Influence of fillers in powder formulations containing N-acetyl-L-cysteine on nasal peptide absorption

A comprehensive review of advanced nasal delivery: Specially insulin and calcitonin

Peptide drugs through nasal mucous membrane, such as insulin and calcitonin have been widely used in the medical field. There are always two sides to a coin. One side, intranasal drug delivery can imitate the secretion pattern in human body, having advantages of physiological structure and convenient use. Another side, the low permeability of nasal mucosa, protease environment and clearance effect of nasal cilia hinder the intranasal absorption of peptide drugs. Researchers have taken multiple means to achieve faster therapeutic concentration, lower management dose, and fewer side effects for better nasal preparations. To improve the peptide drugs absorption, various strategies had been explored via the nasal mucosa route. In this paper, we reviewed the achievements of 18 peptide drugs in the past decade about the perspectives of the efficacy, mechanism of enhancing intranasal absorption and safety. The most studies were insulin and calcitonin. As a result, absorption enhancers, nanoparticles (NPs) and bio-adhesive system are the most widely used. Among them, chitosan (CS), cell penetrating peptides (CPPs), tight junction modulators (TJMs), soft NPs and gel/hydrogel are the most promising strategies. Moreover, two or three strategies can be combined to prepare drug vectors. In addition, spray freeze dried (SFD), self-emulsifying nano-system (SEN), and intelligent glucose reaction drug delivery system are new research directions in the future.

Recent advances in oral delivery of biologics: nanomedicine and physical modes of delivery

INTRODUCTION

Research into oral delivery of biologics has a long and rich history but has not produced technologies used in the clinic. The area has evolved in terms of strategies to promote oral biologics delivery from early chemical absorption enhancers to nanomedicine to devices. Continued activity in this area is justifiable considering the remarkable proliferation of biologics.

AREAS COVERED

The article discusses some physiological barriers to oral delivery of biologics, with a special focus on less characterized barriers such as the basement membrane. Recent progress in oral delivery of biologics via nanomedicine is subsequently covered. Finally, the emerging field of device-mediated gastrointestinal delivery of biotherapeutics is discussed

EXPERT OPINION

Oral delivery of biologics is considered a 'panacea' in drug delivery. Almost century-old approaches of utilizing chemical absorption enhancers have not produced clinically translated technologies. Nanomedicine for oral biologics delivery has demonstrated potential, but the field is relatively new, and technologies have not progressed to the clinic. Device-mediated oral biologics delivery (e.g. ultrasound or microneedles) is in its infancy. However, this space is likely to intensify owing to advances in electronics and materials, as well as the challenges and history related to clinical translation of alternative approaches.

Impaired airway mucociliary function reduces antigen-specific IgA immune response to immunization with a claudin-4-targeting nasal vaccine in mice

Vaccine delivery is an essential element for the development of mucosal vaccine, but it remains to be investigated how physical barriers such as mucus and cilia affect vaccine delivery efficacy. Previously, we reported that C-terminal fragment of Clostridium perfringens enterotoxin (C-CPE) targeted claudin-4, which is expressed by the epithelium associated with nasopharynx-associated lymphoid tissue (NALT), and could be effective as a nasal vaccine delivery. Mice lacking tubulin tyrosine ligase-like family, member 1 (Ttll1-KO mice) showed mucus accumulation in nasal cavity due to the impaired motility of respiratory cilia. Ttll1-KO mice nasally immunized with C-CPE fused to pneumococcal surface protein A (PspA-C-CPE) showed reduced PspA-specific nasal IgA responses, impaired germinal center formation, and decreased germinal center B-cells and follicular helper T cells in the NALT. Although there was no change in the expression of claudin-4 in the NALT epithelium in Ttll1-KO mice, the epithelium was covered by a dense mucus that prevented the binding of PspA-C-CPE to NALT. However, administration of expectorant N-acetylcysteine removed the mucus and rescued the PspA-specific nasal IgA response. These results show that the accumulation of mucus caused by impaired respiratory cilia function is an interfering factor in the C-CPE-based claudin-4-targeting nasal vaccine.

