Chitosans as Absorption Enhancers for Poorly Absorbable Drugs. 1: Influence of Molecular Weight and Degree of Acetylation on Drug Transport Across Human Intestinal Epithelial (Caco-2) Cells
- 606 Downloads
Purpose. Chitosan has recently been demonstrated to effectively enhance the absorption of hydrophilic drugs such as peptides and proteins across nasal and intestinal epithelia (1–3). In this study, the effect of the chemical composition and molecular weight of chitosans on epithelial permeability and toxicity was investigated using monolayers of human intestinal epithelial Caco-2 cells as a model epithelium.
Methods. Eight chitosans varying in degree of acetylation (DA) and molecular weight were studied. The incompletely absorbed hydrophilic marker molecule 14C-mannitol was used as a model drug to assess absorption enhancement. Changes in intracellular dehydrogenase activity and cellular morphology were used to assess toxicity.
Results. Chitosans with a low DA (1 and 15%) were active as absorption enhancers at low and high molecular weights. However, these chitosans displayed a clear dose-dependent toxicity. Chitosans with DAs of 35 and 49% enhanced the transport of 14C-mannitol at high molecular weights only, with low toxicity. One chitosan (DA = 35%; MW = 170kD) was found to have especially advantageous properties such as an early onset of action, very low toxicity, and a flat dose-absorption enhancement response relationship.
Conclusions. The structural features of chitosans determining absorption enhancement are not correlated with those determining toxicity, which makes it possible to select chitosans with maximal effect on absorption and minimal toxicity.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.L. Illum, N. F. Farraj, and S. S. Davis. Pharm. Res. 11:1186–1189 (1994).Google Scholar
- 2.C. O. Rentel, C. M. Lehr, J. A. Bouwstra, H. L. Luessen, and H. E. Junginger. Proceed. Intern. symp. control. Rel. Bioact. Mater. 20:446–447 (1993).Google Scholar
- 3.P. Artursson, T. Lindmark, S. S. Davis, and L. Illum. Pharm. Res. 11:1358–1361 (1994).Google Scholar
- 4.M. J. Jackson. In L. R. Johnson (ed.), Physiology of the Gastrointestinal Tract. Second edition, Raven Press, New York, 1987, pp. 1597–1621.Google Scholar
- 5.J. L. Madara and J. S. Trier. In L. R. Johnson (ed.), Physiology of the Gastrointestinal Tract. Second edition, Raven Press, New York, 1987, pp. 1251–1266.Google Scholar
- 6.P. L. Smith, D. A. Wall, C. H. Gochoco, and G. Wilson. Adv. Drug Del. Rev. 8:253–290 (1992).Google Scholar
- 7.E. S. Swenson and W. J. Curatolo. Adv. Drug Del. Rev. 8:39–92 (1992).Google Scholar
- 8.J. H. Hochman and P. Artursson. J. Control. Rel. 29:253–267 (1994).Google Scholar
- 9.K. M. Vårum, M. W. Anthonsen, H. Grasdalen, and O. Smidsrød. Carbohydr. Res. 211:17–23 (1991).Google Scholar
- 10.K. M. Vårum, M. W. Anthonsen, H. Grasdalen, and O. Smidsrød. Carbohydr. Res. 217:19–27 (1991).Google Scholar
- 11.M. W. Anthonsen, K. M. Vårum, and O. Smidsrød. Carbohydr. Polymers 22:193–201 (1993).Google Scholar
- 12.R. J. Nordtveit, K. M. Vårum, and O. Smidsrød. Carbohydr. Polymers 23:253–260 (1994).Google Scholar
- 13.A. Domard. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 9:98–104 (1987).Google Scholar
- 14.M. W. Anthonsen and O. Smidsrød. Carbohydr. Polymers 26:303–305 (1995).Google Scholar
- 15.C. J. Brine, P. A. Sandford, and J. P. Zikakis. Advances in Chitin and Chitosan, Elsevier Applied Science, London, 1992.Google Scholar
- 16.S. W. Chang, J. Y. Westscott, J. E. Henson, and N. V. Voelkel. J. Appl. Physiol. 62:1932–1943 (1987).Google Scholar
- 17.H. M. Ekrami and W. C. Shen. J. Drug Target. 2:469–475 (1995).Google Scholar
- 18.C. M. Lehr, J. A. Bouwstra, E. H. Schacht, and H. E. Junginger. Int. J. Pharm. 78:43–48 (1992).Google Scholar
- 19.K. M. Vårum, M. W. Anthonsen, M. H. Ottøy, H. Grasdalen, and O. Smidsrød. In: C. J. Brine, P. A. Sandford, and J. P. Zikakis (eds.), Advances in Chitin and chitosan, Elsevier Applied Science, London, 1992, pp. 127–136.Google Scholar
- 20.P. Artursson. J. Pharm. Sci. 79:476–482 (1990).Google Scholar
- 21.K. Lappalainen, I. Jääskeläinen, K. Syrjänen, A. Urtti, and S. Syrjänen. Pharm. Res. 11:1127–1131 (1994).Google Scholar
- 22.E. K. Anderberg, C. Nyström, and P. Artursson. J. Pharm. Sci. 81:879–887 (1992).Google Scholar
- 23.A. G. DeBoer and D. D. Breimer. In A. G. DeBoer (ed.), Drug Absorption Enhancement: Concepts, Possibilities, Limitations and Trends, Harwood Academic Publishers, Chur, 1994, pp. 155–175.Google Scholar
- 24.E. S. Swenson, W. B. Milisen, and W. Curatolo. Pharm. Res. 11:1132–1142 (1994).Google Scholar
- 25.E. K. Anderberg and P. Artursson. J. Pharm. Sci. 82:392–398 (1993).Google Scholar
- 26.A. Santana, S. Hyslop, E. Antunes, M. Mariano, Y. S. Bakhle, and G. DeNucci. Agents Actions 39:104–110 (1993).Google Scholar
- 27.I. Westergren and B. B. Johansson. Acta Physiol. Scand. 149:99–104 (1993).Google Scholar
- 28.G. T. A. McEwan, M. A. Jepson, B. H. Hirst, and N. L. Simmons. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1148:51–60 (1993).Google Scholar
- 29.C. J. Bentzel, M. Fromm, C. E. Palant, and U. Hegel. J. Membr. Biol. 95:9–20 (1987).Google Scholar
- 30.C. J. Tzan, J. R. Berg, and S. A. Lewis. Am. J. Physiol. 265 (Cell Physiol. 34):C1637–1647 (1993).Google Scholar