Efficacy and Pharmacokinetic Considerations of Loratadine Nanoformulations and its Combinations for Pancreatic Cancer Chemoprevention

Harnessing Sulforaphane Potential as a Chemosensitizing Agent: A Comprehensive Review

Recent advances in oncological research have highlighted the potential of naturally derived compounds in cancer prevention and treatment. Notably, sulforaphane (SFN), an isothiocyanate derived from cruciferous vegetables including broccoli and cabbage, has exhibited potent chemosensitizing capabilities across diverse cancer types of bone, brain, breast, lung, skin, etc. Chemosensitization refers to the enhancement of cancer cell sensitivity to chemotherapy agents, counteracting the chemoresistance often developed by tumor cells. Mechanistically, SFN orchestrates this sensitization by modulating an array of cellular signaling pathways (e.g., Akt/mTOR, NF-κB, Wnt/β-catenin), and regulating the expression and activity of pivotal genes, proteins, and enzymes (e.g., p53, p21, survivin, Bcl-2, caspases). When combined with conventional chemotherapeutic agents, SFN synergistically inhibits cancer cell proliferation, invasion, migration, and metastasis while potentiating drug-induced apoptosis. This positions SFN as a potential adjunct in cancer therapy to augment the efficacy of standard treatments. Ongoing preclinical and clinical investigations aim to further delineate the therapeutic potential of SFN in oncology. This review illuminates the multifaceted role of this phytochemical, emphasizing its potential to enhance the therapeutic efficacy of anti-cancer agents, suggesting its prospective contributions to cancer chemosensitization and management.

Celecoxib Oral Solution and the Benefits of Self-Microemulsifying Drug Delivery Systems (SMEDDS) Technology: A Narrative Review

INTRODUCTION

The oral route of drug delivery is the most widespread and preferred route of administration, but it has several limitations, including variable pharmacokinetics (PK), reduced dissolution and absorption, and gastrointestinal irritation. Further, many compounds have low aqueous solubility, which also limits intestinal absorption.

METHODS

For this narrative review, we conducted a literature search of PubMed until August 2022, focusing on emulsions, microemulsions, nanoemulsions, and self-emulsifying drug delivery systems.

RESULTS

The self-microemulsifying drug delivery system (SMEDDS) overcomes these limitations of hydrophobic compounds to enhance their bioavailability. A SMEDDS formulation is a clear, thermodynamically stable, oil-in-water emulsion of lipid, solubilized drug, and two surfactants, which spontaneously forms droplets < 100 nm in diameter. These components help deliver presolubilized drugs to the gastrointestinal tract, while protecting them from degradation in gastric acid or first-pass hepatic metabolism. SMEDDS formulations have improved oral drug delivery in the treatment of cancer (paclitaxel), viral infections (ritonavir), and migraine headache (ibuprofen and celecoxib oral solution). The American Headache Society recently updated their consensus statement for the acute treatment of migraine and included a selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 selective inhibitor formulated in SMEDDS, celecoxib oral solution. This SMEDDS formulation showed pronounced improvement in bioavailability compared with celecoxib capsules, allowing for a low dose of celecoxib in the oral solution to provide safe and effective acute migraine treatment. Here, we will focus on SMEDDS formulations, what differentiates them from other analogous emulsions as vehicles for poorly soluble drugs, and their clinical application in the acute treatment of migraine.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral drugs reformulated in SMEDDS have shown accelerated times to peak plasma drug concentrations and increased maximum plasma concentrations, compared with capsules, tablets, or suspensions. SMEDDS technology increases both drug absorption and bioavailability of lipophilic drugs, compared with other formulations. Clinically, this allows the use of lower doses with improved PK profiles without compromising efficacy, as shown with celecoxib oral solution for the acute treatment of migraine.

