HomeArteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular BiologyVol. 28, No. 11From Systemic Shotgun to Site-Specific Nanoparticle-Targeted Delivery Free AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBFrom Systemic Shotgun to Site-Specific Nanoparticle-Targeted DeliveryA New Paradigm for Drug Delivery Ian J. Sarembock Ian J. SarembockIan J. Sarembock From the Ohio Heart & Vascular Center, The Lindner Clinical Research Center and The Heart & Vascular Center, The Christ Hospital, Cincinnati. Search for more papers by this author Originally published1 Nov 2008https://doi.org/10.1161/ATVBAHA.108.175190Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. 2008;28:1879–1881Since the introduction of percutaneous techniques for the relief of symptomatic obstructive atherosclerotic coronary artery disease in the late 1970s, the major Achilles heel was restenosis. After nearly 3 decades of study, the cellular and molecular biology of this complex response to injury is now far better understood and includes the role of thrombosis, cellular proliferation, inflammation, matrix production, and elastic recoil.1,2 Some 15 years ago there was enthusiastic interest in the concept of “site specific” or “direct delivery” of antiproliferative or anticoagulant therapies.3–6 Edelman et al reported on the inhibition of SMC proliferation after vascular injury by surgical placement of heparin-impregnated polymer matrix in the periadventitial tissue of rat carotid arteries.3 At that time a catheter-based porous balloon catheter became available for “site specific” delivery7 but failed to be effective in limiting restenosis in an atherosclerotic rabbit femoral artery injury model.4 Although labeled heparin could be demonstrated to be present in the injured vessel wall, retention time of the drug and potential additional injury created by a jet effect of the porous balloon catheter were cited as potential explanations for the lack of efficacy. Subsequently, the concept of local delivery remained dormant and a multitude of clinical trials using systemically administered pharmacological agents to reduce or prevent restenosis demonstrated no benefit.8See accompanying article on page 1960In the late 1980s and early 1990s, coronary stents, providing the necessary scaffolding to prevent elastic recoil become the new standard for the percutaneous treatment of obstructive coronary disease.9 Nevertheless, in-stent restenosis remained the major limitation of coronary stenting, with the predominant mechanism being intimal hyperplasia.10 Despite an improved understanding and identification of patient-specific, lesion-specific, and procedure-specific factors, in-stent restenosis remained a challenge despite newer therapies including intravascular brachytherapy.11 Subsequently the concept of local drug delivery using the surface area of the stent was proposed and investigated, allowing for drug application at the specific injury site with minimal systemic release or toxicity of drug.12 Since the introduction of drug-eluting stents (DES) into clinical practice in 2002, this approach has transformed the practice of interventional cardiology by dramatically reducing in-stent restenosis and the need for repeat revascularization.13,14 Although animal models have in general predicted the response to DES in humans with a near absence or minimal intimal hyperplasia, what is characteristically different is the temporal response to healing which is substantially delayed in humans.15 This has been painfully borne out by reports of late stent thrombosis, again highlighting the need for verification of proof of efficacy (“to help”) with the risk-benefit relationship (“do no harm”) for specific new technologies and therapies.16 Although there remains an incomplete understanding of the etiology of late stent thrombosis, discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy, in particular clopidogrel use, appears to be the most important risk factor.17 These unanticipated and potentially catastrophic adverse outcomes continue to remind us of the need to pursue improved and safer alternatives to the presently available therapies. Newer stent platforms, biocompatible and bioabsorbable polymer alternatives, and new drugs and drug combinations are being developed as we strive toward safer DES.18In this issue of Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology, Joner et al report that site specific targeting of nanoparticle prednisolone reduced in-stent restensosis in a rabbit model of established atheroma. Using the rationale that the present generation of DES are hampered by local drug toxicity and polymer-induced inflammation with resultant delayed healing, the investigators use a novel strategy of prednisolone phosphate encapsulated in pegylated 3,5-dipentadecyclobenzamidine hydrochloride (TRX-20) liposomes which specifically bind to chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans (CPSGs) which are differentially expressed in the subendothelial matrix and exposed after vascular injury. CPSGs are not expressed in vascular endothelial cells.19 This strategy has previously been shown to have high affinity for injury sites and can be delivered at doses far lower than systemic delivery of free prednisolone phosphate, thereby minimizing the risk of systemic side effects.20 Once localized to sites of vascular injury, the cationic lipid component of TRX-20 is endocytosed by cellular mechanisms resulting in direct intracellular drug release. Using a well accepted rabbit model of experimental atherosclerosis and exemplary experimental design and techniques, the authors performed a proof of concept study to demonstrate that nanoparticle-laiden drug can be site-directed to areas of vascular injury and showed that therapeutic concentrations of prednisolone phosphate were achieved at approximately 100-fold higher concentration in stented compared to nonstented arteries after a single injection at 1 mg/kg. This resulted in a significant 24% to 27% reduction in intimal area within the stent with a 40% reduction in neointimal macrophages and an approximately 60% reduction in inflammatory score. Importantly, reendothelialization was not retarded and was not different between the experimental groups, with no signs of systemic toxicity. Of note, empty liposomes did induce an inflammatory response despite attempts to minimize opsonization by modification of the nanoparticles with polyethylene glycol (PEG). The ability to minimize this phenomenon will need further refinement.21 Macrophages were localized to the adventitia, suggesting that opsonin-tagged empty liposomes accumulated via transport through the vasa vasorum rather than transmural trafficking from the luminal surface. In contrast, steroid-loaded liposomes were deposited in the neointima. The explanation for this observation and its potential implications require further investigation.Although this study used glucocorticoids as a primary antiinflammatory strategy with a secondary suppression of neointimal growth, advances in the cellular and molecular biology of atherosclerosis and vascular injury responses, provide promising new therapeutic opportunity for more specific, potent, and efficacious molecular targeting. The rapid growth of nanotechnology and the potential dual use of nanoparticles for both molecular imaging and site-directed delivery of therapeutic agents offers great promise for individualizing therapeutics for vascular disease.22 Previous reports in a rabbit model of atherosclerosis and vascular injury demonstrate that intravenous fumagillin-loaded nanoparticles targeted to αvβ3-integrin epitopes on the vasa-vasorum of arteries resulted in marked inhibition of plaque angiogenesis in cholesterol-fed atherosclerotic rabbits.23 Using a novel cremophor-free albumin-stabilized nanoparticle formulation of paclitaxel, Kolodgie et al reported sustained suppression of neointimal thickening with nearly complete reendothelialization after only 2 doses of systemically administered drug in a rabbit iliac stent model.24 With this relatively wide therapeutic index, and repeat dosing as necessary, optomization of neointimal suppression with a normal healing response appears attainable. This new paradigm for drug delivery thus represents a unique opportunity to improve efficacy and minimize adverse effects as first described by the father of medicine, Hippocrates, “As to diseases, make a habit of two things—to help, or at least do no harm.”Taken together, it is fair to conclude that the future is bright and the journey has begun, so let us continue to strive for safer and more effective therapies for the control of vascular disease in our patients. Download figureDownload PowerPointFigure. Cartoon illustrating “striped” nanoparticles capable of entering a cell without rupturing it. In the background are cells that have taken up nanoparticles carrying fluorescent imaging agents. Nanoscale objects are typically internalized by cells into membrane-bound endosomes and fail to access the cytosolic cell machinery. Studies aimed at generating cell-penetrating nanomaterials have focused on the effect of size, shape, and composition. Here, two nanoparticle “isomers” with similar composition (same hydrophobic content), one coated with sub-nanometer striations of alternating anionic and hydrophobic groups, and the other coated with the same moieties but in a random distribution, demonstrate that the former particles penetrate the plasma membrane without bilayer disruption, whereas the latter are mostly trapped in endosomes.25 (Image courtesy: Francesco Stellacci, Darrell Irvine and colleagues, MIT).DisclosuresNone.FootnotesCorrespondence to Ian J. Sarembock, MB, ChB, MD, Ohio Heart & Vascular Center & The Lindner Clinical Research Center, 2123 Auburn Avenue, Suite 136, Cincinnati, Ohio 45219. E-mail [email protected] References 1 Liu MW, Roubin GS, King SB III. Restenosis after coronary angioplasty. Potential biologic determinants and role of intimal hyperplasia. Circulation. 1989; 79: 1374–1387.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2 Harker LA. Role of platelets and thrombosis in mechanisms of acute occlusion and restenosis after angioplasty. Am J Cardiol. 1987; 60: 20B–28B.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3 Edelman ER, Adams DH, Karnovsky MJ. Effect of controlled adventitial heparin delivery on smooth muscle cell proliferation following endothelial injury. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990; 87: 3773–3777.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4 Gimple LW, Gertz SD, Haber HL, Ragosta M, Powers ER, Roberts WC, Sarembock IJ. Effect of chronic subcutaneous or intramural administration of heparin on femoral artery restenosis after balloon angioplasty in hypercholesterolemic rabbits. A quantitative angiographic and histopathological study. Circulation. 1992; 86: 1536–1546.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5 Riessen R, Isner JM. Prospects for site-specific delivery of pharmacologic and molecular therapies. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994; 23: 1234–1244.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6 Ettenson DS, Edelman ER. Local drug delivery: an emerging approach in the treatment of restenosis. Vasc Med. 2000; 5: 97–102.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7 Wolinsky H, Thung SN. Use of a perforated balloon catheter to deliver concentrated heparin into the wall of the normal canine artery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990; 15: 475–481.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8 Rosanio S, Tocchi M, Patterson C, Runge MS. Prevention of restenosis after percutaneous coronary interventions: the medical approach. Thromb Haemost. 1999; 82 Suppl 1: 164–170.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9 Sigwart U, Puel J, Mirkovitch V, Joffre F, Kappenberger L. Intravascular stents to prevent occlusion and restenosis after transluminal angioplasty. N Engl J Med. 1987; 316: 701–706.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10 Schiele TM. Current understanding of coronary in-stent restenosis. Pathophysiology, clinical presentation, diagnostic work-up, and management. Z Kardiol. 2005; 94: 772–790.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11 Gruberg L, Waksman R. Intravascular radiation for the prevention of recurrence of restenosis in coronary arteries. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2001; 10: 891–907.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12 Regar E, Sianos G, Serruys PW. Stent development and local drug delivery. Br Med Bull. 2001; 59: 227–248.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar13 Daemen J, Serruys PW. Drug-eluting stent update 2007: part I. A survey of current and future generation drug-eluting stents: meaningful advances or more of the same? Circulation. 2007; 116: 316–328.LinkGoogle Scholar14 Daemen J, Serruys PW. Drug-eluting stent update 2007: part II: Unsettled issues. Circulation. 2007; 116: 961–968.LinkGoogle Scholar15 Virmani R, Kolodgie FD, Farb A, Lafont A. Drug eluting stents: are human and animal studies comparable? Heart. 2003; 89: 133–138.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar16 Kereiakes DJ. Hippocrates revisited: the evidence for drug-eluting stents. Circulation. 2003; 107: 3012–3014.LinkGoogle Scholar17 Garg P, Mauri L. The conundrum of late and very late stent thrombosis following drug-eluting stent implantation. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2007; 22: 565–571.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar18 Kukreja N, Onuma Y, Daemen J, Serruys PW. The future of drug-eluting stents. Pharmacol Res. 2008; 57: 171–180.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar19 Harigai T, Kondo M, Isozaki M, Kasukawa H, Hagiwara H, Uchiyama H, Kimura J. Preferential binding of polyethylene glycol-coated liposomes containing a novel cationic lipid, TRX-20, to human subendthelial cells via chondroitin sulfate. Pharm Res. 2001; 18: 1284–1290.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar20 Morimoto K, Kondo M, Kawahara K, Ushijima H, Tomino Y, Miyajima M, Kimura J. Advances in targeting drug delivery to glomerular mesangial cells by long circulating cationic liposomes for the treatment of glomerulonephritis. Pharm Res. 2007; 24: 946–954.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar21 Owens DE III, Peppas NA. Opsonization, biodistribution, and pharmaco-kinetics of polymeric nanoparticles. Int J Pharm. 2006; 307: 93–102.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar22 Wickline SA, Neubauer AM, Winter P, Caruthers S, Lanza G. Applications of nanotechnology to atherosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2006; 26: 435–441.LinkGoogle Scholar23 Winter PM, Neubauer AM, Caruthers SD, Harris TD, Robertson JD, Williams TA, Schmieder AH, Hu G, Allen JS, Lacy EK, Zhang H, Wickline SA, Lanza GM. Endothelial alpha(v)beta3 integrin-targeted fumagillin nanoparticles inhibit angio-genesis in atherosclerosis. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2006; 26: 2103–2109.LinkGoogle Scholar24 Kolodgie FD, John M, Khurana C, Farb A, Wilson PS, Acampado E, Desai N, Soon-Shiong P, Virmani R. Sustained reduction of in-stent neointimal growth with the use of a novel systemic nanoparticle paclitaxel. Circulation. 2002; 106: 1195–1198.LinkGoogle Scholar25 Verma A, Uzun O, Hu Y, Hu Y, Han HS, Watson N, Chen S, Irvine DJ, Stellacci F. Surface-structure-regulated cell-membrane penetration by monolayer-protected nanoparticles. Nat Mater. 2008; 7: 588–595.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited By Maksimenko A and Turashev A (2014) Endothelial glycocalyx of blood circulation system. II. Biological functions, state under normal and pathological conditions, and bioengineering applications, Russian Journal of Bioorganic Chemistry, 10.1134/S106816201403008X, 40:3, (237-251), Online publication date: 1-May-2014. Maksimenko A and Turashev A (2012) No-Reflow Phenomenon and Endothelial Glycocalyx of Microcirculation, Biochemistry Research International, 10.1155/2012/859231, 2012, (1-10), . Yallapu M, Jaggi M and Chauhan S (2011) Design and engineering of nanogels for cancer treatment, Drug Discovery Today, 10.1016/j.drudis.2011.03.004, 16:9-10, (457-463), Online publication date: 1-May-2011. November 2008Vol 28, Issue 11 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics https://doi.org/10.1161/ATVBAHA.108.175190PMID: 18946050 Originally publishedNovember 1, 2008 PDF download Advertisement