, Volume 190, Issue 3, pp 251–262 | Cite as

Therapeutic Liposomal Dry Powder Inhalation Aerosols for Targeted Lung Delivery



Therapeutic liposomal powders (i.e., lipospheres and proliposomes) for dry powder inhalation aerosol delivery, formulated with phospholipids similar to endogenous lung surfactant, offer unique opportunities in pulmonary nanomedicine while offering controlled release and enhanced stability. Many pulmonary diseases such as lung cancer, tuberculosis (TB), cystic fibrosis (CF), bacterial and fungal lung infections, asthma, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) could greatly benefit from this type of pulmonary nanomedicine approach that can be delivered in a targeted manner by dry powder inhalers (DPIs). These delivery systems may require smaller doses for efficacy, exhibit reduced toxicity, fewer side effects, controlled drug release over a prolonged time period, and increased formulation stability as inhaled powders. This state-of-the-art review presents these novel aspects in depth.


Pulmonary nanomedicine Asthma Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease Cystic fibrosis Tuberculosis Lung cancer 

Pulmonary Nanomedicine

Currently, there are three main delivery devices used for pulmonary delivery of drugs: nebulizers, pressurized metered-dose inhalers, and dry powder inhalers (DPIs) [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. Each device has the ability to deliver different drug formulations; nebulizers and pressurized metered-dose inhalers can deliver solutions and suspensions while DPIs deliver dry particles. Tailoring the surface chemistry of particles through inclusion of certain types of phospholipids (e.g., dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine, DPPC) so that the particle surface is less foreign to alveolar macrophages (i.e., more biocompatible) has been demonstrated to be a very promising and effective biocompatible strategy for evading alveolar macrophage uptake [6]. Nanoparticles, as defined by the plethora of existing scientific literature, are less than 1,000 nm in diameter [1, 7, 8, 9]. However, nanoparticles tend to agglomerate. DPI formulations of nanoparticles are designed to reduce interparticle attractive forces and to improve the DPI performance, which can be achieved by blending with larger carrier materials [10]. Nanocarrier systems in pulmonary drug delivery offer many advantages [1], including (1) the potential to achieve relatively uniform distribution of drug dose among the alveoli, (2) an achievement of enhanced solubility of the drug other than its own aqueous solubility, (3) the sustained release of the drug that consequently reduces the dosing frequency, (4) suitability for delivery of macromolecules, (5) decreased incidence of side effects, (6) improved patient compliance, (7) increased stability, and (8) the potential of drug internalization by cells [1, 11, 12, 13, 14].

Nanoparticles can also be used to enhance the bioavailability of insoluble hydrophobic drugs [15]. Because nanocarrier systems may be administered to the airways easily and there are a variety of subtypes, a number of respiratory diseases may be approached using nanoparticles, e.g., lung cancer, obstructive lung diseases, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, and cystic fibrosis (CF); and infectious diseases, including tuberculosis and pneumonia [16, 17].

The potential pulmonary toxicity of nanoparticles is not fully known as it is the subject of considerable current research in the context of both size/composition and translocation out of the lung to other tissues compared with alveolar macrophage uptake or evasion [15]. Dailey et al. [18] describe research in the field of environmental toxicology and acute pulmonary inflammation. Research was conducted exploring the varying degrees of pulmonary inflammation, measured by the amount of lactate dehydrogenase release, after pulmonary administration of biodegradable and nonbiodegradable drug carriers. Results from the work of Dailey et al. [18] found less pulmonary inflammation with the use of poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PGLA) compared to nonbiodegradable drug carriers. Evora et al. [6] concluded that DPPC decreased alveolar macrophage uptake of nanoparticles formulated with PGLA. Therefore, although more research is needed to better understand pulmonary toxicity related to nanoparticle administration, the use of materials endogenous to pulmonary surfactant, such as DPPC, can significantly decrease toxicities such as acute pulmonary inflammation. Several current lung surfactant replacement pharmaceutical products contain DPPC liposomes [9] for pulmonary administration.


Liposomes are self-assembling structures that spontaneously form due to the intrinsic interfacial chemistry of phospholipids as colloidal dispersions with particles that can exist in the low-micron- and nanometer-size ranges. There are three types of liposomes: multilamellar vesicles (MLVs), large unilamellar vesicles (LUVs), and small unilamellar vesicles (SUVs) [19]. MLVs consist of a large number of concentric lipid bilayers and their size ranges from a few hundred nanometers to several micrometers (Fig. 1). MLVs are multibilayers in concentric formation, which are the most thermodynamically stable (compared with LUVs or SUVs) and are better suited for encapsulation of lipophilic drug molecules [19]. LUVs have a single lipid bilayer with an aqueous core, but they are generally larger than 100 nm [19]. The size of LUVs allows a higher amount of hydrophilic drug entrapment [19]. SUVs theoretically can be as small as around 25 nm but are more commonly between 25 and 100 nm [19].
Fig. 1

Schematic of a multilamellar vesicle (MLV) of multiple phospholipid bilayer self-assemblies: (Open image in new window ) hydrophilic phospholipid polar headgroup; (Open image in new window ) hydrophobic phospholipid acyl chain; (Open image in new window ) H2O

Because of the unique phospholipid surface chemistry and self-assembly properties [20, 21, 22, 23], liposomes [19] are able to encapsulate hydrophilic, hydrophobic, or amphiphilic substances, including drug molecules and peptides in the core or within their membrane bilayer, and have a high drug-loading capacity (Figs. 2, 3, 4). Liposomes can be formulated into powders and tend to form their thermodynamically stable multilamellar state upon the removal of bulk water. Liposomes in the solid state have been called liposomes, lipospheres, and proliposomes.
Fig. 2

Schematic of a liposomal self-assembly with hydrophilic drug: (Open image in new window ) hydrophilic phospholipid polar headgroup; (Open image in new window ) hydrophobic phospholipid acyl chain; (Open image in new window ) hydrophilic drug; (Open image in new window ) moiety for targeting and/or stealth surface; (Open image in new window ) H2O

Fig. 3

Schematic of a liposomal self-assembly with hydrophobic drug: (Open image in new window ) hydrophilic phospholipid polar headgroup; (Open image in new window ) hydrophobic phospholipid acyl chain; (Open image in new window ) hydrophobic drug; (Open image in new window ) moiety for targeting and/or stealth surface; (Open image in new window ) H2O

Fig. 4

Schematic of a liposomal self-assembly with an amphiphilic drug: (Open image in new window ) hydrophilic phospholipid polar headgroup; (Open image in new window ) hydrophobic phospholipid acyl chain; (Open image in new window ) amphiphilic drug; (Open image in new window ) moiety for targeting and/or stealth surface; (Open image in new window ) H2O

Inhaled Therapeutic Liposomal Aerosols as Dry Powders

Inhaled therapeutic liposomal dry powder aerosol formulations of drugs, oligonucleotides, peptides, and proteins have been successfully produced [11, 14, 24, 25, 26, 27]. Drug encapsulation in liposomes has been shown to improve the therapeutic effect and index of pharmaceutical drugs. In addition, lyophilization of liposomes increases the stability of the formulation, and the freeze-dried particles can be used for a variety of purposes [2, 5, 28, 29]. Spray-drying offers many advantages in designing and producing particles for DPIs, including increasing the stability of liposomes [5, 30, 31, 32] compared to liposomal solutions which are used for nebulizer delivery. Dry powder systems avoid the stability issues seen with nebulized solutions.

