Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g78kv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-28T11:54:48.402Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Influence of Fumaric Anhydride on Bioadhesive Polymer Compositions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

C.A. Santos ,
B.D. Freedman ,
S. Ghosn  and
E. Mathiowitz
C.A. Santos
Affiliation:
Department of Molecular Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biotechnology, Brown University, Providence RI 02912
B.D. Freedman
Affiliation:
Department of Molecular Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biotechnology, Brown University, Providence RI 02912
S. Ghosn
Affiliation:
Department of Molecular Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biotechnology, Brown University, Providence RI 02912
E. Mathiowitz
Affiliation:
Department of Molecular Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biotechnology, Brown University, Providence RI 02912
Get access

Abstract

Bioadhesive polymers are useful as drug delivery systems designed to adhere to the gastrointestinal lumen. The interaction between polymer and mucosal tissue influences residence time of the polymeric device and greatly affects the bioavailability of encapsulated drug. Poly(fumaric-co-sebacic anhydride) [P(FA:SA)] demonstrated impressive results in a variety of in vitro and in vivo experiments designed to test bioadhesion of microspheres. Among different molar ratios of P(FA:SA), adhesive measurements increased with increasing fumaric acid (FA) content. Using a modified microbalance technique, P(FA:SA)10:90 yielded a tensile work measurement of 82.99±12.76 nJ (mean±SEM) while that for P(FA:SA)70:30 was 453.23±47.73 nJ. A low molecular weight substance, fumaric anhydride prepolymer (FAPP), the oligomer form of fumaric acid, was incorporated into the microspheres and greatly increased the bioadhesive properties of P(FA:SA) as well as those of the relatively non-bioadhesive polymer poly(caprolactone) (PCL). Tensile work of P(FA:SA)20:80 was 32.95±5.42 nJ, and P(FA:SA)20:80 with 25% FAPP yielded a tensile work measurement of 556.28±113.12 nJ. Adhesion testing with PCL yielded a tensile work measurement of 7.93±1.84 nJ, while that for PCL with 25% FAPP was 1629.54±307.55 nJ. The effect of FA on drug delivery was evaluated in vitro using the P(FA:SA):FAPP blend with the everted intestinal sac technique. A low molecular weight drug (sodium salicylate) encapsulated in P(FA:SA)20:80 passed through the everted intestinal lumen to the interior of the sac to yield a concentration of 11.17±0.93 mg/dL, and drug encapsulated in P(FA:SA)20:80 with 10% FAPP yielded a concentration of 16.25±1.68 mg/dL (P<0.05). Unencapsulated drug passed through the intestinal lumen to yield a concentration of 8.09±-0.36 mg/dL. These experiments demonstrate that fumaric anhydride could be a very important component in bioadhesive polymer systems.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 550: Symposium GG/HH/II – Biomedical Materials-Drug Delivery, Implants and Tissue Engr , 1998 , 53
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Mathiowitz, E., Jacob, J.S., Jong, Y.S., Carino, G.P., Chickering, D.E., Chaturvedi, P., Santos, C.A., Vijayaraghavan, K., Montgomery, S., Bassett, M. and Morrell, C., Nature. 386, 410–414 (1997).Google Scholar
2. Mathiowitz, E., Jacob, J., Pekarek, K. and Chickering, D.E. III, Macromolecules. 26, 6756–6765 (1993).Google Scholar
3. Chickering, D.E. III, Jacob, J.S., Desai, T.A., Harris, W.P., Morrell, C.N., Chaturvedi, P. and Mathiowitz, E., J Control Rel. 48, 35–46 (1997).Google Scholar
4. Chickering, D.E. III, Jacob, J. and Mathiowitz, E., Biotechnol Bioeng. 52, 96–101 (1996).Google Scholar
5. Chickering, D.E. III, Harris, W.P. and Mathiowitz, E., Biomed Intrum Technol. Nov/Dec, p. 501–512 (1995).Google Scholar
6. Chickering, D.E. III, Jacob, J.S. and Mathiowitz, E., Reactive Polymers. 25, 189–206 (1995).Google Scholar
7. Chickering, D.E. III and Mathiowitz, E., J Control Rel. 34, 251–61 (1995).Google Scholar
8. Santos, C.A., Freedman, B.D., Leach, K.J., Press, D.L., Scarpulla, M. and Mathiowitz, E., J Control Rel. submitted, (1998).Google Scholar
9. Domb, A.J. and Langer, R., J Polym Sci, A: Polymer Chemistry. 25, 3373–86 (1987).Google Scholar
10. Mathiowitz, E. and Langer, R., J Control Rel. 5, 13–22 (1987).Google Scholar
11. Kalman, S.M. and Clark, D.R. in Drug Assay. The Strategy of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring, Masson Publishing USA, Inc., New York, 1979, pp. 73–80.Google Scholar
12. Mathiowitz, E., Ron, E., Mathiowitz, G., Amato, C. and Langer, R., Macromolecules. 23, 3212–18 (1990).Google Scholar
13. Pitt, C.G. and Schindler, A. in Long-Acting Contraceptive Delivery Systems, edited by Zatuchni, G.I., Goldsmith, A., Shelton, J.D. and Sciarra, J.J., Harper & Row, Philadelphia, 1984, pp. 48–63.Google Scholar