4.6 Article

Oral delivery of chemical conjugates of heparin and deoxycholic acid in aqueous formulation

期刊

THROMBOSIS RESEARCH
卷 117, 期 4, 页码 419-427

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.thromres.2005.03.027

关键词

oral delivery; low molecular weight heparin; deoxycholic acid; conjugate; DMSO

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Heparin, one of the most potent anticoagulants widely used for the treatment and prevention of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is currently available to patients only by parental administration. In this study, we propose a new oral delivery system of heparin by conjugating it with deoxycholic acid which reformulated by adding dimethyl sulfoxide to increase its bioavailability. Materials and methods: The chemical conjugates (L-MWH-DOCA) of Low molecular weight heparin (4.5 kDa) with deoxycholic acid (DOCA) were synthesized by controlling the conjugation ratio. The absorption of LMWH-DOCA after its oral administration was measured by anti-FXa assay according to the conjugation ratio of DOCA, concentration of DMSO solution and dose of LMWH-DOCA, respectively. Furthermore, the incidences of mucosal damage by LMWH-DOCA in 10% DMSO solution were evaluated using H&E staining and SEM. Results: Three kinds of LMWH-DOCA were synthesized according to the DOCA conjugation ratios of LD1, LD2 and LD3, whose anticoagulant activities were 89, 86 and 85 IU/mg, respectively, and the activity of LMWH was 97 IU/mg. LMWH-DOCA was completely dissolved in 10% DMSO solution, and its bioavailability in the oral dose was significantly increased (17.6% for LD2 in 10% DMSO solution) without causing any damages in intestinal tissues. Conclusions: The chemical conjugate of heparin and DOCA in the soluble state could be efficiently absorbed in the intestine. Therefore, we propose this system as a new strategy of oral heparin delivery for the treatment of patients who are at high risk to DVT and PE. (C) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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