Liposome-encapsulated drugs seem to be a feasible system for targeting the lung, and liposomes have been shown to be well tolerated and are nonimmunogenic in humans [33, 34, 35, 36]. Liposomes can be phagocytosed by immune cells (e.g., macrophages) and therefore can provide a means to target antimicrobials and other drug agents to these immune cells [37, 38]. The versatility of the liposomal surface, interacting with other molecules, can assist in evading phagocytosis by surface coverage at defined concentrations with polyethylene glycol (PEG). Liposomal aerosol particles, with an aerodynamic size <5 μm, can be deposited in the deep lung [39]. For a drug to have efficient and increased deposition in the lower airways, the aerodynamic size should be <3 μm [40].

Liposomes are an appropriate delivery system for lung administration of drugs because they can be prepared using compounds endogenous to the lungs, such as the major component of lung surfactant dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine (DPPC), which comprises 70–80% of the pulmonary surfactant composition [1, 9, 33, 41, 42, 43]. Liposomal dry powder formulations have been described as being very promising in the delivery of various types of pulmonary drugs and are shown to decrease adverse effects without compromising efficacy of encapsulated drug compounds [1, 44].

Types of Drugs for Inhaled Dry Powder Therapeutic Liposomal Aerosols

Several drugs may be suitable for pulmonary delivery using liposomal DPIs (Table 1). Often, the types of drugs incorporated into approved dry powder formulations are anti-inflammatory agents, corticosteroids, long-acting β2 agonists (bronchodilators), and anticholinergic agents (Table 2). Considering that liposomal dry powder formulations can be designed to mimic endogenous lung surfactant components, this type of nanomedicine has the potential to effectively treat various pulmonary diseases, including asthma and COPD. Many effective pulmonary drugs are lipophilic molecules, which would make them particularly good candidates for liposomal dry powder formulation for pulmonary nanomedicine delivery with controlled-release properties (Table 3).
Table 1

Drugs that have been or may be good candidates for liposomal DPI formulation

Therapeutic class


β agonists and anti-inflammatories


Dexamethasone palmitate

Fluticasone propionate

Formoterol fumarate

Ketotifen fumarate

Mometasone furoate

Salbutamol sulfate

Salmeterol xinafoate


Amiloride hydrochloride

Amphotericin B

Ciprofloxacin hydrochloride


Doxycycline hydrochloride




Rifampicin (rifampin)



Cyclosporine A







Table 2

Approved DPI pharmaceutical products and indications

Trade name

Delivery device

Active therapeutic agent

Drug class




1. Fluticasone propionate

1. Anti-inflammatory

Asthma, COPD

2. Salmeterol xinafoate

2. Long acting bronchodilator

Aridol™ Osmohale™



Osmotic agent

Identifying bronchial hyperresponsiveness to assist in the diagnosis of asthma




Osmotic agent

Treatment of CF, bronchiectasis, chronic bronchitis



Mometasone furoate

Short-acting corticosteroid




Fluticasone propionate

Long-acting corticosteroid




Formoterol fumarate

Long-acting bronchodilator

Asthma, COPD, exercise-induced bronchospasm


Flexhaler® (Turbuhaler® discontinued)


Intermediate-acting corticosteroid




Salmeterol xinafoate

Long-acting bronchodilator

Asthma, COPD, exercise-induced bronchospasm



Tiotropium bromide monohydrate






Neuraminidase inhibitor

Influenza A and B prophylaxis and treatment

Table 3

Chemical structuresa of some pulmonary drugs delivered as approved DPIs

Chemical name

Chemical structure


Open image in new window


430.54 g/mol

Fluticasone propionate

Open image in new window


500.57 g/mol

Formoterol fumarate dihydrate

Open image in new window


840.91 g/mol

Mometasone furoate

Open image in new window


521.43 g/mol

Salmeterol xinafoate

Open image in new window


603.75 g/mol

Tiotropium bromide monohydrate

Open image in new window


490.40 g/mol

aChemBioDraw Ultra ver. 11.0, CambridgeSoft® 1986–2007, Cambridge, MA

Budesonide is a potent corticosteroid with prolonged tissue retention due to its hydrophobicity which inhibits inflammatory symptoms like edema and vascular permeability seen in asthma and COPD by decreasing airway hyperresponsiveness and reducing the number of inflammatory cells present in the airways [45, 46]. Liposomal encapsulation of budesonide was shown to control the drug release rate and allows therapeutic concentrations to be maintained in the lungs for longer periods while reducing systemic toxicity [47].

Formoterol is a highly potent, long-acting, β2-selective receptor agonist used for asthma and COPD bronchoconstriction relief with rapid onset and long duration of action [48, 49]. Saari et al. [36, 48, 50] formulated liposomes containing beclomethasone and formoterol and showed that beclomethasone maintained its long-lasting effect while formoterol enhanced lung function and peripheral lung deposition without a significant effect on mucociliary escalator. The short-acting β-blocker salbutamol sulfate has been successfully formulated into a sustained-release DPI liposomal delivery system [51].

Ketotifen fumarate is a mast cell stabilizer used for prophylaxis and treatment of asthma and helps control the inflammatory response seen in this chronic disease [52]. Joshi and Misra [52, 53] showed that liposomes loaded with ketotifen fumarate can be effectively delivered as a DPI to the desired sites in the lung.

Targeted pulmonary delivery of antimicrobials (i.e., antibacterials and antifungals) by inhalation aerosols [54] is the subject of much recent interest in research and development, including several clinical trials. Liposomal dry powders can be an appropriate means of delivering antibacterial and antifungal agents to the lungs. Liposomes are among the most widely studied carriers for macrophage-specific antimicrobial drug delivery [55, 56, 57, 58, 59].

