Peptide delivery

Park JH, Kwona S, Nam JO et al (2004) Self-assembled nanoparticles based on glycol chitosan bearing 5h-cholanic acid for RGD peptide delivery. J Control Release 95 579-588... 

METHODS OF PEPTIDE DELIVERY NEURONAL-MAST CELL CONNECTION... 

Carbon Nanotubes and Immunological Response 2.4.1 Carbon Nanotubes for Peptide Delivery... 

Sinko PJ, Lee YH, Makhey V, Leesman GD, Sutyak JP, Yu H, Perry B, Smith CL, Hu P, Wagner EJ, Falzone LM, Mcwhorter LT, Gilligan JP and Stern W (1999) Biopharmaceutical Approaches for Developing and Assessing Oral Peptide Delivery Strategies and Systems In Vitro Permeability and In Vivo Oral Absorption of Salmon Calcitonin (Set). Pharm Res 16 pp 527-533. 

Yamamoto A, Hayakawa E, Lee VH (1990) Insulin and proinsulin proteolysis in mucosal homogenates of the albino rabbit Implications in peptide delivery from nonoral routes. Life Sci 47 2465-2474... 

Stratford RE, and Lee VHL (1986) Aminopeptidase activity in homogenates of various absorptive mucosae in the albino rabbit Implications in peptide delivery. Int. J. Pharm. 30 73-82. 

Wearly LL (1991) Recent progress in protein and peptide delivery by non-invasive routes. Crit. Rev. Ther. Drug Carrier 8 331-394. 

CTL induction experiments consistently demonstrate that IRIV indeed enhance induction of HLA class I-restricted CTL specific for IMsg-ee and Melan-A/Mart-127-35 epitopes. CTL induction in presence of irradiated or nonirradiated CD4+ cells showed that IRIV CTL adjuvance requires CD4+ T-cell activation. Remarkably, IRIV CTL adjuvance observed in our in vitro studies is solely due to IRIV immunogenicity and independent of peptide delivery and protection capacities, as peptides were not encapsulated in nor attached to IRIV. Further studies are warranted to clarify whether and to what extent delivery, protection, and immunogenic capacities of IRIV synergize in CTL adjuvance. The fact that IRIV adjuvance was observed in relation to the tumor-associated epitope Melan-A/Mart-127-35 encourages further evaluation of IRIV as potential adjuvants in cancer... 

Ilium, L., Bioadhesive Formulations for Nasal Peptide Delivery. In Bioadhesive Drug Delivery Systems (E. Mathiowitz, D.E. Chiekering, III, and C.-M. Lehr, eds.), Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1999, pp. 507-539. 

Bernkop-Schnurch A., and Krajicek, M.E., Mucoadhesive polymers as platforms for peroral peptide delivery and absorption synthesis and evaluation of different chitosan-EDTA conjugates, J. Control. Rel., 50 215-223 (1998). 

Several portable inhalation devices have been developed and are being tested to determine whether they improve protein and peptide delivery via the airways. Aerosolized DNase has been shown in patients with cystic flbrosis to significantly reduce the buildup of mucus in the lung and the incidence of infections. Devices for delivery of therapeutic proteins to deep-lung alveoli to achieve systemic effects are also in development. These products are formulated so that the device aerosolizes the protein in a defined particle size range that cannot be easily achieved by means of conventional metered dose inhalers. 

Polymeric Systems for Oral Protein and Peptide Delivery.283... 

Pulmonary administration of PNAs has great potential for the same reasons that pulmonary protein and peptide delivery have been successful. Predominantly, the distance for transport and ease of administration of agents are the advantages of pulmonary delivery, but the formulation of labile molecules for eventual pulmonary administration as lipid-based aerosols may be problematic. 

Hydrophobic polymers are often used to deliver biomacromolecules regardless of the route of administration. The rapid transit time of approximately 8 hours limits the time of a device in the gastrointestinal (GI) system, consequently the mechanisms possible for oral drug release are limited. The predominant method of release from hydrophobic polymers has been degradation, or biodegradation, of a polymeric matrix by hydrolysis (Figure 11.1). In fact, all of the hydrophobic polymers described in this chapter for use as oral protein or peptide delivery are hydrolytically unstable. 

The hydrophobic polymers are described in the following sections beginning with the most frequently described hydrophobic polymers used for oral protein and peptide delivery. Some of these polymers have been used for oral peptide and protein delivery, while others have not. Those polymers that have not been used to date for protein or peptide delivery have the potential for future use in devices for oral peptide and protein delivery and should not be overlooked. Each has been used in vitro or in animal studies that suggest that the polymer could be used for oral protein or peptide delivery. 

Poly(esters) (Table 11.2) are the first class of polymers discussed, as they are the most widely investigated of all of the polymer families for oral protein delivery. Poly(esters) used for oral drug delivery have primarily been biodegradable polymers (Figure 11.1). Biodegradation is the primary delivery mechanism for poly(ester) polymers used for protein and peptide delivery. The degradation properties of poly(esters) are dependent on the monomers used to produce the poly(ester). Several poly(esters) are discussed in detail in the following sections. 

Poly(phosphazene) microparticles have shown the potential for oral protein or peptide delivery (Vandorpe et al. 1996 Veronese et al. 1998 Passi et al. 2000). The processing of these materials is very similar to poly(esters) and the biocompatibility of the polymers is exceptional. After the implantation of matrices of poly(phosp-hazene), no gross areas of inflammation were observed at explanation (Laurencin et al. 1987). The only negative aspect of these materials is that FDA approval of this polymer class has little precedent. 

---