This document discusses the use of nanotechnology in drug delivery systems. It begins by outlining areas where nanotechnology is being used, including improving drug solubility and bioavailability. It then discusses ideal characteristics of drug delivery carriers and challenges in developing effective systems. Various types of drug delivery carriers are described, including liposomes, niosomes, micelles, nanoparticles, and nanopowders. Controlled release systems, targeting ligands, and applications for cancer treatment are also summarized. The document concludes by stating that nanotechnology has significant potential to improve drug delivery but more research is still needed to understand biological interactions and ensure safety.

1. DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEM:
STRUCTURES, APPLICATI
ONS
NİL GÖL
BIOTECHNOLOGY Department

2. OUTLINE
1. NANOTECHNOLOGY IN DRUG DELIVERY
2. DRUG DELIVERY CARRIERS
3. STUDIES
4. CONCLUSION
32
12

3. Methods of Drug Delivery
332

4. NANOTECHNOLOGY IN DRUG DELIVERY
The key areas in which nanotechnology efforts are
being focussed are:
1. Systems that improve the solubility and
bioavailability of poorly water soluble drugs
2. Delivery vehicles that can enhance the circulatory
persistence of drugs and/or target drugs to specific
cells
3. Controlled release delivery systems
4. Vaccine adjuvants and delivery systems
5. Nanostructured materials that can be used in a
diverse range of drug delivery applications such as
orthopaedics and wound management.32
4

5. İdeal” Drug Delivery
System
• Inert
• Biocompatible
• Mechanically strong
• Comfortable for the patient
• Capable of achieving high drug loading
• Readily processable
• Safe from accidental release
• Simple to administer and remove
• Easy to fabricate and sterilize
• Free of leachable impurities
32 5

6. Challenges to make the drug more
effective via Nanotechnology:
 Prevention of drug from biological
degradation
 Effective Targeting
 Patient Compliance
 Cost effectiveness
 Product life extension
32
6

7. Controlled Release Delivery
Systems
 This ability to control the release of a drug within a
given timeframe offers the potential for more efficient
dosing and therapeutic efficacy.
 For example, in the porous silicon technology
(BioSilicon), the drugs are held within the pores in the
nanostructure and released as the BioSilicon
nanomatrix biodegrades in the body. This technology
biocompatible and safe.
 Drug can also be held within a polymer reservoir and
released through a nanoporous membrane over a
period of up to 6 months.
32
7

8. Advantages of Controlled
Drug Delivery
 Eliminate over or underdosing
 Maintain drug levels in desired range
 Need for less dosing
 Increased patient compliance
 Prevention of side effects
32 8

9. Drug delivery systems
The concept of “Clever” drug targeting system includes the coordinating behavior of three
components: 1)the targeting part, 2)the carrier and 3) the therapeutic drug.
 The first one recognizes and binds the target.
 The second one carries the drug
 The third one provides a therapeutic action to the specific site
Targeting Parts:
 Antibodies
 Charged molecules
 Proteins
 Polysaccharides
 Lipoproteins
 Low-molecular-weight ligands
 Hormones
32
9

10. Interactions Between Biological
Systems and Nanostructures
The potential of targeted delivery will only be realized with a
much better understanding of how such structures interact
with the body and its components –in vitro and in vivo.
oInteraction of nanostructures with plasma
proteins and relation between protein adsorption
and removal of nanostructures from the
circulation by the reticulo-endothelial system.
oAdsorption of nanostructures to cells (in relation
to the surface chemical characteristics, size and
shape of the nanostructures).
oUptake and recycling, trans-endocytosis and
endosomal escape of nanostructures.
oSafety evaluation: In vitro/in vivo
cytotoxicity, haemocompatibility, immunogenicity
and genotoxicity testing.
oIn vivo carrier biodistribution and degradation.32
10

11. Nanocarriers as
Drug Delivery Systems
The potential of nanocarriers as Drug Delivery
Systems
 Exhibit higher intracellular uptake.
 Can penetrate the submucosal layers while the microcarriers
are predominantly localized on the epithelial lining.
 Can be administered into systemic circulation without the
problems of particle aggregation or blockage of fine blood
capillaries.
 The development of targeted delivery is firmly built on
extensive experience in pharmaco-
chemistry, pharmacology, toxicology, and nowadays is being
pursued as a multi-and interdisciplinary effort.
32
11

12. Nanoparticles for Drug Delivery
 Metal-based nanoparticles – Au, Ag, Cd-Se, Zn-S etc
 Lipid-based nanoparticles – Liposome & Neosome
based….
 Polymer-based nanoparticles – Dendrimer, Micelle
 Biological nanoparticles – Bovine-albumin serum
based…
The following different types of np-based
drug-delivery systems
32
12

13.  Polymer-based systems offer the potential for targeted
cellular uptake of a therapeutic agent where the charge
on the nanoparticle, influenced by its
composition, leads to targeting a specific intracellular
location.
 Ligands can be attached to the surface of nanoparticle
carriers to target a specific cell type, and targeting of
drugs to the site of disease ensures enhanced efficacy
at the site as well as reduced systemic toxicity.
DELIVERY VEHICLES FOR ENHANCED
CIRCULATORY PERSISTENCE AND
TARGETING
32
13

14. Drug Delivery Carriers
32
14

15. • Biocompatibility
• Non-toxicity
• Ability to entrap both
hydrophilic pharmaceuticals
and hydrophobic
pharmaceuticals.
• Hydrophilic pharmaceuticals
are entrapped in the internal
aqueous compartment of
liposomes and hydrophobic
pharmaceuticals are entrapped
in the membrane
• Opportunity to deliver
pharmaceuticals into cells or
even inside individual cellular
compartments.
• Modifiable structure
The popularity of liposomes as drug carriers arises from their ADVANTAGES:
32
15

16.  Liposomes also serve as carriers of proteins
and peptides to be used in various areas.
 Liposomes increase the stability of protein
drugs and eliminate the troubles with protein
transport across the cell membrane.
Encapsulation of protein and peptide drugs
into liposomes improves their therapeutic
activity and reduces various side effects
 Liposomal protein formulations have been
used for the treatment of enzyme deficiency
diseases and to modulate the immune
response.
32
16

17. Niosomes
 Non-ionic surfactant vesicles
 Vesicles are formed from uncharged, single chains of
lipids
 Similar to liposomes
 Niosomes minimizes the disadvantages associated with
liposomes, such as chemical instability, variable purity
of phospholipids and high cost.
 Less toxic b/c nonionic
 Water based, so offers high patient compliance
 Osmotically active & stable
 Provide delayed clearance from the circulation and
enhanced penetration
 Used in targeted & controlled release
 Surfactants are biodegradable, biocompatible & non-
İmmunogenic
 No much requirement for handling & storage32
17

18. Niosomes
 Infrastructure consisting of
hydrophilic, amphiphilic &
lipophilic moieties together.
 Thus,
- used for wide range of
proteins at different solubilities.
-easy penetration
 But especially for amphiphilic
(both hydrophilic and lipophili
c) properties & lipophilic
proteins
 Have spherical shapes
32
18

19. Polymer based nano-technology:Micelle
Micelle is an aggregate of amphiphilic molecules in
water, with the nonpolar portions in the interior and
the polar portions at the exterior surface, exposed to
water….
32
19

20. Nanopowder
 Nanopowders are powders
composed of
nanoparticles, that is
particles having an average
diameter below 50
nanometers (nm).
 Such compounds have two
or more different cations
(positively charged
elements) in their chemical
formula. An example of a
complex compound is
calcium titanate (CaTiO3).
32
20

21. Nanopowder
 Usually comprised of
3 to 5 nanoparticles
together.
 Nanoparticles <50
nm are powdered
with to be used as
drug carrier.
 Nanopowders
provide
-better absorption,
-enhanced dissolution
rates of poorly
soluble drugs.32
21

22. Nanocluster
 Inorganic metals are especially used for formation of
nanoclusters.
 High quality nanoparticles, particle
size, shape, structure, and composition are precisely
controlled.
 In a size range from subnanometer to ~2 nm
32
22

23. Nanocrystals
 Nanoparticles with a crystalline character (2-100nm)
 No carrier material: 100% drug
 Their dispersion in liquid media is called
“nanosuspensions”. If the drug will be used with the
liquid, it needs surfactants to stabilize.
 Reduction in size leads to increased surface area and so
incresead dissolution velocity.
32
23

24. PRIORITY AREAS
 Cancer Nanotechnology
(i) Diagnosis using Quantum Dots
(ii) Tumor Targeted Delivery
(iii) Imaging
(iv) Cancer Gene Therapy
 DNA Vaccines for parasitic, bacterial and viral diseases
 Oral and pulmonary routes for systemic delivery of proteins
and peptides
 Nanotechnology in Tissue Engineering32
24

25. 32
25

26. Targeting Ligands
32
26

27. Quantum Dot Based Drug Delivery
System to Target Cancer
Quantum Dots conjugated to peptide/antibodies specific against
the cancer marker on the surface of the target cancer cells would
be made to release the drug only when hit with laser light.
This would allow control of the cells that will receive the
toxin, thus minimizing side effects.
Quantum Dots:Quantum dots are tiny particles, or
“nanoparticles”, of a semiconductor material, traditionally metals
like cadmium or zinc (CdSe or ZnS, for example), which range
from 2 to 10 nanometers in diameter (about the width of 50
atoms).
32
27

28. 2
832

29.  Although identifying novel anti-TB agents remains a
priority, the development of the nanoparticle-based
delivery systems for currently used agents may represent
a cost-effective and promising alternative. Nanoparticles
have a considerable potential for treatment of TB.
Their major advantages, such as improvement of drug
bioavailability, high carrier capacity and reduction of the
dosing frequency, may create a sound basis for better
management of the disease, making directly observed
treatment more practical and affordable.
 Another important advantage of the nanoparticles is the
feasibility of the versatile routes of drug
administration, including oral and inhalation routes and
feasibility of incorporation of both hydrophilic and
hydrophobic substances. In addition, high stability of
the nanoparticles suggests long shelf life.32
29

30. Conclusion
 The use of Nanotechnology in medicine and more
specifically drug delivery is set to spread rapidly. For
decades pharmaceutical sciences have been using
nanoparticles to reduce toxicity and side effects of drugs.
 However, so far, the scientific paradigm for the possible
(adverse) reactivity of nanoparticles is lacking and we
have little understanding of the basics of the interaction of
nanoparticles with living cells, organs and organisms.
32
30

31. Conclusion
 A conceptual understanding of biological
responses to nanomaterials is needed to
develop and apply safe nanomaterials in drug
delivery in the future.
 Furthermore a close collaboration between
those working in drug delivery and particle
toxicology is necessary for the exchange of
concepts, methods and know how to move this
issue ahead.
3132

32. REFERENCES
 Aston,R., Saffie-Siebert R., Canham L., Ogden J.:Nanotechnology
Applications for Drug Delivery, pharmaceutıcal technology
europe, 17(4), 21–28 (2005).
 Cho,K., Wang X., Nie S.:Therapeutic Nanoparticles for Drug Delivery in
Cancer, Clin Cancer Res 2008;14:1310-1316.
 Jong,W.H.D., Borm,P. J.:Drug delivery and nanoparticles: Applications
and hazards, Int. J. Nanomedicine 2008 June; 3(2): 133–149.
 Olivier,J.,C.:Drug Transport to Brain with Targeted Nanoparticle, The
American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics, Inc.s, Vol.
2, 108–119, January 2005.
 Suri,S.,S., Fenniri,H., Singh,B.: Nanotechnology-based drug delivery
systems, Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology 2007, 2:16.
 Olivier,J.,C.:Drug Transport to Brain with Targeted Nanoparticle, The
American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics, Inc.s, Vol.
2, 108–119, January 2005.
32
32

33. 32
33