Characterization of the physicochemical interactions between exenatide and two intestinal permeation enhancers: Sodium caprate (C10) and salcaprozate sodium (SNAC).

A common approach to tackle the poor intestinal membrane permeability of peptides after oral administration is to formulate them with a permeation enhancer (PE). Increased oral bioavailability for oral peptide candidates has been reported from clinical trials when either salcaprozate sodium (SNAC) or sodium caprate (C10) is incorporated in the formulation. However, little is known about how they physically interact with peptides in solution. Our objective was to compare the biophysical interactions between the GLP-1 analogue exenatide (Byetta®, Lilly), and C10 or SNAC using a variety of advanced analytical techniques. First, critical micelle concentration was measured in different buffers for both PEs. Dynamic light scattering (DLS) measurements revealed specific supramolecular structures arising from exenatide-PE association. Surface plasmon resonance (SPR) indicated the formation of exenatide-PE complexes with a high contribution from non-specific interactions and rapid binding kinetics, resulting in overall low affinities. DLS and isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC) were used to examine the supramolecular organization of the PEs, and revealed thermodynamic signatures characterized by unfavourable enthalpic contributions compensated by favourable entropic ones, but with low-affinity estimates in water (KD in the 10-100 µM range). With affinity capillary electrophoresis (ACE), weak interactions between exenatide and SNAC or C10 were confirmed in saline, with a dissociation constant around 10 µM and 30 µM respectively. In biorelevant intestinal media, the bile salts in FaSSIF and FeSSIF further reduced the binding of both agents to exenatide (KD ≈ 100 µM), indicating that the interaction between the PEs and exenatide might be inhibited by bile salts in the GI lumen. This study suggests that the interactions of both PEs with exenatide follow a similar non-covalent mechanism and are of low affinity.

Comparison of the effects of the intestinal permeation enhancers, SNAC and sodium caprate (C10): Isolated rat intestinal mucosae and sacs.

SNAC and C10 are intestinal permeation enhancers (PEs) used in formulations of peptides for oral delivery in clinical trials. Our aims were to compare their: (i) mechanism of action in isolated rat intestinal mucosae mounted in Ussing chambers and in non-everted gut sacs, (ii) effects on mucosa integrity in those models and also in in situ intra-jejunal instillations and (iii) interactions with intestinal mucus. SNAC increased the apparent permeability coefficient (Papp) of the paracellular marker, FITC-dextran 4000 (FD4), across isolated rat gastric mucosae in concentration-dependent fashion, whereas C10 did not, while both reduced the transepithelial electrical resistance (TEER). In isolated jejunal and colonic mucosae, both agents increased the Papp of [14C]-mannitol and FD4 whereas C10 but not SNAC reduced TEER. 20 mM SNAC was required to achieve the efficacy of 10 mM C10 in jejunal and colonic mucosae. In isolated non-everted jejunal and colonics sacs, FD4 flux increases were observed in the presence of both PEs. Histology of mucosae revealed that both PEs induced minor epithelial damage to the mucosa at concentrations that increased fluxes. Jejunal tissue withstood epithelial damage in the following order: intra jejunal in situ instillations > jejunal sacs > isolated jejunal mucosae. Both PEs modulated viscoelastic properties of porcine jejunal mucus without altering rheological properties. In conclusion, SNAC and C10 are reasonably efficacious PEs in rat intestinal tissue with common overall mechanistic features. Their potency and toxic potential are low, in agreement with clinical trial data.

A head-to-head Caco-2 assay comparison of the mechanisms of action of the intestinal permeation enhancers: SNAC and sodium caprate (C10).

Salcaprozate sodium (SNAC) and sodium caprate (C10) are the two leading intestinal permeation enhancers (PEs) in oral peptide formulations in clinical trials. There is debate over their mechanism of action on intestinal epithelia. The aims were: (i) to compare their effects on the barrier function by measuring transepithelial electrical resistance (TEER), permeability of FITC-4000 (FD4) across Caco-2 monolayers, and on immunohistochemistry of tight junction (TJ)-associated proteins; and (ii) to compare cellular parameters using conventional end-point cytotoxicity assays and quantitative high content analysis (HCA) of multiple sub-lethal parameters in Caco-2 cells. C10 (8.5 mM) reversibly reduced TEER and increased FD4 permeability across monolayers, whereas SNAC had no effects on either parameter except at cytotoxic concentrations. C10 exposure induced reorganization of three TJ proteins, whereas SNAC only affected claudin-5 localization. High concentrations of C10 and SNAC were required to cause end-point toxicology changes in vitro. SNAC was less potent than C10 at inducing lysosomal and nuclear changes and plasma membrane perturbation. In parallel, HCA revealed that both agents displayed detergent-like features that reflect initial membrane fluidization followed by changes in intracellular parameters. In conclusion, FD4 permeability increases in monolayers in response to C10 were in the range of concentrations that altered end-point cytotoxicity and HCA parameters. For SNAC, while HCA parameters were also altered in a similar overall pattern as C10, they did not lead to increased paracellular flux. These assays show that both agents are primarily surfactants, but C10 has additional TJ-opening effects. While these in vitro assays illucidate their epithelial mechanism of action, clinical experience suggests that they over-estimate their toxicology in the dynamic intestinal environment.

Oral delivery of diabetes peptides - Comparing standard formulations incorporating functional excipients and nanotechnologies in the translational context.

While some orally delivered diabetes peptides are moving to late development with standard formulations incorporating functional excipients, the demonstration of the value of nanotechnology in clinic is still at an early stage. The goal of this review is to compare these two drug delivery approaches from a physico-chemical and a biopharmaceutical standpoint in an attempt to define how nanotechnology-based products can be differentiated from standard oral dosage forms for oral bioavailability of diabetes peptides. Points to consider in a translational approach are outlined to seize the opportunities offered by a better understanding of both the intestinal barrier and of nano-carriers designed for oral delivery.