Drug Delivery and Translational Research

, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 106–111

Evaluation of a perforated drug delivery system in mice for prolonged and constant release of a hydrophilic drug

Research Article

Abstract

A drug delivery system (DDS) consisting of a perforated microtube (polyimide, inside diameter = 1.8 mm, tube length = 20 mm, hole size = 0.15 mm) was characterized in vitro and in vivo for its usefulness for long-term release of hydrophilic drugs at a constant rate. Sodium fluorescein mixed with stearic acid was used as the model drug. The DDS was packed with sodium fluorescein and stearic acid in ratios of 50:50, 40:60, and 25:75, respectively, and in vitro drug release studies were performed in saline. Linear release rates with R2 > 0.9700 were obtained for all groups. Release rates of 1,077.3 ± 264.6, 342.6 ± 146.4, and 14.4 ± 7.0 μg/day for sodium fluorescein were obtained from the three groups, respectively. After monitoring the in vitro release of fluorescein for 11 days, 7 tubes from the 40:60 group were implanted subcutaneously in each individual mice to study the in vivo release of fluorescein from the tubes by measuring the fluorescein in the urine for 84 days. An initial rapid release during the first 4 days was followed by a near zero order fluorescence from the tubes (R2 = 0.9870). Following completion of the study, the DDSs were retrieved for histology. Morphological analysis indicated no clinical adverse reaction at the site of device implantation specific to the device. The DDS was found to be biocompatible and capable of long-term constant release of a hydrophilic drug such as sodium fluorescein.

Keywords

Drug delivery system Microholes Stearic acid Sodium fluorescein Controlled release 

References

  1. 1.
    Campistol JM, de Fijter JW, Nashan B, Holdaas H, Vitko S, Legendre C. Everolimus and long-term outcomes in renal transplantation. Transplantation. 2011;92(3 Suppl):S3–S26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Manchikanti L, Vallejo R, Manchikanti KN, Benyamin RM, Datta S, Christo PJ. Effectiveness of long-term opioid therapy for chronic non-cancer pain. Pain Physician. 2011;14(2):E133–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pincus T, Marcum SB, Callahan LF. Longterm drug therapy for rheumatoid arthritis in seven rheumatology private practices: II. Second line drugs and prednisone. J Rheumatol. 1992;19(12):1885–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Black DM, Delmas PD, Eastell R, Reid IR, Boonen S, Cauley JA, et al. Once-yearly zoledronic acid for treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(18):1809–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kane FE, Burdan J, Cutino A, Green KE. Iluvien: a new sustained delivery technology for posterior eye disease. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2008;5(9):1039–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rastogi A, Luo Z, Wu Z, Ho PS, Bowman PD, Stavchansky S. Development and characterization of a scalable microperforated device capable of long-term zero order drug release. Biomed Microdevices. 2010;12(5):915–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shore N, Cookson MS, Gittelman MC. Long-term efficacy and tolerability of once-yearly histrelin acetate subcutaneous implant in patients with advanced prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2012;109(2):226–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wu ZJ, Luo Z, Rastogi A, Stavchansky S, Bowman PD, Ho PS. Micro-fabricated perforated polymer devices for long-term drug delivery. Biomed Microdevices. 2011;13(3):485–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Varde NK, Pack DW. Microspheres for controlled release drug delivery. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2004;4(1):35–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Varshosaz J. The promise of chitosan microspheres in drug delivery systems. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2007;4(3):263–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Desai D, Kothari S, Chen W, Wang J, Huang M, Sharma L. Fatty acid and water-soluble polymer-based controlled release drug delivery system. J Pharm Sci. 2010;100(5):1900–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kreye F, Siepmann F, Siepmann J. Lipid implants as drug delivery systems. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2008;5(3):291–307.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang PY. Palmitic acid as an excipient in implants for sustained release of insulin. Biomaterials. 1991;12(1):57–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jaffe GJ, Yang CH, Guo H, Denny JP, Lima C, Ashton P. Safety and pharmacokinetics of an intraocular fluocinolone acetonide sustained delivery device. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41(11):3569–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shoaib MH, Tazeen J, Merchant HA, Yousuf RI. Evaluation of drug release kinetics from ibuprofen matrix tablets using HPMC. Pak J Pharm Sci. 2006;19(2):119–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lundborg G. Structure and function of the intraneural microvessels as related to trauma, edema formation, and nerve function. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1975;57(7):938–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Musial K, Zwolinska D. Heat shock proteins in chronic kidney disease. Pediatr Nephrol. 2011;26(7):1031–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grdisa M. The delivery of biologically active (therapeutic) peptides and proteins into cells. Curr Med Chem. 2011;18(9):1373–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Morishita M, Peppas NA. Is the oral route possible for peptide and protein drug delivery? Drug Discov Today. 2006;11(19–20):905–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sinha VR, Trehan A. Biodegradable microspheres for protein delivery. J Control Release. 2003;90(3):261–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Controlled Release Society 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.US Army Institute of Surgical ResearchSan AntonioUSA
  2. 2.Division of Pharmaceutics, College of PharmacyThe University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  3. 3.US Army Institute of Surgical ResearchFort Sam HoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations