Advertisement

Clinical Pharmacokinetics

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 290–306 | Cite as

Polymer Conjugates

Pharmacokinetic Considerations for Design and Development
  • Ruth Duncan
  • Federico Spreafico
Review Article Drug Delivery Systems

Summary

Soluble polymer conjugates have only recently been introduced into clinical practice. They can be subdivided into 2 main categories: polymer-protein conjugates, so far the most widely studied; and polymer-drug conjugates, particularly those containing conventional antitumour agents, that are still at an early stage of development. Polymer conjugation can be used to alter the biodistribution, elimination and rate of metabolism of covalently bound drugs. In the case of protein adducts, polymer conjugation prolongs the protein plasma elimination half-life (5- to 500-fold increases in elimination half-life have been reported), reduces proteolytic degradation and has the added benefit of reducing immunogenicity. Cellular uptake of low molecular weight drugs covalently bound to polymeric carriers is restricted to the endocytic route. Thus, the organ and subcellular distribution of the drug can be modified. Cellular uptake has been used to facilitate drug targeting and decreased toxicity.

In this review, the theoretical rationale for polymer conjugation is described, as is the limited clinical pharmacokinetic experience with polymer conjugates. As an alteration of the pharmacokinetic profile of a drug was one of the underlying arguments for creation of polymeric conjugates, more clinical pharmacokinetic studies are urgently needed to permit the validation of appropriate pharmacokinetic models that can be used in the future to assist in the optimisation of clinical protocols, and improved conjugate design.

Keywords

Adis International Limited Adenosine Deaminase Asparaginase Methacrylamide Polymer Conjugate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Levy Y, Hershfield M, Fernandez-Mejia C, et al. Adenosine deaminase deficiency with late onset of recurrent infections: Response to treatment with polyethylene-glycol modified adenosine deaminase. J Pediatr 1988; 113: 312–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yoshinaga K, Shafer SG, Harris JM. Effects of polyethylene glycol substitution on enzyme activity. J Bioactive Compatible Polymers 1987; 2: 49–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Savoca KV, Abuchowski A, Van Es T, et al. Preparation of a non-immunogenic arginase by covalent attachment of polyethylene glycol. Biochim Biophys Acta 1979; 578: 47–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ashihara Y, Kono T, Yamazaki S, et al. Modification of E.coli asparaginase with poly ethylene glycol: disappearance and binding ability to anti-asparaginase serum. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1978; 83: 385–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maeda H, Kimura M, Sasaki I, et al. Toxicity of bilirubin and detoxification by PEG-bilirubin oxidase conjugate. In: Harris JM, editor. Poly(ethylene glycol) chemistry. New York: Plenum Press, 1992: 153–69Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Abuchowski A, McCoy JR, Palczuk NC, et al. Effect of covalent attachment of polyethylene glycol on immunogenicity and circulation life of bovine liver catalase. J Biol Chem 1977; 252: 3882–6Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Koide A, Kobayashi S. Modifications of amino groups in porcine pancreatic elastase with polyethylene glycol in relation to binding ability towards anti-serum to the enzyme activity. Biochem Biophys Commun 1983; 111: 659–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weider KJ, Davis FF. Enzyme therapy II. Effect of covalent attachment of polyethylene glycol on biochemical parameters and immunological determinants of beta-glucosidase and α-galactosidase. J Appl Biochem 1983; 5: 337–47Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lisi PL, Van Es T, Abuchowski A, et al. Enzyme therapy 1. Polyethylene glycol: β-glucuronidase conjugates as potential therapeutic agents in acid mucopolysaccharidosis. J Appl Biochem 1982; 4: 19–33Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baillargeon MW, Sonnet PE. Lipase modified for solubility in organic solvents. Ann NY Acad Sci 1988; 542: 244–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wieder KJ, Palczuk NC, Van Es T, et al. Some properties of polyethylene glycol:phenylalanine ammonia-lysase adducts. J Biol Chem 1979; 254: 12579–87PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hershfield MS, Chaffee S, Koro-Johnson L, et al. Use of site-directed mutagenesis to enhance the epitope-shielding effect of covalent modification of proteins with polyethylene glycol. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1991; 88: 7185–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Caliceti P, Schiavon O, Veronese FM, et al. Effects of monomethoxypoly(ethyleneglycol) modification of ribonuclease on antibody recognition, substrate accessibility, and conformational stability. J Mol Recog 1990; 3: 89–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rajagopalan S, Gonias SL, Pizzo SV. A non antigenic covalent streptokinase polyethylene glycol complex with plasminogen activator function. J Clin Invest 1985; 75: 413–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pyatak P, Abuchowski A, Davis FF. Preparation of a polyethylene glycol: Superoxide dismutase adduct, and examination of its blood circulating life and anti-inflammatory activity. Res Commun Chem Pathol Pharmacol 1980; 29: 113–27PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Abuchowski A, Davis FF. Preparation and properties of polyethylene glycol-trypsin adducts. Biochim Biophys Acta 1979; 578: 41–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chen RH-L, Abuchowski A, Van Es T, et al. Properties of two urate oxidases modified by the covalent attachment of poly(ethylene glycol). Biochim Biophys Acta 1981; 660: 293–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Abuchowski A, Karp D, Davis FF. Reduction of plasma urate levels in the cockerel with polyethylene glycol-uricase. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1981; 219: 352–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Norman PS, King TP, Alexander JF, et al. Immunological responses to conjugates of antigen E in patients with ragweed hay fever. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1984; 73: 782–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wie SI, Wie CW, Lee WY, et al. Suppression of reaginic antibodies with modified allergens. III. Preparation of tolerogenic conjugates of common allergens with monomethoxypolyethylene glycols of different molecular weights by the mixed anhydride method. Int Arch Appl Immunol 1981; 64: 84–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ajisaka K, Iwashita Y. Modification of human haemoglobin with polyethylene glycol: a new candidate for blood substitute. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1980; 97: 1076–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sakuragawa N, Shimizu K, Kondo K, et al. Studies on the effect of PEG-modified urokinase on coagulation-fibrinolysis using beagles. Thromb Res 1986; 41: 627–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Berger H, Pizzo SV. Preparation of polyethylene glycol tissue plasminogen activator adducts that retain functional activity: characteristics and behaviour in three animal species. Blood 1988; 71: 1641–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nakagomi K, Ajisaka K. Chemical modification of alphathrombin and in vivo characterisation of its anticoagulant activity. Biochem Invest 1990; 22: 75–82Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tanaka H, Satake-Ishikawa R, Ishikawa M, et al. Pharmacokinetics of recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor conjugated to polyethylene glycol in rats. Cancer Res 1991; 51: 3710–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Smith OP, Delgado C, Malik F, et al. Receptor binding studies of PEG modified GM-CSF with dissociated biological activities. Br J Haematol 1991 (1 Suppl.): 15Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hakimi J, Rosen P. Polyethylene glycol protein conjugates. 1992 European Patent Application Number 92104729.6Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Katre NV, Knauf MJ, Laird WJ. Chemical modification of recombinant interleukin 2 by polyethylene glycol increases its potency in the murine Meth A sarcoma model. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1987; 84: 1487–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Thompson RC, Armes LG, Evans RJ, et al. Pegylation of polypeptides. 1992 International Patent Application Number WO 92/16221Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nishimura H, Takahashi K, Sakurai K, et al. Modification of batroxobin with activated polyethylene glycol: reduction of binding ability towards anti-batroxobin and retention of defibrinogenation activity in the circulation of preimmunized dogs. Life Sci 1985; 33: 1467–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ahlstedt S, Bjorksten B, Akerblom E. Antibody response to honey-bee venom and monomethoxy-polyethylene glycolmodified honey-bee venom in mice. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 1983; 71: 228–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kitamura K, Takahashi T, Yamaguchi T, et al. Chemical engineering of the monoclonal antibody A7 by polyethylene glycol for targeting cancer chemotherapy. Cancer Res 1991; 51: 4310–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Abuchowski A, Van Es T, Palczuk NC, et al. Alteration of the immunological properties of bovine serum albumin by covalent attachment to polyethylene glycol. J Biol Chem 1987; 252: 3578–81Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rhee W, Carlino J, Chu S, et al. Bovine collagen modified by PEG. In: Harris JM, editor. Poly(ethylene glycol) chemistry. New York: Plenum Press, 1992: 183–98Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wilkinson I, Lang CJC, Stevens-Holford GM, et al. Toleragenic polyethylene glycol derivatives of xenogenic monoclonal immunoglobulins. Immunol Lett 1987; 15: 17–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Beauchamp CO, Gonias SL, Menopacer DP, et al. A new procedure for the synthesis of polyethylene glycol-protein adducts; effects on function, receptor recognition, and clearance of Superoxide dismutase, lactoferrin and alpha 2-macroglobulin. Anal Biochem 1983; 131: 25–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jackson C-J C, Charlton JL, Kuzminski K, et al. Synthesis, isolation and characterisation of conjugates of ovalbumin and monomethoxypolyethylene glycol using cyanuric chloride as the coupling agent. Anal Biochem 1987; 165: 114–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Karr LJ, Van Alstine JM, Snyder RS, et al. Cell separation by immunoaffinity partitioning with polyethylene glycol-modified protein A in aqueous polymer two-phase systems. J Chromatogr 1988; 442: 219–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Konno T, Maeda H, Iwai K, et al. Effect of arterial administration of high molecular weight anticancer agent SMANCS with lipid lymphographic agent on hepatoma: a preliminary report. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 1983; 8: 1053–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ogino T, Inoue M, Arai A, et al. Chemical modification of Superoxide dismutase. Extension of plasma half-life of the enzyme through its reversible binding to circulating albumin. Int J Pept Protein Res 1988; 32: 153–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Marshall J, Humphreys J. Experimental enzyme therapy: suppression of allergic reactions in preimmunized animals by administration of exogenous enzymes in the form of dextran conjugates. J Appl Biochem 1979; 1: 88–94Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Benbough J, Wiblin CN, Rafter TNA, et al. The effect of chemical modification of L-asparaginase on its persistence in circulating blood of animals. Biochem Pharmacol 1979; 28: 833–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sherwood RF, Baird JK, Atkinson T, et al. Enhanced plasma persistence of therapeutic enzymes by coupling to soluble dextran. Biochem J 1977; 164: 461–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Marshall J. Manipulation of the properties of enzymes by covalent attachment to carbohydrate. Trends Biochem Sci 1978; 3: 79–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tarn SC, Wong TF. Modification of haemoglobin upon covalent coupling to dextran-enhanced stability against acid denaturation and reduced affinity for haptoglobin. Can J Biochem 1980; 58: 732–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Fagnani R, Hagan MS, Bartholomew R. Reduction of immunogenicity by covalent modification of murine and rabbit immunoglobulins with oxidised dextrans of low molecular weight. Cancer Res 1990; 50: 3638–45PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kagedal L, Akerstrom S. Binding of covalent proteins to polysaccharides I. Preparation of soluble glycine-insulin and ampicillin dextran. Acta Chem Scand 1971; 25: 1855–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Larionova NI, Kazanskaya NR, Sakharov NF, et al. Soluble high molecular weight derivatives of pancreatic trypsin inhibitor; Modification of pancreatic trypsin inhibitor by soluble polysaccharides activated by titanium tetrachloride. Biokhimiia 1980; 45: 638–86Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Takakura Y, Kaneko Y, Fujita T, et al. Control of pharmaceutical properties of soybean trypsin inhibitor by conjugation with dextran I: synthesis and characterisation. J Pharm Sci 1989; 78: 117–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ginger LG, Mather AN. Streptokinase chemically bonded to a carbohydrate matrix. 1980 US patent no. 3639213Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Fujita T, Yashuda Y, Takakura Y, et al. Alteration of biopharmaceutical properties of drugs by their conjugation with water-soluble macromolecules; uricase-dextran conjugate. J Controlled Release 1990; 11: 149–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ida Y, Kitamura M, Chikamori L, et al. Urokinase derivative and its production method. Japanese patent no. 113488Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Geiger B, von Sprecht BU, Arnon R. Stabilisation of human b-D-acetylhexoseaminidase A towards proteolytic inactivation by coupling it to poly(vinylpyrrolidone). Eur J Biochem 1977; 73: 141–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Sprecht BU, Wahl M, Kobb HJ, et al. Application of polyvinylpyrollidone as a carrier for kallikrein. Arch Int Pharmacodyn Ther 1977; 213: 242–50Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Laane A, Haga M, Aaviksaar A, et al. Activation of poly[N-(2-hydroxypropyl)methacrylamide] for binding of bioactive molecules 1. Activation with 4-nitrophenyl chloroformate. Die Makromolekulare Chemie 1983; 184: 1339–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Laane A, Chytry V, Haga M, et al. Covalent attachment of chymotrypsin to poly [N-(2-hydroxypropyl) methacrylamide]. Collection Czech Chemical Commun 1981; 46: 1466–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Rihova B, Kopecek J. Biological properties of targetable poly[N-(2-hydroxypropyl)methacrylamide]-antibody conjugates. J Controlled Release 1985; 2: 289–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Chytry V, Vrana J, Kopecek J. Synthesis and activity of a polymer which contains insulin covalently bound on a copolymer of N-(2-hydroxypropyl)methacrylamide and N-methacryloylglycylglycine 4-nitrolphenyl ester. Die Makromolekulare Chemie 1978; 179: 329–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Flanagan PA, Kopeckova P, Subr V, et al. Evaluation of antibody-N-(2-hydroxypropyl)methacrylamide copolymer conjugates as targetable drug-carriers. 2.Body distribution of anti Thy-1.2 antibody, anti-transferrin receptor antibody B3/25 and transferrin conjugates in DBA2 mice and activity of conjugates containing daunomycin against L1210 leukaemia in vivo. J Controlled Release 1992; 18: 25–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Maeda H, Oda T, Matsumura Y, et al. Improvement of pharmacological properties of protein drugs by tailoring with synthetic polymers. J Bioactive Compatible Polymers 1988; 3: 27–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Yamamoto H, Miki T, Oda T, et al. Reduced bone marrow toxicity of neocarzinostatin by conjugation with divinylethermaleic acid copolymer. Eur J Cancer 1990; 26: 253–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Torchilin VP. Immobilised enzymes as drugs. Adv Drug Delivery Rev 1987; 1: 41–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Bernstein A, Hurwitz E, Maron R, et al. Higher antitumour efficacy of daunomycin when linked to dextran: in vivo and in vitro studies. J Natl Cancer Inst 1978; 60: 379–84PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Dillman RO, Shamler DL, Johnson DE, et al. Preclinical trials with combinations and conjugates of T101 monoclonal antibody and doxorubicin. Cancer Res 1986; 46: 4886–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Hashida M, Takakura Y, Matsumoto S, et al. Development of macromolecular prodrugs of mitomycin C suitable for local injected therapy. Proceedings of the International Congress on Chemotherapy, Kyoto; 1985: 357–8Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Kery V, Novotny L, Tihlarik K, et al. Preparation, properties and antileukaemic activity of arabinosylcytosine polysaccharide conjugates. Int J Biochem 1990; 22: 1203–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Krinick NL, Rihova B, Ulbrich K, et al. Targetable photoactivatable drugs 2. Synthesis of N-(2-hydroxypropyl)-methacrylamide copolymer anti-Thy 1.2 antibody-chlorin e6 conjugates and a preliminary study of their photodynamic effect on mouse splenocytes in vitro. Makromolekulare Chemie 1990; 191: 839–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Duncan R, Seymour LW, O’Hare KB, et al. Preclinical evaluation of polymer-bound doxorubicin. J Controlled Release 1992; 19: 331–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Duncan R, Kopeckova-Rejmanova P, Strohalm J, et al. Anticancer agents coupled to N-(2-hydroxypropyl) methacrylamide copolymers. 2. Evaluation of daunomycin conjugates in vivo against L1210 leukaemia. Br J Cancer 1988; 57: 147–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Duncan R, Hume IC, Yardley HJ, et al. Macromolecular prodrugs for use in targeted cancer chemotherapy: Melphalan covalently coupled to N-(2-hydroxypropyl)methacrylamide copolymers. J Controlled Release 1991; 16: 121–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Decher G, Emmelius M, Ringsdorf H. Synthesis and antitumour activity of daunorubicine-containing polymers. Abstract presented at the 26th Microsymposium on Polymers in Medicine and Biology, Prague Czechoslovakia 1984; 40–1Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Hoes CJT, Potman W, Van Heeswijk WAR, et al. Optimisation of macromolecular prodrugs of the antitumour antibiotic adriamycin. J Controlled Release 1985; 2: 205–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Hrelina R, Bogusova TA, Kunova A, et al. Changes in the toxicity and therapeutic efficacy of daunorubicin linked with a biodegradable carrier. Neoplasma 1991; 38: 265–73Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Ouchi T, Fujino A, Tanaka K, et al. Synthesis and antitumour activity of conjugates of poly (α-malic acid) and 5-fluorouracil bound via ester, amide or carbamoyl bonds. J Controlled Release 1990; 12: 143–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Yokoyama M, Okano T, Sakurai Y, et al. Toxicity and antitumour activity against solid tumours of micelle-forming polymeric anticancer drug and its extremely long circulation in blood. Cancer Res 1991; 51: 3229–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Chu BCF, Howell SB. Pharmacological and therapeutic properties of carrier bound methotrexate against tumour confined to a third space body compartment. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1981; 219: 389–93PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Zunino F, Savi G, Giulliani F, et al. Comparison of antitumour effects of daunorubicin linked covalently to poly-L-amino acid carriers. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 1984; 20: 421–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Wu GY, Wu CH. Receptor-mediated gene delivery and expression in vivo. J Biol Chem 1988; 263: 14621–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Horpel G, Klesse W, Ringsdorf H, et al. Micelle forming coand block copolymers for sustained drug release. IUPAC Proceedings of the International Symposium on Macromolecules, Amherst, Massachusetts 1982; 346Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Przybylski M, Fell E, Ringsdorf H, et al. Pharmacologically active polymers. 17.Synthesis and characterisation of polymeric derivatives of the antitumour agent methotrexate. Die Makromolekulare Chemie 1978; 179: 1719–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Pratesi G, Tortoreto M, Zunino F. Increased effect of doxorubicin linked to pyran copolymer in the intracavity treatment of a human ovarian carcinoma in nude mice. Reg Cancer Treat 1990; 3: 40–3Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Hirano T, Ringsdorf H, Zaharko D. Antitumour activity of monomeric and polymeric cyclophosphamide derivative compound with in vitro hydrolysis. Cancer Res 1980; 40: 2263–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Duncan R. Drug-polymer conjugates potential for improved chemotherapy. Anti-Cancer Drugs 1992; 3: 175–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Sezaki H, Takakura Y, Hashida M. Soluble macromolecular carriers for the delivery of antitumour drugs. Adv Drug Delivery Rev 1989; 3: 247–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Krinick NL, Kopecek J. Soluble polymers as targetable drug carriers. In: Juliano RL, editor. Targeted drug delivery, Handbook of experimental pharmacology. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1991: 105–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Nucci ML, Shorr R, Abuchowski A. The therapeutic values of poly(ethylene glycol)-modified proteins. Adv Drug Delivery Rev 1991; 6: 133–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Sehon AH. Suppression of antibody responses by conjugates of antigens and monomethoxypoly(ethyleneglycol). In: Harris JM, editor. Poly(ethylene glycol) chemistry. New York: Plenum Press, 1992: 139–51Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Delgado C, Francis GE, Fisher D. The uses and properties of PEG-linked proteins. Crit Rev Ther Drug Carrier Syst 1992; 9: 249–304PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Fuertges F, Abuchowski A. The clinical efficacy of poly(ethyleneglycol)-modified proteins. J Controlled Release 1990; 11: 139–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Harris JM, editor. Poly(ethylene glycol) chemistry. New York: Plenum Press, 1992Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Zalipsky S, Lee C. Use of functionalized poly(ethylene glycol)s for modification of polypeptides. In: Harris JM, editor. Poly(ethylene glycol) chemistry. New York: Plenum Press, 1992: 347–70Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Hershfield MS, Buckley RH, Greenberg ML, et al. Treatment of adenosine deaminase deficiency with polyethylene glycolmodified adenosine deaminase. N Engl J Med 1987; 316: 589–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Ho DH, Brown NS, Yen A, et al. Clinical pharmacology of polyethylene glycol-asparaginase. Drug Metab Dispos 1986; 14: 349–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Meyers FJ, Paradise C, Scudder SA, et al. A phase I study including pharmacokinetics of polyethylene glycol conjugated interleukin-2. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1991; 49: 307–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Thomson PD, Till Go, Wolliscroft JO, et al. Superoxide dismutase prevents lipid peroxidation in burned patients. Burns 1990; 16: 406PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Zalipsky S, Seltzer R, Nho K. Succinimidyl carbonates of polyethylene glycol; useful reactions for preparing protein conjugates. In: Dunn R, Ottenbrite RM, editors. Polymeric drugs and drug delivery systems. Washington: American Chemical Society Books, 1991; 91–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Davis S, Park YK, Davis FF, et al. Hypouricemic effect of polyethylene glycol modified urate oxidase. Lancet 1981; 2: 281–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Maeda H, Matsumoto T, Konno T, et al. Tailor-making of protein drugs by polymer conjugation for tumour targeting: a brief review on SMANCS. J Protein Chem 1984; 3: 181–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Maeda H. SMANCS and polymer-conjugated macromolecular drugs: advantages in cancer chemotherapy. Adv Drug Delivery Rev 1991; 6: 181–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Maeda H, Ueda M, Morinaga T, et al. Conjugation of poly(sty-rene-co-maleic acid) derivatives to the antitumour protein neocarzinostatin: Pronounced improvements in pharmacological properties. J Med Chem 1985; 28: 455–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Matsumura Y, Maeda H. A new concept for macromolecular therapeutics in cancer chemotherapy; mechanism of tumoritropic accumulation of proteins and the antitumour agent SMANCS. Cancer Res 1986; 6: 6387–92Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Iwai K, Maeda H, Konno T. Use of oily contrast medium for selective drug targeting to tumour: enhanced therapeutic effect and X-ray image. Cancer Res 1984; 44: 2114–21Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Ringsdorf H. Structure and properties of pharmacologically active polymers. J Polymer Sci Polymer Symp 1975; 51: 135–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    De Duve C, De Barsy T, Poole B, et al. Lysosomotropic agents. Biochem Pharmacol 1974; 23: 2495–531PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Duncan R. Selective endocytosis. In: Robinson JR, Lee VH, editors. Sustained and controlled drug delivery systems. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1987: 581–621Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Kopecek J. Controlled biodegradability of polymers — key to drug delivery systems. Biomaterials 1984; 5: 19–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Seymour LW. Passive tumour targeting of soluble macromolecules and drug conjugates. CRC Crit Rev Ther Drug Carrier Sys 1992; 9: 135–87Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Maeda H, Matsumura Y. Tumoritropic and lymphotropic principles of macromolecular drugs. CRC Crit Rev Ther Drug Carrier Sys 1989; 6: 193–210Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Park, YK, Abuchowski A, Davis S, et al. Pharmacology of Escherichia coli-L-asparaginase polyethylene glycol adduct. Anticancer Res 1981; 1: 373–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Yoshimoto T, Nishimura H, Saito Y, et al. Characterisation of poly-ethylene glycol-modified L-asparaginase from Escherichia coli and its application to therapy of leukemia. Jpn J Cancer Res 1986; 77: 1264–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Jurgens H, Schwamborn D, Korholz D, et al. Clinical experience with polyethylene glycol-bound E.coli L-asparaginase in patients with multiple recurrences of acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Clin Pediatr 1988; 200: 300–6Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Kurtzberg J, Moore JO, Scudiery D, et al. A phase II study of polyethylene glycol (PEG) conjugated L-asparaginase in patients with refractory acute leukaemias. Proc Am Assoc Cancer Res 1988; 29: 213Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Muss HB, Spell N, Scudiery D, et al. A Phase II trial of Peg-L-asparaginase in the treatment of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Invest New Drugs 1990; 8: 125–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Kurtzberg J, Friedman H, Asselin B, et al. The use of polyethylene glycol-conjugated L-asparaginase (PEG-ASP) in pediatric patients with prior hypersensitivity to native L-asparagine. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1990; 9: 213Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Kawashima K, Takeshima H, Higashi Y, et al. High efficacy of monomethoxypolyethylene glycol-L-asparaginase (PEG2-ASP) in two patients with hematological malignancies. Leuk Res 1991; 15: 525PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Grebanier D, Chen A, Franklin A, et al. Antibodies to asparaginase alter pharmacokinetics and decrease enzyme activity in patients on asparaginase therapy. Proc Am Assoc Cancer Res 1993; 34: 304Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Mattijssen V, de Mulder PHM, van den Broek P, et al. Intratumoural immunotherapy with PEG-IL2, preclinical and clinical studies. Abstract from the 4th International Conference of Anticancer Research. Greece 1992; 1872Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Murthy S, Bukowski RM, Young G, et al. Phase II multicenter trials of PEG IL-2 in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (MRCC) [abstract]. Proc Am Assoc Cancer Res 1992; 245Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Levy Y, Hershfield MS, Fernandez Mejia C, et al. Adenosine deaminase deficiency with late onset of recurrent infections: response to treatment with polyethylene glycol-modified adenosine deaminase. J Pediatr 1988; 113: 312–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Chua CC, Greenberg ML, Viau AT, et al. Use of polyethyleneglycol modified uricase (PEG-uricase) to treat hyperuricemia in a patient with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Ann Intern Med 1988; 109: 114–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Gural R, Abuchowski A, Scudiery D, et al. Clinical pharmacokinetics of PEG-superoxide dismutase. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1988; 43: 136Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Bretan PN, Pipperger CE, Meng X, et al. Perirenal transplant quantitation of free radical scavenger enzyme activity (FRSEA)- the effect of a single dose of PEG-SOD and renal failure [abstract]. J Urology 1990; 143: 287AGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Muizelaar JP, Marmarou A, Young HF, Improving the outcome of severe head injury with the oxygen radical scavenger polyethylene glycol-conjugated Superoxide dismutase: a phase II trial. J Neurosurg 1993; 78: 375–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Ho DHW, Carter CJ, Thetford B, et al. Distribution and mechanism of clearance of L-asparaginase (NSC-109229). Cancer Treat Rep 1971; 55: 539–45Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Allegretta M, Atkins MB, Dempsey RA, et al. The development of anti-interleukin-2 antibodies in patients treated with recombinant human interleukin-2. J Clin Immunol 1986; 6: 481–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Rosenberg SA, Lotze MT, Muul LM, et al. A progress report on the treatment of 157 patients with advanced cancer using lymphokine-activated killer cells with interleukin-2 or high dose interleukin 2 alone. N Engl J Med 1987; 316: 889–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Konrad MW, Hemstreet G, Hersh EM, et al. Pharmacokinetics of recombinant interleukin 2 in humans. Cancer Res 1990; 50: 2009–17PubMedGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Pizzo SV. Preparation, in vivo properties, and proposed clinical use of polyoxyethylene-modified tissue plasminogen activator and streptokinase. Adv Drug Delivery Rev 1991; 6: 153–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Katre NV. The conjugation of proteins with polyethylene glycol and other proteins. Altering properties of proteins to enhance their therapeutic potential. Adv Drug Delivery Rev 1993; 10: 91–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Maeda H, Seymour LW, Miyamoto Y. Conjugates of anticancer agents and polymers: Advantages of macromolecular therapeutics in vivo. Bioconjugate Chem 1992; 3: 351–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Boccu E, Velo GP, Veronese FM. Pharmacokinetic properties of polyethyleneglycol derivatised Superoxide dismutase. Pharmacol Res Commun 1982; 14: 113–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Knauf MJ, Bell DP, Hirtzer P, et al. Relationship of effective molecular size to systemic clearance in rats of recombinant interleukin-2 chemically modified with water-soluble polymers. J Biol Chem 1988; 263: 15064–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Conforti A, Franco L, Velo GP, et al. PEG Superoxide dismutase derivatives: anti-inflammatory activity in carrageenan pleurisy in rats. Pharmacol Res Commun 1987; 19: 287–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Veronese FM, Caliceti P, Pastorino A, et al. Preparation, physical-chemical and pharmocokinetic characterisation of monomethoxypoly(ethylene glycol)-derivatized Superoxide dismutase. J Controlled Release 1989; 10: 145–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Zimmermann RJ, Aukermann SL, Katre NV, et al. Schedule dependency of the antitumour activity and toxicity of polyethylene glycol-modified interleukin 2 in murine tumour models. Cancer Res 1989; 49: 6521–8Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    Seymour LW, Duncan R, Strohalm J, et al. Effect of molecular weight (Mw) of N-(2-hydroxypropyl)methacrylamide copolymers on body distributions and rate of excretion after subcutaneous intraperitoneal and intravenous administration to rats. J Biomed Mater Res 1987; 21: 1341–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Seymour LW, Miyamoto Y, Maeda H, et al. Influence of molecular weight on passive tumour-accumulation of a soluble macromolecular drug-carrier. Eur J Cancer. In pressGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    McCormick LA, Seymour LCW, Duncan R, et al. Interaction of a cationic N-(2-hydroxypropyl)methacrylamide copolymer with rat liver in vivo. J Bioactive Compatible Polymers 1986; 1: 4–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Sgouras DNF, Duncan R. Evaluation of poly(glutamic acid, alanine, tyrosine) (1:1:1) as a lung-specific drug delivery system. 1. Biocompatibility and studies on biodistribution in the rat. S.T.P. Pharma Sciences 1994; 4: 87–94Google Scholar
  140. 140.
