Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
1.1 Loading Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
1.2 Release Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
1.3 Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
1.4 Circulation . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
2 Properties of Carbohydrates and Proteins as Drug Delivery Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
2.1 Drug Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
2.2 Drug Release Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
2.3 Stability of Nanocarriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
2.4 Circulation of Nanocarriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
3 Formulational Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
3.1 Emulsion Crosslinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
3.2 Ionic Gelation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
3.3 Precipitation/Coacervation . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
3.4 Spray Drying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
4 Toxicological Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 263
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
1 Introduction
In recent years, nanotechnology has gained incredible attention because of its
advantages in the design of drug delivery systems for medical therapeutics. Several
therapeutic agents are hydrophobic, low molecular weight compounds that exhibit a
nonspecific biodistribution profile, short plasma circulation time, and rapid systemic
elimination, with ensuing poor absorption, low bioavailability, and thereby sideeffects and poor efficacy [1, 2]. Furthermore, certain drugs demand frequent administration for enhanced therapeutic efficacy, consequently leading to drug-induced
toxicity. This is so because a drug is a “potential toxin” when not used within the
limits of its “safe” dosage and schedule. Consequently, nearly half of the potentially
promising drug candidates with high activities, identified through high-throughput
screening, fail to reach the clinical translation stage. The use of nanomaterials to
address these downsides [3, 4] can lead to the creation of “smart” drug delivery
vehicles and new therapies. Nanoencapsulation is an efficient approach to drug
delivery because it evades the issues related to chemical modifications of drug
molecules for improved potency [5, 6]. Biodegradable nanocarriers, as drug delivery
paradigms, have been extensively explored for loading and delivering a wide range
of small molecules as well as macromolecules such as peptides, proteins, and genes
[2, 7, 8]. A major goal in designing such pharmaceutical nanoparticles is to control
the drug delivery in order to release pharmacologically active agents at the therapeutically optimal rate and site [9]. Use of a biodegradable drug carrier offers
numerous advantages: (1) improved solubility and retention time of hydrophilic/
hydrophobic drug molecules for enhanced therapeutic value; (2) better drug stability
by protection from host enzymes and environment, thereby enhancing cellular
242
D. Narayanan et al.
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
1.1 Loading Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
1.2 Release Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
1.3 Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
1.4 Circulation . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
2 Properties of Carbohydrates and Proteins as Drug Delivery Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
2.1 Drug Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
2.2 Drug Release Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
2.3 Stability of Nanocarriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
2.4 Circulation of Nanocarriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
3 Formulational Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
3.1 Emulsion Crosslinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
3.2 Ionic Gelation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
3.3 Precipitation/Coacervation . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
3.4 Spray Drying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
4 Toxicological Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 263
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
1 Introduction
In recent years, nanotechnology has gained incredible attention because of its
advantages in the design of drug delivery systems for medical therapeutics. Several
therapeutic agents are hydrophobic, low molecular weight compounds that exhibit a
nonspecific biodistribution profile, short plasma circulation time, and rapid systemic
elimination, with ensuing poor absorption, low bioavailability, and thereby sideeffects and poor efficacy [1, 2]. Furthermore, certain drugs demand frequent administration for enhanced therapeutic efficacy, consequently leading to drug-induced
toxicity. This is so because a drug is a “potential toxin” when not used within the
limits of its “safe” dosage and schedule. Consequently, nearly half of the potentially
promising drug candidates with high activities, identified through high-throughput
screening, fail to reach the clinical translation stage. The use of nanomaterials to
address these downsides [3, 4] can lead to the creation of “smart” drug delivery
vehicles and new therapies. Nanoencapsulation is an efficient approach to drug
delivery because it evades the issues related to chemical modifications of drug
molecules for improved potency [5, 6]. Biodegradable nanocarriers, as drug delivery
paradigms, have been extensively explored for loading and delivering a wide range
of small molecules as well as macromolecules such as peptides, proteins, and genes
[2, 7, 8]. A major goal in designing such pharmaceutical nanoparticles is to control
the drug delivery in order to release pharmacologically active agents at the therapeutically optimal rate and site [9]. Use of a biodegradable drug carrier offers
numerous advantages: (1) improved solubility and retention time of hydrophilic/
hydrophobic drug molecules for enhanced therapeutic value; (2) better drug stability
by protection from host enzymes and environment, thereby enhancing cellular
242
D. Narayanan et al.