Nasal drug administration has frequently been proposed as the most feasible alternative
to parenteral injections. This is due to the high permeability of the nasal epithelium,
allowing a higher molecular mass cut-off at approximately 1000 Da and the rapid drug
absorption rate with plasma drug profiles sometimes almost identical to those from
intravenous injections. Nasal drug administration is presently used for local therapies
within the nasal cavity. Anti-allergic drugs and nasal decongestants are the most
common examples. However, nasal drug administration for systemic effects has been
practiced since ancient times. Nasally-administered psychotropic drugs by native Indians,
the use of tobacco snuffs, and nasal administration of illicit drugs such as cocaine
are all well known.
The use of the nasal cavity as a route for drug delivery has been an area of great
interest to the pharmaceutical industry during the last few decades. This area is
characterized by a high degree of maturity; a few novel chemical entities have been
developed, and the focus is on improvisation of the formulations. There has also been
a great interest in developing products for systemic delivery of drugs such as small
molecular drugs (e.g. sumatriptan), peptides (e.g. desmopressin) and proteins (e.g.
insulin) that are not easily administered via routes other than injection or where
a rapid onset of action is required. The use of the nasal cavity for vaccination has
also been an area of interest. Nasal drug delivery has now been recognized as a very
promising route for delivery of therapeutic compounds including biopharmaceuticals.
Nasal drug delivery offers many attractive possibilities, such as systemic delivery
of drugs with avoidance of first-pass metabolism, easy administration, rapid onset
of effect and the possibility to circumvent the blood-brain barrier. It also offers
both systemic and local vaccine response and of course avoidance of adverse systemic
effects when treating local nasal ailments. Not surprisingly, nasal administration
has therefore attracted great interest from both the industry and academia. The widespread
interest in the intranasal route for therapeutic purposes other than the topically
administered nasal drug delivery arises from the particular anatomical, physiological
and histological characteristics of the nasal cavity, which provides potential for
rapid systemic drug absorption and quick onset of action. In addition, intranasal
absorption avoids the gastrointestinal and hepatic presystemic metabolism, enhancing
drug bioavailability in comparison with that obtained after gastrointestinal absorption.
On the other hand, intranasal administration also offers several practical advantages
either from the viewpoint of patients (non-invasiveness, essentially painless, ease
drug delivery and favourable tolerability profile) or pharmaceutical industry (unnecessary
sterilization of nasal preparations). Hence, bearing in mind the intrinsic value of
the intranasal route to overcome patient compliance concerns together with its pharmacokinetic
advantages, it appears to be an appropriate route for the treatment of not only acute
or chronic nasal diseases, but also for a range of acute or chronic conditions requiring
considerable systemic drug exposure. Despite the potential of nasal drug delivery,
it has a number of limitations.
One problem with nasal administration is the rapid removal of mucus from the nasal
cavity, resulting in a clearance half-life of about 15 min for ordinary formulations.
Mucoadhesion, allowing prolonged retention time, is therefore often considered a prerequisite
for effective nasal administration. Over the last few decades, the application of
mucoadhesive polymers in nasal drug delivery systems has gained interest among pharmaceutical
scientists as a means of promoting dosage form residence time in the nasal cavity
as well as improving intimacy of contact with the absorptive membranes of the biological
system. In addition, the enhanced paracellular absorption following the swelling of
the mucoadhesive polymers on the nasal membranes provides an important way for the
absorption of the macromolecules through the nasal cavity. It has been demonstrated
that low absorption of drugs can be countered by using absorption enhancers or increasing
the drug residence time in the nasal cavity, and that some mucoadhesive polymers can
serve both functions.
