BioDrugs

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 165–177 | Cite as

Oral Delivery of Peptide Drugs

Barriers and Developments
  • Josias H. Hamman
  • Gill M. Enslin
  • Awie F. Kotzé
Drug Delivery

Abstract

A wide variety of peptide drugs are now produced on a commercial scale as a result of advances in the biotechnology field. Most of these therapeutic peptides are still administered by the parenteral route because of insufficient absorption from the gastrointestinal tract. Peptide drugs are usually indicated for chronic conditions, and the use of injections on a daily basis during long-term treatment has obvious drawbacks. In contrast to this inconvenient and potentially problematic method of drug administration, the oral route offers the advantages of self-administration with a high degree of patient acceptability and compliance. The main reasons for the low oral bioavailability of peptide drugs are pre-systemic enzymatic degradation and poor penetration of the intestinal mucosa. A considerable amount of research has focused on overcoming the challenges presented by these intestinal absorption barriers to provide effective oral delivery of peptide and protein drugs. Attempts to improve the oral bioavailability of peptide drugs have ranged from changing the physicochemical properties of peptide molecules to the inclusion of functional excipients in specially adapted drug delivery systems. However, the progress in developing an effective peptide delivery system has been hampered by factors such as the inherent toxicities of absorption-enhancing excipients, variation in absorption between individuals, and potentially high manufacturing costs. This review focuses on the intestinal barriers that compromise the systemic absorption of intact peptide and protein molecules and on the advanced technologies that have been developed to overcome the barriers to peptide drug absorption.

References

  1. 1.
    Torchilin VP, Lukyanov AN. Peptide and protein drug delivery to and into tumors: challenges and solutions. Drug Discov Today 2003; 8(6): 259–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Soltero R, Ekwuribe N. The oral delivery of protein and peptide drugs. Innovations in Pharmaceutical Technology 2001 Dec: 106-10Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sarciaux JM, Acar L, Sado PA. Using microemulsion formulations for oral drug delivery of therapeutic peptides. Int J Pharm 1995; 120: 127–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Muranishi S. Modification of intestinal absorption of drugs by lipoidal adjuvants. Pharm Res 1985; 2: 108–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lennernäs H. Does fluid flow across the intestinal mucosa affect quantitative oral drug absorption? Is it time for a reevaluation? Pharm Res 1995; 12(11): 1573–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ghilzai MK. Advances in the delivery of large-size drug molecules. Innovations in Pharmaceutical Technology 2004 Jun: 103-8Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Taylor J. Improving insulin therapy. Drug Deliv Systems Sci 2001; 1(4): 101–5Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eppstein DA, Longenecker JP. Alternative delivery systems for peptides and proteins as drugs. Crit Rev Ther Drug Carrier Syst 1988; 5(2): 99–139PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fasano A. Innovative strategies for the oral delivery of drugs and peptides. Trends Biotechnol 1998; 16: 152–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee VHL, Dodda-Kashi S, Grass GM, et al. Oral route of peptide and protein drug delivery. In: Lee VHL, editor. Peptide and protein drug delivery. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc, 1991: 691–738Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hochman J, Artursson P. Mechanisms of absorption enhancement and tight junction regulation. J Control Release 1994; 29: 253–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shargel LS, Yu A, editors. Applied biopharmaceutics and pharmacokinetics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1999Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shen W-C. Oral peptide and protein delivery: unfulfilled promises? Drug Discov Today 2003; 8(14): 607–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Junginger HE, Verhoef JC. Macromolecules as safe penetration enhancers for hydrophilic drugs: a fiction? Pharm Sci Technol Today 1998; 1(9): 370–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cleland JL, Daugherty A, Mrsny R. Emerging protein delivery methods. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2001; 12: 212–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lennernäs H. Human intestinal permeability. J Pharm Sci 1998; 87(4): 403–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gabor F, Bogner E, Weissenboeck A, et al. The lectin-cell interaction and its implications to intestinal lectin-mediated drug delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2004; 56: 459–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lipka E, Crison J, Amidon GL. Transmembrane transport of peptide type compounds: prospects for oral delivery. J Control Release 1996; 39: 121–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hunter J, Hirst BH. Intestinal secretions of drugs: the role of P-glycoprotein and related drug efflux systems in limiting oral drug absorption. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 1997; 25: 129–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brayden DJ, O’Mahony DJ. Novel oral drug delivery gateways for biotechnology products: polypetides and vaccines. Pharm Sci Technol Today 1998; 1(7): 291–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Van Hoogdalem EJ, De Boer AG, Breimer DD. Intestinal drug absorption enhancement: an overview. Pharmacol Ther 1989; 44: 407–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fagerholm U, Lennernas H. Experimental estimation of the effective unstirred water layer thickness in the human jejunum and its importance in oral drug absorption. Eur J Pharm Sci 1995; 3: 247–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schipper NGM, Vårum KM, Stenberg P, et al. Chitosans as absorption enhancers of poorly absorbable drugs: 3. Influence of mucus on absorption enhancement. Eur J Pharm Sci 1999; 8: 335–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sinko PJ, Hu M, Amidon GL. Carrier mediated transport of amino acids, small peptides and their analogs. J Control Release 1987; 6: 115–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Larhed AW, Artursson P, Gråsj J, et al. Diffusion of drugs in native and purified gastrointestinal mucus. J Pharm Sci 1997; 86(6): 660–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Baker J, Hidalgo IJ, Borchardt RT. Intestinal epithelial and vascular endothelial barriers to peptide and protein delivery. In: Lee VHL, editor. Peptide and protein drug delivery. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc, 1991: 359–390Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Swenson ES, Curatolo WJ. Means to enhance penetration: intestinal permeability enhancement for proteins, peptides and other polar drugs. Mechanisms and potential toxicity. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 1992; 8: 39–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pauletti GM, Gangwar S, Knipp GT, et al. Structural requirements for intestinal absorption of peptide drugs. J Control Release 1996; 41: 3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zhou XH. Overcoming enzymatic and absorption barriers to non-parenterally administered protein and peptide drugs. J Control Release 1994; 29: 239–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lee VHL, Traver RD, Taub ME. Enzymatic barriers to peptide and protein drug delivery. In: Lee VHL, editor. Peptide and protein drug delivery. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc, 1991: 303–58Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pauletti GM, Gangwar S, Siahaan TJ, et al. Improvement of oral peptide bioavailability: peptidomimetics and prodrug strategies. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 1997; 27: 235–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lapierre LA. The molecular structure of the tight junction. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2000; 41: 255–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Madara JL, Trier JS. Functional morphology of the mucosa of the small intestine. In: Johnson LR, editor. Physiology of the gastrointestinal tract. New York: Raven Press, 1987: 1780Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schumacher U, Schumacher D. Functional histology of epithelia relevant for drug delivery: respiratory tract, digestive tract, eye, skin and vagina. In: Mathiowitz E, Chickering DE, Lehr C-M, editors. Bioadhesive drug delivery systems fundamentals, novel approaches and development. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc, 1999: 67–83Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ward PD, Tippin TK, Thakker DR. Enhancing paracellular permeability by modulating epithelial tight junctions. Pharm Sci Technol Today 2000; 3(10): 346–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Camenisch G, Folkers G, Van de Waterbeemd H. Review of theoretical passive drug absorption models: historical background, recent developments and limitations. Pharm Acta Helv 1996; 71: 309–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nellans NH. Paracellular intestinal absorption: modulation of transport. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 1991; 7: 339–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Diamond J. The epithelial junction: bridge gate and fence. Physiologist 1977; 20: 10–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gumbiner B. Structure, biochemistry and assembly of epithelial tight junctions. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 1987; 253: C749–58Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bretscher MS. The molecules of the cell membrane. Sci Am 1985; 253: 86–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Benet LZ, Wu C-Y, Hebert MF, et al. Intestinal drug metabolism and antitransport processes: a potential paradigm shift in oral drug delivery. J Control Release 1996; 39: 139–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Burton PS, Goodwin JT, Conradi RA, et al. In vitro permeability of peptidomimetics drugs: the role of polarized efflux pathways as additional barriers to absorption. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 1997; 23: 143–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sun J, He Z-G, Cheng G, et al. Multidrug resistance P-glycoprotein: crucial significance in drug disposition and interaction. Med Sci Monit 2004; 10(1): RA5–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ashford M. The gastrointestinal tract: physiology and drug absorption. In: Aulton ME, editor. Pharmaceutics: the science of dosage form design. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 2002: 217–33Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Langguth P, Bohner V, Heizmann J, et al. The challenge of proteolytic enzymes in intestinal peptide delivery. J Control Release 1997; 46: 39–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Whitehead K, Shen Z, Mitragotri S. Oral delivery of macromolecules using intestinal patches: applications for insulin delivery. J Control Release 2004; 98: 37–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mahato RI, Narang AS, Thoma L, et al. Emerging trends in oral delivery of peptide and protein drugs. Crit Rev Ther Drug Carrier Syst 2003; 20: 153–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Touitou E. Enhancement of intestinal peptide absorption. J Control Release 1992; 21: 139–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bernkop-Schn A. Chitosan and its derivatives: potential excipients for peroral peptide delivery systems. Int J Pharm 2000; 194: 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Gangwar S, Pauletti GM, Wang B, et al. Prodrug strategies to enhance the intestinal absorption of peptides. Drug Discov Today 1997; 2(4): 148–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kahns AH, Friis GJ, Bundgaard H. Protection of the peptide bond against α-chymotrypsin by the prodrug approach. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 1993; 3(5): 809–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Bundgaard H. Prodrugs as a means to improve the delivery of peptide drugs. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 1992; 8: 1–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Bundgaard H. The utility of the prodrug approach to improve peptide absorption. J Control Release 1992; 21: 63–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Borchard RT. Optimising oral absorption of peptides using prodrug strategies. J Control Release 1999; 62: 231–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Mizuma T, Koyanagi A, Awazu S. Intestinal transport and metabolism of glucose-conjugated kyotorphin and cyclic kyotorphin: metabolic degradation is crucial to intestinal absorption of peptide drugs. Biochim Biophys Acta 2000; 1475: 90–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Roberts MJ, Bentley MD, Harris JM. Chemistry for peptide and protein PEGylation. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2002; 54: 459–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hinds KD, Kim SW. Effects of PEG conjugation on insulin properties. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2002; 54: 505–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Greenwald RB, Choe YH, McGuire J, et al. Effective drug delivery by PEGylated drug conjugates. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2003; 55: 217–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Cefalu WT. Concept, strategies, and feasibility of noninvasive insulin delivery. Diabetes Care 2004; 27: 239–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Owens DR, Zinman B, Bolli G. Alternative routes of insulin delivery. Diabet Med 2003; 20: 886–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Wang J, Chow D, Heiati H, et al. Reversible lipidisation for the oral delivery of salmon calcitonin. J Control Release 2003; 88: 369–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Jones RM, Boatman PD, Semple G, et al. Clinically validated peptides as templates for de novo peptidomimetics drug design at G-protein-coupled receptors. Curr Opin Pharmacol 2003; 3: 530–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Walter E, Kissel T, Amidon GL. The intestinal peptide carrier: a potential transport system for small peptide derived drugs. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 1996; 20: 33–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Rubio-Aliaga I, Daniel H. Mammalian peptide transporters as targets for drug delivery. Trends Pharmacol Sci 2002; 23(9): 434–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Friedrichen GM, Nielsen CU, Steffansen B, et al. Model prodrugs designed for the intestinal peptide transporter: a synthetic approach for coupling of hydroxy-containing compounds to dipeptides. Eur J Pharm Sci 2001; 14: 13–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Lee VHL. Membrane transporters. Eur J Pharm Sci 2000; 11(2 Suppl.): S41–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Daugherty AL, Mrsny R. Transcellular uptake mechanisms of the intestinal epithelial barrier: part one. Pharm Sci Technol Today 1999; 4(2): 144–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Russel-Jones GJ, Arthur L, Walker H. Vitamin B12-mediated transport of nanoparticles across Caco-2 cells. Int J Pharm 1999; 179: 247–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Van der Lubben IM, Verhoef JC, Borchard G, et al. Chitosan for mucosal vaccination. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2001; 52: 139–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Baird AW, Campion DP, O’Brien L, et al. Oral delivery of pathogens from the intestine to the nervous system. J Drug Target 2004; 12: 71–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Van der Lubben IM, Verhoef JC, Borchard G, et al. Chitosan and its derivatives in mucosal drug and vaccine delivery. Eur J Pharm Sci 2001; 14: 201–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Kompella UB, Lee VHL. Delivery systems for penetration enhancement of peptide and protein drugs: design considerations. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2001; 46: 211–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Aungst BJ. Intestinal permeation enhancers. J Pharm Sci 2000; 89(4): 429–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Muranishi S. Absorption enhancers. Crit Rev Ther Drug Carrier Syst 1990; 7(1): 1–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Lee VHL, Yamamoto A, Kompella UB. Mucosal penetration enhancers for facilitation of peptide and protein drug absorption. Crit Rev Ther Drug Carrier Syst 1991; 8(2): 91–192PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Aungst BJ, Saitoh H, Burcham DL, et al. Enhancement of the intestinal absorption of peptides and non peptides. J Control Release 1996; 41: 19–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Aungst BJ. Novel formulation strategies for improving oral bioavailability of drugs with poor membrane permeation or presystemic metabolism. J Pharm Sci 1993; 82(10): 979–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Kajii H, Horie T, Hayashi M, et al. Effects of salicylic acid on the permeability of the plasma membrane of the small intestine of the rat: a fluorescence spectroscopic approach to elucidate the mechanism of promoted drug absorption. J Pharm Sci 1986; 75(5): 475–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Yeh P-Y, Berenson MM, Samowitz WS, et al. Site-specific drug delivery and penetration enhancement in the gastrointestinal tract. J Control Release 1995; 36: 109–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Hochman JH, Fix JA, LeCluyse EL. In vitro and in vivo analysis of the mechanism of absorption enhancement by palmitoylcarnitine. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1994; 269(2): 813–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Yamashita S, Masada M, Nadai T, et al. Effect of adjuvants on charge-selective permeability and electrical resistance of rat membrane. J Pharm Sci 1990; 79(7): 579–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Anderberg EK, Nyström C, Artursson P. Epithelial transport of drugs in cell culture: VII. Effects of pharmaceutical surfactant excipients and bile acids on transepithelial permeability in monolayers of human intestinal epithelial (Caco-2) cells. J Pharm Sci 1992; 81(9): 879–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Swenson ES, Milisen WB, Curatolo W. Intestinal permeability enhancement: efficacy, acute local toxicity and reversibility. Pharm Res 1994; 11(8): 1132–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Noach ABJ, Kurosaki Y, Blom-Roosemalen MCM, et al. Cell-polarity dependent effect of chelation on the paracellular permeability of confluent Caco-2 cell monolayers. Int J Pharm 1993; 90: 229–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Raiman J, Törmälehto S, Yritys K, et al. Effects of various absorption enhancers on transport of clodronate through Caco-2 cells. Int J Pharm 2003; 261: 129–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Cox DS, Raje S, Gao H, et al. Enhanced permeability of molecular weight markers and poorly bioavailable compounds across Caco-2 cell monolayers using the absorption enhancer, zonula occludens toxin. Pharm Res 2002; 19(11): 1680–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Fasano A, Nataro JP. Intestinal epithelial tight junctions as targets for enteric bacteria-derived toxins. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2004; 56: 795–807PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Su M, He C, West CA, et al. Cytolytic peptides induce biphasic permeability changes in mammalian cell membranes. J Immunol Methods 2001; 252: 63–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Liu P, Davis P, Liu H, et al. Evaluation of cytotoxicity and absorption enhancing effects of mellitin: a novel absorption enhancer. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 1999; 48: 85–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Borchard G, Luessen HL, De Boer AG, et al. The potential of mucoadhesive polymers in enhancing intestinal peptide drug absorption: III. Effects of chitosan-glutamate and carbomer on epithelial tight junctions in vitro. J Control Release 1996; 39: 131–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Kotzé AF, De Leeuw BJ, Luessen HL, et al. Chitosans for enhanced delivery of therapeutic peptides across intestinal epithelia: in vitro evaluation in Caco-2 cell monolayers. Int J Pharm 1997; 159: 243–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Kotzé AF, Luessen HL, De Boer AG, et al. Chitosan for enhanced intestinal permeability: prospects for derivatives soluble in neutral and basic environments. Eur J Pharm Sci 1998; 7: 145–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Thanou M, Verhoef JC, Junginger HE. Oral drug absorption enhancement by chitosan and its derivatives. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2001; 52: 117–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Kotzé AF, Luessen HL, De Leeuw BJ, et al. N-trimethyl chitosan chloride as a potential absorption enhancer across mucosal surfaces: in vitro evaluation in intestinal epithelial cells (Caco-2). Pharm Res 1997; 14(9): 1197–202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Hamman JH, Stander M, Junginger HE, et al. Enhancement of paracellular drug transport across mucosal epithelia by N-trimethyl chitosan chloride. STP Pharma Sci 2000; 10(1): 35–8Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Hamman JH, Schultz CM, Kotzé AF. N-trimethyl chitosan chloride: optimum degree of quaternization for drug absorption enhancement across epithelial cells. Drug Deliv Ind Pharm 2003; 29(2): 161–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Bernkop-Schnürch A, Kast CE, Guggi D. Permeation enhancing polymers in oral delivery of hydrophilic macromolecules: thiomer/GSH systems. J Control Release 2003; 93: 95–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Luessen HL, De Leeuw BJ, Pérard D, et al. Mucoadhesive polymers in peroral peptide drug delivery: I. Influence of mucoadhesive excipients on proteolytic activity of intestinal enzymes. Eur J Pharm Sci 1996; 4: 117–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Bernkop-Schnürch A. The use of inhibitory agents to overcome the enzymatic barrier to perorally administered therapeutic peptides and proteins. J Control Release 1998; 52: 1–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Chickering DE, Mathiowitz E. Definitions, mechanisms and theories of bioadhesion. In: Mathiowitz E, Chickering DE, Lehr C-M, editors. Bioadhesive drug delivery systems fundamentals, novel approaches and development. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc, 1999: 1–10Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Easson JH, Haltner E, Lehr C-M, et al. Bacterial invasion factors and lectins as second-generation bioadhesives. In: Mathiowitz E, Chickering DE, Lehr C-M, editors. Bioadhesive drug delivery systems fundamentals, novel approaches and development. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc, 1999: 409–31Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Junginger HE. Mucoadhesive hydrogels. Pharm Ind 1991; 53(11): 1056–65Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Hejazi R, Amiji M. Chitosan-based gastrointestinal delivery systems. J Control Release 2003; 89: 151–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Lehr C-M. Lectin-mediated drug delivery: the second generation of bioadhesives. J Control Release 2000; 65: 19–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Marshütz MK, Bernkop-Schnürch A. Thiolated polymers: self-crosslinking properties of thiolated 450 kDa poly (acrylic acid) and their influence on mucoadhesion. Eur J Pharm Sci 2002; 15: 387–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Kast CE, Bernkop-Schnürch A. Thiolated polymers-thiomers: development and in vitro evaluation of chitosan-thioglycolic acid conjugates. Biomaterials 2001; 22: 2345–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Marschiitz MK, Caliceti P, Bernkop-Schnürch A. Design and in vivo evaluation of an oral delivery system for insulin. Pharm Res 2000; 17: 1468–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Naisbett B, Woodley J. The potential use of tomato lectin for oral drug delivery: 3. Bioadhesion in vivo. Int J Pharm 1995; 114: 227–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Gabor F, Bernkop-Schnürch A, Hamilton G. Bioadhesion to the intestine by means of E. coli K99-fimbriae: gastrointestinal stability and specificity of adherence. Eur J Pharm Sci 1997; 5: 233–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Ponchel G, Montisci M-J, Dembri A, et al. Mucoadhesion of colloidal particulate systems in the gastro-intestinal tract. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 1997; 44: 25–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Jung T, Kamm W, Breitenbach A, et al. Biodegradable nanoparticles for oral delivery of peptides: is there a role for polymers to affect mucosal uptake? Eur J Pharm Biopharm 2000; 50: 147–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Jones M-C, Leroux J-C. Polymeric micelles: a new generation of colloidal drug carriers. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 1999; 48: 101–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Russel-Jones GJ. The potential use of receptor-mediated endocytosis for oral drug delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2001; 46: 59–73Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Norris DA, Puri N, Sinko PJ. The effect of physical barriers and properties on the oral absorption of particulates. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 1998; 34: 135–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Pan Y, Li Y-J, Zhao H-Y, et al. Bioadhesive polysaccharide in protein delivery system: chitosan nanoparticles improve the intestinal absorption of insulin in vivo. Int J Pharm 2002; 249: 139–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Mrsny RJ. The colon as a site for drug delivery. J Control Release 1992; 22: 15–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Yang L, Chu JS, Fix JA. Colon-specific drug delivery: new approaches and in vitro/in vivo evaluation. Int J Pharm 2002; 235: 1–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Lambkin I, Pinilla C, Dee J, et al. Ligand display on targeted oral drug delivery systems. Drug Discov Today 2002; 2(2): 52–6Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Dorkoosh FA, Verhoef JC, Borchard G, et al. Development and characterisation of a novel peroral peptide drug delivery system. J Control Release 2001; 71: 307–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Josias H. Hamman
    • 1
  • Gill M. Enslin
    • 1
  • Awie F. Kotzé
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Pharmacy, Tshwane University of TechnologyPretoriaSouth Africa
  2. 2.Department of PharmaceuticsSchool of Pharmacy, North-West UniversitySouth Africa

Personalised recommendations