4.5 Article

Enhanced Doxorubicin Delivery to the Brain Administered Through Glutathione PEGylated Liposomal Doxorubicin (2B3-101) as Compared with Generic Caelyx,®/Doxil®A Cerebral Open Flow Microperfusion Pilot Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES
卷 103, 期 7, 页码 1945-1948

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1002/jps.23994

关键词

cerebral open flow microperfusion; blood brain barrier; cancer; doxorubicin; Caelyx (R); Doxil (R); 2B3-101; liposomes; CNS; drug targeting

资金

  1. to-BBB technologies BV
  2. Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG
  3. COIN Cooperation and Innovation)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The neuroprotective blood-brain barrier (BBB) keeps many drug candidates below therapeutic levels in the central nervous system. Glutathione PEGylated liposomal doxorubicin (2B3-101) has been developed to safely enhance the delivery of doxorubicin to brain tumors. However, doxorubicin concentration in extracellular brain fluid cannot yet be reliably measured using conventional techniques. Cerebral open flow microperfusion (cOFM), a recently developed sampling technique, allows monitoring of drug concentrations in the brain independent of molecular weight and lipophilicity. In combination with cOFM sampling, sodium fluorescein (NaF) is used as a marker for BBB integrity. Rats received one intravenous dose of 7 mg/kg of either 2B3-101 or PEGylated liposomal doxorubicin (generic Caelyx (R)). Blood and cOFM sampling was performed for 5 h after dose injection. NaF concentration in the brain was monitored and remained low indicating an intact BBB. The brain-to-blood ratio of doxorubicin was 4.8-fold higher after administration of 2B3-101 as compared with generic Caelyx (R) (p = 0.0016). In conclusion, by using cOFM it was possible to show that 2B3-101 leads to enhanced doxorubicin concentration in the brain without affecting the BBB integrity. (c) 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. and the American Pharmacists Association J Pharm Sci 103:1945-1948, 2014

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据