Amphotericin B (AmB) is a macrolide antifungal that is first-line therapy for the prophylaxis or treatment of fungal infections such as pulmonary aspergillosis, commonly seen in CF patients and lung transplant patients [39, 60]. AmBisome® (Astellas Pharma US Inc., Deerfield, IL) is AmB formulated into liposomes suitable for pulmonary aerosol delivery by nebulization. It shows fewer side effects than administration of liposome-free AmB, has been reported as effective in animal models of pulmonary aspergillosis, is well tolerated in immunocompromised patients, and liposomal formulation shows increased pulmonary deposition and retention [61, 62, 63, 64, 65]. Takazono et al. [66] combined AmB and micafungin in a liposome for the treatment of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis and found there to be increased concentrations of drug in murine lungs, thus contributing to the efficacy of the two antifungal agents together. A dry powder liposomal DPI formulation of AmB has been reported using a mixture of various hydrogenated soy phospholipids [67].

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a genetically inherited disease caused by a gene mutation that affects almost every organ system in the body; primarily, the pulmonary epithelia are greatly affected by dehydration of the pulmonary secretions and decreased mucociliary clearance in the lungs [68, 69, 70]. The pulmonary manifestations in CF result from an exaggerated inflammatory response, defective bactericidal activity, and altered mucous clearance [68, 71]. Pulmonary liposomal aerosol delivery of antimicrobials can effectively fight infections, [54, 55, 72, 73] such as pneumonia, that commonly plague CF lungs due to the inability to clear mucus, bacteria, and/or fungi. Pseudomonas aeruginosa has been found in approximately 27% of CF patients 2–5 years old and approximately 80% of CF patients 25–34 years old [74]. Inhaled aminoglycosides have become the treatment of choice for chronic P. aeruginosa infections in CF patients; however, currently marketed antibiotic inhalation products are limited to inhaled nebulized solutions for chronic use. Recently, DPI formulations for CF treatment have been designed that combine an antibiotic with a mucolytic agent [75].

Amiloride is a potassium-sparing diuretic that is used off-label for treatment of CF patients [76]. Due to its short duration of action, the nebulized formulation needs to be administered four times daily, which can be a burden to patients and lead to decreased compliance [77]. The ability to make an amiloride dry powder formulation would decrease patient burden and possibly, if delivered with a Turbohaler®, could be as effective or more effective than most jet nebulizers [77]. A nanoliposomal amiloride hydrochloride DPI formulation was shown to exhibit more lung deposition with in vitro aerosol performance studies than particles not in nano-size range [78]. It was also demonstrated that nanoliposomes had a prolonged residence time in rat lungs in vivo for up to 12 h [78].

The unique antimicrobial drug that exhibits anti-inflammatory and immunomodulating activity, dapsone, has been successfully delivered as a nanoliposomal DPI [79] in the treatment of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, an opportunistic pulmonary infection. DPPC and cholesterol were incorporated into the liposome and spray-dried to form the inhalable dry powder [76].

Tacrolimus and cyclosporine A are immunosuppressants that are frequently used to decrease rejection of transplanted organs such as lungs in the case of pulmonary drug delivery [76, 80]. Tacrolimus is effective, potent, safe, and superior to cyclosporine A, and shows promising results in reducing the risk of acute organ rejection [81]. The clinical utility of tacrolimus is somewhat limited by its dose-related efficacy and toxicity, narrow therapeutic index, potential drug interactions, and large inter-/intrapatient variability in the pharmacokinetics of oral or parenteral formulations [81]. Using liposomes for aerosol delivery is one way to overcome these constraints and has the potential advantage to suitably carry most lipophilic drugs [81]. There are currently no tacrolimus liposomal DPI products on the market; however, a study done by Chougule et al. [81] found promising in vitro aerosol performance for tacrolimus-loaded nanoliposome DPIs, suggesting high deep-lung deposition as well as prolonged drug release of up to 18 h in vitro. The data from in vivo studies show drug residence within the lungs of up to 24 h and slow systemic dilution of tacrolimus, which when combined with the high deep-lung deposition, is expected to provide prolonged local action and necessitate less frequent administration and/or lower doses of tacrolimus as well as decreased systemic toxicities [81].

Cyclosporine A is a neutral, lipophilic, potent, immunosuppressive agent used to prevent allograft rejection [82]. Systemic cyclosporine A use has been limited due to the high incidence of side effects [83]. Behr et al. [84] formulated unilamellar liposomes of cyclosporine A to be delivered via nebulized solution. Inhaled liposomal cyclosporine A may be a promising approach to optimize immunosuppression and improve long-term outcomes while reducing systemic side effects, as liposomes demonstrate a large capacity as aerosol drug carriers [84, 85]. There are considerable advantages in formulating this lipophilic drug into DPI liposomal formulations, which would also impart controlled-release properties so that dosing frequency could be reduced for this chronically administered drug. Cyclosporine A is an agent that is not only important in helping prevent allograft rejection but has also been shown to reverse resistance that develops to potent first-line anticancer drugs such as paclitaxel [64, 80, 86, 87, 88].

Malignant neoplasms, or cancer, were the second leading cause of death in the United States in 2007, and lung cancer has the highest mortality rate compared to all other types of cancer, with a 90% mortality rate in 2000 and 2001 [89, 90, 91, 92]. Lung cancer is responsible for a death rate exceeding that of colon, breast, and prostate cancer combined, representing approximately 15% of all new cancer diagnoses annually [93]. Lung cancer rates in the United States have been increasing over the years, so the need to develop better pulmonary nanomedicines is essential (Figs. 5, 6). In lung cancer, inhaled chemotherapy was shown to increase the exposure of the lung tumor to the drug by having the drug sequestered at tumor locations while minimizing systemic side effects [94, 95, 96, 97]. Lipophilic chemotherapeutic agents [98] have been successfully delivered to the lungs for the treatment of lung cancer through liposomal aerosol delivery and metal-based chemotherapeutic drugs, such as cisplatin, encapsulated in inhalation aerosol liposomes [99]. Liposomes have been shown to improve the administration of chemotherapeutic drugs and immunomodulators in the treatment of experimental lung metastases by delivering high concentrations locally at the tumor site while minimizing systemic toxicity [99, 100].
Fig. 5

Age-adjusted cancer death rates, males by site, US, 1930–2006, according to the American Cancer Society, Cancer Facts and Figures [115]. *Per 100,000 age adjusted to the 2000 US standard population. Note: Due to changes in ICD coding, numerator information has changed over time. Rates for cancer of the liver, lung and bronchus, and colon and rectum are affected by these coding changes. Source: US Mortality Data, 1960 to 2006, US Mortality Volumes, 1930 to 1959, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2009