    Duncan R, Cable HC, Rejmanova P, et al. Tyrosinamide residues enhance pinocytic capture of N-(2-hydroxypropyl)-methacrylamide copolymers. Biochim Biophys Acta 1984; 799: 1–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Duncan R, Seymour LW, O’Hare KB, et al. Preclinical evaluation of polymer-bound doxorubicin. J Controlled Release 1992; 19: 331–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    Duncan R, Kopeckova-Rejmanova P, Strohalm J, et al. Anticancer agents coupled to N-(2-hydroxypropyl) methacrylamide copolymers. 2. Evaluation of daunomycin conjugates in vivo against LI210 leukaemia. Br J Cancer 1988; 57: 147–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Duncan R, Hume IC, Yardley HJ, et al. Macromolecular prodrugs for use in targeted cancer chemotherapy: Melphalan covalently coupled to N-(2-hydroxypropyl)methacrylamide copolymers. J Controlled Release 1991; 16: 121–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Duncan R, Cable HC, Lloyd JB, et al. Degradation of side-chains of N-(2-hydroxypropyl)methacrylamide copolymers by lysosomal thiol-proteinases. Biosci Rep 1983; 2: 1041–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Rejmanova P, Pohl J, Baudys M, et al. Degradation of oligopeptide sequences in N-(2-hydroxypropyl)methacrylamide copolymers by bovine spleen cathepsin B. Die Makromolekulare Chemie 1983; 184: 2009–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Subr V, Strohalm J, Ulbrich K, et al. Polymers containing enzymatically degradable bonds, XII. Release of daunomycin and adriamycin from poly[N-(2-hydroxypropyl)methacrylamide] copolymers, J Controlled Release 1992; 18: 123–32Google Scholar
  147. 147.
    O’Hare KB, Duncan R, Strohalm J. Macromolecular prodrugs containing doxorubicin and melanocyte stimulating hormone in vitro and in vivo evaluation against murine melanoma. J Drug Targeting 1993; 1: 217–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. 148.
    Seymour LW, Ulbrich K, Strohalm J, et al. Pharmacokinetics of polymer-bound adriamycin. Biochem Pharmacol 1990; 39: 1125–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. 149.
    Cassidy J, Duncan R, Morrison GJ, et al. Activity of N-(2-hydroxypropyl)methacrylamide copolymers containing daunomycin against rat tumour model. Biochem Pharmacol 1989; 38: 875–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. 150.
    Seymour LW, Ulbrich K, Strohalm J, et al. Studies on the tumour kinetics of doxorubicin delivered as a soluble conjugate with N-(2-hydroxypropyl)methacrylamide copolymers. Second European Symposium on Controlled Drug Delivery; April 1–3 1992: Noordwijk Aan Zee, Netherlands, 1992Google Scholar
  151. 151.
    Duncan R, Kopeckova-Rejmanova P, Strohalm J, et al. Anticancer agents coupled to N-(hydroxypropyl) methacrylamide copolymers. 2. Evaluation of daunomycin conjugates in vivo against L1210 leukaemia. Br J Cancer 1988; 57: 147–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. 152.
    Yeung TK, Hopewell JW, Rezzani G, et al. Reduced cardiotoxicity of doxorubicin administered in the form of N-(2-hydroxypropyl)methacrylamide conjugates: an experimental study in the rat. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1991; 29: 105–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. 153.
    Rihova B, Ulbrich K, Strohalm J, et al. Biocompatibility of N-(2-hydroxypropyl)methacrylamide copolymers containing adriamycin. Immunogenicity, effect on haematopoietic stem cells in bone marrow in vivo and effect of mouse splenocytes and human peripheral blood lymphocytes in vitro. Biomaterials 1989; 10: 335–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. 154.
    Gabizon A. Selective tumor localisation and improved therapeutic index of anthracyclines encapsulated in long-circulating liposomes. Cancer Res 1992; 52: 891–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  155. 155.
    Duncan R, Seymour LCW, Scarlett L, et al. N-(2-hydroxy-propyl)methacrylamide copolymers with pendant galactosamine residues. Fate after intravenous administration to rats. Biochim Biophys Acta 1986; 880: 62–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. 156.
    Pimm MV, Perkins AC, Duncan R, et al. Targeting of N-(2-hydroxypropyl)methacrylamide copolymer-doxorubicin conjugate to the hepatocyte galactose-receptor in mice: visualisation and quantification by gamma scintigraphy as a basis for clinical targeting studies. J Drug Targeting 1993; 1: 152–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. 157.
    Wedge SR, Duncan R, Kopeckova P. Comparison of the liver subcellular distribution of free daunomycin and that bound to galactosamine targeted N-(2-hydroxypropyl)methacrylamide copolymers following intravenous administration in the rat. Br J Cancer 1991; 63: 546–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. 158.
    Seymour LW, Ulbrich K, Strohalm J, et al. Pharmacokinetics of a polymeric drug carrier targeted to the hepatocyte galactose receptor. Br J Cancer 1991; 63: 859–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ruth Duncan
    • 1
  • Federico Spreafico
    • 1
  1. 1.Pharmacia Farmitalia Carlo Erba srlMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations