2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2018.08.032
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Oral peptide delivery: Translational challenges due to physiological effects

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
48
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 106 publications
(53 citation statements)
references
References 110 publications
1
48
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The apical membrane surface pH of the small intestinal epithelium has been suggested to be between 5 and 7. 17 A→B transport across primary human intestinal epithelium in vitro was observed to be approximately twice as efficient when the apical media was pH 7 compared to pH 5, while the basal pH of 7 or 5 did not have an effect (Figure 1f). The greater variability observed for outcomes where the apical pH of 5 was tested on ntChx transport may have been due to partial neutralization of the apical compartment during the course of the study.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…The apical membrane surface pH of the small intestinal epithelium has been suggested to be between 5 and 7. 17 A→B transport across primary human intestinal epithelium in vitro was observed to be approximately twice as efficient when the apical media was pH 7 compared to pH 5, while the basal pH of 7 or 5 did not have an effect (Figure 1f). The greater variability observed for outcomes where the apical pH of 5 was tested on ntChx transport may have been due to partial neutralization of the apical compartment during the course of the study.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Peptide drugs with a very low intestinal stability and/or permeability are, with a few exceptions, not administered orally because of their low intestinal absorption. Their low stability can be related to stomach pH denaturation, the high concentrations of luminal gastric and pancreatic peptidases and proteinases, and the high peptidase activity in the brush border membrane of the enterocytes [7]. These issues can be partly circumvented by the formulation approaches.…”
Section: Blood-to-lumen CL Cr-edta Ratiomentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The rat SPIP model may also be used to investigate regional intestinal differences in how pharmaceutical excipient(s) affect drug permeation and overall absorption rate. This is especially relevant because of the renewed interest in permeation enhancers (PE), also called absorption-modifying excipients (AME), for enabling oral administration of low-permeation compounds, for example, peptides [6,7]. Some advocates of this formulation approach propose the colon as a potential target for PEs, because the colon has a longer residence time, its mucosa may be more easily affected, and it does not have the higher peptidase activity of the upper GI tract [8,9].However, few comparisons of the small and large intestine in rat have been made on the direct permeability effects of PEs in the same laboratory.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite the abundant resources allocated to that line of research, its fruits have been relatively sparse . Besides the harsh, acid, gastric environment, the oral delivery of proteins and peptides is primarily hampered by the physical barrier represented by the intestinal epithelial cells, by the intestinal mucus covering the epithelium, and by various chemical components of the gastrointestinal tract, including bile salts, gastric acids and proteases . Alternative methods of proteins and peptides administration, which do not require injections or intravenous access, including the use of permeation enhancers, cell‐penetrating peptides, protease inhibitors, conjugation or enteric coating of the proteins and peptides, and drug delivery using degradable, polymeric or mucoadhesive carriers have all been described and implemented .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Besides the harsh, acid, gastric environment, the oral delivery of proteins and peptides is primarily hampered by the physical barrier represented by the intestinal epithelial cells, by the intestinal mucus covering the epithelium, and by various chemical components of the gastrointestinal tract, including bile salts, gastric acids and proteases . Alternative methods of proteins and peptides administration, which do not require injections or intravenous access, including the use of permeation enhancers, cell‐penetrating peptides, protease inhibitors, conjugation or enteric coating of the proteins and peptides, and drug delivery using degradable, polymeric or mucoadhesive carriers have all been described and implemented . While these methods have been at least partially successful at maintaining the stability and bioactivity of certain drugs, have increased the intestinal permeability, reduced the degradation of proteinic substances, and extended their half‐life in the bloodstream, they may also damage the intestinal epithelium and lower its immune‐protective function, and display considerable variability in diffusion, absorption and localization of the delivery within the gastrointestinal tract, as well as between fasting and postprandial states …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%