4.7 Article

Antiretroviral Solid Drug Nanoparticles with Enhanced Oral Bioavailability: Production, Characterization, and In Vitro-In Vivo Correlation

期刊

ADVANCED HEALTHCARE MATERIALS
卷 3, 期 3, 页码 400-411

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/adhm.201300280

关键词

bioavailability; drug nanoparticles; HIV; nanodispersions; pharmacology

资金

  1. Research Councils UK [EP/G066272/1]
  2. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/K002201/1]
  3. Medical Research Council [G0800247]
  4. EPSRC [EP/K002201/1, EP/G066272/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. MRC [G0800247] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/G066272/1, EP/K002201/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. Medical Research Council [G0800247] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nanomedicine strategies have produced many commercial products. However, no orally dosed HIV nanomedicines are available clinically to patients. Although nanosuspensions of drug particles have demonstrated many benefits, experimentally achieving >25 wt% of drug relative to stabilizers is highly challenging. In this study, the emulsion-templated freeze-drying technique for nanoparticles formation is applied for the first time to optimize a nanodispersion of the leading non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor efavirenz, using clinically acceptable polymers and surfactants. Dry monoliths containing solid drug nanoparticles with extremely high drug loading (70 wt% relative to polymer and surfactant stabilizers) are stable for several months and reconstitute in aqueous media to provide nanodispersions with z-average diameters of 300 nm. The solid drug nanoparticles exhibit reduced cytoxicity and increased in vitro transport through model gut epithelium. In vivo studies confirm bioavailability benefits with an approximately four-fold higher pharmacokinetic exposure after oral administration to rodents, and predictive modeling suggests dose reduction with the new formulation may be possible.

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

4.7
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