Antiallergic Treatment of Bariatric Patients: Potentially Hampered Solubility/Dissolution and Bioavailability of Loratadine, but Not Desloratadine, Post-Bariatric Surgery

Gastrointestinal anatomical/physiological changes after bariatric surgery influence variables affecting the fate of drugs after ingestion, and medication management of these patients requires a thorough and complex mechanistic analysis. The aim of this research was to study whether loratadine/desloratadine antiallergic treatment of bariatric patients is at risk of being ineffective due to impaired solubility/dissolution. The pH-dependent solubility of loratadine/desloratadine was studied in vitro, as well as ex vivo, in gastric content aspirated from patients before versus after bariatric surgery. Then, a biorelevant dissolution method was developed to simulate the gastric conditions after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB), accounting for key variables (intragastric volume, pH, and contractility), and the dissolution of loratadine/desloratadine was studied pre- versus post-surgery. Dissolution was also studied after tablet crushing or syrup ingestion, as these actions are recommended after bariatric surgery. Finally, these experimental data were implemented in a newly developed physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model to simulate loratadine/desloratadine PK profiles pre- versus post-surgery. For both drugs, pH-dependent solubility was demonstrated, with decreased solubility at higher pH; over the pH range 1-7, loratadine solubility decreased ∼2000-fold, and desloratadine decreased ∼120-fold. Ex vivo solubility in aspirated human gastric fluid pre- versus post-surgery was in good agreement with these in vitro results and revealed that while desloratadine solubility still allows complete dissolution post-surgery, loratadine solubility post-surgery is much lower than the threshold required for the complete dissolution of the drug dose. Indeed, severely hampered loratadine dissolution was revealed, dropping from 100% pre-surgery to only 3 and 1% post-SG and post-OAGB, respectively. Tablet crushing did not increase loratadine dissolution in any post-bariatric condition, nor did loratadine syrup in post-OAGB (pH 7) media, while in post-laparoscopic SG conditions (pH 5), the syrup provided partial improvement of up to 40% dissolution. Desloratadine exhibited quick and complete dissolution across all pre-/post-surgery conditions. PBPK simulations revealed pronounced impaired absorption of loratadine post-surgery, with 84-88% decreased C_max, 28-36% decreased F_a, and 24-31% decreased overall bioavailability, depending on the type of bariatric procedure. Desloratadine absorption remained unchanged post-surgery. We propose that desloratadine should be preferred over loratadine in bariatric patients, and as loratadine is an over-the-counter medication, antiallergic therapy after bariatric surgery requires special attention by patients and clinicians alike. This mechanistic approach that reveals potential post-surgery complexity, and at the same time provides adequate substitutions, may contribute to better pharmacotherapy and overall patient care after bariatric surgery.

Enhanced oral bioavailability and anti-hyperuricemic activity of liquiritin via a self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery system

BACKGROUND

This study focused on the development of a self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery system (SNEDDS) to improve, potentially, the solubility and oral bioavailability of liquiritin (LQ).

METHODS

The solubility of LQ in different types of excipient, namely oils (OLs), emulsifiers (EMs), and co-emulsifiers (CO-EMs), was evaluated, and a pseudo-ternary phase diagram (PTPD) and the formulation optimization were established. The prepared self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery system of liquiritin (LQ-SNEDDS) was assessed using droplet size (DS), zeta potential (ZP), polydispersity index (PDI), droplet morphology, drug release in vitro, and oral bioavailability.

RESULTS

After the dilution of the LQ-SNEDDS, a transparent nanoemulsion was obtained with an acceptable DS (24.70 ± 0.73 nm), ZP (-18.69 ± 1.44 mV), and PDI (0.122 ± 0.006). The LQ-SNEDDS that was developed had a better release rate in vitro than the free LQ suspension. Pharmacokinetic evaluation showed that the relative oral bioavailability of LQ-SNEDDS was increased by 5.53 times, and LQ-SNEDDS exhibited a delayed half life and longer retention time in comparison with those of free LQ. Similarly, LQ-SNEDDS had a better urate lowering effect and provided better organ protection than free LQ at the same dose (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The incorporation of LQ into SNEDDS could serve as a promising approach to improve the solubility, oral bioavailability, and anti-hyperuricemic effect of LQ. © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry.

H1-Antihistamines Reduce the Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Hepatitis B Virus, Hepatitis C Virus, or Dual Hepatitis B Virus-Hepatitis C Virus Infection

H1-antihistamines (AHs) may exert protective effects against cancer. This study investigated the association of AH use with the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), or dual HBV-HCV virus infection.

Examination of the differences between sulforaphane and sulforaphene in colon cancer: A study based on next-generation sequencing

Sulforaphane and sulforaphene are isothiocyanate compounds derived from cruciferous vegetables that have demonstrated antiproliferative properties against colon cancer. However, the underlying mechanism of action of these two compounds has yet to be elucidated. The aim of the present study was to examine the effects of sulforaphane and sulforaphene on colon cancer using next-generation sequencing (NGS). The SW480 colon cancer cell line was cultured with 25 µmol/l sulforaphane or sulforaphene. Total RNA was extracted from the cells following 48 h of incubation with these compounds, and NGS was performed. Pearson's correlation and principal component analyses were performed on the NGS data in order to determine sample homogeneity followed by hierarchical clustering, chromosomal location, Gene Ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway enrichment analyses. A total of 873 probes in the sulforaphene group were differentially expressed compared with the control group. Similarly, 959 probes in the sulforaphane group were differentially expressed compared with the control group. The differentially expressed genes were dispersed on the chromosomes, across 22 pairs of autosomes, as well as the X and Y chromosomes. GO and KEGG analyses demonstrated that both drugs affected the ‘p53 signaling pathway’, ‘MAPK signaling pathway’, ‘FOXO signaling pathway’ and ‘estrogen signaling pathway’, while ‘Wnt signaling pathway’ was enriched in the sulforaphane group, and ‘ubiquitin mediated proteolysis’ and ‘estrogen signaling pathway’ in the sulforaphene group. Thus, sulforaphane and sulforaphene exhibited similar biological activities on colon cancer cells. Sulforaphane and sulforaphene may be associated with Wnt and estrogen signaling, respectively.

Improved survival in several cancers with use of H1-antihistamines desloratadine and loratadine

•

Improved cancer survival with use of antihistamines desloratadine and loratadine.

•

Improved survival seen in tumors that respond to immune checkpoint therapy.

•

A – potentially immunological – anti-tumor effect of desloratadine and loratadine.

Background

We have previously shown an association with substantially improved survival in breast cancer and melanoma for desloratadine and loratadine users, and set out to find whether an improved survival can be seen in tumors with and without a known response to immune checkpoint therapy, such as anti-CTLA-4 or anti-PD-1.

Methods

We investigated survival and use of six common H₁-antihistamines (cetirizine, clemastine, desloratadine, ebastine, fexofenadine and loratadine) in a nation-wide cohort of all 429,198 Swedish patients with ten types of immunogenic (gastric, colorectal/anal, pancreatic, lung, breast, prostate, kidney, and bladder cancer, melanoma and Hodgkin lymphoma) and six non-immunogenic (liver, uterine, ovarian, brain/CNS, and thyroid cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma) tumors diagnosed 2006–2017. Follow-up was until 2019–02–24.

Findings

Desloratadine use was associated with an improved survival for all immunogenic tumors, but not for the non-immunogenic ones. Loratadine use was associated with improved survival for some tumors. Use of the other antihistamines could not be shown to be consistently associated with improved survival to a statistically significant degree.

Interpretation

Our hypothesis is that our findings result from immune checkpoint inhibition, and we believe both desloratadine and loratadine should be tested in randomized clinical trials as treatment of immunogenic tumors, with priority given to trials of desloratadine as treatment of tumors with few therapy options and dismal prognoses, such as pancreatic cancer. If our results can be confirmed in a clinical setting, new, potentially curative, therapies could result for several tumors, including ones with dire prognoses and limited treatment options.