4.7 Article

Evaluation of a Methylcellulose and Hyaluronic Acid Hydrogel as a Vehicle for Rectal Delivery of Biologics

期刊

PHARMACEUTICS
卷 11, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics11030127

关键词

biologics; biologics delivery; hyaluronic acid; hydrogels; inflammatory bowel disease; intestinal delivery; methylcellulose (MC)

资金

  1. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) [EP/P002544/2]
  2. EPSRC [EP/P002544/2] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biologics have changed the management of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD), but there are concerns regarding unexpected systemic toxicity and loss of therapeutic response following administration by injection. Local delivery of biologics directly to the inflamed mucosa via rectal enema administration addresses the problems associated with systemic administration. Hydrogels are potentially useful delivery vehicles enabling rectal administration of biologics. Here, we prepared a hydrogel system based on methylcellulose (MC) and hyaluronic acid (HA), which possesses mucosal healing properties, incorporating a model macromolecular drug, namely (fluorescently-labeled) bovine serum albumin (BSA). The BSA-loaded MCHA hydrogel showed temperature-dependent gelation (liquid-like at 20 degrees C and gel-like at 37 degrees C) and shear thinning behavior, with these being important and desirable characteristics for rectal application (enabling easy application and retention). BSA release from the MCHA system at 37 degrees C was linear, with 50% of the loaded drug released within 2 h. The system demonstrated acceptable toxicity towards intestinal (colon) Caco-2 epithelial cells, even at high concentrations. Importantly, application of the BSA-loaded MCHA hydrogel to polarized Caco-2 monolayers, with or without an exemplar absorption enhancer, resulted in transintestinal permeability of BSA. The study therefore indicates that the MCHA hydrogel shows potential for topical (rectal) delivery of biologics in IBD.

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