Opportunity and challenges of nasal powders: Drug formulation and delivery

In the field of nasal drug delivery, among the preparations defined by the European Pharmacopoeia, nasal powders facilitate the formulation of poorly water-soluble active compounds. They often display a simple composition in excipients (if any), allow for the administration of larger drug doses and enhance drug diffusion and absorption across the mucosa, improving bioavailability compared to nasal liquids. Despite the positive features, however, nasal products in this form still struggle to enter the market: the few available on the market are Onzetra Xsail® (sumatriptan) for migraine relief and, for the treatment of rhinitis, Rhinocort® Turbuhaler® (budesonide), Teijin Rhinocort® (beclomethasone dipropionate) and Erizas® (dexamethasone cipecilate). Hence, this review tries to understand why nasal powder formulations are still less common than liquid ones by analyzing whether this depends on the lack of (i) real evidence of superior therapeutic benefit of powders, (ii) therapeutic and/or commercial interest, (iii) efficient manufacturing methods or (iv) availability of suitable and affordable delivery devices. To this purpose, the reader's attention will be guided through nasal powder formulation strategies and manufacturing techniques, eventually giving up-to-date evidences of therapeutic efficacy in vivo. Advancements in the technology of insufflation devices will also be provided as nasal drug products are typical drug-device combinations.

Pharmacokinetics, tolerability, and safety of intranasal administration of reformulated OxyContin(®) tablets compared with original OxyContin (®) tablets in healthy adults

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Reformulated OxyContin(®) (oxycodone-HCl controlled release) tablets (ORF) became available in the United States in August 2010. The original formulation of OxyContin(®) (oxycodone-HCl controlled release) tablets (OC) used a delivery system that did not provide inherent resistance to crushing and dissolving. The objective of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetics, tolerability, and safety of finely crushed ORF tablets, coarsely crushed ORF tablets, and finely crushed OC tablets.

METHODS

This randomized, single-blind, single-dose, single-center, six-sequence, triple-treatment, triple-period crossover study enrolled eligible healthy adults (aged 18-55 years inclusive). The study evaluated the pharmacokinetics, tolerability, and safety of intranasally administered ORF, both finely crushed and coarsely crushed, as well as finely crushed OC tablets. Plasma oxycodone concentrations were quantified and analyzed to determine the maximum observed plasma concentration (C max), time to maximum plasma concentration (t max), area under the plasma concentration-time curve from hour 0 to the last measurable plasma concentration (AUC(last)), and area under the plasma concentration-time curve extrapolated to infinity (AUC(∞)). The abuse quotient (AQ), calculated as C(max)/t(max), served as an index of the average rate of increase in drug concentration from dosing to t max. Intranasal tolerability rating scales (discomfort, itching, burning, pain, runny nose, and stuffiness) and intranasal endoscopy were conducted. Safety assessments included adverse events, vital signs, pulse oximetry (SpO2), and electrocardiograms.

RESULTS

Of 83 subjects screened and enrolled, 30 were randomized to period 1, with 1 subject subsequently discontinuing due to the subject's choice. Mean C max values for finely crushed ORF (17.1 ng/mL) and coarsely crushed ORF (15.5 ng/mL) were lower than that for finely crushed OC (22.2 ng/mL). Median t max for finely crushed OC (1.0 h) was shorter than that for either finely crushed ORF (2.0 h) or coarsely crushed ORF (3.0 h). Mean AQ values were approximately 66 and 80 % lower, respectively, for finely crushed ORF and coarsely crushed ORF than that for finely crushed OC. Finely crushed ORF, coarsely crushed ORF, and finely crushed OC demonstrated similar total oxycodone exposures (AUC(∞)). Insufflation of ORF produced greater nasal discomfort and stuffiness than finely crushed OC, although the latter produced higher runny nose scores. No significant difference was found in other nasal tolerability measures. The overall safety profile was as expected following opioid administration in healthy subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to OC, both finely and coarsely crushed ORF retained some control of oxycodone release. Reduced C(max) and increased t max for ORF resulted in lower AQ scores for ORF compared with OC. ORF was associated with greater intranasal irritation than OC. These data suggest that ORF has a lower intranasal abuse potential than OC.