Subconjunctivally Injected Liposome Encapsulated Sirolimusand Topical Tacrolimus for the Treatment of Non-Responsive Keratoconjunctivitis Sicca in the Spontaneous Dog Model
Magda
Berenice Gómez-Guajardo1, Mónica Anayántzin Linares-Alba2, Joice Furtado Fonzar1,
Dennis
E Brooks3, Gustavo Adolfo García Sánchez1, Josefa M Bernad2*
2Faculty of Chemistry, National Autonomous
University of Mexico, Mexico
3College of Veterinary Medicine, University of
Florida, Florida, USA
Citation: Gómez-Guajardo MB, Linares-Alba MA, Fonzar JF, Brooks DE, Sánchez GAG, et al.
1. Abstract
1. Introduction
Treatment for KCS includes anti-inflammatory drugs, antibiotics, artificial tears and stimulants of the natural tear production by immunomodulatory drugs (Cyclosporine, Tacrolimus, Sirolimus, etc.) and cholinergics (Pilocarpine). Nevertheless, stimulation of natural tear production using immunomodulatory drugs seems to provide the greatest improvement in clinical signs and prevention of visual loss [7] The success of ocular therapy in animals will also depend on the drug delivery system and the convenience of application of the ophthalmic medication by the animal's owner. Frequent applications are often inconvenient for the owner, resulting in poor treatment compliance [4]. Given the current treatment options, poor compliance or low patient acceptance of therapy are the primary causes of visual impairment in KCS [8].
Sirolimus is an immunosuppressive agent. It is a macrocyclic lactone produced by Streptomyces hygroscopicus. Its molecular formula is C51H79NO13 and its molecular weight is 914.2 [9]. It blocks T lymphocyte proliferation induced by stimuli employing either Ca2+-dependent or Ca2+-independent pathways. Its effects are not limited to IL-2- or IL-4 mediated growth of T cells, as it has been found to inhibit IL-12, IL-7, and IL-15 driven proliferation of activated T cells. Sirolimus blocks cell cycle progression in mid-to-late G1 phase. It also prevents IL-2 or IL-6 dependent differentiation into antibody-producing cells, thereby decreasing IgM, IgG and IgA production [10].
Despite of above mentioned advantages, sirolimus is a very hydrophobic
drug, practically insoluble in water. Consequently, clinically and commercially
acceptable topical formulations of it have been difficult to prepare. We
propose a liposomal formulation which is a biocompatible and biodegradable drug
delivery system. As a
strategy for controlling and obtaining local drug
release, the formulation comprises the use of environmental-sensitive liposomes
to in situ triggers (chemical and enzymatic) in the target site.
4. Animals
20 privately owned pet dogs with previously treated and clinically confirmed KCS were randomized into this study. Pretreatment evaluation included complete ophthalmoscopy examination, ocular irritation (evaluated using modified McDonald-Shadduck performance score), Schirmer tear test score and tear film break up time measurement [22].
For the heating method prepared formulations, the improvement was
statistically significant only for the STTI between both sirolimus loaded
formulations compared with placebo. There was no difference in the improvement
of tear production between HM16 and HM4. In the ethanol injection formulations
case, both tested doses produced significant augmentation of basal tear
production compared with empty liposomes. Nevertheless, there was no difference
between doses. Only EI4 formulation produced significant improvement in total
tear production.
For vision clarity, of all formulations HM4 and EI16 showed greater gain in clarity. In the case of corneal vascularization, sirolimus loaded formulations exhibited reduction versus empty liposomes; besides with heating prepared liposomes the reduction was dose dependent. Conjunctival discharge was significant diminished by both HM formulations and IE16 compared with placebo. Noteworthy, the above mentioned results were analyzed separately between formulations prepared by the same technique.
Since results imply differences between formulations loaded with the same amount of sirolimus, results between one technique and the other were compared (Table 4).
For a 0.16 mg/ml dose of sirolimus, the heating method provided
liposomes with enhanced immunomodulation activity in contrast to the ethanol
injection method. On the other hand, the improvement in lacrimal production
achieved by a 0.4 mg/ml sirolimus dose was independent of the preparation
technique. Most ocular irritation parameters showed the same trend, being
significantly different at the lower dose but equal at the higher. Thus, the
heating method apparently preserves the therapeutic activity of the drug better
than the ethanol injection technique at lower concentrations; may be due to a
superior drug entrapment. Probably, for the 0.4 mg/ml dose formulations the
amount of sirolimus is so high that even if some of the drug is lost, a
sufficient quantity of active drug remains to yield the therapeutic effect.
Improvement of patient 18 is shown in (Figure 3).
The patient presented extensive dried eyelid exudate, mucopurulent
ocular discharge, moderate conjunctival hyperemia and corneal
neovascularization. Although the cornea was bright, the ophthalmologist could
see clinical signs of chronicity. After treatment the eye of the
patient had a more unifrom corneal surface, less neovascularization and notably
less ocular mucopurulent discharge. STT1 value for this patient augmented 10
mm/min from the initial value with the application of EI16 treatment, even when
owner compliance to the application of tacrolimus solution at home was poor.
It is noteworthy that sub conjunctival application of sirolimus (independently of dose or preparation technique) decreased pigmentary keratitis quite a bit for those patients that presented it at the beginning of the study. Owners of this patients reported that dogs vision was better, noted as a reduction on mobility limitation observed previously. Removing pigment from the cornea is very difficult and it remains to be studied if the pigment returns after stopping sirolimus medication. However, during this study sirolimus application improved considerably patients vision clarity, even in patients that were severely visual impaired.
Figure
1:
Liposomal formulations treatment.
Figure 2: Right eye before and after treatment with HM16 of
patient 9. Female French bulldog that was 9 years old.
Figure 3: Right eye before and after treatment with EI16 of
patient 18. Female Yorkshire terrier that was 12 years old.
Figure 4: Right
eye before and after treatment.
Formulation code |
Composition |
Preparation technique |
Sirolimus dose (mg/mL) |
HM16 |
Lecithin
: Cholesterol (6:1 molar ratio) Sucrose 8.7 % |
Modified heating
method |
0.16 |
HM4 |
0.4 |
||
Empty |
Lecithin :
Cholesterol (6:1 molar ratio) |
Ethanol
injection |
0 |
EI16 |
0.16 |
||
EI4 |
0.4 |
||
HM16: Liposomes loaded with 0.16 mg/ml of sirolimus
by the modified heating method. HM4: Liposomes loaded with 0.4 mg/ml of sirolimus by
the modified heating method. EI16: Liposomes loaded with 0.16 mg/ml of sirolimus
by ethanol injection. EI4: Liposomes loaded with 0.4 mg/ml of sirolimus by
ethanol injection.
|
Formulation code |
Composition |
Preparation technique |
Sirolimus dose (mg/mL) |
HM16 |
Lecithin : Cholesterol (6:1 molar ratio) Sucrose 8.7 % |
Modified heating method |
0.16 |
HM4 |
0.4 |
||
Empty |
Lecithin : Cholesterol (6:1 molar ratio) |
Ethanol injection |
0 |
EI16 |
0.16 |
||
EI4 |
0.4 |
||
HM16: Liposomes loaded with 0.16 mg/ml of sirolimus by the modified heating method. HM4: Liposomes loaded with 0.4 mg/ml of sirolimus by the modified heating method. EI16: Liposomes loaded with 0.16 mg/ml of sirolimus by ethanol injection. EI4: Liposomes loaded with 0.4 mg/ml of sirolimus by ethanol injection.
|
Table 1: Liposomal formulations.
est |
Test |
EEmpty (A) |
f Formulation 0.16mg/ml(B) |
0. 0.4mg/ml |
ANOVA p-value |
Tukey Kramer p-value |
Heating method |
STTI (mm/min) |
8.57 ±4.45 |
12.60 ± 4.61 |
11.79± 4.65 |
< 0.002 |
A vs B <0.01 A vs C <0.05 |
STTII (mm/min) |
3.90 ± 3.08 |
5.50 ± 2.93 |
4.95 ± 4.96 |
Not significant |
|
|
TBUT (sec) |
4.36 ± 1.63 |
4.72 ± 1.93 |
3.48 ± 3.37 |
Not significant |
|
|
Ethanol injection
|
STT1 (mm/min) |
3.86 ± 4.83 |
9.26 ± 5.55 |
10.92 ± 6.18 |
< 0.001 |
A vs C < 0.05 |
STT2 (mm/min) |
0.60 ± 1.48 |
2.10 ± 2.97 |
5.17± 4.30 |
<0.001 |
A vs B <0.01 A vs C <0.01 |
|
TBUT (sec) |
2.80 ± 2.48 |
1.83 ± 2.13 |
4.65 ± 2.46 |
0.001 |
A vs C <0.05 B vs C <0.01 |
|
Data is average ± standard deviation ANOVA: Analysis of variance STTI: Schirmer test I STTII: Schirmer test II TBUT: Tear film break up time
|
Table 2: Statistical Comparison of Sirolimus Dose Effect.
Technique |
Parameter of the McDonald-Shadduck scoring system |
Empty (A) |
Formulation 0.16 mg/ml(B) |
0.4 mg/ml(C) |
ANOVA p-value |
Tukey-Kramer p-value |
Modified heating method |
Vision Clarity |
1.44 ± 1.04 |
0.88 ± 1.24 |
1.71 ± 1.43 |
<0.05 |
B vs C < 0.05 |
Corneal Vascularization |
1.40 ± 0.58 |
0.40 ± 0.50 |
0.91 ± 0.85 |
< 0.001 |
A vs B <0.01 A vs C <0.05 B vs C < 0.05 |
|
Conjunctival Discharge |
1.68 ± 1.14 |
0.60 ± 0.65 |
0.94 ± 1.00 |
< 0.001 |
A vs B <0.01 A vs C < 0.05 |
|
Ethanol injection
|
Vision Clarity |
1.94 ± 1.24 |
2.49 ± 1.31 |
0.65 ± 0.75 |
<0.001 |
A vs C <0.01 B vs C <0.01 |
Corneal Vascularization |
1.42 ± 0.91 |
0.66 ± 0.48 |
0.90 ± 0.31 |
<0.001 |
A vs B <0.01 A vs C <0.05 |
|
Conjunctival Discharge |
1.75 ± 1.18 |
0.97 ± 1.04 |
1.10 ± 1.25 |
<0.02 |
A vs B < 0.05 |
|
Data is average ± standard deviation
|
Table 3: Indicators of ocular irritation with significant difference after treatment.
Test |
Dose (mg/mL) |
Ethanol Injection |
Heating Method |
ANOVA p-Value |
STT1 (mm/min) |
0.16 |
9.26±5.55 |
12.60±4.61 |
< 0.001 |
0.4 |
10.9 ±6.18 |
11.79±4.65 |
Not Significant |
|
STT2 (mm/min) |
0.16 |
2.1 ±2.97 |
5.50±2.93 |
< 0.001 |
0.4 |
5.17±4.30 |
4. ±4.96 |
Not Significant |
|
TBUT (seconds) |
0.16 |
1.8 ±2.13 |
4. ±1.93 |
< 0.001 |
0.4 |
4.6±2.46 |
3. ±3.37 |
Not Significant |
|
Data is average±standard deviation ANOVA: Analysis of variance STTI: Schirmer test I STTII: Schirmer test II TBUT: Tear film break up time
|
Table 4: Preparation Technique Comparison.
4.
Rathbone MJ, Gurny R, (2000) Editors
Controlled release veterinary drug delivery: biological and pharmaceutical
considerations. Elsevier Amsterdam: 123-124.
5.
Martin CL (2009) Ophthalmic
disease in veterinary medicine. CRC Press: 512.
8.
Maggs DJ, Miller P, Ofri R (2012) Slatter's
fundamentals of veterinary ophthalmology. 4th edition. Elsevier Health
Sciences, China: 166-169.
9.
Dosage and Administration
[Internet]. Rapamune (sirolimus) Oral Solution and Tablets.
10.
Sehgal SN (1997) Rapamune® (RAPA, rapamycin, sirolimus): Mechanism of
action immunosuppressive effect results from blockade of signal transduction
and inhibition of cell cycle progression. Clinical biochemistry 31: 335-340.
11.
Shah M, Janga
SR, Edman MC, Meng Z, Chen J, et al. (2015) Topical Rapamycin suppresses
lacrimal gland inflammation in a mouse model of Sjögren’s Syndrome.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science 56: 4810.
12. Smith S (2011)
Immuno Therapeutics: Market Overview (2009-2014). Xlibris Corporation.