Advertisement

AAPS PharmSciTech

, 20:286 | Cite as

Nanocrystal Formulation Improves Vaginal Delivery of CSIC for HIV Prevention

  • Tiantian Gong
  • Sravan Kumar Patel
  • Michael A. Parniak
  • Byron Ballou
  • Lisa C. Rohan
Research Article
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

5-Chloro-3-phenylsulfonylindole-2-carboxamide (CSIC) is a highly potent non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) with potential for use in topical prophylaxis against HIV transmission. However, the hydrophobic nature of CSIC limits its administration through vaginal route. In this study, we developed nanocrystals of CSIC to potentially improve the aqueous solubility and intracellular uptake of CSIC in vitro and in vivo. CSIC nanocrystals were manufactured and stabilized with Pluronic F98 and hydroxypropyl methylcellulose E5. Transmission electron microscopy showed CSIC nanocrystals to be needle-like. Dynamic light scattering measurements showed a hydrodynamic size of 243 nm (polydispersity index < 0.3) and near neutral surface charge (− 7.8 mV). Particle size was maintained for at least 7 days in the liquid state and for at least 5 months after lyophilization. Drug content in the CSIC nanocrystal formulation (nanosuspension) was 0.8 mg/mL, which is 1000 times higher than the aqueous solubility of CSIC. In vitro release study showed that over 90% of CSIC was released from the nanocrystal formulation in a linear fashion over a period of 4 days. Importantly, CSIC nanocrystals showed equivalent cell-based anti-HIV activity (EC50 ~ 1 nM) as that of non-formulated drug. In vitro studies demonstrated rapid macrophage uptake of CSIC nanocrystals via both energy-dependent (endocytosis) and independent processes. In vivo studies in Swiss Webster female mice showed that the nanocrystal formulation significantly improved CSIC delivery to mouse cervicovaginal tissues following intravaginal instillation. In summary, nanocrystals are a promising formulation approach for topical delivery of CSIC for protection against HIV sexual transmission.

KEY WORDS

HIV microbicide female genital tract nanocrystals lymph nodes 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. We would like to acknowledge Eva Nagy (University of Pittsburgh, School of Medicine) for her assistance with the bioactivity study and Ming Sun (University of Pittsburgh, Center for Biologic Imaging) for her support with the TEM work. In addition, special thanks go to Dr. Robert Powers, Dr. Ida Washing, Anthony Battelli, and Pamela Wintruba for their valuable suggestions on animal study experimental design and IACUC submission. We also would like to acknowledge Drs. Vinayak Sant, Junmei Zhang, and Himabindu Ruttala for help with editing/proofreading of this manuscript.

Funding Information

Work reported in the current publication was funded by Microbicide Innovation Program (grant number: U19 AI079801) of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Division of AIDS.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

All animal protocols for evaluation of drug distribution in mice were approved by the University of Pittsburgh Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC).

Disclaimer

There was no involvement from any pharmaceutical companies. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    UNAIDS. Fact sheet - latest statistics on the status of the AIDS epidemic 2018 [Available from: https://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/UNAIDS_FactSheet_en.pdf. Accessed 08 Aug 2018.
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    AVERT. Women and Girls, HIV and AIDS. Available online: https://www.avert.org/professionals/hiv-social-issues/key-affectedpopulations/women. Accessed 08 Aug 2019.
  5. 5.
    Patel SK, Rohan LC. On-demand microbicide products: design matters. Drug Deliv Transl Res. 2017;7(6):775–95.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baeten JM, Palanee-Phillips T, Brown ER, Schwartz K, Soto-Torres LE, Govender V, et al. Use of a vaginal ring containing dapivirine for HIV-1 prevention in women. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(22):2121–32.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Montgomery ET, van der Straten A, Chitukuta M, Reddy K, Woeber K, Atujuna M, et al. Acceptability and use of a dapivirine vaginal ring in a phase III trial. AIDS. 2017;31(8):1159–67.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Motakis D, Parniak M. A tight-binding mode of inhibition is essential for anti-human immunodeficiency virus type 1 virucidal activity of nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002;6(46):1851–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Parniak MA. Nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors as anti-HIV-1 microbicides. AIDS. 2001;15:S56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wong S, Kellaway I, Murdan S. Enhancement of the dissolution rate and oral absorption of a poorly water soluble drug by formation of surfactant-containing microparticles. Int J Pharm. 2006;317(1):61–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gong T, Zhang W, Parniak MA, Graebing PW, Moncla B, Gupta P, et al. Preformulation and vaginal film formulation development of microbicide drug candidate CSIC for HIV prevention. J Pharm Innov. 2017;12(2):142–54.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shegokar R, Müller RH. Nanocrystals: industrially feasible multifunctional formulation technology for poorly soluble actives. Int J Pharm. 2010;399(1–2):129–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Morales JO, McConville JT. Manufacture and characterization of mucoadhesive buccal films. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2011;77(2):187–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mauludin R, Müller RH, Keck CM. Development of an oral rutin nanocrystal formulation. Int J Pharm. 2009;370(1–2):202–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mishra PR, Shaal LA, Müller RH, Keck CM. Production and characterization of Hesperetin nanosuspensions for dermal delivery. Int J Pharm. 2009;371(1–2):182–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kassem M, Rahman AA, Ghorab M, Ahmed M, Khalil R. Nanosuspension as an ophthalmic delivery system for certain glucocorticoid drugs. Int J Pharm. 2007;340(1):126–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Petersen R. Nanocrystals for use in topical cosmetic formulations and method of production thereof. Google Patents; 2010.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Abdool Karim SS, Kashuba ADM, Werner L, Karim QA. Drug concentrations after topical and oral antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis: implications for HIV prevention in women. Lancet. 2011;378(9787):279–81.PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hendrix CW, Chen BA, Guddera V, Hoesley C, Justman J, Nakabiito C, et al. MTN-001: randomized pharmacokinetic cross-over study comparing tenofovir vaginal gel and oral tablets in vaginal tissue and other compartments. PLoS One. 2013;8(1):1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ci LQ, Huang ZG, Lv FM, Wang J, Feng LL, Sun F, et al. Enhanced delivery of imatinib into vaginal mucosa via a new positively charged nanocrystal-loaded in situ hydrogel formulation for treatment of cervical cancer. Pharmaceutics. 2019;11(1).PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rana P, Murthy R. Formulation and evaluation of mucoadhesive buccal films impregnated with carvedilol nanosuspension: a potential approach for delivery of drugs having high first-pass metabolism. Drug Deliv. 2013;20(5):224–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lin Z, Gao W, Hu H, Ma K, He B, Dai W, et al. Novel thermo-sensitive hydrogel system with paclitaxel nanocrystals: high drug-loading, sustained drug release and extended local retention guaranteeing better efficacy and lower toxicity. J Control Release. 2014;174(0):161–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sekiguchi K, Obi N. Studies on absorption of eutectic mixture. I. A comparison of the behavior of eutectic mixture of sulfathiazole and that of ordinary sulfathiazole in man. Pharm Bull. 1961;9(11):866–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Müller R, Jacobs C, Kayser O. Nanosuspensions as particulate drug formulations in therapy: rationale for development and what we can expect for the future. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2001;47(1):3–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Leone F, Cavalli R. Drug nanosuspensions: a ZIP tool between traditional and innovative pharmaceutical formulations. Exp Opin Drug Deliv. 0(0):1–19.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Baert L, van’t Klooster G, Dries W, Francois M, Wouters A, Basstanie E, et al. Development of a long-acting injectable formulation with nanoparticles of rilpivirine (TMC278) for HIV treatment. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2009;72(3):502–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hussain A, Ahsan F. The vagina as a route for systemic drug delivery. J Control Release. 2005;103(2):301–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jøraholmen MW, Vanić Ž, Tho I, Škalko-Basnet N. Chitosan-coated liposomes for topical vaginal therapy: assuring localized drug effect. Int J Pharm. 2014;472(1–2):94–101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    das Neves J, Rocha CMR, Gonçalves MP, Carrier RL, Amiji M, Bahia MF, et al. Interactions of microbicide nanoparticles with a simulated vaginal fluid. Mol Pharm. 2012;9(11):3347–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Albertini B, Passerini N, Di Sabatino M, Vitali B, Brigidi P, Rodriguez L. Polymer–lipid based mucoadhesive microspheres prepared by spray-congealing for the vaginal delivery of econazole nitrate. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2009;36(4–5):591–601.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Abram ME, Sarafianos SG, Parniak MA. The mutation T477A in HIV-1 reverse transcriptase (RT) restores normal proteolytic processing of RT in virus with Gag-Pol mutated in the p51-RNH cleavage site. Retrovirology. 2010;7(6).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nowacek AS, Balkundi S, McMillan J, Roy U, Martinez-Skinner A, Mosley RL, et al. Analyses of nanoformulated antiretroviral drug charge, size, shape and content for uptake, drug release and antiviral activities in human monocyte-derived macrophages. J Control Release. 2011;150(2):204–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ballou B, Andreko SK, Osuna-Highley E, McRaven M, Catalone T, Bruchez MP, et al. Nanoparticle transport from mouse vagina to adjacent lymph nodes. PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e51995.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kuhn DA, Vanhecke D, Michen B, Blank F, Gehr P, Petri-Fink A, et al. Different endocytotic uptake mechanisms for nanoparticles in epithelial cells and macrophages. Beilstein J Nanotechnol. 2014;5:1625–36.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kumar A, Herbein G. The macrophage: a therapeutic target in HIV-1 infection. Mol Cell Ther. 2014;2:10.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fernando LP, Kandel PK, Yu J, McNeill J, Ackroyd PC, Christensen KA. Mechanism of cellular uptake of highly fluorescent conjugated polymer nanoparticles. Biomacromolecules. 2010;11(10):2675–82.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zhang LW, Monteiro-Riviere NA. Mechanisms of quantum dot nanoparticle cellular uptake. Toxicol Sci. 2009;110(1):138–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Banquy X, Suarez F, Argaw A, Rabanel J-M, Grutter P, Bouchard J-F, et al. Effect of mechanical properties of hydrogel nanoparticles on macrophage cell uptake. Soft Matter. 2009;5(20):3984–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sandvig K, Torgersen ML, Raa HA, van Deurs B. Clathrin-independent endocytosis: from nonexisting to an extreme degree of complexity. Histochem Cell Biol. 2008;129(3):267–76.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tahara K, Sakai T, Yamamoto H, Takeuchi H, Hirashima N, Kawashima Y. Improved cellular uptake of chitosan-modified PLGA nanospheres by A549 cells. Int J Pharm. 2009;382(1–2):198–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lai SK, Wang Y-Y, Hanes J. Mucus-penetrating nanoparticles for drug and gene delivery to mucosal tissues. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2009;61(2):158–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yang M, Lai SK, Wang Y-Y, Zhong W, Happe C, Zhang M, et al. Biodegradable nanoparticles composed entirely of safe materials that rapidly penetrate human mucus. Angew Chem Int Ed. 2011;50(11):2597–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Deng J, Huang L, Liu F. Understanding the structure and stability of paclitaxel nanocrystals. Int J Pharm. 2010;390(2):242–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Verma S, Kumar S, Gokhale R, Burgess DJ. Physical stability of nanosuspensions: investigation of the role of stabilizers on Ostwald ripening. Int J Pharm. 2011;406(1):145–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ham A, Cost M, Sassi A, Dezzutti C, Rohan L. Targeted delivery of PSC-RANTES for HIV-1 prevention using biodegradable nanoparticles. Pharm Res. 2009;26(3):502–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Woodrow KA, Cu Y, Booth CJ, Saucier-Sawyer JK, Wood MJ, Mark SW. Intravaginal gene silencing using biodegradable polymer nanoparticles densely loaded with small-interfering RNA. Nat Mater. 2009;8(6):526–33.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lai SK, O’Hanlon DE, Harrold S, Man ST, Wang Y-Y, Cone R, et al. Rapid transport of large polymeric nanoparticles in fresh undiluted human mucus. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2007;104(5):1482–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Siegel RA, Rathbone MJ. Overview of controlled release mechanisms. Fundamentals and applications of controlled release drug delivery. Springer; 2012. p. 19–43.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Liu Y, Huang L, Liu F. Paclitaxel nanocrystals for overcoming multidrug resistance in cancer. Mol Pharm. 2010;7(3):863–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Bhatta R, Chandasana H, Chhonker Y, Rathi C, Kumar D, Mitra K, et al. Mucoadhesive nanoparticles for prolonged ocular delivery of natamycin: in vitro and pharmacokinetics studies. Int J Pharm. 2012;432(1):105–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Arangoa MA, Campanero MA, Renedo MJ, Ponchel G, Irache JM. Gliadin nanoparticles as carriers for the oral administration of lipophilic drugs. Relationships between bioadhesion and pharmacokinetics. Pharm Res. 2001;18(11):1521–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sarmento B, Ribeiro A, Veiga F, Sampaio P, Neufeld R, Ferreira D. Alginate/chitosan nanoparticles are effective for oral insulin delivery. Pharm Res. 2007;24(12):2198–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Stieh DJ, Maric D, Kelley Z, Anderson MR, Hattaway HZ, Beilfuss BA, et al. Vaginal challenge with an SIV-based dual reporter system reveals that infection can occur throughout the upper and lower female reproductive tract. PLoS Pathog. 2014;10(10):e1004440.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Cu Y, Booth CJ, Saltzman WM. In vivo distribution of surface-modified PLGA nanoparticles following intravaginal delivery. J Control Release. 2011;156(2):258–64.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Krogstad EA, Rathbone MJ, Woodrow KA. Vaginal drug delivery. Advances in delivery science and technology: Springer; 2014.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    das Neves J, Araújo F, Andrade F, Amiji M, Bahia M, Sarmento B. Biodistribution and pharmacokinetics of dapivirine-loaded nanoparticles after vaginal delivery in mice. Pharm Res. 2014;31(7):1834–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ensign LM, Tang BC, Wang Y-Y, Tse TA, Hoen T, Cone R, et al. Mucus-penetrating nanoparticles for vaginal drug delivery protect against herpes simplex virus. Sci Transl Med. 2012;4(138):138ra79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Moore KH, Barrett JE, Shaw S, Pakes GE, Churchus R, Kapoor A, et al. The pharmacokinetics of lamivudine phosphorylation in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from patients infected with HIV-1. AIDS. 1999;13(16):2239–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Taylor S, Allen S, Fidler S, White D, Gibbons S, Fox J, et al., editors. Stop Study: after discontinuation of efavirenz, plasma concentrations may persist for 2 weeks or longer. 11th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; 2004.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Cressey TR, Green H, Khoo S, Treluyer J-M, Compagnucci A, Saidi Y, et al. Plasma drug concentrations and virologic evaluations after stopping treatment with nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors in HIV type 1–infected children. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;46(10):1601–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Trevaskis NL, Kaminskas LM, Porter CJH. From sewer to saviour [mdash] targeting the lymphatic system to promote drug exposure and activity. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2015;14(11):781–803.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tiantian Gong
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sravan Kumar Patel
    • 1
    • 2
  • Michael A. Parniak
    • 3
  • Byron Ballou
    • 4
  • Lisa C. Rohan
    • 1
    • 2
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of PharmacyUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Magee-Womens Research InstitutePittsburghUSA
  3. 3.Department of Microbiology & Molecular Genetics, School of MedicineUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  4. 4.Molecular Biosensor and Imaging Center (MBIC)Carnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  5. 5.Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive SciencesUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations