM from n = 4–5. * p ˂ 0.05 when compared to irradiated group with systemic pilocarpine only (SP, which represents the positive CTL). IR: irradiated (negative CTL). nonIR: non-irradiated control group. SGs: salivary glands.