Mucoadhesion is where two surfaces, one of which is a mucous membrane, adhere to each
other. This has been of interest in the pharmaceutical sciences in order to enhance
localized drug delivery, or to deliver ‘difficult’ molecules (proteins and oligonucleotides)
into the systemic circulation. Mucoadhesive materials are hydrophilic macromolecules
containing numerous hydrogen bond-forming groups, the carbomers and chitosans being
two well-known examples. The mechanism by which mucoadhesion takes place has been
said to have two stages, the contact (wetting) stage followed by the consolidation
stage (the establishment of the adhesive interactions). The relative importance of
each stage will depend on the individual application. For example, adsorption is a
key stage if the dosage form cannot be applied directly to the mucosa of interest,
while consolidation is important if the formulation is exposed to significant dislodging
stresses. Adhesive joint failure will inevitably occur as a result of over-hydration
of a dosage form, or as a result of epithelia or mucus turnover. New mucoadhesive
materials with optimal adhesive properties are now being developed, and these should
enhance the potential applications of this technology. The mucoadhesive polymers have
enormous potential for the delivery of therapeutic macromolecules, genes, and vaccines
through the nasal cavity with high drug bioavailability.
The most common way to achieve mucoadhesion is by addition of polymers to the formulation.
These polymer-based mucoadhesive drug delivery systems can be divided into three general
groups: (I) polymers that adhere due to stickiness, (II) polymers that adhere mostly
through electrostatic interactions, and (III) polymers that bind through specific
receptor sites. The first two categories are nonspecific, and can potentially adhere
to any suitable surface, while the third category of polymers are intended for targeted
mucoadhesion. An alternative route to mucoadhesion may be to use liquid crystalline
phases, where a low-viscosity phase is administered, and subsequently the phase changes
into a more highly viscous phase with longer retention time.
Mucoadhesive agents are hydrocolloids that form weak covalent, hydrogen and ionic
bonds with the mucus and thereby decrease mucociliary clearance. The presence of a
mucoadhesive agent can alter the viscosity, rheology and the ciliary beating frequency
(CBF). The CBF depends on the presence of calcium in the nasal environment. The mucoadhesive
agents that can form complexes with calcium (like polyacrylic acid) decrease the CBF
thus prolonging residence time. However, this mechanism of mucoadhesives can raise
safety concerns that need to be assessed as an important pharmaceutical consideration.
Any alteration in mucociliary clearance will interfere with the clearance of nasal
contaminants into the gastrointestinal tract, allowing opportunistic microorganisms
to grow and cause upper respiratory tract infections.
In general, addition of polymers and especially those belonging to Group I that rely
on water absorption, will lower the water activity and impose a larger gradient in
water activity over the mucosa. This means that in addition to prolonging retention
time, the formulation may also induce a mucosal response, as dehydration can affect
the structure and barrier properties in contra-productive ways. The intriguing question
is whether a topically applied formulation with low water activity, that favors mucoadhesion,
would also induce a mucosal response detrimental to drug absorption.
The term ‘water activity’ describes the equilibrium amount of water available for
hydration of materials. When water interacts with solutes and surfaces, it is unavailable
for other hydration interactions. A water activity value of unity indicates pure water
whereas zero indicates the total absence of ‘free’ water molecules; addition of solutes
always lowers the water activity. Water activity reflects a combination of water-solute
and water-surface interactions plus capillary forces. The nature of a hydrocolloid
or protein polymer network can thus affect the water activity, cross-linking reducing
the activity. Control of water activity (rather than water content) is very important
as low water activity causes large changes in textural characteristics. The activity
coefficient is an equilibrium property and most materials during preparation and/or
processing will not be at equilibrium and so their properties may diverge from those
expected from their activity coefficients.
Mucoadhesion is often achieved by water sorption into the product, while research
on skin barrier response has shown a general decrease in drug permeability on increasing
the gradient in water activity. A similar effect has been seen in preliminary results
on oral mucosa and it is thereby not farfetched to expect the same behavior from nasal
mucosa. If so, this would be a general effect relevant to any formulation applied
topically, that should be measured or calculated in advance to anticipate the potential
detrimental effects on mucosal absorption prior to in vivo tests, and therefore highly
relevant in formulation development. Nasal mucoadhesives have been extensively investigated
for the delivery of small organic molecules, antibiotics, proteins, vaccines and DNA
and with many new classes of functionalized mucoadhesive polymers round the corner,
the characterization and safety aspects of nasal drug products should be ensured.