Novel hormonal delivery method using the ink-jet technology: application to pulmonary insulin therapies

Further experimentation of inhaled; LANTUS, ACTRAPID and HUMULIN with todays' production systems

BACKGROUND

Several aerosol production systems have been used for aerosol insulin production. However; since the first studies several new models of jet-nebulizers and ultrasound nebulizers have been introduced in the market.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three different models of jet-nebulizers (different brands, same properties) and three different ultrasound nebulizers (different brands, same properties). Six residual cups (2 small ≤ 6 ml and 3 large ≤ 8 ml) were used for the jet-nebulizers. The ultrasound nebulizers were used with their facemasks or with their inlets which were included in the purchase package.

RESULTS

Ultrasound nebulizers; LANTUS produces by far the lowest mean droplets (2.44) half the size of the other two drugs (4.43=4.97). GIMA nebulizer is the most efficient producing one third of the droplet size of SHIMED and one second of EASYNEB (2.06<3.15<6.62). Finally, the 4 ml loading concentration is more suitable for supporting the production of smaller droplets (3.65<4.24). Drugs and nebulizers act interactively yielding very large droplets when ACTRAPID and HUMULIN are administered in joint with SHIMED nebulizer (9.59=7.72). Jet-nebulizers; HUMULIN again is the least preferred insulin since it hardly reaches the low but equal performance of others at the loading level of 6 ml. Residual cups E and B produce uniquely lower mean droplets at loading level 6.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasound nebulizers; the best suggested combination should be LANTUS insulin, GIMA nebulizer administered at loading dose of 4 ml jet-nebulizers. A global review can give the best combination: the lowest mean droplets are produced when the drugs LANTUS (mostly) and ACTRAPID are administered, applying the SUNMIST nebulizer in concert with residual cup B at loading levels of 6 ml.

Clinical experimentation with aerosol antibiotics: current and future methods of administration

Currently almost all antibiotics are administered by the intravenous route. Since several systems and situations require more efficient methods of administration, investigation and experimentation in drug design has produced local treatment modalities. Administration of antibiotics in aerosol form is one of the treatment methods of increasing interest. As the field of drug nanotechnology grows, new molecules have been produced and combined with aerosol production systems. In the current review, we discuss the efficiency of aerosol antibiotic studies along with aerosol production systems. The different parts of the aerosol antibiotic methodology are presented. Additionally, information regarding the drug molecules used is presented and future applications of this method are discussed.

New insights in the production of aerosol antibiotics. Evaluation of the optimal aerosol production system for ampicillin-sulbactam, meropenem, ceftazidime, cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam

BACKGROUND

Several aerosol antibiotics are on the market and several others are currently being evaluated. Aim of the study was to evaluate the aerosol droplet size of five different antibiotics for future evaluation as an aerosol administration.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The nebulizers Sunmist(®), Maxineb(®) and Invacare(®) were used in combination with four different "small <6 ml" residual cups and two "large <10 ml" with different loadings 2-4-6-8 ml (8 ml only for large residual cups) with five different antibiotic drugs (ampicilln-sulbactam, meropenem, ceftazidime, cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam). The Mastersizer 2000 (Malvern) was used to evaluate the produced droplet size from each combination

RESULTS

Significant effect on the droplet size produced the different antibiotic (F=96.657, p<0.001) and the residual cup design (F=68.535, p<0.001) but not the different loading amount (p=0.127) and the nebulizer (p=0.715). Interactions effects were found significant only between antibiotic and residual cup (F=16.736, p<0.001). No second order interactions were found statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Our results firstly indicate us indirectly that the chemical formulation of the drug is the main factor affecting the produced droplet size and secondly but closely the residual cup design.

Establishing the optimal nebulization system for paclitaxel, docetaxel, cisplatin, carboplatin and gemcitabine: back to drawing the residual cup

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy drugs have still the major disadvantage of non-specific cytotoxic effects. Although, new drugs targeting the genome of the tumor are already in the market, doublet chemotherapy regimens still remain the cornerstone of lung cancer treatment. Novel modalities of administration are under investigation such as; aerosol, intratumoral and intravascular.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In the present study five chemotherapy drugs; paclitaxel, docetaxel, gemcitabine, carboplatin and cisplatin were nebulized with three different jet nebulizers (Maxineb(®), Sunmist(®), Invacare(®)) and six different residual cups at different concentrations. The purpose of the study was to identify the "ideal" combination of nebulizer-residual cup design-drug-drug loading for a future concept of aerosol chemotherapy in lung cancer patients. The Mastersizer(®) 2000 was used to evaluate the aerosol droplet mass median aerodynamic diameter.

RESULTS

The drug, nebulizer and residual cup design greatly influences the producing droplet size (p<0.005, in each case). However; the design of the residual cup is the most important factor affecting the produced droplet size (F=834.6, p<0.001). The drug loading plays a vital role in the production of the desired droplet size (F=10.42, p<0.001). The smallest droplet size was produced at 8 ml loading (1.26 μm), while it remained the same at 2, 4 and 6 mls of drug loading.

CONCLUSION

The ideal nebulizer would be Maxineb(®), with a large residual cup (10 ml maximum loading capacity) and 8 mls loading and the drug with efficient pulmonary deposition would be docetaxel.

Strategies for non-invasive delivery of biologics

Macromolecular therapeutics, in particular, many biologics, is the most advancing category of drugs over conventional chemical drugs. The potency and specificity of the biologics for curing certain disease made them to be a leading compound in the pharmaceutical industry. However, due to their intrinsic nature, including high molecular weight, hydrophilicity and instability, they are difficult to be administered via non-invasive route. This is a major quest especially in biologics, as they are frequently used clinically for chronic disorders, which requires long-term administration. Therefore, many efforts have been made to develop formulation for non-invasive administration, in attempt to improve patient compliance and convenience. In this review, strategies for non-invasive delivery, in particular, oral, pulmonary and nasal delivery, that are recently adopted for delivery of biologics are discussed. Insulin, calcitonin and heparin were mainly focused for the discussion as they could represent protein, polypeptide and polysaccharide drugs, respectively. Many recent attempts for non-invasive delivery of biologics are compared to provide an insight of developing successful delivery system.