4.7 Article

A novel cascade strategy using a nanonized targeted prodrug for enhanced oral delivery efficiency

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2020.119638

关键词

Monocarboxylate transporter; Prodrug; Nanoneedles; Oral bioavailability; Acyclovir

资金

  1. National Science and Technology Major Project of China [2017ZX09101001]
  2. National Nature Science Foundation of China [81502993]
  3. Science and Technology Innovation Projects for Young and Middle-aged Talents of Shenyang [RC180261]
  4. Career Development Program for Young Teachers in Shenyang Pharmaceutical University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is a great challenge to improve the oral bioavailability for BCS class IV drugs because they have low solubility and poor permeability. However, nanonization and intestinal transporter-targeted prodrugs can increase the solubility and permeability, respectively. Hence, an increased solubility and improved permeability cascade strategy was proposed to enhance the dissolution rate and permeability for BCS class IV drugs. In this study, acyclovir glutarate (AG), a prodrug of acyclovir, was synthesized to improve intestinal permeability by targeting monocarboxylate transporter 1 (MCT 1), an intestinal influx transporter. Then, AG was formulated as AG nanoneedles (AGNNs) to improve dissolution behavior. AG was demonstrated to exhibit greatly higher cellular uptake efficiency and permeability than acyclovir due to the MCT 1-mediated active transport. Furthermore, intact AGNNs were also demonstrated to be endocytosed by enterocytes and to be transcytosed potentially. In addition, oral pharmacokinetics showed that the AUC0-24h of AGNNs was 1.89-fold to that of acyclovir. Collectively, these results confirmed that nanonized MCT 1-targeted prodrugs enhanced the oral bioavailability of acyclovir in a cascade manner. Our findings propose a promising strategy to develop BCS class IV drugs and have significant implications for a wide range of such drugs for high oral delivery efficiency.

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