Fig. 6

Age-adjusted cancer death rates, females by site, US, 1930–2006, according to the American Cancer Society, Cancer Facts and Figures [115]. *Per 100,000 age adjusted to the 2000 US standard population.Rates are uterine cervix and uterine corpus combined. Note: Due to changes in ICD coding, numerator information has changed over time. Rates for cancer of the lung and bronchus, colon and rectum, and ovary are affected by these coding changes. Source: US Mortality Data, 1960 to 2006, US Mortality Volumes, 1930 to 1959, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2009

Doxorubicin [94] is used clinically for the treatment of lung cancer, among other cancers, while the camptothecin derivative 9-nitrocamptothecin (9-NC) has been used in animal studies [94, 101, 102] and clinical trials [103] for treatment of metastatic lung cancer. The use of liposomal 9-NC formulations for aerosol delivery is being explored as a delivery method, providing increased efficacy with decreased toxicity [102, 104, 105]. Some limiting factors for the clinical efficacy of 9-NC are its poor oral bioavailability [104], its poor solubility in aqueous solutions [104, 105], its virtual insolubility in most physiologically compatible and pharmaceutically acceptable solvents [104], and the dose-limiting toxicity of chemical pharyngitis in humans, when delivered via nebulized liposome [103]. Studies have shown that concentrations lower than those traditionally used in mice treated with 9-NC via other routes can be administered in liposomes to decrease toxicity while still seeing beneficial effects in lung cancer patients [102, 105]. In addition, Verschraegen et al. [103] formulated liposomes with 9-NC and dilauroylphosphatidylcholine (DLPC) and noted that inhaled 9-NC is rapidly absorbed into systemic circulation, reaching concentrations similar to those achieved with oral dosing. While this may lead to increased side effects, they will presumably still be less than the side effects from parenteral administration of 9-NC.

Recent phase I studies have demonstrated the ability to successfully deliver aerosolized doxorubicin and liposomal formulations of 9-NC and cisplatin in patients with primary and metastatic lung cancer [94, 99, 103, 106]. Otterson et al. [106] conducted a phase I study of inhaled doxorubicin in patients with advanced pulmonary tumors, primary or metastatic, which revealed no drug-related systemic toxicity at the doses given in the study; however, doxorubicin showed dose-limiting toxicity due to the direct effects of the inhaled drug on the upper and lower respiratory tract. A study by Azarmi et al. [107] showed that doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles via dry powder delivery were internalized more readily by lung cancer cells compared to a passive diffusion mechanism and showed a concentration-related increase in cytotoxicity in vitro.

Paclitaxel is a water-insoluble drug used as a first-line agent for non-small-cell lung cancer treatment; therefore, the need for an alternate delivery form, such as pulmonary liposomes, is evident [108]. Latimer et al. [108] explored in a murine model the effects of pulmonary delivery of paclitaxel liposomes on metastases of breast cancer to the lungs; their results showed a substantial decrease in the incidence of pulmonary metastases and tumor burden when the paclitaxel liposomes were administered sequentially with 2,5,7,8-tetramethyl-2R-(4R, 8R-12-trimethyltridecyl) chroman-6-yloxyacetic acid (a vitamin E analog) aerosolized liposomes.

Tuberculosis (TB) is a contagious disease, largely manifested in pulmonary tissue, among other body systems, caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis. It is treated with first-line agents such as isoniazid (INH), pyrazinamide (PZA), rifampicin (or rifampin), and ethambutol [1, 28]. There are 8.8 million cases of TB annually leading to 1.1 million deaths [109]. Considering that TB manifests mainly in the lungs by proliferating in lung macrophages [110] and that oral therapy is associated with decreased bioavailability, unfavorable tissue distribution, and adverse effects [111], the use of inhaled controlled-release liposomes to directly target the bacterial infection is of interest [112]. Mycobacteria are 2–5 μm in diameter, which makes them the ideal size to enter the lower parts of the lung [113]. Using traditional oral therapy makes it difficult to maintain adequate blood concentrations to completely eradicate the bacteria [114]. The fact that mycobacterium proliferate in lung macrophages means that administration of a drug via liposomal DPI will be most favorable to allow concentration of the drug in the alveolar macrophages [57].

INH was combined in a 1:1 w/w ratio with DPPC in research done by Chimote and Banerjee [111]. The INH–DPPC liposomes exhibited the ability to maintain patency of a narrow glass capillary tube, which mimics terminal airways in humans [111]. The benefit of liposomal DPIs for the treatment of TB is that these INH–DPPC particles were proven to open atelectatic alveoli, which allows the drug to penetrate the deep, inaccessible parts of the lungs [111].

PZA is an important component in the TB treatment regimen and can significantly shorten the treatment duration from 9–12 months to 6 months [28]. PZA was incorporated into the lipophilic and hydrophilic phases of liposomes which showed significant enhancement of drug entrapment [28]. Relatively large multilamellar vesicles (MLVs) were produced, which was important for sustained-release drug delivery in pulmonary TB treatment [28]. It was found that liposomal PZA in two-fifths the dose of free PZA was superior for the management of TB infection in vivo [28].

Recently, rifampin was formulated in a liposomal DPI delivery system [24, 41]. Liposomes using DPPC combined with rifampin and INH were shown to have good in vitro alveolar deposition and sustained-release characteristics [41]. Rifampin is prone to degradation in the acidic pH of the stomach; hence, the ability to slow the release rate by using a liposomal formulation would be beneficial [112]. Vyas et al. [57] formulated rifampin liposomes affixed with macrophage-specific ligands to help target the infected alveolar macrophages and found the preliminary results to be promising. Due to the superior surface activity of the dry particles formulated with INH, rifampin, or ethambutol, in DPPC liposomes, atelectatic alveoli can effectively open in vivo allowing the drug to penetrate the deep lung where TB infections often reside [41]. Not only does antitubercular liposomal delivery to the lungs help TB patients, but the surfactant properties of DPPC, which is the greatest component of normal lung surfactant, can alleviate compromised lung compliance [41].


In conclusion, liposomal powders (i.e., lipospheres and proliposomes) for dry powder inhalation aerosol delivery that are formulated with phospholipids similar to endogenous lung surfactant offer unique opportunities in pulmonary nanomedicine while offering controlled release and enhanced stability. Many pulmonary diseases such as lung cancer, TB, CF, bacterial lung infections, fungal lung infections, asthma, and COPD could greatly benefit from this type of pulmonary nanomedicine approach using pharmacologic agents that can be delivered in a targeted manner by DPIs. These delivery systems may require smaller doses for efficacy, exhibit reduced toxicity, fewer side effects, controlled drug release over a prolonged time period, and increased formulation stability as inhaled powders.


Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.


  1. 1.
    Mansour HM, Rhee YS, Wu X (2009) Nanomedicine in pulmonary delivery. Int J Nanomedicine 4:299–319PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Desai TR, Wong JP, Hancock REW, Finlay WH (2002) A novel approach to the pulmonary delivery of liposomes in dry powder form to eliminate the deleterious effects of milling. J Pharm Sci 91(2):482–491PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Patton JS, Byron PR (2007) Inhaling medicines: delivering drugs to the body through the lungs. Nat Rev Drug Discov 6(1):67–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hickey AJ, Mansour HM (2009) Chapter 5: delivery of drugs by the pulmonary route. In: Florence AT, Siepmann J (eds) Modern pharmaceutics, vol 2, 5th edn. Taylor and Francis, New York, pp 191–219Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hickey AJ, Mansour HM (2008) Chapter 43: formulation challenges of powders for the delivery of small molecular weight molecules as aerosols. In: Rathbone MJ, Hadgraft J, Roberts MS, Lane M (eds) Modified-release drug delivery technology, vol 2, 2nd edn. Informa Healthcare, New York, pp 573–602Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Evora C, Soriano I, Rogers RA, Shakesheff KN, Hanes J, Langer R (1998) Relating the phagocytosis of microparticles by alveolar macrophages to surface chemistry: the effect of 1,2-dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine. J Control Release 51(2–3):143–152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wu X, Mansour HM (2011) Nanopharmaceuticals II: application of nanoparticles and nanocarrier systems in pharmaceutics and nanomedicine. Int J Nanotechnol 8(1/2):115–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rhee YS, Mansour HM (2011) Nanopharmaceuticals I: nanocarrier systems in drug delivery. Int J Nanotechnol 8(1/2):84–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mansour HM, Rhee YS, Park CW, DeLuca PP (2011) Chapter 9: lipid nanoparticulate drug delivery and nanomedicine. In: Moghis A (ed) Lipids in nanotechnology, 1st edn. American Oil Chemists Society (AOCS) Press, Chicago, pp 221–268Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhang J, Wu L, Chan HK, Watanabe W (2011) Formation, characterization, and fate of inhaled drug nanoparticles. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 63(6):441–455PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bi R, Zhang N (2007) Liposomes as a carrier for pulmonary delivery of peptides and proteins. J Biomed Nanotechnol 3(4):332–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dandekar P, Venkataraman C, Mehra A (2010) Pulmonary targeting of nanoparticle drug matrices. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv 23(6):343–353PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hajos F, Stark B, Hensler S, Prassl R, Mosgoeller W (2008) Inhalable liposomal formulation for vasoactive intestinal peptide. Int J Pharm 357(1–2):286–294PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lu D, Hickey AJ (2005) Liposomal dry powders as aerosols for pulmonary delivery of proteins. AAPS PharmSciTech 6(4):E641–E648PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bailey MM, Berkland CJ (2009) Nanoparticle formulations in pulmonary drug delivery. Med Res Rev 29(1):196–212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pison U, Welte T, Giersig M, Groneberg DA (2006) Nanomedicine for respiratory diseases. Eur J Pharmacol 533(1–3):341–350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kurmi BD, Kayat J, Gajbhiye V, Tekade RK, Jain NK (2010) Micro- and nanocarrier-mediated lung targeting. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 7(7):781–794PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dailey LA, Jekel N, Fink L, Gessler T, Schmehl T, Wittmar M, Kissel T, Seeger W (2006) Investigation of the proinflammatory potential of biodegradable nanoparticle drug delivery systems in the lung. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 215(1):100–108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Perrie Y, Rades T (2010) Pharmaceutics—drug delivery and targeting. Pharmaceutical Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mansour HM, Zografi G (2007) The relationship between water vapor absorption and desorption by phospholipids and bilayer phase transitions. J Pharm Sci 96(2):377–396PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mansour HM, Damodaran S, Zografi G (2008) Characterization of the in situ structural and interfacial properties of the cationic hydrophobic heteropolypeptide, KL4, in lung surfactant bilayer and monolayer models at the air-water interface: implications for pulmonary surfactant delivery. Mol Pharm 5(5):681–695PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mansour HM, Wang DS, Chen CS, Zografi G (2001) Comparison of bilayer and monolayer properties of phospholipid systems containing dipalmitoylphosphatidylglycerol and dipalmitoylphosphatidylinositol. Langmuir 17(21):6622–6632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mansour HM, Zografi G (2007) Relationships between equilibrium spreading pressure and phase equilibria of phospholipid bilayers and monolayers at the air–water interface. Langmuir 23(7):3809–3819PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Changsan N, Chan HK, Separovic F, Srichana T (2009) Physicochemical characterization and stability of rifampicin liposome dry powder formulations for inhalation. J Pharm Sci 98(2):628–639PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Darwis Y, Kellaway IW (2002) The lyophilisation and aerosolisation of liposomes for pulmonary drug administration. STP Pharma Sci 12(2):91–96Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gibbons AM, McElvaney NG, Cryan SA (2010) A dry powder formulation of liposome-encapsulated recombinant secretory leukocyte protease inhibitor (rSLPI) for inhalation: preparation and characterisation. AAPS PharmSciTech 11(3):1411–1421PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gibbons AM, McElvaney NG, Taggart CC, Cryan SA (2009) Delivery of rSLPI in a liposomal carrier for inhalation provides protection against cathepsin L degradation. J Microencapsul 26(6):513–522PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    El-Ridy MS, Mostafa DM, Shehab A, Nasr EA, Abd El-Alim S (2007) Biological evaluation of pyrazinamide liposomes for treatment of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Int J Pharm 330(1–2):82–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wyde PR, Six HR, Wilson SZ, Gilbert BE, Knight V (1988) Activity against rhinoviruses, toxicity, and delivery in aerosol of enviroxime in liposomes. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 32(6):890–895PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Goldbach P, Brochart H, Stamm A (1993) Spray-drying of liposomes for a pulmonary administration. 1. Chemical stability of phospholipids. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 19(19):2611–2622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Goldbach P, Brochart H, Stamm A (1993) Spray-drying of liposomes for a pulmonary administration. 2. Retention of encapsulated materials. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 19(19):2623–2636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Alves GP, Santana MHA (2004) Phospholipid dry powders produced by spray drying processing: structural, thermodynamic and physical properties. Powder Technol 145(2):139–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Taylor KMG, Farr SJ (1993) Liposomes for drug delivery to the respiratory tract. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 19(1–2):123–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Abu-Dahab R, Schafer UF, Lehr CM (2001) Lectin-functionalized liposomes for pulmonary drug delivery: effect of nebulization on stability and bioadhesion. Eur J Pharm Sci 14(1):37–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Canonico AE, Plitman JD, Conary JT, Meyrick BO, Brigham KL (1994) No lung toxicity after repeated aerosol or intravenous delivery of plasmid–cationic liposome complexes. J Appl Physiol 77(1):415–419PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Saari M, Vidgren MT, Koskinen MO, Turjanmaa VMH, Nieminen MM (1999) Pulmonary distribution and clearance of two beclomethasone liposome formulations in healthy volunteers. Int J Pharm 181(1):1–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Thomas DA, Myers MA, Wichert B, Schreier H, Gonzalezrothi RJ (1991) Acute effects of liposome aerosol inhalation on pulmonary-function in healthy-human volunteers. Chest 99(5):1268–1270PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wijagkanalan W, Higuchi Y, Kawakami S, Teshima M, Sasaki H, Hashida M (2008) Enhanced anti-inflammation of inhaled dexamethasone palmitate using mannosylated liposomes in an endotoxin-induced lung inflammation model. Mol Pharmacol 74(5):1183–1192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Albasarah YY, Somavarapu S, Stapleton P, Taylor KMG (2010) Chitosan-coated antifungal formulations for nebulisation. J Pharm Pharmacol 62(7):821–828PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Patton JS, Fishburn CS, Weers JG (2004) The lungs as a portal of entry for systemic drug delivery. Proc Am Thorac Soc 1(4):338–344PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Chimote G, Banerjee R (2009) Evaluation of antitubercular drug-loaded surfactants as inhalable drug-delivery systems for pulmonary tuberculosis. J Biomed Mater Res A 89A(2):281–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Barker SA, Taylor KMG, Short MD (1994) The deposition and clearance of liposome-entrapped Tc-99m-DTPA in the human respiratory tract. Int J Pharm 102(1–3):159–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Myers MA, Thomas DA, Straub L, Soucy DW, Niven RW, Kaltenbach M, Hood CI, Schreier H, Gonzalezrothi RJ (1993) Pulmonary effects of chronic exposure to liposome aerosols in mice. Exp Lung Res 19(1):1–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Misra A, Jinturkar K, Patel D, Lalani J, Chougule M (2009) Recent advances in liposomal dry powder formulations: preparation and evaluation. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 6(1):71–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    El-Gendy N, Gorman EM, Munson EJ, Berkland C (2009) Budesonide nanoparticle agglomerates as dry powder aerosols with rapid dissolution. J Pharm Sci 98(8):2731–2746PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Naikwade SR, Bajaj AN, Gurav P, Gatne MM, Singh Soni P (2009) Development of budesonide microparticles using spray-drying technology for pulmonary administration: design, characterization, in vitro evaluation, and in vivo efficacy study. AAPS PharmSciTech 10(3):993–1012PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Joshi M, Misra AN (2001) Pulmonary disposition of budesonide from liposomal dry powder inhaler. Methods Find Exp Clin Pharmacol 23(10):531–536PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Saari SM, Vidgren MT, Herrala J, Turjanma VMH, Koskinen MO, Nieminen MM (2002) Possibilities of formoterol to enhance the peripheral lung deposition of the inhaled liposome corticosteroids. Respir Med 96(12):999–1005PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sharafkhaneh A, Mattewal AS, Abraham VM, Dronavalli G, Hanania NA (2010) Budesonide/formoterol combination in COPD: a US perspective. Int J Chron Obstr Pulm Dis 5:357–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Saari SM, Vidgren MT, Koskinen MO, Turjanmaa VM, Waldrep JC, Nieminen MM (1998) Regional lung deposition and clearance of 99mTc-labeled beclomethasone-DLPC liposomes in mild and severe asthma. Chest 113(6):1573–1579PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Huang WH, Yang ZJ, Wu H, Wong YF, Zhao ZZ, Liu L (2010) Development of liposomal salbutamol sulfate dry powder inhaler formulation. Biol Pharm Bull 33(3):512–517PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Joshi M, Misra A (2001) Dry powder inhalation of liposomal ketotifen fumarate: formulation and characterization. Int J Pharm 223(1–2):15–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Joshi M, Misra A (2003) Disposition kinetics of ketotifen from liposomal dry powder for inhalation in rat lung. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 30(3):153–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Park CW, Hayes DJ, Mansour HM (2011) Pulmonary inhalation aerosols for targeted antibiotics drug delivery. Eur Pharm Rev 16(1):32–36Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Gilbert BE (1996) Liposomal aerosols in the management of pulmonary infections. J Aerosol Med 9(1):111–122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Zaru M, Sinico C, De Logu A, Caddeo C, Lai F, Manca ML, Fadda AM (2009) Rifampicin-loaded liposomes for the passive targeting to alveolar macrophages: in vitro and in vivo evaluation. J Liposome Res 19(1):68–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Vyas SP, Kannan ME, Jain S, Mishra V, Singh P (2004) Design of liposomal aerosols for improved delivery of rifampicin to alveolar macrophages. Int J Pharm 269(1):37–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Vyas SP, Khatri K (2007) Liposome-based drug delivery to alveolar macrophages. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 4(2):95–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Vyas SP, Quraishi S, Gupta S, Jaganathan KS (2005) Aerosolized liposome-based delivery of amphotericin B to alveolar macrophages. Int J Pharm 296(1–2):12–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Corcoran TE, Venkataramanan R, Mihelc KM, Marcinkowski AL, Ou J, McCook BM, Weber L, Carey ME, Paterson DL, Pilewski JM, McCurry KR, Husain S (2006) Aerosol deposition of lipid complex amphotericin-B (Abelcet) in lung transplant recipients. Am J Transpl 6(11):2765–2773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Allen SD, Sorensen KN, Nejdl MJ, Durrant C, Proffit RT (1994) Prophylactic efficacy of aerosolized liposomal (AmBisome) and non-liposomal (Fungizone) amphotericin B in murine pulmonary aspergillosis. J Antimicrob Chemother 34(6):1001–1013PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Castagnola E, Moresco L, Cappelli B, Cuzzubbo D, Moroni C, Lanino E, Faraci M (2007) Nebulized liposomal amphotericin B and combined systemic antifungal therapy for the treatment of severe pulmonary aspergillosis after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant for a fatal mitochondrial disorder. J Chemother 19(3):339–342PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Lowry CM, Marty FM, Vargas SO, Lee JT, Fiumara K, Deykin A, Baden LR (2007) Safety of aerosolized liposomal versus deoxycholate amphotericin B formulations for prevention of invasive fungal infections following lung transplantation: a retrospective study. Transpl Infect Dis 9(2):121–125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Slobbe L, Boersma E, Rijnders BJ (2008) Tolerability of prophylactic aerosolized liposomal amphotericin-B and impact on pulmonary function: data from a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Pulm Pharmacol Ther 21(6):855–859PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Rijnders BJ, Cornelissen JJ, Slobbe L, Becker MJ, Doorduijn JK, Hop WCJ, Ruijgrok EJ, Lowenberg B, Vulto A, Lugtenburg PJ, de Marie S (2008) Aerosolized liposomal amphotericin B for the prevention of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis during prolonged neutropenia: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis 46(9):1401–1408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Takazono T, Izumikawa K, Mihara T, Kosai K, Saijo T, Imamura Y, Miyazaki T, Seki M, Kakeya H, Yamamoto Y, Yanagihara K, Kohno S (2009) Efficacy of combination antifungal therapy with intraperitoneally administered micafungin and aerosolized liposomal amphotericin b against murine invasive pulmonary aspergillosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 53(8):3508–3510PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Shah SP, Misra A (2004) Development of liposomal amphotericin B dry powder inhaler formulation. Drug Deliv 11(4):247–253PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    DiPiro JT, Talbert RL, Yee GC, Matzke GR, Wells BG, Posey LM (2008) Pharmacotherapy: a pathophysiological approach, 7th edn. McGraw-Hill Medical, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Desjardins A, Chen T, Khalil H, Sayasith K, Lagace J (2002) Differential behaviour of fluid liposomes toward mammalian epithelial cells and bacteria: restriction of fusion to bacteria. J Drug Target 10(1):47–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    McLachlan G, Davidson DJ, Stevenson BJ, Dickinson P, Davidson-Smith H, Dorin JR, Porteous DJ (1995) Evaluation in vitro and in vivo of cationic liposome-expression construct complexes for cystic fibrosis gene therapy. Gene Ther 2(9):614–622PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Tagalakis AD, McAnulty RJ, Devaney J, Bottoms SE, Wong JB, Elbs M, Writer MJ, Hailes HC, Tabor AB, O’Callaghan C, Jaffe A, Hart SL (2008) A receptor-targeted nanocomplex vector system optimized for respiratory gene transfer. Mol Ther 16(5):907–915PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Okusanya OO, Bhavnani SM, Hammel J, Minic P, Dupont LJ, Forrest A, Mulder GJ, Mackinson C, Ambrose PG, Gupta R (2009) Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation of liposomal amikacin for inhalation in cystic fibrosis patients with chronic pseudomonal infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 53(9):3847–3854PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Weers J, Metzheiser B, Taylor G, Warren S, Meers P, Perkins WR (2009) A gamma scintigraphy study to investigate lung deposition and clearance of inhaled amikacin-loaded liposomes in healthy male volunteers. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv 22(2):131–138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Heijerman H, Westerman E, Conway S, Touw D, Doring G, Consensus Working Group (2009) Inhaled medication and inhalation devices for lung disease in patients with cystic fibrosis: a European consensus. J Cyst Fibros 8(5):295–315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Adi H, Young PM, Chan HK, Agus H, Traini D (2010) Co-spray-dried mannitol-ciprofloxacin dry powder inhaler formulation for cystic fibrosis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Eur J Pharm Sci 40(3):239–247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Lacy CF, Armstrong LL, Goldman MP, Lance LL (2008) Drug information handbook, 17th edn. Lexi-Comp Inc., HudsonGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Everard ML, Devadason SG, Sunderland VB, Le Souef PN (1995) An alternative aerosol delivery system for amiloride. Thorax 50(5):517–519PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Chougule MB, Padhi BK, Misra A (2006) Nano-liposomal dry powder inhaler of amiloride hydrochloride. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 6(9–10):3001–3009PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Chougule MB, Padhi BK, Misra AN (2008) Development of spray dried liposomal dry powder inhaler of Dapsone. AAPS PharmSciTech 9(1):47–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Knoop C, Haverich A, Fischer S (2004) Immunosuppressive therapy after human lung transplantation. Eur Respir J 23(1):159–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Chougule M, Padhi B, Misra A (2007) Nano-liposomal dry powder inhaler of tacrolimus: preparation, characterization, and pulmonary pharmacokinetics. Int J Nanomedicine 2(4):675–688PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Waldrep JC, Scherer PW, Keyhani K, Knight V (1993) Cyclosporine-a liposome aerosol—particle-size and calculated respiratory deposition. Int J Pharm 97(1–3):205–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Waldrep JC, Arppe J, Jansa KA, Vidgren M (1998) Experimental pulmonary delivery of cyclosporin A by liposome aerosol. Int J Pharm 160(2):239–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Behr J, Zimmermann G, Baumgartner R, Leuchte H, Neurohr C, Brand P, Herpich C, Sommerer K, Seitz J, Menges G, Tillmanns S, Keller M, Munich Lung Transplant Group (2009) Lung deposition of a liposomal cyclosporine a inhalation solution in patients after lung transplantation. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv 22(2):121–129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Waldrep JC, Arppe J, Jansa KA, Knight V (1997) High dose cyclosporin A and budesonide-liposome aerosols. Int J Pharm 152(1):27–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Gilbert BE, Wilson SZ, Garcon NM, Wyde PR, Knight V (1993) Characterization and administration of cyclosporine liposomes as a small-particle aerosol. Transplantation 56(4):974–977PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Koshkina NV, Golunski E, Roberts LE, Gilbert BE, Knight V (2004) Cyclosporin A aerosol improves the anticancer effect of paclitaxel aerosol in mice. J Aerosol Med 17(1):7–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Ross HJ, Canada AL, Slater LM (1997) Cyclosporine A enhances paclitaxel toxicity against leukemia and respiratory epithelial cancers. Clin Cancer Res 3(1):57–62PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Xu J, Kochanek KD, Murphy SL, Tejada-Vera B (2007) Deaths: final data for 2007. Natl Vital Stat Rep 58(19):1–135Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Gautam A, Waldrep JC, Densmore CL, Koshkina N, Melton S, Roberts L, Gilbert B, Knight V (2002) Growth inhibition of established B16–F10 lung metastases by sequential aerosol delivery of p53 gene and 9-nitrocamptothecin. Gene Ther 9(5):353–357PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Koshkina NV, Waldrep JC, Roberts LE, Golunski E, Melton S, Knight V (2001) Paclitaxel liposome aerosol treatment induces inhibition of pulmonary metastases in murine renal carcinoma model. Clin Cancer Res 7(10):3258–3262PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Zou Y, Zong G, Ling YH, Perez-Soler R (2000) Development of cationic liposome formulations for intratracheal gene therapy of early lung cancer. Cancer Gene Ther 7(5):683–696PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Kalantarian P, Najafabadi AR, Haririan I, Vatanara A, Yamini Y, Darabi M, Gilani K (2010) Preparation of 5-fluorouracil nanoparticles by supercritical antisolvents for pulmonary delivery. Int J Nanomedicine 5:763–770PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Gagnadoux F, Hureaux J, Vecellio L, Urban T, Le Pape A, Valo I, Montharu J, Leblond V, Boisdron-Celle M, Lerondel S, Majoral C, Diot P, Racineux JL, Lemarie E (2008) Aerosolized chemotherapy. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv 21(1):61–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Weinstein JN, Leserman LD (1984) Liposomes as drug carriers in cancer chemotherapy. Pharmacol Ther 24(2):207–233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Parthasarathy R, Gilbert B, Mehta K (1999) Aerosol delivery of liposomal all-trans-retinoic acid to the lungs. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 43(4):277–283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Carvalho TC, Carvalho SR, McConville JT (2011) Formulations for pulmonary administration of anticancer agents to treat lung malignancies. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv 24(2):61–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Zakharian TY, Seryshev A, Sitharaman B, Gilbert BE, Knight V, Wilson LJ (2005) A fullerene-paclitaxel chemotherapeutic: synthesis, characterization, and study of biological activity in tissue culture. J Am Chem Soc 127(36):12508–12509PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Wittgen BP, Kunst PW, van der Born K, van Wijk AW, Perkins W, Pilkiewicz FG, Perez-Soler R, Nicholson S, Peters GJ, Postmus PE (2007) Phase I study of aerosolized SLIT cisplatin in the treatment of patients with carcinoma of the lung. Clin Cancer Res 13(8):2414–2421PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Debs RJ, Straubinger RM, Brunette EN, Lin JM, Lin EJ, Montgomery AB, Friend DS, Papahadjopoulos DP (1987) Selective enhancement of pentamidine uptake in the lung by aerosolization and delivery in liposomes. Am Rev Respir Dis 135(3):731–737PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Koshkina NV, Kleinerman ES, Waldrep C, Jia SF, Worth LL, Gilbert BE, Knight V (2000) 9-Nitrocamptothecin liposome aerosol treatment of melanoma and osteosarcoma lung metastases in mice. Clin Cancer Res 6(7):2876–2880PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Lawson KA, Anderson K, Snyder RM, Simmons-Menchaca M, Atkinson J, Sun LZ, Bandyopadhyay A, Knight V, Gilbert BE, Sanders BG, Kline K (2004) Novel vitamin E analogue and 9-nitro-camptothecin administered as liposome aerosols decrease syngeneic mouse mammary tumor burden and inhibit metastasis. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 54(5):421–431PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Verschraegen CF, Gilbert BE, Loyer E, Huaringa A, Walsh G, Newman RA, Knight V (2004) Clinical evaluation of the delivery and safety of aerosolized liposomal 9-nitro-20(s)-camptothecin in patients with advanced pulmonary malignancies. Clin Cancer Res 10(7):2319–2326PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Chen J, Ping QN, Guo JX, Chu XZ, Song MM (2006) Effect of phospholipid composition on characterization of liposomes containing 9-nitrocamptothecin. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 32(6):719–726PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Knight V, Koshkina NV, Waldrep JC, Giovanella BC, Gilbert BE (1999) Anticancer effect of 9-nitrocamptothecin liposome aerosol on human cancer xenografts in nude mice. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 44(3):177–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Otterson GA, Villalona-Calero MA, Hicks W, Pan X, Ellerton JA, Gettinger SN, Murren JR (2010) Phase I/II study of inhaled doxorubicin combined with platinum-based therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 16(8):2466–2473PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Azarmi S, Tao X, Chen H, Wang Z, Finlay WH, Lobenberg R, Roa WH (2006) Formulation and cytotoxicity of doxorubicin nanoparticles carried by dry powder aerosol particles. Int J Pharm 319(1–2):155–161PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Latimer P, Menchaca M, Snyder RM, Yu WP, Gilbert BE, Sanders BG, Kline K (2009) Aerosol delivery of liposomal formulated paclitaxel and vitamin E analog reduces murine mammary tumor burden and metastases. Exp Biol Med 234(10):1244–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    World Health Organization (2011) Global tuberculosis control. Accessed 10 Dec 2011
  110. 110.
    Muttil P, Kaur J, Kumar K, Yadav AB, Sharma R, Misra A (2007) Inhalable microparticles containing large payload of anti-tuberculosis drugs. Eur J Pharm Sci 32(2):140–150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Chimote G, Banerjee R (2010) In vitro evaluation of inhalable isoniazid-loaded surfactant liposomes as an adjunct therapy in pulmonary tuberculosis. J Biomed Mater Res B 94B(1):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Sung JC, Padilla DJ, Garcia-Contreras L, Verberkmoes JL, Durbin D, Peloquin CA, Elbert KJ, Hickey AJ, Edwards DA (2009) Formulation and pharmacokinetics of self-assembled rifampicin nanoparticle systems for pulmonary delivery. Pharm Res 26(8):1847–1855PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Sethuraman VV, Hickey AJ (2002) Powder properties and their influence on dry powder inhaler delivery of an antitubercular drug. AAPS PharmSciTech 3(4):E28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Changsan N, Nilkaeo A, Pungrassami P, Srichana T (2009) Monitoring safety of liposomes containing rifampicin on respiratory cell lines and in vitro efficacy against Mycobacterium bovis in alveolar macrophages. J Drug Target 17(10):751–762PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    American Cancer Society (2010) Cancer facts and figures 2010. Accessed 30 Nov 2010

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lauren Willis
    • 1
  • Don HayesJr.
    • 2
  • Heidi M. Mansour
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences-Drug Development Division, College of PharmacyUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA
  2. 2.Departments of Pediatrics and Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, and Lung and Heart-Lung Transplant ProgramsNationwide Children’s HospitalColumbusUSA
  3. 3.Center of Membrane SciencesUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations