The colon targeting efficacies of mesalazine medications and their impacts on the gut microbiome
Successful treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC) is highly dependent on several parameters, including dosing regimen and the ability to deliver drugs to the disease site. In this study two strategies for delivering mesalazine (5-aminosalicylic acid, 5-ASA) to the colon were compared in an advanced in...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of controlled release 2024-05, Vol.369, p.630-641 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Successful treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC) is highly dependent on several parameters, including dosing regimen and the ability to deliver drugs to the disease site. In this study two strategies for delivering mesalazine (5-aminosalicylic acid, 5-ASA) to the colon were compared in an advanced in vitro model of the human gastrointestinal (GI) tract, the SHIME® system. Herein, a prodrug strategy employing bacteria-mediated drug release (sulfasalazine, Azulfidine®) was evaluated alongside a formulation strategy that utilised pH and bacteria-mediated release (5-ASA, Octasa® 1600 mg). SHIME® experiments were performed simulating both the GI physiology and colonic microbiota under healthy and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) conditions, to study the impact of the disease state and ileal pH variability on colonic 5-ASA delivery. In addition, the effects of the products on the colonic microbiome were investigated by monitoring bacterial growth and metabolites. Results demonstrated that both the prodrug and formulation approaches resulted in a similar percentage of 5-ASA recovery under healthy conditions. On the contrary, during experiments simulating the GI physiology and microbiome of IBD patients (the target population) the formulation strategy resulted in a higher proportion of 5-ASA delivery to the colonic region as compared to the prodrug approach (P |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0168-3659 1873-4995 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.jconrel.2024.04.016 |