Biological Barriers to Oral Drug Delivery Systems: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Sirius Huang and Version 1 by Xing Zhou.

The oral route is the most preferred route for systemic and local drug delivery. However, the oral drug delivery system faces the harsh physiological and physicochemical environment of the gastrointestinal tract, which limits the bioavailability and targeted design of oral drug delivery system.

  • oral drug delivery system
  • gastrointestinal barriers
  • oral target delivery

1. Introduction

Oral administration is the most often used treatment for both systemic and local gastrointestinal diseases [1,2][1][2]. Despite the apparent advantages, oral drug delivery remains challenging due to the harsh gastrointestinal tract (GIT) microenvironment and a number of physiological barriers, including gastrointestinal anatomy factors, biochemistry factors, and physiology factors. The different parts of the GIT, including mouth cavity, esophagus, stomach, small intestine, and colon, play an important role in the digestion of food and absorption of medicine. The different anatomical characteristics, such as limited surface in oral cavity, gastric mucin–bicarbonate barrier, and enteral enzymes could also be obstacles for drug absorption. Considerable efforts have been made to overcome these issues, which are mainly based on improved comprehension of the healthy and diseased physiology characters of the GIT. Conventional drug delivery systems including normal tablets, capsules, or sterile drug preparations, are associated with limitations, including low site-specific accumulation of drugs, unfavorable body distribution, adverse side effects, etc. [3]. Therefore, the development of novel localized and systematic targeted drug delivery systems is urgent. The application of nanomedicines and novel drug delivery devices were considered as the most promising innovative pharmaceutical approaches in oral drug delivery systems [4].

2. Biological Barriers to Oral Drug Delivery Systems

On account of its easy application, being painless, low expense, wide drug assimilation/distribution, and high patient compliance, the oral route is the most common way for patients. However, the efficiency of many oral medicines is still limited due to various physiological barriers, resulting in low permeability, and drug degradation [20][5]. The limitations of oral drug delivery can be summarized by anatomy factors, biochemistry factors, and physiology factors in GIT.

2.1. Anatomical Factors

Anatomically, the GIT consists of the oral cavity, esophagus, stomach, small intestine, and colon, each part having different factors that affect drug delivery [21][6]. The different anatomical characteristics of GIT show varying effects on drug absorption.
The oral cavity is covered by oral mucosa, it has a mild microenvironment, easy accessibility, facile access to circulation, good permeability, and absorption of drugs [20,22][5][7]. However, the limited surface of oral cavity, saliva, and enzymatic composition are the main barriers of drug delivery in mouth [20][5].
Due to the low permeability and short residence time of drugs, the esophagus is not a prime target for drug delivery [23,24][8][9].
The stomach exhibits a strong acid environment with a pH range of 1.0–2.5, which can break down food, ectogenic pathogens [25][10], and acid-labile drugs [26][11], which makes it the harshest barrier to drug absorption. In addition, the stomach possesses extrinsic epithelial cells [27][12] and a mucin–bicarbonate barrier [28][13]. The tight junctions beneath the intrinsic barrier also limit the drug absorption. Moreover, pepsins in the stomach can lead to the inactivation of protein drugs.
The small intestine has a huge surface area due to the villi and microvilli in the intestinal lumen [29,30][14][15]. The small intestine is regarded as a prime site for oral drug delivery due to the tremendous surface and diverse transport routes. The intestinal mucosa can recognize and transfer ectogenic antigens to the immune system [31,32][16][17]. However, there are still some challenges of small intestine drug delivery arising from its special physiology. The harsh stomach chemical microenvironment, pancreatic enzymes, bile salts, and the mucosal layer decrease the drug bioavailability. Drug delivery systems that can increase their retention time at villi and microvilli, improve lipid solubility, and interact with specific receptor or carrier are able to increase their overall bioavailability.
The colon exhibits a higher pH environment and much longer residence time compared with the upper GIT, and the enzyme activity in colon is relatively low [33,34][18][19]. Moreover, drugs can be metabolized by the gut microflora which effects the release characters of drugs. Targeting drugs to the colon is of great significance for treating bowel diseases with fewer side effects and lower drug dosage. However, the inherent difference of the gastric emptying time and microflora in different people remains a major drawback for colon targeting [35][20].

2.2. Biochemical Factors

Different pH environments and digestive enzymes were regarded as the main biochemical barriers for oral drug delivery systems. The pH varies distinctly in different parts of the GIT, it rises gradually from the stomach to the colon in the range from 1 to 8 [36,37][21][22]. The variation from acidic to alkaline environment affects the drugs’ activities and bioavailability. pH variation not only affects drug delivery, but also a route for targeting the design of oral drugs.
The existence of various enzymes will critically influence the bioavailability of drugs in the GIT, especially for protein drugs. There are over 400 different species of aerobic and anaerobic microorganisms in the colon; they can produce hydrolytic and reductive metabolizing enzymes, which can catalyze the metabolism of xenobiotics and other biomolecules. Polysaccharides can only be metabolized in the colon by anaerobic bacteria and be stable in the stomach and intestine, making it possible for colon-targeted drug delivery.
Since drugs are also susceptible to colonic enzymes and generate biotransformation, the “prodrug” approach is often used for the colon-specific drug delivery [33][18].
The main anatomical and biochemical barriers of the oral administration are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Overview of main anatomical and biochemical barriers of the oral administration [21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33].
Overview of main anatomical and biochemical barriers of the oral administration [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18].
Site of Gastrointestinal Tract Anatomical Factors Biochemical Barriers References
pH Values Enzyme Microbiome
Mouth cavity limited surface,

saliva,

enzymatic		 6.6–7.1 Salivary amylase Gemella, Streptococcus, Veillonella, Haemophilus, Neisseria, Porphyromonas, Actinomyces, Fusobacterium, Prevotella [20,22,37][5][7][22]
Stomach gastric acid,

mucin-bicarbonate barrier,

pepsin,

limited absorption area		 1.5–2.2 Pepsin

Amylase		 Prevotella, Streptococcus, Veillonella, Rothia, Haemophilus [25,28,37][10][13][22]
Small intestine pancreatic enzymes,

bile salts,

mucosal layer		 5.9–7.8 Pancreatic amylase, Maltase, Trypsin, Peptidases, Aminopeptidase, Nuclease, Nucleosidases, Lipase Clostridiales, Streptococcus, Bacteroides, Actinomyxinae, Lactobacillus, Corynebacteria, Enterrococcus [31,32,37][16][17][22]
Colon gut microflora,

enzymes produced by microflora		 6–6.7 Aminopepti-dase, Azoreductase, Polysaccharase, Glycosidase, Nitroreductase Porphyromonas, Eubacterium, Bacteroides, Bifidobacterium, Streptococcus, Enterobacteriaceae, Enterococcus, Clostridium, Lactobacillus, Ruminococcus, Escherichia coli [33,34,37][18][19][22]

2.3. Physiology Factors

The GIT exerts a low permeability to the bloodstream and extraneous substances, which restricts the bioavailability and absorption of drugs. The physiological barriers mainly consist of epithelium cellular barrier and the mucus barrier.
The gastrointestinal epithelium is a phospholipid bilayer membrane, which allows the penetration and absorption of lipophilic macromolecules [38][23], while it is a primary absorption barrier for hydrophilicity and macromolecules [39][24]. The existence of tight junctions between adjacent cells also limits the paracellular pathway for hydrophilic drug [40][25].
Mucus is a dynamic semipermeable barrier, which restricts the direct interaction of drugs with epithelial cells [26][11]. Mucus is a viscous gel formed by mucins and glycoproteins; it can serve as a lubricant for ingested food and also a strong barrier to entrap foreign particles and eliminate potentially harmful compounds and bacteria [41,42,43,44,45][26][27][28][29][30]. Secreted mucins are linked together through disulfide bonds to form highly glycosylated macromolecules, which makes the mucin complex more stable and protects them from enzymatic degradation [28][13]. The mucus structure and intermolecular interactions dictate the permeation of peptides, large molecules, and microorganisms through the mucus layer [46,47][31][32].

References

  1. He, S.; Liu, Z.; Xu, D. Advance in oral delivery systems for therapeutic protein. J. Drug Target. 2019, 27, 283–291.
  2. Hua, S. Advances in oral drug delivery for regional targeting in the gastrointestinal tract—Influence of physiological, pathophysiological and pharmaceutical factors. Front. Pharmacol. 2020, 11, 524.
  3. Majumder, J.; Taratula, O.; Minko, T. Nanocarrier-based systems for targeted and site specific therapeutic delivery. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2019, 144, 57–77.
  4. Reinholz, J.; Landfester, K.; Mailander, V. The challenges of oral drug delivery via nanocarriers. Drug Deliv. 2018, 25, 1694–1705.
  5. Fox, C.B.; Kim, J.; Le, L.V.; Nemeth, C.L.; Chirra, H.D.; Desai, T.A. Micro/nanofabricated platforms for oral drug delivery. J. Control. Release 2015, 219, 431–444.
  6. Greenwood-Van Meerveld, B.; Johnson, A.C.; Grundy, D. Gastrointestinal physiology and function. Handb. Exp. Pharmacol. 2017, 239, 1–16.
  7. Targhotra, M.; Chauhan, M.K. An overview on various approaches and recent patents on buccal drug delivery systems. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2020, 26, 5030–5039.
  8. Batchelor, H. Bioadhesive dosage forms for esophageal drug delivery. Pharm. Res. 2005, 22, 175–181.
  9. Zhang, L.; Russell, D.; Conway, B.R.; Batchelor, H. Strategies and therapeutic opportunities for the delivery of drugs to the esophagus. Crit. Rev. Ther. Drug Carrier Syst. 2008, 25, 259–304.
  10. Yoshida, T.; Lai, T.C.; Kwon, G.S.; Sako, K. pH- and ion-sensitive polymers for drug delivery. Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 2013, 10, 1497–1513.
  11. Ensign, L.M.; Cone, R.; Hanes, J. Oral drug delivery with polymeric nanoparticles: The gastrointestinal mucus barriers. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2012, 64, 557–570.
  12. Bagan, J.; Paderni, C.; Termine, N.; Campisi, G.; Lo Russo, L.; Compilato, D.; Di Fede, O. Mucoadhesive polymers for oral transmucosal drug delivery: A review. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2012, 18, 5497–5514.
  13. Drucker, D.J. Advances in oral peptide therapeutics. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2020, 19, 277–289.
  14. Lim, Y.F.; Williams, M.A.; Lentle, R.G.; Janssen, P.W.; Mansel, B.W.; Keen, S.A.; Chambers, P. An exploration of the microrheological environment around the distal ileal villi and proximal colonic mucosa of the possum (Trichosurus vulpecula). J. R. Soc. Interface 2013, 10, 20121008.
  15. Wang, Y.; Pi, C.; Feng, X.; Hou, Y.; Zhao, L.; Wei, Y. The influence of nanoparticle properties on oral bioavailability of drugs. Int. J. Nanomed. 2020, 15, 6295–6310.
  16. Coffey, J.W.; Gaiha, G.D.; Traverso, G. Oral biologic delivery: Advances toward oral subunit, DNA, and mRNA vaccines and the potential for mass vaccination during pandemics. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 2021, 61, 517–540.
  17. Mowat, A.M.; Agace, W.W. Regional specialization within the intestinal immune system. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2014, 14, 667–685.
  18. Amidon, S.; Brown, J.E.; Dave, V.S. Colon-targeted oral drug delivery systems: Design trends and approaches. AAPS PharmSciTech 2015, 16, 731–741.
  19. Philip, A.K.; Philip, B. Colon targeted drug delivery systems: A review on primary and novel approaches. Oman Med. J. 2010, 25, 79–87.
  20. Hua, S.; Marks, E.; Schneider, J.J.; Keely, S. Advances in oral nano-delivery systems for colon targeted drug delivery in inflammatory bowel disease: Selective targeting to diseased versus healthy tissue. Nanomedicine 2015, 11, 1117–1132.
  21. Barbari, G.R.; Dorkoosh, F.A.; Amini, M.; Sharifzadeh, M.; Atyabi, F.; Balalaie, S.; Rafiee Tehrani, N.; Rafiee Tehrani, M. A novel nanoemulsion-based method to produce ultrasmall, water-dispersible nanoparticles from chitosan, surface modified with cell-penetrating peptide for oral delivery of proteins and peptides. Int. J. Nanomed. 2017, 12, 3471–3483.
  22. Koziolek, M.; Grimm, M.; Becker, D.; Iordanov, V.; Zou, H.; Shimizu, J.; Wanke, C.; Garbacz, G.; Weitschies, W. Investigation of pH and temperature profiles in the GI tract of fasted human subjects using the intellicap((R)) system. J. Pharm. Sci. 2015, 104, 2855–2863.
  23. Renukuntla, J.; Vadlapudi, A.D.; Patel, A.; Boddu, S.H.; Mitra, A.K. Approaches for enhancing oral bioavailability of peptides and proteins. Int. J. Pharm. 2013, 447, 75–93.
  24. Liu, L.; Yao, W.; Rao, Y.; Lu, X.; Gao, J. pH-Responsive carriers for oral drug delivery: Challenges and opportunities of current platforms. Drug Deliv. 2017, 24, 569–581.
  25. Ward, P.D.; Tippin, T.K.; Thakker, D.R. Enhancing paracellular permeability by modulating epithelial tight junctions. Pharm. Sci. Technol. Today 2000, 3, 346–358.
  26. Johansson, M.E.; Sjovall, H.; Hansson, G.C. The gastrointestinal mucus system in health and disease. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2013, 10, 352–361.
  27. Cone, R.A. Barrier properties of mucus. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2009, 61, 75–85.
  28. Lin, P.Y.; Chuang, E.Y.; Chiu, Y.H.; Chen, H.L.; Lin, K.J.; Juang, J.H.; Chiang, C.H.; Mi, F.L.; Sung, H.W. Safety and efficacy of self-assembling bubble carriers stabilized with sodium dodecyl sulfate for oral delivery of therapeutic proteins. J. Control. Release 2017, 259, 168–175.
  29. Pearson, J.P.; Chater, P.I.; Wilcox, M.D. The properties of the mucus barrier, a unique gel—How can nanoparticles cross it? Ther. Deliv. 2016, 7, 229–244.
  30. Pawar, V.K.; Meher, J.G.; Singh, Y.; Chaurasia, M.; Surendar Reddy, B.; Chourasia, M.K. Targeting of gastrointestinal tract for amended delivery of protein/peptide therapeutics: Strategies and industrial perspectives. J. Control. Release 2014, 196, 168–183.
  31. Shan, M.; Gentile, M.; Yeiser, J.R.; Walland, A.C.; Bornstein, V.U.; Chen, K.; He, B.; Cassis, L.; Bigas, A.; Cols, M.; et al. Mucus enhances gut homeostasis and oral tolerance by delivering immunoregulatory signals. Science 2013, 342, 447–453.
  32. Boegh, M.; Garcia-Diaz, M.; Mullertz, A.; Nielsen, H.M. Steric and interactive barrier properties of intestinal mucus elucidated by particle diffusion and peptide permeation. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 2015, 95, 136–143.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback