Drug Delivery and Translational Research

, Volume 1, Issue 3, pp 238–246 | Cite as

Pharmacokinetics of UC781-loaded intravaginal ring segments in rabbits: a comparison of polymer matrices

  • Meredith R. Clark
  • Patrick F. Kiser
  • Andrew Loxley
  • Christopher McConville
  • R. Karl Malcolm
  • David R. Friend
Research Article

Abstract

UC781 is a potent and poorly water-soluble nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor being investigated as a potential microbicide for preventing sexual transmission of HIV-1. This study was designed to evaluate the in vivo release and pharmacokinetics of UC781 delivered from matrix-type intravaginal ring segments in rabbits. Three polymer matrices (polyurethane, ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer, and silicone elastomer) and two drug loadings (5 and 15 mg/segment) were evaluated in at least one of two independent studies for up to 28 days in vivo. Inter-study comparison of in vivo release, vaginal tissue, and plasma concentrations for similar formulations demonstrated good reproducibility of the animal model. Mean estimates for a 28-day in vivo release ranged from 0.35 to 3.17 mg UC781 per segment. Mean proximal vaginal tissue levels (adjacent to the IVR segment) were 8–410 ng/g and did not change significantly with time for most formulations. Distal vaginal tissue levels of UC781 were 6- to 49-fold lower than proximal tissue levels. Mean UC781 plasma levels were low for all formulations, at 0.09–0.58 ng/mL. All formulations resulted in similar UC781 concentrations in vaginal tissue and plasma, except the low loading polyurethane group which provided significantly lower levels. Loading dependent release and pharmacokinetics were only clearly observed for the polyurethane matrix. Based on these results, intravaginal ring segments loaded with UC781 led to vaginal tissue concentrations ranging from below to approximately two orders of magnitude higher than UC781’s EC50 under in vitro conditions (2.8 ng/mL), with little influence by polymer matrix or UC781 loading. Moreover, these findings support the use of rabbit vaginal pharmacokinetic studies in preclinical testing of microbicide intravaginal rings.

Keywords

UC781 Microbicide Intravaginal ring Pharmacokinetics 

References

  1. 1.
    Abdool Karim Q, Abdool Karim SS, Frohlich JA, Grobler AC, Baxter C, Mansoor LE. Effectiveness and safety of tenofovir gel, an antiretroviral microbicide, for the prevention of HIV infection in women. Science. 2010;329(5996):1168–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grant RM, Lama JR, Anderson PL, McMahan V, Liu AY, Vargas L, et al. Preexposure chemoprophylaxis for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(27):2587–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Balzarini J, Naesens L, Verbeken E, Laga M, Van Damme L, Parniak M, et al. Preclinical studies on thiocarboxanilide UC-781 as a virucidal agent. AIDS. 1998;12(10):1129–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Balzarini J, Brouwer WG, Dao DC, Osika EM, De Clercq E. Identification of novel thiocarboxanilide derivatives that suppress a variety of drug-resistant mutant human immunodeficiency virus type 1 strains at a potency similar to that for wild-type virus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1996;40(6):1454–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Borkow G, Arion D, Wainberg MA, Parniak MA. The thiocarboxanilide nonnucleoside inhibitor UC781 restores antiviral activity of 3′-azido-3′-deoxythymidine (AZT) against AZT-resistant human immunodeficiency virus type 1. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1999;43(2):259–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pelemans H, Esnouf R, De Clercq E, Balzarini J. Mutational analysis of trp-229 of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 reverse transcriptase (RT) identifies this amino acid residue as a prime target for the rational design of new non-nucleoside RT inhibitors. Mol Pharmacol. 2000;57(5):954–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Van Herrewege Y, Michiels J, Van Roey J, Fransen K, Kestens L, Balzarini J, et al. In vitro evaluation of nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors UC-781 and TMC120-R147681 as human immunodeficiency virus microbicides. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2004;48(1):337–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zussman A, Lara L, Lara HH, Bentwich Z, Borkow G. Blocking of cell-free and cell-associated HIV-1 transmission through human cervix organ culture with UC781. AIDS. 2003;17(5):653–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fletcher P, Kiselyeva Y, Wallace G, Romano J, Griffin G, Margolis L, et al. The nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor UC-781 inhibits human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection of human cervical tissue and dissemination by migratory cells. J Virol. 2005;79(17):11179–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Borkow G, Barnard J, Nguyen TM, Belmonte A, Wainberg MA, Parniak MA. Chemical barriers to human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection: retrovirucidal activity of UC781, a thiocarboxanilide nonnucleoside inhibitor of HIV-1 reverse transcriptase. J Virol. 1997;71(4):3023–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schwartz JL, Kovalevsky G, Lai JJ, Ballagh SA, McCormick T, Douville K, et al. A randomized six-day safety study of an antiretroviral microbicide candidate UC781, a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor. Sex Transm Dis. 2008;35(4):414–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clark M, McCormick T, Doncel G, Friend D. Preclinical evaluation of UC781 microbicide vaginal drug delivery. Drug Delivery and Translational Research. 2011;1(2):175–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ahrendt HJ, Nisand I, Bastianelli C, Gomez MA, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Urdl W, et al. Efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of the combined contraceptive ring, NuvaRing, compared with an oral contraceptive containing 30 microg of ethinyl estradiol and 3 mg of drospirenone. Contraception. 2006;74(6):451–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Novak A, de la Loge C, Abetz L, van der Meulen EA. The combined contraceptive vaginal ring, NuvaRing: an international study of user acceptability. Contraception. 2003;67(3):187–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Henriksson L, Stjernquist M, Boquist L, Cedergren I, Selinus I. A one-year multicenter study of efficacy and safety of a continuous, low-dose, estradiol-releasing vaginal ring (Estring) in postmenopausal women with symptoms and signs of urogenital aging. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;174(1 Pt 1):85–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nel A, Smythe S, Young K, Malcolm K, McCoy C, Rosenberg Z, et al. Safety and pharmacokinetics of dapivirine delivery from matrix and reservoir intravaginal rings to HIV-negative women. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2009;51(4):416–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gupta KM, Pearce SM, Poursaid AE, Aliyar HA, Tresco PA, Mitchnik MA, et al. Polyurethane intravaginal ring for controlled delivery of dapivirine, a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor of HIV-1. J Pharm Sci. 2008;97(10):4228–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Johnson TJ, Gupta KM, Fabian J, Albright TH, Kiser PF. Segmented polyurethane intravaginal rings for the sustained combined delivery of antiretroviral agents dapivirine and tenofovir. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2010;39(4):203–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fetherston SM, Malcolm RK, Woolfson AD. Controlled-release vaginal ring drug-delivery systems: a key strategy for the development of effective HIV microbicides. Therapeutic Delivery. 2010;1:785–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Woolfson AD, Malcolm RK, Toner CF, Morrow RJ, Lowry D, Jamil A, et al. Potential use of vaginal rings for prevention of heterosexual transmission of HIV: a controlled-release strategy for HIV microbicides. American Journal of Drug Delivery. 2006;4(1):7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Malcolm K, Woolfson D, Russell J, Tallon P, McAuley L, Craig D. Influence of silicone elastomer solubility and diffusivity on the in vitro release of drugs from intravaginal rings. J Control Release. 2003;90(2):217–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chien YW, Mares SE, Berg J, Huber S, Lambert HJ, King KF. Controlled drug release from polymeric delivery devices. III: In vitro–in vivo correlation for intravaginal release of ethynodiol diacetate from silicone devices in rabbits. J Pharm Sci. 1975;64(11):1776–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Damian F, Blaton N, Naesens L, Balzarini J, Kinget R, Augustijns P, et al. Physicochemical characterization of solid dispersions of the antiviral agent UC-781 with polyethylene glycol 6000 and Gelucire 44/14. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2000;10(4):311–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Doncel GF, Clark MR. Preclinical evaluation of anti-HIV microbicide products: new models and biomarkers. Antivir Res. 2010;88 Suppl 1:S10–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Barberini F, Correr S, De Santis F, Motta PM. The epithelium of the rabbit vagina: a microtopographical study by light, transmission and scanning electron microscopy. Arch Histol Cytol. 1991;54(4):365–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Barberini F, De Santis F, Correr S, Motta PM. The mucosa of the rabbit vagina: a proposed experimental model for correlated morphofunctional studies in humans. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1992;44(3):221–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rodriguez-Antolin J, Xelhuantzi N, Garcia-Lorenzana M, Cuevas E, Hudson R, Martinez-Gomez M. General tissue characteristics of the lower urethral and vaginal walls in the domestic rabbit. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20(1):53–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chien YW, Lambert HJ. Controlled drug release from polymeric delivery devices. II. Differentiation between partition-controlled and matrix-controlled drug release mechanisms. J Pharm Sci. 1974;63(4):515–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Controlled Release Society 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Meredith R. Clark
    • 1
  • Patrick F. Kiser
    • 2
    • 3
  • Andrew Loxley
    • 4
  • Christopher McConville
    • 5
    • 6
  • R. Karl Malcolm
    • 5
  • David R. Friend
    • 1
  1. 1.CONRAD, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyEastern Virginia Medical SchoolArlingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of BioengineeringUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA
  3. 3.Department of Pharmaceutics and Pharmaceutical ChemistryUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA
  4. 4.Particle Sciences Inc.BethlehemUSA
  5. 5.School of Pharmacy, Medical Biology CentreQueen’s University of BelfastBelfastUK
  6. 6.School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health SciencesCurtin UniversityPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations