Lipid nanocarriers for anti-HIV therapeutics: a focus on physicochemical properties and biotechnological advances
Abstract
Since HIV was first identified, and in a relatively short period of time, AIDS has become one of the most devastating infectious diseases of the 21st century. Classical antiretroviral therapies were a major step forward in disease treatment options, significantly improving the survival rates of HIV-infected individuals. Even though these therapies have greatly improved HIV clinical outcomes, antiretrovirals (ARV) feature biopharmaceutic and pharmacokinetic problems such as poor aqueous solubility, short half-life, and poor penetration into HIV reservoir sites, which contribute to the suboptimal efficacy of these regimens. To overcome some of these issues, novel nanotechnology-based strategies for ARV delivery towards HIV viral reservoirs have been proposed. The current review is focused on the benefits of using lipid-based nanocarriers for tuning the physicochemical properties of ARV to overcome biological barriers upon administration. Furthermore, a correlation between these properties and the potential therapeutic outcomes has been established. Biotechnological advancements using lipid nanocarriers for RNA interference (RNAi) delivery for the treatment of HIV infections were also discussed.
Full text
pharmaceutics Review Lipid Nanocarriers for Anti-HIV Therapeutics: A Focus on Physicochemical Properties and Biotechnological Advances Maria J. Faria 1,†, Carla M. Lopes 2,*,† , Josédas Neves 3,4,5 and Marlene Lúcio 1,6,* Citation: Faria, M.J.; Lopes, C.M.; das Neves, J.; Lúcio, M. Lipid Nanocarriers for Anti-HIV Therapeutics: A Focus on Physicochemical Properties and Biotechnological Advances. Pharmaceutics 2021,13, 1294. https://doi.org/10.3390/ pharmaceutics13081294 Academic Editor: Nejat Düzgüne¸s Received: 19 July 2021 Accepted: 7 August 2021 Published: 19 August 2021 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). 1 CF-UM-UP, Centro de Física das Universidades do Minho e Porto, Departamento de Física da Universidade do Minho, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal; [email protected] 2 FP-I3ID, FP-ENAS/CEBIMED, Fernando Pessoa Energy, Environment, and Health Research Unit/Biomedical Research Center, Portugal and Faculty of Health Sciences, Fernando Pessoa University, 4200-150 Porto, Portugal 3i3S, Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, Universidade do Porto, 4200-135 Porto, Portugal; [email protected] 4INEB, Instituto de Engenharia Biomédica, Universidade do Porto, 4200-135 Porto, Portugal 5CESPU, Instituto de Investigação e Formação Avançada em Ciências e Tecnologias da Saúde, 4585-116 Gandra, Portugal 6CBMA, Centro de Biologia Molecular e Ambiental, Departamento de Biologia, Universidade do Minho, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal *Correspondence: [email protected] (C.M.L.); [email protected] (M.L.); Tel.: +351-225-074-630 (C.M.L.) † These authors contributed equally to this work. Abstract: Since HIV was first identified, and in a relatively short period of time, AIDS has become one of the most devastating infectious diseases of the 21st century. Classical antiretroviral therapies were a major step forward in disease treatment options, significantly improving the survival rates of HIV-infected individuals. Even though these therapies have greatly improved HIV clinical outcomes, antiretrovirals (ARV) feature biopharmaceutic and pharmacokinetic problems such as poor aqueous solubility, short half-life, and poor penetration into HIV reservoir sites, which contribute to the suboptimal efficacy of these regimens. To overcome some of these issues, novel nanotechnology-based strategies for ARV delivery towards HIV viral reservoirs have been proposed. The current review is focused on the benefits of using lipid-based nanocarriers for tuning the physicochemical properties of ARV to overcome biological barriers upon administration. Furthermore, a correlation between these properties and the potential therapeutic outcomes has been established. Biotechnological advancements using lipid nanocarriers for RNA interference (RNAi) delivery for the treatment of HIV infections were also discussed. Keywords: ARV delivery; biotechnology in ARV; biological barriers; lipid emulsions; lipid nanoparticles; liposomes; RNAi and ARV codelivery 1. Introduction The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is known to promote the continuous deterioration of the host immune system, being responsible for the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) [ 1 , 2 ]. According to the Joint United Nations Program on HIV infection/AIDS (UNAIDS), by the end of 2018, the epidemic accounted for more than 30 million deaths worldwide with a particular incidence in the female population and Sub-Saharan African countries [ 3 ]. Currently, 37.9 million people are infected with the virus and only a fraction (≈82%) have access to antiretroviral (ARV) therapy [3]. ARVs revolutionized HIV infection/AIDS clinical history and their approval for therapeutic purposes transformed this condition into a chronically manageable disease [ 4 ]. ARV-based therapies continue to be the best treatment option against HIV infection/AIDS providing prolonged viral suppression and, consequently, lower mortality rates [ 5 , 6 ]. The Pharmaceutics 2021,13, 1294. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics13081294 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/pharmaceutics
Pharmaceutics 2021,13, 1294 2 of 54 first treatments were based on monotherapy regimens which rapidly led to the development of ARV resistance [ 7 , 8 ]. Consequently, novel strategies were adopted, namely, combined antiretroviral therapy (cART; formerly referred to as highly effective antiretroviral therapy (HAART)) based on the simultaneous administration of three or more different classes of drugs [7,8]. Although HIV infection/AIDS stands as a public health concern, anti-HIV therapies have greatly increased the life quality and expectancy of infected individuals [ 9 ]. However, these therapies are challenging and often difficult to implement in the developing world. Multiple factors may compromise their success, such as: (i) adverse effects associated with the multi-regimen therapies extended over long periods; (ii) development of viral resistance; (iii) ineffective viral suppression due to low drug concentrations in viral reservoirs; (iv) pharmacokinetic problems and possible interactions between drugs; (v) poor stability and reduced shelf-life; (vi) low patient adherence; (vii) unbearable high costs for most of the populations in need, and (viii) socio-cultural constraints that limit the access to these treatments [10,11]. In the last decades, several strategies to improve HIV disease management using nanotechnology have emerged and seen tremendous growth both in treatment and prevention. Nanotechnology-based systems radically changed the global medical scheme and gained considerable attention in therapeutic research. In particular, nanomedicine-based approaches may help to improve pharmacokinetic problems (e.g., low oral bioavailability or short half-life) of ARV drugs [ 9 , 12 – 21 ]. Poor aqueous solubility is another common problem transversal to many drugs, which can be improved by encapsulation in drug carriers [ 22 ]. The reduction of the particles size to the nanometric scale increases the surface area available for solvation which has shown to be an effective strategy to increase drug solubility and, consequently, improve oral bioavailability [ 23 ]. Another interesting feature brought by nanomedicine is the ability to modulate the drug release profiles to occur over a longer time and at higher effective doses to the specific sites [ 8 , 22 ]. Moreover, toxicity associated with ARV therapies may also be circumvented using drug-loaded systems. A possible explanation is the controlled release profiles obtained with nanocarriers, reducing the toxicity namely at the cellular level [2]. The encapsulation of ARV drugs is particularly interesting as a targeting strategy towards cellular and anatomic HIV reservoirs and it can be achieved either by passive or active targeting [ 2 , 8 ]. In the first case, the targeting is dependent on nanocarriers’ intrinsic properties such as mean diameter, surface properties (e.g., charge), and shape [ 2 ]. On the other hand, active targeting typically depends on the functionalization of the carrier surface with ligands that recognize receptors at the targeted tissues [ 2 , 9 ]. Furthermore, these carriers act as protective shields against external threats (e.g., chemical and enzymatic degradation) leading to increasing residence periods of ARV in the organism [ 9 ]. This feature may promote the reduction of required doses and, consequently, prolong time intervals between administrations [ 2 ]. Ultimately, it is possible to encapsulate different types of therapeutic payloads within the same system which can contribute to simpler administrations increasing patient adherence but also reduce possible errors related to therapeutic regimens [2,24]. Among the multiple nanocarriers that can be used for ARV delivery, lipid-based nanocarriers hold great promise since 15 of the 21 marketed approved nanomedicines are liposomes or lipid nanoparticles (AmBisome ® , DaunoXome ® , DepoCyt ® , DepoDur ® , Doxil ® , Inflexal ® V, Marqibo ® , Mepact ® , Myocet ® , Visudyne ® , Abelcet ® , Amphotec ® , Fungizone ® , Diprivan ® , Estrasorb ® ) [ 25 ]. Of particular notice, this list has been recently upgraded with the introduction in the market of nucleoside-based nanomedicines for the treatment of hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis (Onpattro ® ) and prophylaxis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (Pfizer/BioNTech Comirnaty ® and the Moderna COVID-19 vaccines). Furthermore, these carriers are well-accepted in the scientific community for therapeutic purposes mainly because their structural units are generally recognized as safe (GRAS) [ 25 ]. Additionally, lipids’ biocompatibility and
Pharmaceutics 2021,13, 1294 3 of 54 biodegradability properties as well as their versatility make them suitable and safe delivery systems for humans, with low or non-associated toxicity [ 11 , 26 ]. A large number of lipid-based nanocarriers developed for ARV delivery justifies a constantly updated review. Even though some reviews have covered this topic [ 27 – 29 ], it is important to address some neglected aspects regarding the details of formulation development to serve as a guide for researchers working in this field. To the best of our knowledge, no similar reviews have considered the composition and characterization of lipid nanocarriers in terms of size, colloidal stability, encapsulation, and drug loading efficiency, as well as establishing a correlation between the nanocarriers’ physicochemical properties and their potential anti-HIV therapeutic outcomes. Moreover, biotechnological applications of lipid nanocarriers loaded with anti-HIV therapeutics will be presented including the use of lipoplexes for small interference ribonucleic acid (siRNA) delivery and other interesting prospects for other disease conditions (e.g., neurodegenerative diseases) that have not yet been considered. For example, considering that reverse transcriptase (RT) is found in a variety of human cells, including those in the brain, and that it is involved in somatic gene recombination (SGR), which is linked to dysregulated neuronal genomes in Alzheimer’s disease (AD), the inhibition of this enzyme by ARV agents in combination with siRNAmediated silencing of its expression is considering a promising biotechnological approach for the prevention and/or treatment of this neurodegenerative disease. The utilization of lipid-based nanocarriers for co-delivery ARV and siRNA aids to cross the brain-blood barrier (BBB). 2. ARV Agents: Mechanism of Action and Limitations Following the isolation and subsequent identification of HIV as the main agent responsible for the onset of HIV infection/AIDS, significant progress was made, allowing for a detailed characterization of the virus and its life cycle, as well as a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying its mode of action [ 30 ]. In this way, it became possible to identify new, highly specific pharmacological targets in the HIV life cycle (Figure 1) that allowed the development of the first drugs that would change the course of HIV infection/AIDS history. Pharmaceutics2021,13,xFORPEERREVIEW3of49 structuralunitsaregenerallyrecognizedassafe(GRAS)[25].Additionally,lipidsʹbiocom‐ patibilityandbiodegradabilitypropertiesaswellastheirversatilitymakethemsuitable andsafedeliverysystemsforhumans,withlowornon‐associatedtoxicity[11,26].Alarge numberoflipid‐basednanocarriersdevelopedforARVdeliveryjustifiesaconstantlyup‐ datedreview.Eventhoughsomereviewshavecoveredthistopic[27–29],itisimportant toaddresssomeneglectedaspectsregardingthedetailsofformulationdevelopmentto serveasaguideforresearchersworkinginthisfield.Tothebestofourknowledge,no similarreviewshaveconsideredthecompositionandcharacterizationoflipidnanocarri‐ ersintermsofsize,colloidalstability,encapsulation,anddrugloadingefficiency,aswell asestablishingacorrelationbetweenthenanocarriers’physicochemicalpropertiesand theirpotentialanti‐HIVtherapeuticoutcomes.Moreover,biotechnologicalapplicationsof lipidnanocarriersloadedwithanti‐HIVtherapeuticswillbepresentedincludingtheuse oflipoplexesforsmallinterferenceribonucleicacid(siRNA)deliveryandotherinteresting prospectsforotherdiseaseconditions(e.g.,neurodegenerativediseases)thathavenotyet beenconsidered.Forexample,consideringthatreversetranscriptase(RT)isfoundina varietyofhumancells,includingthoseinthebrain,andthatitisinvolvedinsomaticgene recombination(SGR),whichislinkedtodysregulatedneuronalgenomesinAlzheimer’s disease(AD),theinhibitionofthisenzymebyARVagentsincombinationwithsiRNA‐ mediatedsilencingofitsexpressionisconsideringapromisingbiotechnologicalapproach forthepreventionand/ortreatmentofthisneurodegenerativedisease.Theutilizationof lipid‐basednanocarriersforco‐deliveryARVandsiRNAaidstocrossthebrain‐blood barrier(BBB). 2.ARVAgents:MechanismofActionandLimitations FollowingtheisolationandsubsequentidentificationofHIVasthemainagentre‐ sponsiblefortheonsetofHIVinfection/AIDS,significantprogresswasmade,allowing foradetailedcharacterizationofthevirusanditslifecycle,aswellasabetterunderstand‐ ingofthemechanismsunderlyingitsmodeofaction[30].Inthisway,itbecamepossible toidentifynew,highlyspecificpharmacologicaltargetsintheHIVlifecycle(Figure1) thatallowedthedevelopmentofthefirstdrugsthatwouldchangethecourseofHIVin‐ fection/AIDShistory. Figure 1. Stages in HIV lifecycle. (1) HIV attaches to CD4 receptor and CCR5 co-receptor. (2) HIV gp41 is exposed to the host cell and causes fusion. (3) HIV enters the nucleus and releases its enzymes and RNA. (4) Reverse transcriptase makes a double strand HIV DNA from HIV RNA. (5) Integrase includes HIV DNA in the DNA of the host cell. (6) New HIV viral components are produced, and Protease assembles new HIV virus. (7) Each host cell produces hundreds of new virions.
Pharmaceutics 2021,13, 1294 4 of 54 In 1987, zidovudine (AZT) was approved as the first ARV for therapeutic use. Since then, and in a short period, 6 more classes of ARVs have been developed and, to date, 49 medicines containing single ARV drugs or drug associations (as in the case of cART) have been approved and made available on the market by the United States Food and Drug Administration (U.S. FDA) for the clinical treatment of HIV infection/AIDS [ 31 ]. The existing ARV drugs can be classified according to their target [4] (Figures 2–6). Pharmaceutics2021,13,xFORPEERREVIEW4of49 Figure1.StagesinHIVlifecycle.(1)HIVattachestoCD4receptorandCCR5co‐receptor.(2)HIV gp41isexposedtothehostcellandcausesfusion.(3)HIVentersthenucleusandreleasesitsen‐ zymesandRNA.(4)ReversetranscriptasemakesadoublestrandHIVDNAfromHIVRNA.(5) IntegraseincludesHIVDNAintheDNAofthehostcell.(6)NewHIVviralcomponentsarepro‐ duced,andProteaseassemblesnewHIVvirus.(7)Eachhostcellproduceshundredsofnewviri‐ ons. In1987,zidovudine(AZT)wasapprovedasthefirstARVfortherapeuticuse.Since then,andinashortperiod,6moreclassesofARVshavebeendevelopedand,todate,49 medicinescontainingsingleARVdrugsordrugassociations(asinthecaseofcART)have beenapprovedandmadeavailableonthemarketbytheUnitedStatesFoodandDrug Administration(U.S.FDA)fortheclinicaltreatmentofHIVinfection/AIDS[31].Theex‐ istingARVdrugscanbeclassifiedaccordingtotheirtarget[4](Figures2–6). Figure2.MolecularcomponentsofHIVvirusandtargetsofARVdrugs.Inthevirus,thetargetscanbetheglycoproteins responsibleforadhesiongp120andgp41;theenzymesintegrase,reversetranscriptase,andprotease;theproteinfromthe capsidp24andproteinTatthatmodulatestranscriptioninitiationandcanreactivatealatentlyinfectedcellbypenetrating. Inthehostcellsthetargetscanbethelymphocytefunction‐associatedantigen1(LFA‐1);theCD4receptoranditsco‐ receptorC‐CMotifChemokineReceptor5(CCR5);andthehumanleucocyteantigen(HLA‐DR). Figure 2. Molecular components of HIV virus and targets of ARV drugs. In the virus, the targets can be the glycoproteins responsible for adhesion gp120 and gp41; the enzymes integrase, reverse transcriptase, and protease; the protein from the capsid p24 and protein Tat that modulates transcription initiation and can reactivate a latently infected cell by penetrating. In the host cells the targets can be the lymphocyte function-associated antigen 1 (LFA-1); the CD4 receptor and its co-receptor C-C Motif Chemokine Receptor 5 (CCR5); and the human leucocyte antigen (HLA-DR). Pharmaceutics2021,13,xFORPEERREVIEW5of49 Figure3.Cellentryinhibitorsandfusioninhibitors.Ibalizumab‐uiyk(IBA)blocksCD4andmaraviroc(MVC),blocks CCR5receptorsfromhostcells.Enfuvirtide(T‐20)blocksgp41andfostemsavirtromethamine(FTR)blocksgp120from thevirus. Figure4.Reversetranscriptase(RT)inhibitors.Redarrowsrepresentthenucleosidereversetranscriptaseinhibitors (NRTI):lamivudine(3TC);abacavir(ABC);zidovudine(AZT);stavudine(d4T);didanosine(ddI);zalcitabine(ddC); emtricitabine(FTC);tenofovirdisoproxilfumarate(TDF).Purplearrowsrepresentthenon‐nucleosidereversetranscrip‐ taseinhibitors(NNRTI):efavirenz(EFV);etravirine(ETR);nevirapine(NVP);delavirdine(DLV). Figure 3. Cell entry inhibitors and fusion inhibitors. Ibalizumab-uiyk (IBA) blocks CD4 and maraviroc (MVC), blocks CCR5 receptors from host cells. Enfuvirtide (T-20) blocks gp41 and fostemsavir tromethamine (FTR) blocks gp120 from the virus.
Pharmaceutics 2021,13, 1294 5 of 54 Pharmaceutics2021,13,xFORPEERREVIEW5of49 Figure3.Cellentryinhibitorsandfusioninhibitors.Ibalizumab‐uiyk(IBA)blocksCD4andmaraviroc(MVC),blocks CCR5receptorsfromhostcells.Enfuvirtide(T‐20)blocksgp41andfostemsavirtromethamine(FTR)blocksgp120from thevirus. Figure4.Reversetranscriptase(RT)inhibitors.Redarrowsrepresentthenucleosidereversetranscriptaseinhibitors (NRTI):lamivudine(3TC);abacavir(ABC);zidovudine(AZT);stavudine(d4T);didanosine(ddI);zalcitabine(ddC); emtricitabine(FTC);tenofovirdisoproxilfumarate(TDF).Purplearrowsrepresentthenon‐nucleosidereversetranscrip‐ taseinhibitors(NNRTI):efavirenz(EFV);etravirine(ETR);nevirapine(NVP);delavirdine(DLV). Figure 4. Reverse transcriptase (RT) inhibitors. Red arrows represent the nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI): lamivudine (3TC); abacavir (ABC); zidovudine (AZT); stavudine (d4T); didanosine (ddI); zalcitabine (ddC); emtricitabine (FTC); tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF). Purple arrows represent the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI): efavirenz (EFV); etravirine (ETR); nevirapine (NVP); delavirdine (DLV). Pharmaceutics2021,13,xFORPEERREVIEW6of49 Figure5.Integraseinhibitors: raltegravir(RAL);dolutegravir(DTG);elvitegravir(EVG);cabotegravir(CAB). Figure6.Proteaseinhibitors: tipranavir (TPV);indinavir(IDV);ritonavir(RTV);fosamprenavir(FPV);atazanavir(ATV); lopinavir(LPV);saquinavir(SQV). Thus,ARVcanbegroupedintothefollowingtherapeuticclasses(Table1):cellentry inhibitors(stage1ofFigures1and3;fusioninhibitors(FI)(stage2ofFigures1and3; nucleosidereversetranscriptaseinhibitors(NRTI),non‐nucleosideRTinhibitors(NNRTI) (stage4ofFigures1and4);integraseinhibitors(IIs)(stage5ofFigures1and5);andpro‐ teaseinhibitors(PI)(stage6ofFigures1and6)[31,32].Pharmacokineticenhancingdrugs Figure 5. Integrase inhibitors: raltegravir (RAL); dolutegravir (DTG); elvitegravir (EVG); cabotegravir (CAB).
Pharmaceutics 2021,13, 1294 6 of 54 Pharmaceutics2021,13,xFORPEERREVIEW6of49 Figure5.Integraseinhibitors: raltegravir(RAL);dolutegravir(DTG);elvitegravir(EVG);cabotegravir(CAB). Figure6.Proteaseinhibitors: tipranavir (TPV);indinavir(IDV);ritonavir(RTV);fosamprenavir(FPV);atazanavir(ATV); lopinavir(LPV);saquinavir(SQV). Thus,ARVcanbegroupedintothefollowingtherapeuticclasses(Table1):cellentry inhibitors(stage1ofFigures1and3;fusioninhibitors(FI)(stage2ofFigures1and3; nucleosidereversetranscriptaseinhibitors(NRTI),non‐nucleosideRTinhibitors(NNRTI) (stage4ofFigures1and4);integraseinhibitors(IIs)(stage5ofFigures1and5);andpro‐ teaseinhibitors(PI)(stage6ofFigures1and6)[31,32].Pharmacokineticenhancingdrugs Figure 6. Protease inhibitors: tipranavir (TPV); indinavir (IDV); ritonavir (RTV); fosamprenavir (FPV); atazanavir (ATV); lopinavir (LPV); saquinavir (SQV). Thus, ARV can be grouped into the following therapeutic classes (Table 1): cell entry inhibitors (stage 1 of Figures 1and 3; fusion inhibitors (FI) (stage 2 of Figures 1and 3 ; nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI), non-nucleoside RT inhibitors (NNRTI) (stage 4 of Figures 1and 4); integrase inhibitors (IIs) (stage 5 of Figures 1and 5); and protease inhibitors (PI) (stage 6 of Figures 1and 6) [ 31 , 32 ]. Pharmacokinetic enhancing drugs (e.g., cobicistat) can also be used in association with ART agents to improve therapeutic effectiveness. Table 1. ARV agents are classified into therapeutic classes based on their mechanism of action and target site [31,33,34]. ARV Therapeutic Class Mechanism of Action ARV Single Agents and Some ARV Associations Cell entry inhibitors CCR5 antagonists Block CCR5 coreceptors present on the surface of specific immune cells, preventing HIV from entering the cells. MVC Attachment inhibitors Bind to the gp120 protein on the viral outer surface, blocking HIV entry into CD4 cells. FTR Post-attachment inhibitors Block CD4 receptors present on the surface of specific immune cells, preventing HIV from entering the cells. IBA Fusion inhibitors (FI) Interferes with HIV binding, fusion, and cell entrance by preventing the gp41 glycoprotein from being exposed to the virus-host cell membrane. T-20
Pharmaceutics 2021,13, 1294 7 of 54 Table 1. Cont. ARV Therapeutic Class Mechanism of Action ARV Single Agents and Some ARV Associations Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) Block the viral RT, inhibiting HIV replication. 3TC; ABC; AZT; d4T; ddI; ddI EC; ddC (F.M.); FTC; TDF; 3TC+AZT; ABC+3TC; ABC+AZT+3TC; TDF+FTC Non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI) Bind to viral RT and subsequently modify it, limiting HIV replication. DOR; EFV; RPV; ETR; NVP; DLV Integrase inhibitors (II) Inhibition of viral integrase. Prevents the incorporation of HIV proviral DNA strands into the host cell genome. RAL; DTG; EVG; CAB Protease inhibitors (PI) Inhibition of viral protease. Prevents the cleavage of some viral proteins and the maturation of virions, resulting in non-viral particles. TPV; IDV; RTV; DRV; FPV; ATV; LPV+RTV; SQVM+RTV Abbreviations: 3TC, lamivudine; ABC, abacavir; ATV, atazanavir; AZT, zidovudine; CAB, cabotegravir; CCR5, C-C chemokine receptor type 5; CD4, cluster of differentiation 4; d4T, stavudine; ddC, zalcitabine; ddI, didanosine; ddI EC, enteric coated didanosine; DLV, delavirdine; DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid; DOR, doravirine; DRV, darunavir; DTG, dolutegravir; EFV, efavirenz; ETR, etravirine; EVG, elvitegravir; FI, fusion inhibitors; FPV, fosamprenavir; FTC, emtricitabine; FTR, fostemsavir tromethamine; gp41, glycoprotein gp41; gp120, glycoprotein gp120; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; IBA, ibalizumab-uiyk; IDV, indinavir; II, integrase inhibitors; LPV, lopinavir; MVC, maraviroc; NNRTI, non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI, nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors; NVP, nevirapine; PI, protease inhibitors; RAL, raltegravir; RT, reverse transcriptase; RPV, rilpivirine; RTV, ritonavir; SQVM, saquinavir mesylate; T-20, enfuvirtide; TDF, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate; TPV, tipranavir. Despite the recognized overall success of cART, particularly in developing countries, this therapeutic strategy continues to raise some important issues, and its effectiveness is affected by several limitations. For example, the multi-dose treatments administered over extended periods can result in the development of ARV resistance mechanisms and can also lead to the inability to effectively suppress the virus due to the difficulties in maintaining consistent drug levels, particularly in viral reservoirs [ 8 , 35 ]. The mechanisms underlying ARV resistance are often related to HIV genetic variability and HIV reverse transcriptase processing errors. This high mutation rate coupled with the virus’s fast replication leads to the creation of innumerable virus variants (quasispecies) capable of avoiding the immune system [ 36 , 37 ]. Additionally, the recombination of more than one viral strain during infection or the accumulation of proviral variants also contribute to viral resistance [ 37 , 38 ]. Although some HIV variants display primary mutations that make them less susceptible to ARV action, most ARV resistance results from direct exposure to these regimens and it was already observed in all six therapeutic classes through different mechanisms [ 36 ]. For example, in NRTI, whose main function is to block the viral RT and inhibit HIV replication, resistance can occur by two mechanisms. The first mechanism corresponds to mutations at or near the drug-binding site of RT (e.g., M184V, L74V, K65R, and others) leading to a conformational change in the enzyme that ultimately blocks the binding of NRTI to the active site [ 36 , 39 ]. Such a mechanism enables viral RT to discriminate between dideoxyNRTI chain terminators and endogenous triphosphate deoxynucleosides, preventing the binding of NRTI to viral DNA [ 37 ] The second mechanism corresponds to phosphorylytic removal of NRTI-triphosphate from its site of attachment in the viral DNA chain [ 36 , 37 ]. These mutations are characteristic of the thymidine analogs (AZT and d4T) and can also be described as thymidine analog mutations (TAM). TAM can be further divided into type I (e.g., M41L, L210W, and T215Y) and II (e.g., D67N, K70R, T215F, and K219Q/E), however, type I is responsible for higher levels of phenotypic and clinical cross-resistance [37]. The most frequent mutations that occur in NNRTIs, take place within their binding pocket and mostly affect hydrophobic residues of HIV-RT [ 36 , 40 ]. These mutations (e.g., L100I, G190S/A, and Y181C) alter the binding site of RT to NNRTIs which consequently
Pharmaceutics 2021,13, 1294 8 of 54 decreases the binding affinity and alters the overall structure of the complex [ 39 ]. Other mutations (e.g., K103N) can act using a different mechanism such as the establishment of a hydrogen bond at the entrance of the binding pocket. This helps to maintain the pocket closed and limits NNRTI diffusion. Nevertheless, one of the biggest hurdles related to the use of NNRTI is that the binding site in RT is approximately the same for all of them, which means that a single mutation can lead to high-level drug resistance and cause cross-resistance among all NNRTI [36,41]. Furthermore, the resistance to PI is associated with mutations in the protease gene and subsequent replacement of amino acids within the protease enzyme (e.g., D30N, V32I, G48V, V82A, and others) [ 36 , 41 ]. These modifications will reduce the binding affinity between the catalytic binding site of the enzyme and the PI [ 36 ]. Other mutations in the enzyme flap (e.g., I54M/L) and core (e.g., L76V and N88S) can also decrease PI susceptibility [ 40 ]. In response to these mutations, the geometry of the catalytic site of the homodimer is enlarged disabling the inhibitor to effectively bind to the gene and block cleavage [36]. The development of resistance in FI is related to mutations in gp41 codons 36–45 (e.g., G36DEV, V38EA, Q40H, N42T, and N43D), correspondent to the location where T-20 will bind [ 36 , 38 ]. In the case of II, the occurrence of mutations (e.g., N155H, Q148R, Y143R, and others) at Asp64 and Asp116 carboxylate residues (which coordinate an Mg 2+ ion) compromise the catalytic activity of the enzyme [ 41 ]. It is thought that the functional group of IIs binds selectively to the enzyme complexes which further interferes with strand transfer of viral and host DNA [ 41 ]. Finally, cell entry inhibitors such as maraviroc (CCR5 inhibitor) may develop resistance via gp120 mutations, enabling HIV to bind the CCR5-CCR5 inhibitor complex [ 40 ]. However, the most common mechanism of resistance to CCR5 inhibitors is associated with an enhancement of CXCR4 tropic viruses that are intrinsically insensitive to CCR5 inhibitors [40]. Besides the resistance mechanisms, prolonged treatment regimens often result in poor adherence and careless patient intake, as well as treatments with high associated costs [ 2 , 42 , 43 ]. In addition to this, any interruption in the therapeutic regimen results in treatment failure and viral resistance. Moreover, drug associations can improve the therapeutic effectiveness, but they may also have the opposite effect due to an increase in deleterious drug-drug interactions. Prolonged use of ARV therapeutic regimens is also often associated with toxic side effects (e.g., constipation/diarrhea, abdominal pain, nausea, liver and metabolic disorders, kidney stones, anemia, fatigue, headache, fever, muscular dystrophy, and peripheral neuropathy) that compromise the quality of life of patients [ 44 ]. Pharmacokinetic issues are another significant limitation of cART and single ARV therapies. In either case, ARV demonstrates low and unpredictable bioavailability after oral administration due to their poor gastrointestinal (GI) absorption, extensive first-pass metabolism, and GI enzymatic degradation. The majority of ARV drugs are classified in biopharmaceutical class system (BCS) II, III, or IV, which means they have low solubility and permeability. For drugs given orally, solubility is required to confirm drug absorption and clinical response. The speed and extent of oral drug diffusion through the mucus layer, submucosa, and epithelial cell barriers into the blood or lymphatic circulation is referred to as permeability. Low solubility and permeability thereby show that ARV drugs are poorly absorbed in the body [ 45 ]. Even after absorption, most ARV present other significant pharmacokinetic limitations, such as a short half-life that demands recurrent dose administration in a fastidious dosage regimen, which contributes to poor patient adherence [ 2 , 44 , 45 ]. Another pharmacokinetic issue is poor body distribution of ARV, which prevents reaching certain target tissues that serve as viral reservoirs. High plasma protein binding of ARV, for example, impairs drug permeation across the BBB [ 46 ]. The central nervous system (CNS) is known as an anatomical viral reservoir, where HIV survives in long-lived cells, such as microglia. As a result, viral eradication by ARV drugs or cART becomes more difficult and newer and drug-resistant HIV strains develop. Furthermore, some ARV drugs’ inability to enter the CNS further restricts eradication. ARV drugs may also be expelled from CNS at the BBB level by efflux transporters like
Pharmaceutics 2021,13, 1294 9 of 54 glycoprotein P (P-gp) [ 47 ]. Simultaneously, the inflammatory response induced by HIV infection of the CNS causes permeability increase of the BBB and plays an important role in neuropathogenesis [47,48]. Moreover, ARV fails to target lymphatic system cells (e.g., dendritic cells and macrophages) involved in virus transmission to helper T lymphocytes (CD4+ T cells), resulting in posttreatment infection relapse [49]. To address the limitations of cART and single ARV therapies, there is an urge to develop innovative strategies, such as nanocarriers for ARV delivery. Among the vast types of nanocarriers available, lipid-based nanocarriers can be one of the most attractive drug carrier classes for ARVs. The ability of these systems to transport drugs of varying lipophilicity, as well as their widely accepted biocompatibility and biodegradability, make them appealing for translation into clinical settings [ 50 ]. Additionally, as the oral route is the preferred method of administration, lipid nanocarriers stimulate the secretion of endogenous biliary lipids enhancing the GI absorptive capacity of the carried ARV agents [ 51 ]. Consequently, bioavailability enhancement and better distribution over the cellular and organ target viral sites are expected. Indeed, lipid nanocarriers can protect ARV agents (single or on association) through their body path, reducing accumulation in non-target tissues (reducing toxic side effects) and improving doses at viral reservoirs, as well as, avoiding unwanted drug interactions between the multiple carried drugs. The more specific and controlled delivery of ARV agents provided by lipid nanocarriers may also enhance therapeutic efficiency by decreasing the need for frequent administration regimens, which ultimately increases patient adherence. There is also the need to seek out novel alternatives capable of overcoming the physiological barriers inherent to oral ARV drug administration. Therefore, lipid nanocarriers are likewise advantageous to explore different non-invasive routes like skin transdermal, intranasal, and topical vaginal administration (for pre-exposure prophylaxis purposes) [19,52–55]. Nanocarriers for ARV drugs delivery in the CNS have also proved useful in circumventing the BBB because of their potential to enhance drug permeability. Nanocarriers have a variety of properties that help them penetrate the BBB and deliver drugs to the CNS, such as a high surface-to-volume ratio, a positive surface charge (to take advantage of adsorptive mediated transport through the BBB), and a small and regulated size (less than 200 nm) [ 47 , 56 ]. The charge and hydrophobicity of the nanocarriers’ surface impact plasmatic protein adsorption, and therefore their absorption and/or rate of transcytosis. Nanocarriers coated with specific surface stabilizers may be useful in achieving greater drug levels in the brain when it comes to CNS administration. Polysorbate 80 is a nonionic surfactant that has been shown to improve brain delivery in a variety of nanocarriers by adsorbing different apolipoproteins once in the circulation, imitating lipoproteins in their receptor-mediated transcytosis pathway into the CNS [47]. Given all of the mentioned advantages of nanocarriers for ARV delivery, the following section will provide a more detailed view of the types of lipid nanocarriers and their engineering properties to improve ARV therapy. 3. Lipid-Based Nanocarriers for Delivery of ARV Agents Lipid-based nanocarriers are organic nanosystems that self-organize upon input of energy into a supramolecular structure with the hydrophilic portions (anionic, cationic, or zwitterionic) exposed to the surrounding aqueous solvent and the hydrophobic portions (usually hydrocarbon chains) facing each other to reduce contact with aqueous solvent [ 50 ]. Self-assembly is a common manufacturing method of lipid-based nanocarriers that is spontaneous but driven by an input of energy and the hydrophobic effect [ 50 ]. Lipid-based nanocarriers’ definitions and main characteristics are presented in Table 2.
Pharmaceutics 2021,13, 1294 16 of 54 Table 3. Cont. Year Composition ARV Physicochemical Characterization Outcomes Ref. E.E. (%) D.L. (%) ζ-Potential (mV) Size (nm) 2008 EPC:Chol:DMPE (7:2:1) Uncoated LP or coated w/OPG: OPG-LP d4T a logP = −0.72 Uncoated LP: 49.6 ±1.2 OPG-LP: 48.7 ± 0.2 N.D. N.D. Uncoated LP: 120 ±4 OPG-LP: 126 ±4 Inhibition of HIV p24 protein with uncoated LP and OPG-LP ↑accumulation of OPG-LP in the liver, spleen, and MPS ↓uptake of OPG-LP in bone [96] *,** 2006 EPC:Chol:PE (7:2:1) Uncoated LP or coated w/OPG: OPG-LP) AZT a logP = 0.05 Uncoated LP: 54.3 ±3.3 OPG-LP: 53.9 ± 2.1 N.D. Uncoated LP: + charge OPM-LP: charges ↓close to neutrality Uncoated LP: 120.0 ±2.1 OPG-LP: 136.9 ±1.9 ↑AZT half-life ↑residence time ↑bioavailability [15] *,** 2006 SPC:Span80®(85:15) SPC:PEG-8-L (85:15) AZT c logP = 0.05 LP w/Span80®: 63.5 ±2.9 LP w/PEG-8-L: 57.1 ±3.1 N.D. LP w/Span80: −2.8 ±0.4 LP w/PEG-8-L: −16.7 ±0.7 LP w/Span80®: 132 ±15 LP w/PEG-8-L: 116 ±10 Better pharmacokinetic profile ↑accumulation of AZT in target RES organs ↑AZT half-life ↑residence time, targeting, and controlled release [19] *,** 2007 DPPC Note: intended for oral administration ddI logP = −1.24 N.D. N.D. N.D. 1160 ±129 ↑bioavailability [97] **
Pharmaceutics 2021,13, 1294 17 of 54 Table 3. Cont. Year Composition ARV Physicochemical Characterization Outcomes Ref. E.E. (%) D.L. (%) ζ-Potential (mV) Size (nm) 2007 PC:POPG (3:1) IDV logP = 2.9 SQV logP = 3.8 N.D. N.D. N.D. 130 to 150 ↑liposomal solubilization of both drugs ↑drug concentration in the media (10and 750-fold for IDV and SQV, respectively) [98] ** 2008 Plain-LP: SPC:PE:Span 80 (42.5:42.5:15) PEG-LP: SPC:PE:Span 80:MPEG 2000 (42.5:42.5:15:33.3) AZT c logP = 0.05 Plain-LP: 63.5 ±2.9 PEG-LP: 72.3 ±4.5 N.D. Plain-LP: −2.8 ±0.4 PEG-LP: −18.2 ±0.8 Plain-LP: 132 ±14 PEG-LP: 158 ±15 ↑cellular uptake in lymphoid cells ↑biodistribution ↑residence time and sustained drug release [53] *,** 2008 LP: SPC:Chol (7:3) + charge LP: SPC:Chol:SA (7:3:1) - charge LP: SPC:Chol:DCP (7:3:1) w/Mannose: SPC:Chol:Man (7:3:2.5) AZT g logP = 0.05 LP: 18.5 ±1.2 + charge LP: 24.2 ±0.9 −charge LP: 22.4 ±1.4 Man-LP: 20.0 ± 2.5 N.D. LP: +10.3 ±1.8 +charge LP: +54.4 ±2.3 −charge LP: −34.8 ±4.45 Man-LP: +14.7 ±3.9 LP: 122 ±6 + charge LP: 126 ±3 −charge LP: 128 ±4 Man-LP: 127 ±1.2 ↓ release in Man-LP as compared to LP ↑uptake ↑localization of Man-LP in the lymph nodes and spleen [99] *,** 2009 HSPC:Chol:mPEG– DSPE (55:40:5) PI1 N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. ↑and longer antiviral activity Facilitated specific uptake by non-phagocytic HIV-infected cells [100] **
Pharmaceutics 2021,13, 1294 18 of 54 Table 3. Cont. Year Composition ARV Physicochemical Characterization Outcomes Ref. E.E. (%) D.L. (%) ζ-Potential (mV) Size (nm) 2010 EPC:Chol (9:1) NVP logP = 2.5 78.1 7.81 N.D. <200 ↑E.E. Quick in vitro release from liposomes [101] ** 2011 DPPC ProddINP b logP = 0.05 99 8.83 −0.8 ±0.5 187 to 208 ↑ddI blood half-life (3-fold) ↑accumulation as prodrug at 24 h in various organs compared to plain drug [79] *,** 2011 DPPC:EDPPC (1:1) SFV logP = −19.5 N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. Strong affinity of SFV for DPPC:EDPPC ↑Affinity with ↑ cationic EDPPC Fusion w/viral/raftmimicking vesicles [102] ** 2011 Chol:SA (194:1; 39:1; 22:1; 16:1;4:1) w/Span 20®/Span 40®/Span 60® TFV logP = −1.6 3.46 to 65.26 N.D. +4.79 to +17.13 36.13 to 114.9 The composition had a significant impact on TFV release Size and ζwere inversely proportional to the homogenization parameters, in contrast to the E.E. and conductivity TFV distributed within both the aqueous and lipid phases [103] **
Pharmaceutics 2021,13, 1294 19 of 54 Table 3. Cont. Year Composition ARV Physicochemical Characterization Outcomes Ref. E.E. (%) D.L. (%) ζ-Potential (mV) Size (nm) 2012 EPC:DSPE-PEG SQV logP = 3.8 32.2 ±2.9 N.D. −35.50 ±1.66 176.6 ±6.8 ↓cytotoxicity with PEGylated liposomes [104] ** 2012 DMPC:Chol:DPTAP (55:27:18) DPPC:Chol:DPTAP (55:27:18) DSPC:Chol:DPTAP (55:27:18) DSPC:Chol:SA (60:30:10) TFV logP = −1.6 N.D. N.D. DMPC:Chol:DPTAP: +71.11 ±5.72 DPPC:Chol:DPTAP: +62.50 ±2.64 DSPC:Chol:DPTAP: +59.76 ±2.49 DSPC:Chol:SA: +31.54 ±1.90 DMPC:Chol:DPTAP: 166.8 ±18.1 DPPC:Chol:DPTAP: 158.1 ±32.0 DSPC:Chol:DPTAP: 159.0 ±35.5 DSPC:Chol:SA: 158.5 ±34.7 In the two-stage reverse dialysis method proposed, no drug leakage occurred during the 1st stage in LP containing high phase transition temperature lipids and high Chol content In the 2nd stage, significant differences in TFV release rate occurred in LP with different compositions [105] ** 2010/13 Chol:Phospholipon 100H:SA (1:1:0; 5:5:1; 3:3:1; 2.3:2.3:1; 2:2:1; 2:1:1) TFV. logP = −1.6 1.28 ±0.24 (1:1:0) to 70.8 ± 2.55 (2:1:1) 0.39 ±0.087 (1:1:0) to 17.71 ±1.87 (2:1:1) −3.43 (1:1:0) to +93.5 (5:5:1) 46.6 (1:1:0) to 2,200 (2:1:1) ↑permeation of TFV (Caco-2 cell model) [106,107] ** 2016 LP DSPE:Stearic Acid:Chol (1:1:1) Stealth LP DSPE:Stearic Acid:Chol w/PEG 10000 RTV a logP = 3.9 LP: 98 ±0.5 Stealth LP: 94.12 ±0.29 LP: 11.92 ±0.06 Stealth LP: 11.45 ±0.03 LP: −33 ±0.4 Stealth LP: −43.6 ±1.8 LP: 49 ±0.3 Stealth LP: 116.6 ±0.1 Stealth LP prolongs RTV release to 34 h ↑half-life of RTV for stealth LP LP and pure RTV showed dose dependent pharmacokinetics [80] *,**
Pharmaceutics 2021,13, 1294 20 of 54 Table 3. Cont. Year Composition ARV Physicochemical Characterization Outcomes Ref. E.E. (%) D.L. (%) ζ-Potential (mV) Size (nm) 2017 Phospholipon 100H:Chol:SA (3:3:1 and 2:2:1) Note: intended for oral administration TFV logP = −1.6 (3:3:1): 39.8 ±8.1 (2:2:1): 68.1 ±2.6 N.D. + charge N.D. ↑ cellular permeability (10 times higher) ↑E.E. [108] ** 2017 HSPC:Chol (7:3) LPV b logP = 5.94 90.47 ±0.32 N.D. −24.8 ±0.21 659.7 ±23.1 ↑LPV release at 60 min (95% for LPV loaded proliposomes vs. 55% for free LPV) ↑intestinal permeation (≈1.99 fold) compared to pure LPV) ↑oral bioavailability (2.24and 1.16-fold) than pure LPV and commercial LPV/RTV, respectively. [109] *,**,*** 2015 EPC:Chol:DSPE-PEG (9:1:1) NVP logP = 2.5 and SQV logP = 3.8 NVP: 44 ±2 SQV: 44 ±1N.D. −29 ±2 160 ±2 ↑inhibition of viral proliferation at lower doses compared to free drugs NVP is mainly released in the early phases and SQV in the later phases of infection [70] **
Pharmaceutics 2021,13, 1294 21 of 54 Table 3. Cont. Year Composition ARV Physicochemical Characterization Outcomes Ref. E.E. (%) D.L. (%) ζ-Potential (mV) Size (nm) 2017 SPC:Chol (2:1) Plain or coated w/biotin RTV b logP = 3.9 Plain LP: 62.3 ± 1.7 Biotin-LP: 61.6 ± 1.8 N.D. Plain LP: −18.9 ± 2.0 Biotin-LP: −26.1 ±2.5 Plain LP: 126.6 ± 6.2 Biotin-LP: 149.8 ± 6.8 ↑release from biotin coated liposomes compared to conventional ones ↑[RTV] in lymphatic tissues [110] *,** 2018 DSPC:DSPE-mPEG2000 (9:1) ATV g logP = 4.5 RTV logP = 3.9 TFV logP = −1.6 ATV: 99 ±8.2 RTV: 92 ±7.1 TFV: 10 ±0.8 N.D. N.D. 6 to 62 ↑residence time in plasma and peripheral blood mononuclear cells [21] * 2019 DPPC Note: intended for vaginal administration TDF logP = 2.65 FTC logP = −0.43 84 1 Zwitterio-nic 134 ±13 ↑ TDF permeation and ↑sustained release Non-cytotoxic in CaSki (epidermoid cervical cancer cell line) and HEC-1-A (Human Endo-metrial Cancer-1) [52] ** 2020 POPC POPC:DPPE-PEG2000 (9:1) T20 logP = −14.7 PPI xT20 + PPIX N.D. N.D. Zwitterionic charge was predominantly affected by PPIX Unloaded POPC: 110 nm Unloaded POPC:DPPEPEG2000 (9:1): 120 nm Size was affected by PPIX ↑ entry inhibitors (T20 and PPIX) synergy compared to combination in free aqueous form [111] **
Pharmaceutics 2021,13, 1294 22 of 54 Table 3. Cont. Year Composition ARV Physicochemical Characterization Outcomes Ref. E.E. (%) D.L. (%) ζ-Potential (mV) Size (nm) Ethosomes 2007 SPC w/ethanol 3TC c logP = −1.4 57.2 ±4.1 N.D. −8.2 ±1.5 102 ±13 ↑cellular uptake ↑transdermal flux (25 times higher) ↑ elasticity contributes to enhanced skin permeation [112] *,*** Cubosomes 2021 GMO:CTAB:poloxamer 407(245:9:1, 219:9:1) ATV g logP = 4.5 61 ±4.6 (219:9:1) to 93 ± 1.2 (245:9:1) N.D. −29.41 (219:9:1) to −24.53 (245:9:1) 253 ±5.6 (219:9:1) to 150 ±8.7 (245:9:1) ↑ATV absorption and bioavailability (4.6 folds) compared to oral administration ↑transdermal drug permeation due to bio-adhesive characteristic and permeation enhancement effect [113] *,**,*** 2020 GMO:CTAB: poloxamer 407 (18:15:1) SQV b,d logP = 3.8 72 ±2 higher concentrations of GMO favored drug entrapment N.D. N.D. 120 ±2 ↑particle size with ↑GMO and ↓ Poloxamer 407 ↑SQV bioavailability (12-fold and 2.5-fold) when compared with oral and intranasal administration of free SQV [114] *,*** Hybrid liposomal nanocarriers 2017 SPC and gelatin nanoparticles (SG-LP) d4T logP = −0.72 Gelatin NP (SG): 56.0 ±1.7 SG-LP: 55.1 ± 2.1 N.D. SG-LP: −44.6 ±1.36 SG-LP: 232.9 ±1.5 ↑controlled release ↑uptake and hemocompatibility ↑d4T half-life ↓blood viremia [20] **
Pharmaceutics 2021,13, 1294 23 of 54 Table 3. Cont. Year Composition ARV Physicochemical Characterization Outcomes Ref. E.E. (%) D.L. (%) ζ-Potential (mV) Size (nm) 2017 LP DPPC or DPPC:Chol (1:1, 4:1, 2:1) Magneto-plasmonic LP MNP@Au coated w/PEG TDF logP = 2.65 ↑E.E. w/higher drug ratio (≈30% for LP:TDF (1:34)) ↑ E.E. w/smaller Chol content (≈60% for DPPC) N.D. N.D. ↓with increasing Chol ↑TDF release for LP without Chol ↑transmigration across an in vitro BBB model by magnetic targeting ↓viral replication of HIV infected microglial cells [115] ** 2010 LP SPC:Chol (1.2:1) Magnetic LP LP + magnetic AZTTP NP AZTTP 54.5 ±6 N.D. N.D. ∼150 nm ↑ permeability (3-fold) for magnetic AZTTP LP than free AZTTP Efficient taken up by monocytes ↑transendothelial migration in presence of an external magnetic field compared to normal/nonmagnetic monocytes [116] **
Pharmaceutics 2021,13, 1294 24 of 54 Table 3. Cont. Year Composition ARV Physicochemical Characterization Outcomes Ref. E.E. (%) D.L. (%) ζ-Potential (mV) Size (nm) 2021 LP DMPC:DOPE:Chol (7:2:1) inside PVA nanofibers TDF h logP = 2.65 FTC logP = −0.43 100 4 (FTC) and 2.8 (TDF) LP −0.67 ±0.01 211 ±24 Rapid onset of local drug levels upon single vaginal administration of fibers to mice comparing to the continuous daily use for 5 days of oral TDF/FTC Drug concentrations in vaginal fluids were fairly sustained up to 1–4 h, which could be translatable into a quite wide protection time window in humans [117] * Notes : a intravenous injection; b oral administration; c transdermal administration; d intranasal administration; e intraventricular administration; g subcutaneous injection; h vaginal administration; N.D. no data * in vivo studies performed; ** in vitro studies performed; *** ex vivo studies performed. Abbreviations: 3TC, lamivudine; ARV, antiretroviral; ATV, atazanavir; Au, gold; AZT, zidovudine; AZT-M, zidovudine myristate; AZTTP, azidothymidine 5 0 -triphosphate; BBB, blood-brain barrier; CaSki, epidermoid cervical cancer cell line; Chol, cholesterol; CNS, central nervous system; CTAB, cetyltrimethylammonium bromide; d4T, stavudine; DCP, dicetyl phosphate; ddC, zalcitabine; ddI, didanosine; DMEM, Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle’s Medium; D.L., drug loading; DLMA, inner uncoated liposomes; DMPC, 1,2-dimyristoylsn-glycero-3-phosphocholine; DMPE, 1,2-dimyristoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphoethanolamine; DMPG, 1,2-dimyristoyl-sn-glycero-3-phospho-(1 0 -rac-glycerol); DOPC, 1,2-dioleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine; DOPE, 1,2-dioleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphoethanolamine; DPPC, 1,2-dipalmitoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine; DPPE-PEG 2000 , 1,2-dipalmitoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphoethanolamine-N-[methoxy-(polyethylene glycol)-2000]; DPPG, 1,2-dipalmitoyl-sn-glycero-3-phospho-(1 0 -rac-glycerol); DPTAP, 1,2-dipalmitoyl-3-trimethylammonium-propane (chloride salt); DSPC, 1,2-distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine; DSPE, 1,2-distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphorylethanolamine; DSPG, 1,2-distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phospho-(1 0 -rac-glycerol); EDPPC, cationic 1,2-dipalmitoylethyl-phosphatidylcholine; E.E., entrapment efficiency; EPC, egg phosphatidylcholine; FTC, emtricitabine, Gal-DLMA, inner galactosylated liposomes; Gal-DMPE, galactosylated phosphatidylethanolamine; GMO, glyceryl monooleate; HEC-1-A, human endometrial cancer-1; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; HSPC, hydrogenated soy phosphatidylcholine; IDV, indinavir; logP, partition coefficient; LP, liposome; LPV, lopinavir; MAL, maleimide; Man, mannose; MCZ, miconazole nitrate; MPEG 2000, mono methoxy PEG 2000; mPEG, methoxyl poly(ethylene glycol); MNP, magnetic nanoparticles; MPS, mononuclear phagocyte system; N.D., no data; NP, nanoparticles; NVP, nevirapine; OPG, O-palmitoylgalactose; OPM, O-palmitoylmannose; PBS, phosphate buffered saline; PC, phosphatidylcholine; PE, phosphatidylethanolamine; PEG, polyethylene glycol; PEG-8-L, octaoxyehtylene laurate ester; PLPC, 1-palmitoyl-2-lauroyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine; POPC, 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine; POPE, 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphoethanolamine; POPG, 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phospho-(1 0 -rac-glycerol); PPIX, protoporphyrin IX; ProddINP, glycerolipidic prodrug of ddI; PS, phosphatidylserine; PVA, poly(vinyl alcohol); RES, reticuloendothelial system; RTV, ritonavir; SA, stearylamine; SFV, sifuvirtide; SM, sphingomyelin; SPC, soy phosphatidylcholine; SQV, saquinavir; T20, enfuvirtide; TDF, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate; TFV, tenofovir; VE,α-tocopherol.
Pharmaceutics 2021,13, 1294 25 of 54 Table 4. Lipid nanoparticles (SLN and NLC) for ARV delivery. Year Composition ARV Physicochemical Characterization Outcomes Ref. E.E. (%) D.L. (%) ζ-Potential (mV) Size (nm) SLN 1998 Lipid phase: Trilaurin:DPPC:DMPG (0.69:0.28: 0.03 wt:wt) SLN coated w/PE-PEG2000 [10% (mol ratio)] AZT a logP = 0.05 N.D. N.D. Plain SLN: −20 ±5 PE-PEG SLN: −6±4 Plain SLN: 183 ±48 PE-PEG SLN: 182 ±44 ↓release rate in SLN-PE-PEG ↑bioavailability ↑accumulation of SLN in the liver [18] *,** 2006 Lipid phase: Trilaurin or Tristearin:Chol:PC:SA (1:0.5:1:0.1) AZT a logP = 0.05 Trilaurin SLN: 57.8 ±6.2 Tristearin SLN: 59.7 ±6.1 N.D. +charges Trilaurin SLN: 130 ±18 Tristearin SLN: 142 ±22 ↑uptake in hepatocytes ↑controlled release (12–15% in 24 h) [76] *,** 2008 Lipid phase: stearic acid Aqueous phase: Pluronic® F68 (3%) Note: intended for enhanced brain delivery ATV logP = 4.5 98.9 ±0.8 98.2 ±1.3 89.3 ±2.7 1 2 5 18.43 ±0.70 167 ±8.3 Burst ATV release of ≈ 17% by 1 h and gradual release up to 40% by 24 h ↑uptake and accumulation of ATV when delivered by SLN (human brain endothelial cell monolayer) compared to the free ATV [65] ** 2011 Lipid phase: Compritol® 888 ATO/tripalmitin/cacao butter (wt of 8%) Aqueous phase: PC (7%), cholesteryl hemisuccinate (5%), taurocholate (2.5%) and 1-butanol (9.2%) d4T logP = −0.72 DLV logP = 2.8 SQV logP = 3.8 SQV > DLV > d4T N.D. N.D. 142–308 ↑% Compritol®888 ATO: ↑d4T-SLN mean size and ↓DLV-SLN and SQV-SLN mean size ↑E.E. for d4T Sustained drug release: d4T > DLV > SQV [74] **
Pharmaceutics 2021,13, 1294 32 of 54 Table 4. Cont. Year Composition ARV Physicochemical Characterization Outcomes Ref. E.E. (%) D.L. (%) ζ-Potential (mV) Size (nm) 2019 Lipid phase: Compritol® 888 ATO:OA (3.7:1) Aqueous phase: Tween® 80 (0.04) LPV b logP = 5.94 83.6 N.D. + 21.2 196.6 ↑bioavailability ↑[LPV] in the brain ↑uptake and ↓ cytotoxicity (Caco-2 cells and macrophages) [83] *,** 2020 Lipid phase: Precirol ® ATO 5:LauroglycolTM 90 (70:30) Cremophor®RH 40 (3%) ATV b logP = 4.5 71.09 ±5.84 8.12 ±2.7 −11.7 ±0.47 227.6 ±5.4 Fast release (60%) in the initial 2 h, followed by sustained release ↑permeation of ATV (2.36-fold) across the rat intestine as compared to the free drug 2.75-fold greater Cmax in the brain and a 4-fold improvement in brain bioavailability as compared to the free drug [86] *,**,*** 2020 Lipid phase: MonosteolTM (71.5%): Capmul®PG 8 (28.5%) Aqueous phase: Tween®80 (0.43%) and poloxamer 188 (1.3%) Cationic NLC Lipid phase: same composition Aqueous phase: same composition + CTAB (1% w/w of lipid phase) EFV logP = 4.6 EFV-NLC: 91.18 ± 2.9 Cationic EFV-NLC: 90.21 ±2.3 EFV-NLC: 10.94 ± 0.35 Cationic EFV-NLC: 11.04 ± 0.17 Plain NLC: −15.16 ±0.69 EFV-NLC: −15.8 ±1.21 Cationic EFV-NLC: +23.86 ±0.49 Plain NLC: 114.53 ± 5.63 EFV-NLC: 116.5 ±9.59 Cationic EFV-NLC: 105.6 ±4.93 ↑solubility Excellent cytocompatibility (CC50 13.23±0.54 µg/mL) Uptake of cationic NLC by THP-1 macrophages ↑retention/sustained release and ↑ inhibition of HIV-1 (2.32-fold) in infected macrophages with cationic NLC compared to the free drug ↑anti-HIV-efficacy (2.29-fold) with cationic NLC [124] **
Pharmaceutics 2021,13, 1294 33 of 54 Table 4. Cont. Year Composition ARV Physicochemical Characterization Outcomes Ref. E.E. (%) D.L. (%) ζ-Potential (mV) Size (nm) 2021 Lipid phase: Precirol®ATO 5:Capmul® MCM (40:60) CapryolTM 90 (N.D.) Aqueous phase: Lutrol®F 127 (1%) ETR a logP = 4.5 >90 5 to 10 −20 ±2.3 351.7 ±3.36 ↑cellular uptake and ↑ anti-HIV efficacy Overall better pharmacokinetics as compared to the free drug ↑ [ETR] several-fold in the liver, ovary, lymph node, and brain as compared to the free drug [87] *,** 2021 Lipid phase: GMS/Gelucire® 50/13/Dynasan® 118:Capmul®MCM EP (80:20) (8%) Span®80 Aqueous phase: Tween®80, sodium cholate; PEG 6000 (1%), propylene glycol (1%), BHT (0.4%) Note: Surfactant mixture [(Tween®80: Span®80 (70:30)]: 5% DTG logP = 2.2 88.09 N.D. −16.6 123.1 Sustained release over 48 h ↑DTG permeation through rat intestine ( ≈ 94.02%) as compared to plain drug suspension (only 55.62%) after 8 h [125] **,*** 2014 Lipid phase: Precirol ® ATO 15 (10%) and Miglyol®812 (1%) Aqueous phase: Tween® 80 (1%) and poloxamer 188 (1 or 0.5%) Coating on NLC: Dex–Prot SQV logP = 3.8 All formulations: 99 N.D. Uncoated NLC: −36 ±6 to −22 ±4 Dex-Prot NLC: −0.5 ±4 to +12 ±4 Uncoated NLC: 152 ±1 to 936 ±1 Dex-Prot NLC: 244 ±1 to 1326 ±1 ↑permeability (up to 9-fold) with Dex–Prot NLC in comparison to uncoated NLC (Caco-2/HT29-MTX co-culture monolayer model) [126] **
Pharmaceutics 2021,13, 1294 34 of 54 Table 4. Cont. Year Composition ARV Physicochemical Characterization Outcomes Ref. E.E. (%) D.L. (%) ζ-Potential (mV) Size (nm) 2017 Lipid phase: Precirol ® ATO 5:Captex®P 500 (7:3) Aqueous phase: MYS-25 (2%) EFV a,d logP = 4.6 95.78 ±0.42 N.D. −18.7 ±1.0 161 ±2.8 EFV release of 92.45% after 24 h The therapeutic concentration of EFV in the CNS following intranasal administration No toxicity of encapsulated EFV compared to free EFV [54] *,** Notes: a intravenous injection; b oral administration; c transdermal administration; d intranasal administration; f intraperitoneal administration; N.D. no data * in vivo studies performed; ** in vitro studies performed; *** ex vivo studies performed. Abbreviations: 3TC, lamivudine; ARV, antiretroviral; ATV, atazanavir; AUC, area under the curve; AV, aloe vera; AZT, zidovudine; BBB, blood-brain barrier; BHT, butylated hydroxy toluene; BSA, bovine serum albumin; Capmul ® MCM EP, glycerol monocaprylocaprate; Capmul ® PG 8, propylene glycol monocaprylate; Capryol TM 90, propylene glycol monocaprylate; Captex ® P 500, triglycerides and esters prepared from fractionated vegetable oil sources and fatty acids from coconuts and palm kernel oils; CC 50 , concentration at which 50% cells are viable; Chol, cholesterol; C max , maximum concentration; CNS, central nervous system; Compritol ® 888 ATO, glycerol dibehenate; Cremophor ® RH 40, polyoxyl 40 hydrogenated castor oil; CTAB, cetyltrimethylammonium bromide; d4T, stavudine; Dex–Prot, dextran–protamine; D.L., drug loading; DLV, delavirdine; DMPG, 1,2-dimyristoyl-sn-glycero-3-phospho-(1 0 -rac-glycerol); DODAB, dioctadecyl dimethylammonium bromide; DPPC, 1,2-dipalmitoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine; DRV, darunavir; DSPE, 1,2-distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphorylethanolamine; DTG, dolutegravir sodium; Dynasan ® 114, trimyristin; Dynasan ® 118, glyceryl tristearate; E.E., entrapment efficiency; EFV, efavirenz; ETR, etravirine; GC, glyceryl caprylate; Gelucire ® 44/14, lauroyl polyoxyl-32 glycerides; Gelucire ® 50/13, stearoyl polyoxyl-32 glycerides; GMS, glyceryl monostearate; HBMECs, human brain microvascular endothelial cells; HG, hydrogel; HSA, human serum albumin; HSPC, hydrogenated soy phosphatidylcholine; Labrasol ® , caprylocaproyl polyoxyl-8 glycerides; Lauroglycol TM , 90 propylene glycol monolaurate; Lipoid ® S 75, fat free soybean phospholipids with 70% PC; LPV, lopinavir; mAb, 83-14 monoclonal antibody; Miglyol ® 812, medium-chain triglycerides; MLN, multiple lipid nanoparticles; Monosteol TM , palmitate/stearate of propylene glycol; MYS-25, polyethylene glycol 25 stearate; N.D., no data; NLC, nanostructured lipid carrier; NVP, nevirapine; PA, phenylalanine; PAA, poly(acrylic acid); PC, phosphatidylcholine; PE-PEG2000, dipalmitoylphosphatidylethanolamine-N-[poly(ethylene glycol)2000]; PEG, polyethylene glycol; Pept-DRV-SLN, peptide grafted-darunavir loaded SLN; PGDS, polyglyceryl-6-distearate; PLL, poly(L-lysine hydrochloride; Plurol ® Oleique CC 497, polyglyceryl-3 dioleate; Precirol ® ATO 15, glyceryl palmitostearate; PVA, poly vinyl alcohol; RTV, ritonavir; SA, stearylamine; SDS, sodium dodecyl sulfate; SL, soy lecithin; SLN, solid lipid nanoparticle; Softisan ® 100, hydrogenated coco-glycerides; Solutol ® HS15, polyoxyl 15 hydroxystearate; SQV, saquinavir; TFV, tenofovir; w/wweight/weight; wt—weight.
Pharmaceutics 2021,13, 1294 35 of 54 Table 5. Lipid emulsions (microemulsions, nanoemulsions, and self-emulsifying drug delivery systems) for ARV delivery. Year Composition ARV Physicochemical Characterization Outcomes Ref. E.E. (%) D.L. (%) ζ-Potential (mV) Size (nm) Microemulsions (ME) 2015 o/w ME Lipid phase: Capmul® MCM (75%), Cremophor® RH 40 Aqueous Phase Transcutol®P Cremophor RH 40: Transcutol®P (1:1)(40%) Solid ME Absorbing agent (aerosil 200) ME:aerosil 200 (1:1) DRV logP = 1.89 99.42 N.D. N.D. 40.68 ↑solubilityGreater intestinal permeability than the free drug ↑ intestinal permeability with ↑ [oil phase] [127] *** 2016 Lipid phase: isopropyl myristate (10%), Labrasol® (30%); Oleic Plurol®(10%) AZT c logP = 0.05 N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. ↑AZT permeated (≈2-fold) as compared to control—HGNo apparent skin irritation; little histological changes in mice skin [128] *,** Nanoemulsions (NE) 2008 o/w Lipid phase: Flax-seed oil or safflower oil (1 mL) Aqueous phase: EPC (3%) and deoxycholic acid (1%) SQV a,b logP = 3.8 N.D. N.D. - SQV-Flax-seed NE: −43.28 ±3.79 SQV-Safflower NE: −49.55 ±5.02 SQV-Flax-seed NE:218.0 ± 13.9SQV-Safflower NE:140.0 ±12.6 ↑SQV (3-fold) in systemic circulation when loaded in Flax-seed NE than in the free form↑bioavailability↑brain distribution (Cmax 5-fold and AUC 3-fold) higher in the brain with Flax-seed NE than the free drug [90] *
Pharmaceutics 2021,13, 1294 36 of 54 Table 5. Cont. Year Composition ARV Physicochemical Characterization Outcomes Ref. E.E. (%) D.L. (%) ζ-Potential (mV) Size (nm) 2014 NE Lipid phase: Capryol®90, Geucire®44/14 (13.728%) Aqueous phase: Transcutol®HP (3.432%) and water (79.98%) Oil:Smix (1:6) EFV b logP = 4.6 N.D. N.D. N.D. 26.427 ±1.960 >80% release within 6 h ↑ AUC0→24h (43.53 µg h/mL) compared to EFV suspension (20.65 µg h/mL)EFV absorption resulted in 2.6-fold increase in bioavailability in comparison to the free EFV [129] *,** 2014 o/w NE Lipid phase: Capmul MCM (6%) Aqueous phase: Tween® 80 (6%), PEG 400 (2%) and water (86%) SQVM d logP = 3.8 96.8 ±1.2 N.D. −10.3 ±1.67 176.3 ±4.21 ↑ Diffusion of SQVM across nasal mucosa than the free drug No significant adverse effect in cilia toxicity study ↑[SQVM] brain after intranasal administration of NE than intravenous delivery of free drugEffective CNS targeting [88] *,** 2013 o/w NE Lipid phase: soya bean oil (10%), Chol (0 or 0.3%), EPC-80 (1.2%), α-tocopherol (0.25%) OA (0.3%) Aqueous phase: glycerol (2.25%), Tween®80 (0 to 1%), and double-distilled water (10%) IDV a No Chol, no Tween® 80: 99.1 ±0.2 Chol and no Tween®80: 98.9 ±0.03 Tween®80 (1%): 98.97 ±0.2 N.D. No Chol and no Tween 80 NE: −35.8 ±6.04 Chol and no Tween 80 NE: −31.3 ±1.80 Tween 80 (1%) NE: −40.1 ±4.05 No Chol and no Tween 80 NE:329.5 ±3.08 Chol and no Tween 80 NE:237.0 ±5.08 Tween 80 (1%) NE:196.0 ±3.54 NE containing Chol and higher [Tween 80] (1%) had lower globule size, relative better release, and higher ζ↑brain uptake of IDV in Tween 80 (1%) NE compared to Chol and no Tween 80 NE↑brain level of IDV administered by Tween 80 (1%) NE compared to the free drug (2.44-fold)↑IDV brain-specific accumulation [89] *,**
Pharmaceutics 2021,13, 1294 37 of 54 Table 5. Cont. Year Composition ARV Physicochemical Characterization Outcomes Ref. E.E. (%) D.L. (%) ζ-Potential (mV) Size (nm) Self-emulsifying drug delivery systems (SEDDS) 2013 SMEDDS Lipid phase: Capmul® MCM (C8) (10%), Cremophor®RH 40 (81%) Aqueous phase: PEG 300 (9%) Fill SMEDDS into a hard gelatine capsule Micronized UC-781 N.D. N.D. +20.5 ±0.52 to +32.0 ±0.02 Smallest droplet sizes (14.9 ± 0.9,12.8 ±0.4 and 16.1 ±0.7) with the lowest oilcontent (1:9, 2:8 and 3:7 oil to surfactant/Cosurfactant ratios)The concentration of oil above 40% w/w: droplet size increased to as high as 100 nm ↓solubility as the ↑oil component (higher solubility of UC-781 in the surfactant and cosurfactant compared to oil)↑in droplet size as ↑oil UC781 had no significant effect on droplet size, polydispersity index, or zeta potentialFaster UC-781 release (100% by 60 min) from SMEDDS ↑ absorption across the model membrane than UC781 powder [130] ** 2016 SNEDDS Lipid phase: Eucalyptus oil (12%), Smix (Cremophor® EL and Brij®35, 1:1) (12–18%) Aqueous phase: Transcutol®P (0–24%) EFZ b logP = 4.6 N.D. N.D. N.D. 21.97 ±1.3 to 113.9 ±4.8 ↓mean globule size as ↑ surfactant (Smix)↑mean globule size as ↑co-surfactant (Trancutol®) Faster EFZ release (>80% by 30 min) from SNEDDS compared to the free drug (18.3% by 30 min)↑oral bioavailability (2.63-fold) than the free drug [131] *,**
Pharmaceutics 2021,13, 1294 38 of 54 Table 5. Cont. Year Composition ARV Physicochemical Characterization Outcomes Ref. E.E. (%) D.L. (%) ζ-Potential (mV) Size (nm) 2016 SNEOF Lipid phase: Maisine®35-1 (0.7) Aqueous phase: Tween®80:Transcutol®HP (1:0.6) S-SNEOF Aeroperl ® (absorbing agent) Compressed tablet (MCC) LPV b logP = 5.94 99.45 ±0.59 N.D. N.D. SNEOF: 53.16SNEOF tablets: 80 ↑LPV release (60% by 10 min) Lymphatic uptake of LPV from SNEOF↑rate and extent of oral bioavailability than the free drug [66] *,** Notes: a intravenous injection; b oral administration; c transdermal administration; d intranasal administration; N.D. no data * in vivo studies performed; ** in vitro studies performed; *** ex vivo studies performed. Abbreviations: ARV, antiretroviral; AUC, area under the curve; AZT, zidovudine; Brij ® -35, polyoxyethylene (23) lauryl ether; Capmul ® MCM, mono/diglyceride of caprylic acid; Capryol ® 90, propylene glycol monocaprylate; Chol, cholesterol; C max maximum concentration; CNS, central nervous system; Cremophor ® EL, castor oil fatty acids, ethoxylated glycerol ester; Cremophor ® RH 40, polyoxyl 40 hydrogenated castor oil; D.L., drug loading; DRV, darunavir; EFV, efavirenz; EPC, egg phosphatidylcholine; Gelucire ® 44/14, lauroyl polyoxyl-32 glycerides; HG, hydrogel; IDV, indinavir; Labrasol ® , PEG-8 capric/caprylic glyceride; LPV, lopinavir; Maisine ® 35-1, glyceryl monolinoleate; MCC, microcrystalline cellulose; ME, microemulsion; N.D., no data; NE, nanoemulsion; OA, oleic acid; Oleic Plurol ® , polyglyceryl 6 dioleate; PEG, polyethylene glycol; o/w, oil-in-water; Smix, surfactant and cosurfactant mix; SMEDDS, self-microemulsifying drug delivery systems; SNEDDS, self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery systems; SNEOF, self-nanoemulsifying oily formulations; S-SNEOF, solid self-nanoemulsifying oily formulations; SQV, saquinavir; SQVM, saquinavir mesylate; Transcutol ® HP, diethyleneglycol monoethyl ether; Transcutol®P, diethylene glycol monoethyl ether.
Pharmaceutics 2021,13, 1294 39 of 54 Subsequently, a detailed and critical analysis of studies selected from Tables 3–5is presented in Section 3.1 with a focus on the route of administration and Section 3.2 that focused on targeting strategies. 3.1. Tuning the Physicochemical Properties of Lipid-Based Nanocarriers to Overcome Biological Barriers According to the administration route (Figure 7) and to achieve particularly in vivo performance and clinical applications, specific aspects of nanocarriers such as composition, size, surface charge, and coating need to be tuned [132–136]. Pharmaceutics2021,13,xFORPEERREVIEW33of49 Subsequently,adetailedandcriticalanalysisofstudiesselectedfromTables3–5is presentedinSection3.1withafocusontherouteofadministrationandSection3.2that focusedontargetingstrategies. 3.1.TuningthePhysicochemicalPropertiesofLipid‐BasedNanocarrierstoOvercomeBiological Barriers Accordingtotheadministrationroute(Figure7)andtoachieveparticularlyinvivo performanceandclinicalapplications,specificaspectsofnanocarrierssuchascomposi‐ tion,size,surfacecharge,andcoatingneedtobetuned[132–136]. Figure7.PotentialART(antiretroviraltherapy)administrationroutes(leftsideinblue).Thenanocarriercartoonmarks allpossibleroutesofadministrationforlipid‐basednanosystems.ClassicalARTformulationsfortherapyorpre‐exposure prophylaxis(PrEP)arelimitedtooralandparenteralroutes.BiologicalbarrierstoARTadministration(rightsideinred). SeveralstudieshavebeenconductedforparenteraladministrationofARV(e.g.,sub‐ cutaneous,intravenous).Inthiscase,itiscriticaltoextendthecirculatoryresidenceofthe nanocarrierstoensureadequatetimefordistributiontothetargettissues.Avoidingop‐ sonizationofserumproteins(e.g.,humanserumalbumin,HSA)bycontrollingthesize (<250nm),charge(avoidpositivelychargednanocarriers),andsurfacecoatingwithhy‐ drophilicpolymers(e.g.,polyethyleneglycol,PEG)aresomestrategiesforextendingcir‐ culationtime.ThesecriteriaweremetbyGagnéetal.andSudhakaretal.(liposomes) [80,94],byHeiatietal.(SLN)[18]andPokharkaretal.(NLC)[54].Asidefromextending thecirculationtimeofnanocarriers,itisalsocriticaltousetargetingstrategiesthatcan deliverARVdrugstositesoflatentHIVreservoirssuchaslymphnodes,thespleen,and thegutmucosa,whereHIV‐targetcellssuchasmemoryCD4+Tcells,macrophages,mi‐ croglia,andastrocytesintheCNSareprevalent[137].Someofthesetargetingstrategies include:(i)surfacefunctionalizationofnanocarrierswithsugarmoleculeslikemannose [13,99]orgalactose[14,15,96]thatarerecognizedbylectinreceptorsfoundonthesurface ofcellsfromthemononuclearphagocytesystem(MPS);(ii)coatingofnanocarrierswith hydrophilicmolecules(e.g.,aminoacids,glucose)tofacilitateBBBpermeationbycarrier‐ mediatedtranscytosis[55];(iii)engineeringofthelipidmatrixofthenanocarriers(SLN, Figure 7. Potential ART (antiretroviral therapy) administration routes (left side in blue). The nanocarrier cartoon marks all possible routes of administration for lipid-based nanosystems. Classical ART formulations for therapy or pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) are limited to oral and parenteral routes. Biological barriers to ART administration (right side in red). Several studies have been conducted for parenteral administration of ARV (e.g., subcutaneous, intravenous). In this case, it is critical to extend the circulatory residence of the nanocarriers to ensure adequate time for distribution to the target tissues. Avoiding opsonization of serum proteins (e.g., human serum albumin, HSA) by controlling the size (<250 nm), charge (avoid positively charged nanocarriers), and surface coating with hydrophilic polymers (e.g., polyethylene glycol, PEG) are some strategies for extending circulation time. These criteria were met by Gagnéet al. and Sudhakar et al. (liposomes) [80,94] , by Heiati et al. (SLN) [ 18 ] and Pokharkar et al. (NLC) [ 54 ]. Aside from extending the circulation time of nanocarriers, it is also critical to use targeting strategies that can deliver ARV drugs to sites of latent HIV reservoirs such as lymph nodes, the spleen, and the gut mucosa, where HIV-target cells such as memory CD4+ T cells, macrophages, microglia, and astrocytes in the CNS are prevalent [ 137 ]. Some of these targeting strategies include: (i) surface functionalization of nanocarriers with sugar molecules like mannose [ 13 , 99 ] or galactose [ 14 , 15 , 96 ] that are recognized by lectin receptors found on the surface of cells from the mononuclear phagocyte system (MPS); (ii) coating of nanocarriers with hydrophilic molecules (e.g., amino acids, glucose) to facilitate BBB permeation by carrier-mediated transcytosis [ 55 ]; (iii) engineering of the lipid matrix of the nanocarriers (SLN, NLC, nanoemulsions) in order to mimic low-density lipoproteins (LDL) that are recognized by LDL receptors, thus facilitating BBB permeation by receptor-mediated
Pharmaceutics 2021,13, 1294 40 of 54 transcytosis [ 54 , 55 , 64 , 65 , 85 , 87 , 89 , 90 , 120 ]; (iv) functionalization with ligands (e.g., HSA and monoclonal antibody (mAb)) that enhance BBB permeation by receptor-mediated transcytosis [ 64 , 120 ]; (v) inhibition of P-gp, which increases brain-specific accumulation [ 89 ]; and (vi) magnetic aided transport across BBB [115] and to MPS cells [116]. Oral administration is one of the preferred routes of administration due to its convenience that assures better adherence to the therapeutic regimens. However, this route of administration presents several limitations such as the variable absorption of the drugs, drug degradation by enzymes and acidic pH in the stomach, and first-pass metabolism effect. The physicochemical properties of drugs determine their absorption through the GI tract, namely their lipophilicity, which can be assessed by the logP. Typically, only drugs with logP values between 1 and 3 have favorable oral absorption profiles [ 138 ]. Most ARV drugs are outside this range (Tables 3–5), being either extremely hydrophilic (e.g., ddI [ 97 ] and AZT [ 121 ]) or highly lipophilic (e.g., LPV [ 66 , 71 , 83 , 109 ], RTV [ 110 ], EFV [ 16 , 75 , 129 ], SQV [ 90 , 126 ], EFZ [ 131 ] and ATV [ 86 ]). Therefore, lipid-based nanocarriers may help ARV drugs achieving a balanced lipophilic/hydrophilic nature. Additionally, lipid-based nanocarriers can be site-specific delivery systems by modifying their surface with ligands that are recognized at target tissues. For example, following oral administration, biotinylated liposomes of insulin were observed to permeate the GI tract via a facilitated absorption mechanism [ 139 ]. Based on this study, liposomes were coated with biotin (biotinylated proliposomes) to improve uptake of RTV into the intestinal lymphatic tissues [ 110 ]. Another example is the SLN grafting with a peptide that is specific for CD4+ receptors present on T cells, which improved specific DRV uptake by HIV host cells [82]. The nature of the components of nanocarriers also influences their functional performance when administered via a specific route. In the case of the oral route, the components of lipid-based nanocarriers induce the production of endogenous biliary lipids, which form colloidal structures in the presence of bile salts and significantly improve the solubilization and absorption capacity of ARVs in the small intestine [ 51 ]. Furthermore, the inclusion of penetration enhancers (e.g., Transcutol ® [ 66 , 127 , 129 , 131 ] and biliary salts (deoxycholic acid, sodium cholate) [ 90 , 125 ]) in the lipid matrix composition also improves the oral delivery of ARVs agents. Transdermal administration, as opposed to oral administration, avoids the first-pass metabolism effect of drugs. As a result, a lower quantity of drugs can be administered efficiently by the transdermal route with reduced toxicity to achieve the same bioavailability as the oral route [ 72 , 113 ]. The fact that not all drugs can be delivered transdermally is one of the major drawbacks of this method. Drugs with a high molecular weight (>500 Da) cannot penetrate the stratum corneum [ 11 ]. In the pharmaceutical field, lipidbased nanocarriers are the most used for dermal/transdermal drug delivery. To improve skin permeation and efficiency, the composition of liposomes is changed to create new classes of lipid vesicles known as transferosomes, niosomes, ethosomes, cubosomes, and tocosomes. Jain et al. developed ethosomes that, due to the high amounts of ethanol, aid in breaking the stratum corneum and have higher elasticity, which contributes to improved 3TC skin permeation [ 112 ]. Chettupalli et al. produced cubosomes that improved ATV transdermal permeation due to the bioadhesive and permeation enhancer effect of their components [ 113 ]. SLN and nanoemulsions have also proved effective for the transdermal delivery of LPV [72] and AZT [128] respectively. The vaginal administration is a promising route that allows self-administration of ARV drugs and permits achieving both local and systemic effects. In the case of local administration, the vaginal route avoids systemic exposure reducing side effects. If systemic administration is intended then drugs should have hydrophobic properties and low molecular weight [ 140 , 141 ]. The vaginal route may also be advantageous for drugs that undergo extensive metabolism, as it avoids the hepatic first-pass effect and allows for a reduction in the doses of drugs administered [ 141 ]. However, the vaginal route has been exclusively considered for topical pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), as a preventative approach. Due to the unique characteristics of this mucosal site, administering ARV drugs via the vaginal
Pharmaceutics 2021,13, 1294 41 of 54 route is a huge challenge because a fine-tuning of mucoadhesiveness/muco-penetration is required to ensure good distribution along the cervicovaginal lumen. In this regard, lipid nanocarriers can be used to improve ARV permeation into the vaginal mucosa, but there are some requirements in terms of size (>100, preferentially 200–500 nm) and surface charge (positively charged nanocarriers are mucoadhesive and hinder diffusion, whereas PEGylation promotes mucosal permeation) [ 142 ]. These requirements were considered in an in vitro study in which liposomal hydrogels were developed for the delivery of two ARV drugs with different lipophilicities [ 52 ]. As such, the hydrogel (hydrophilic) was used as a carrier for the hydrophilic drug FTC, while the liposomes were used as carriers for the more lipophilic drug TDF. The size and zwitterionic charge of the liposomes, as well as the hydrophilic nature of the gel, imply that there are fewer interactions with mucin from the mucosa, which may translate to higher drug diffusion [ 52 ]. SLN was also strategically developed to improve TFV uptake by virus-infected cells via vaginal administration [ 118 ]. TFV-loaded SLN were functionalized with a combination of peptide (PLL), to enhance intracellular uptake of the drug, and heparin, which can direct nanocarriers to killer lectin-like receptors of natural killer (NK) cells, resulting in direct killing of virus-infected cells [ 118 ]. Moreover, SLN possessed an adequate size and high density of negative surface charge that creates a hydrophilic surface that facilitates diffusion and minimizes entrapment into mucus [ 118 ]. In another study, a hybrid system composed of polymeric nanofibers containing liposomes loaded with FTC and TDF provided rapid onset of local ARV levels in mice after a single vaginal administration compared to five days of continuous daily use of oral TDF/FTC [ 117 ]. These results may be also translatable into a fairly wide protection time window in humans [117]. Intranasal administration has recently been investigated as a potential alternative to intravenous and other systemic administration routes for providing direct access to the brain via axonal transport along the olfactory nerve [ 50 ]. This administration route has the advantage of increased bioavailability due to the absence of first-pass liver metabolism and subsequent rapid absorption, resulting in a rapid therapeutic effect [ 50 ]. The disadvantages of this route are related to the limited amounts of drugs that can be delivered into the brain and to the mucociliary clearance mechanism that can remove toxic substances, drugs, nanocarriers, and microorganisms caught in the mucus layer [ 50 ]. To overcome the mucociliary clearance mechanism, the lipid matrix composition, and the surface chemistry of the nanocarriers have been explored for ARV delivery. Tuning the surface coating is important to guarantee enough mucoadhesion to avoid the rapid removal of lipid nanocarriers from the nasal mucosa [ 50 ]. On the other hand, it is also necessary to impart the nanocarrier surface with mucopenetrating properties to improve diffusion from the nose to the brain [ 50 ]. For example, Pokharkar et al. and Mahajan et al. used PEG coatings as amucopenetrating strategy for intranasal brain delivery of EFV [ 54 ] and SQVM [ 88 ], respectively. Other ARV drugs (SQV and EFV) benefited from nanocarriers composed of lipids with mucoadhesive properties (e.g., monoolein) [ 114 ] or fatty acids with mucopenetration properties [ 54 , 84 ]. The ability of nanocarriers composed of fatty acids to be flexible and pass through the opening of the olfactory epithelium has been attributed to the surfactant nature of fatty acids, which may disrupt the nasal membrane [50]. 3.2. Targeting Anatomical and Cellular Reservoirs As previously mentioned, lipid nanocarriers’ surfaces can be functionalized to improve their targeting selectivity [ 143 ]. The reticuloendothelial system contains galactose and lectin receptors and thus galactosylated [ 14 , 15 , 96 ] and mannosylated [ 13 , 99 ] liposomes target these receptors and have been utilized to deliver AZT, ddI, and d4T to the reticuloendothelial system. Functionalization of lipid nanocarriers with mAb, such as anti-HLA-DR that target follicular dendritic cells, B cells, and macrophages that express the HLA-DR is another strategy to achieve targeting specificity. For example, immunoliposomes functionalized with mAb resulted in increased IDV accumulation in mouse lymph nodes, with an area-under-the-curve that was 126-fold more than that of the free drug [ 94 ]. Liposomes
Pharmaceutics 2021,13, 1294 48 of 54 SA stearylamine SARS-CoV-2 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 SDS sodium dodecyl sulfate SEDDS self-emulsifying drug delivery systems SFV sifuvirtide SGR somatic gene recombination siRNA small interference ribonucleic acid SL soy lecithin SLN solid lipid nanoparticles SM sphingomyelin SMEDDS self-micro emulsifying delivery systems Smix surfactant and cosurfactant mix SNEDDS self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery systems Softisan®100 hydrogenated coco-glycerides Solutol®HS15 polyoxyl 15 hydroxystearate SPC soy phosphatidylcholine SQV saquinavir SQVM saquinavir mesylate S-SNEOF solid self-nanoemulsifying oily formulations TAM thymidine analog mutations T-20 enfuvirtide TDF tenofovir disoproxil fumarate TFV tenofovir TPV tipranavir Transcutol®HP diethyleneglycol monoethyl ether Transcutol®Pdiethylene glycol monoethyl ether UNAIDS Joint United Nations Program on HIV infection/AIDS U.S. FDA United States Food and Drug Administration VE α-tocopherol w/o water-in-oil w/w weight/weight wt weight References 1. Boyapalle, S.; Mohapatra, S.; Mohapatra, S. Nanotechnology Applications to HIV Vaccines and Microbicides. J. Glob. Infect. Dis. 2012,4, 62–68. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 2. das Neves, J.; Amiji, M.M.; Bahia, M.F.; Sarmento, B. Nanotechnology-based systems for the treatment and prevention of HIV/AIDS. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2010,62, 458–477. [CrossRef] 3. UNAIDS. Global HIV&AIDS Statistics—2019 Fact Sheet. Available online: https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/fact-sheet (accessed on 9 July 2021). 4. Nelson, A.G.; Zhang, X.; Ganapathi, U.; Szekely, Z.; Flexner, C.W.; Owen, A.; Sinko, P.J. Drug delivery strategies and systems for HIV/AIDS pre-exposure prophylaxis and treatment. J. Control. Release 2015,219, 669–680. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 5. Gupta, U.; Jain, N.K. Non-polymeric nano-carriers in HIV/AIDS drug delivery and targeting. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2010 ,62, 478–490. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 6. Simon, V.; Ho, D.D.; Abdool Karim, Q. HIV/AIDS epidemiology, pathogenesis, prevention, and treatment. Lancet 2006 ,368, 489–504. [CrossRef] 7. Mallipeddi, R.; Rohan, L.C. Progress in antiretroviral drug delivery using nanotechnology. Int. J. Nanomed. 2010,5, 533–547. 8. Mamo, T.; Moseman, E.A.; Kolishetti, N.; Salvador-Morales, C.; Shi, J.; Kuritzkes, D.R.; Langer, R.; von Andrian, U.; Farokhzad, O.C. Emerging nanotechnology approaches for HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention. Nanomedicine 2010 ,5, 269–285. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 9. Tatham, L.M.; Rannard, S.P.; Owen, A. Nanoformulation strategies for the enhanced oral bioavailability of antiretroviral therapeutics. Ther. Deliv. 2015,6, 469–490. [CrossRef] 10. das Neves, J. Novel Approaches for the Delivery of Anti-HIV Drugs-What Is New? Pharmaceutics 2019,11, 554. [CrossRef] 11. Lopes, C.M.; Silva, J.; Real Oliveira, M.E.C.D.; Lúcio, M. Lipid-based colloidal carriers for topical application of antiviral drugs. In Design of Nanostructures for Versatile Therapeutic Applications; Grumezescu, A.M., Ed.; William Andrew Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2018. [CrossRef] 12. Cavalcanti, S.M.T.; Nunes, C.; Costa Lima, S.A.; Soares-Sobrinho, J.L.; Reis, S. Optimization of nanostructured lipid carriers for Zidovudine delivery using a microwave-assisted production method. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2018,122, 22–30. [CrossRef]
Pharmaceutics 2021,13, 1294 49 of 54 13. Garg, M.; Asthana, A.; Agashe, H.B.; Agrawal, G.P.; Jain, N.K. Stavudine-loaded mannosylated liposomes: In-vitro anti-HIV-I activity, tissue distribution and pharmacokinetics. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 2006,58, 605–616. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 14. Garg, M.; Dutta, T.; Jain, N.K. Reduced hepatic toxicity, enhanced cellular uptake and altered pharmacokinetics of stavudine loaded galactosylated liposomes. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 2007,67, 76–85. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 15. Garg, M.; Jain, N.K. Reduced hematopoietic toxicity, enhanced cellular uptake and altered pharmacokinetics of azidothymidine loaded galactosylated liposomes. J. Drug Target. 2006,14, 1–11. [CrossRef] 16. Gaur, P.K.; Mishra, S.; Bajpai, M.; Mishra, A. Enhanced oral bioavailability of efavirenz by solid lipid nanoparticles: In vitro drug release and pharmacokinetics studies. Biomed. Res. Int 2014,2014, 363404. [CrossRef] 17. Harvie, P.; Désormeaux, A.; Bergeron, M.C.; Tremblay, M.; Beauchamp, D.; Poulin, L.; Bergeron, M.G. Comparative pharmacokinetics, distributions in tissue, and interactions with blood proteins of conventional and sterically stabilized liposomes containing 20,30-dideoxyinosine. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1996,40, 225–229. [CrossRef] 18. Heiati, H.; Tawashi, R.; Phillips, N.C. Solid lipid nanoparticles as drug carriers II. Plasma stability and biodistribution of solid lipid nanoparticles containing the lipophilic prodrug 3 0 -azido-3 0 -deoxythymidine palmitate in mice. Int. J. Pharm. 1998 ,174, 71–80. [CrossRef] 19. Jain, S.; Tiwary, A.K.; Jain, N.K. Sustained and targeted delivery of an anti-HIV agent using elastic liposomal formulation: Mechanism of action. Curr. Drug Deliv. 2006,3, 157–166. [CrossRef] 20. Nayak, D.; Boxi, A.; Ashe, S.; Thathapudi, N.C.; Nayak, B. Stavudine loaded gelatin liposomes for HIV therapy: Preparation, characterization and in vitro cytotoxic evaluation. Mater. Sci. Eng. C Mater. Biol. Appl. 2017,73, 406–416. [CrossRef] 21. Perazzolo, S.; Shireman, L.M.; Koehn, J.; McConnachie, L.A.; Kraft, J.C.; Shen, D.D.; Ho, R.J.Y. Three HIV Drugs, Atazanavir, Ritonavir, and Tenofovir, Coformulated in Drug-Combination Nanoparticles Exhibit Long-Acting and Lymphocyte-Targeting Properties in Nonhuman Primates. J. Pharm. Sci. 2018,107, 3153–3162. [CrossRef] 22. das Neves, J.; Nunes, R.; Rodrigues, F.; Sarmento, B. Nanomedicine in the development of anti-HIV microbicides. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2016,103, 57–75. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 23. Sosnik, A.; Augustine, R. Challenges in oral drug delivery of antiretrovirals and the innovative strategies to overcome them. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2016,103, 105–120. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 24. Amiji, M.M.; Vyas, T.K.; Shah, L.K. Role of nanotechnology in HIV/AIDS treatment: Potential to overcome the viral reservoir challenge. Discov. Med. 2006,6, 157–162. [PubMed] 25. Fernandes, E.; Soares, T.B.; Goncalves, H.; Lucio, M. Spectroscopic Studies as a Toolbox for Biophysical and Chemical Characterization of Lipid-Based Nanotherapeutics. Front. Chem. 2018,6, 323. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 26. Attama, A.A.; Mumuni, A.; Builders, P.F. Lipid Nanoparticulate Drug Delivery Systems: A Revolution in Dosage Form Design and Development. In Recent Advances in Novel Drug Carrier Systems; Sezer, A.D., Ed.; Intechopen: London, UK, 2012. [CrossRef] 27. Chopra, S.; Venkatesan, N.; Betageri, G.V. Liposomes as nanocarriers for anti-HIV therapy. Drug Deliv. Transl. Res. 2013 ,3, 471–478. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 28. Diksha, M.; Anil, B.J. Lipid Based Nanocarriers for Delivery of Anti-HIV Drugs: A Mini Review. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. Asia 2018 , 8, 172–185. [CrossRef] 29. Huda, A.; Prabha, S. Lipid Based Anti-Retroviral Nanocarriers: A Review of Current Literature and Ongoing Studies. Drug Deliv. Lett. 2017,7, 71–82. [CrossRef] 30. Melhuish, A.; Lewthwaite, P. Natural history of HIV and AIDS. Medicine 2018,46, 356–361. [CrossRef] 31. FDA. FDA-Approved HIV Medicines. Available online: https://hivinfo.nih.gov/understanding-hiv/fact-sheets/fda-approvedhiv-medicines (accessed on 9 July 2021). 32. Lisziewicz, J.; T˝oke, E.R. Nanomedicine applications towards the cure of HIV. Nanomed. Nanotechnol. Biol. Med. 2013 ,9, 28–38. [CrossRef] 33. Garg, A.B.; Nuttall, J.; Romano, J. The future of HIV microbicides: Challenges and opportunities. Antivir. Chem. Chemother. 2009 , 19, 143–150. [CrossRef] 34. Nuttall, J. Microbicides in the prevention of HIV infection: Current status and future directions. Drugs 2010 ,70, 1231–1243. [CrossRef] 35. Kumar, L.; Verma, S.; Prasad, D.N.; Bhardwaj, A.; Vaidya, B.; Jain, A.K. Nanotechnology: A magic bullet for HIV AIDS treatment. Artif. Cells Nanomed. Biotechnol. 2015,43, 71–86. [CrossRef] 36. Zdanowicz, M.M. The pharmacology of HIV drug resistance. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 2006,70, 100. [CrossRef] 37. Clutter, D.S.; Jordan, M.R.; Bertagnolio, S.; Shafer, R.W. HIV-1 drug resistance and resistance testing. Infect. Genet. Evol. J. Mol. Epidemiol. Evol. Genet. Infect. Dis. 2016,46, 292–307. [CrossRef] 38. Tang, M.W.; Shafer, R.W. HIV-1 Antiretroviral Resistance. Drugs 2012,72, e1–e25. [CrossRef] 39. Blaise, P.; Clevenbergh, P.; Vaira, D.; Moutschen, M.; Dellamonica, P. HIV resistance to antiretroviral drugs: Mechanisms, genotypic and phenotypic resistance testing in clinical practice. Acta Clin. Belg. 2002,57, 191–201. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 40. Margeridon-Thermet, S.; Shafer, R.W. Comparison of the Mechanisms of Drug Resistance among HIV, Hepatitis B, and Hepatitis C. Viruses 2010,2, 2696–2739. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 41. Ammaranond, P.; Sanguansittianan, S. Mechanism of HIV antiretroviral drugs progress toward drug resistance. Fundam. Clin. Pharmacol. 2012,26, 146–161. [CrossRef]
Pharmaceutics 2021,13, 1294 50 of 54 42. Roy, U.; Rodríguez, J.; Barber, P.; das Neves, J.; Sarmento, B.; Nair, M. The potential of HIV-1 nanotherapeutics: From in vitro studies to clinical trials. Nanomedicine 2015,10, 3597–3609. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 43. Siccardi, M.; Martin, P.; McDonald, T.O.; Liptrott, N.J.; Giardiello, M.; Rannard, S.; Owen, A. Nanomedicines for HIV therapy. Ther. Deliv. 2013,4, 153–156. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 44. Margolis, A.M.; Heverling, H.; Pham, P.A.; Stolbach, A. A review of the toxicity of HIV medications. J. Med. Toxicol. Off. J. Am. Coll. Med. Toxicol. 2014,10, 26–39. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 45. Chen, R.; Wang, T.; Song, J.; Pu, D.; He, D.; Li, J.; Yang, J.; Li, K.; Zhong, C.; Zhang, J. Antiviral Drug Delivery System for Enhanced Bioactivity, Better Metabolism and Pharmacokinetic Characteristics. Int. J. Nanomed. 2021,16, 4959–4984. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 46. Osborne, O.; Peyravian, N.; Nair, M.; Daunert, S.; Toborek, M. The Paradox of HIV Blood–Brain Barrier Penetrance and Antiretroviral Drug Delivery Deficiencies. Trends Neurosci. 2020,43, 695–708. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 47. Gomes, M.J.; Neves, J.d.; Sarmento, B. Nanoparticle-based drug delivery to improve the efficacy of antiretroviral therapy in the central nervous system. Int. J. Nanomed. 2014,9, 1757–1769. [CrossRef] 48. Danta, C.C.; Piplani, P. Investigation of Molecular Properties of Antiretroviral Agents to Enhance CNS Penetration Abilities for the Treatment of Cognitive Impairment in HIV-Associated Neurocognitive Disorder. ACS Chem. Neurosci. 2020 ,11, 2034–2038. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 49. Shao, J.; Kraft, J.C.; Li, B.; Yu, J.; Freeling, J.; Koehn, J.; Ho, R.J. Nanodrug formulations to enhance HIV drug exposure in lymphoid tissues and cells: Clinical significance and potential impact on treatment and eradication of HIV/AIDS. Nanomedicine 2016 ,11, 545–564. [CrossRef] 50. Lúcio, M.; Lopes, C.M.; Fernandes, E.; Gonçalves, H.; Real Oliveira, M.E.C.D. Chapter 4. Organic Nanocarriers for Brain Drug Delivery. In Nanoparticles for Brain Drug Delivery; Vitorino, C., Jorge, A., Pais, A.A.C.C., Eds.; Jenny Stanford Publishing Pte. Ltd.: Singapore, 2021. [CrossRef] 51. Kalepu, S.; Manthina, M.; Padavala, V. Oral lipid-based drug delivery systems—An overview. Acta Pharm. Sin. B 2013 ,3, 361–372. [CrossRef] 52. Faria, M.J.; Machado, R.; Ribeiro, A.; Goncalves, H.; Real Oliveira, M.; Viseu, T.; das Neves, J.; Lucio, M. Rational Development of Liposomal Hydrogels: A Strategy for Topical Vaginal Antiretroviral Drug Delivery in the Context of HIV Prevention. Pharmaceutics 2019,11, 485. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 53. Jain, S.; Tiwary, A.K.; Jain, N.K. PEGylated elastic liposomal formulation for lymphatic targeting of zidovudine. Curr. Drug Deliv. 2008,5, 275–281. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 54. Pokharkar, V.; Patil-Gadhe, A.; Palla, P. Efavirenz loaded nanostructured lipid carrier engineered for brain targeting through intranasal route: In-vivo pharmacokinetic and toxicity study. Biomed. Pharm. 2017,94, 150–164. [CrossRef] 55. Vyas, A.; Jain, A.; Hurkat, P.; Jain, A.; Jain, S.K. Targeting of AIDS related encephalopathy using phenylalanine anchored lipidic nanocarrier. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2015,131, 155–161. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 56. Soares, T.B.; Loureiro, L.; Carvalho, A.; Oliveira, M.; Dias, A.; Sarmento, B.; Lucio, M. Lipid nanocarriers loaded with natural compounds: Potential new therapies for age related neurodegenerative diseases? Prog. Neurobiol. 2018,168, 21–41. [CrossRef] 57. Phillips, N.C.; Skamene, E.; Tsoukas, C. Liposomal encapsulation of 3 0 -azido-3 0 -deoxythymidine (AZT) results in decreased bone marrow toxicity and enhanced activity against murine AIDS-induced immunosuppression. J. Acquir. Immune Defic. Syndr. 1991 ,4, 959–966. 58. Rao, K.S.; Ghorpade, A.; Labhasetwar, V. Targeting anti-HIV drugs to the CNS. Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 2009 ,6, 771–784. [CrossRef] 59. Sana, K.; Poorva, J.; Sourabh, J.; Richa, J.; Saurabh, B.; Aakanchha, J. Topical Delivery of Erythromycin Through Cubosomes for Acne. Pharm. Nanotechnol. 2018,6, 38–47. [CrossRef] 60. Barriga, H.M.G.; Holme, M.N.; Stevens, M.M. Cubosomes: The Next Generation of Smart Lipid Nanoparticles? Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2019,58, 2958–2978. [CrossRef] 61. Ahirrao, M.; Shrotriya, S. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of cubosomal in situ nasal gel containing resveratrol for brain targeting. Drug Dev. Ind. Pharm. 2017,43, 1686–1693. [CrossRef] 62. Boge, L.; Bysell, H.; Ringstad, L.; Wennman, D.; Umerska, A.; Cassisa, V.; Eriksson, J.; Joly-Guillou, M.-L.; Edwards, K.; Andersson, M. Lipid-Based Liquid Crystals As Carriers for Antimicrobial Peptides: Phase Behavior and Antimicrobial Effect. Langmuir 2016 , 32, 4217–4228. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 63. Chen, Y.; Angelova, A.; Angelov, B.; Drechsler, M.; Garamus, V.M.; Willumeit-Römer, R.; Zou, A. Sterically stabilized spongosomes for multidrug delivery of anticancer nanomedicines. J. Mater. Chem. B 2015,3, 7734–7744. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 64. Kuo, Y.C.; Ko, H.F. Targeting delivery of saquinavir to the brain using 83-14 monoclonal antibody-grafted solid lipid nanoparticles. Biomaterials 2013,34, 4818–4830. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 65. Chattopadhyay, N.; Zastre, J.; Wong, H.L.; Wu, X.Y.; Bendayan, R. Solid lipid nanoparticles enhance the delivery of the HIV protease inhibitor, atazanavir, by a human brain endothelial cell line. Pharm. Res. 2008,25, 2262–2271. [CrossRef] 66. Garg, B.; Katare, O.P.; Beg, S.; Lohan, S.; Singh, B. Systematic development of solid self-nanoemulsifying oily formulations (S-SNEOFs) for enhancing the oral bioavailability and intestinal lymphatic uptake of lopinavir. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2016 , 141, 611–622. [CrossRef] 67. Delshadi, R.; Bahrami, A.; McClements, D.J.; Moore, M.D.; Williams, L. Development of nanoparticle-delivery systems for antiviral agents: A review. J. Control. Release 2021,331, 30–44. [CrossRef]
Pharmaceutics 2021,13, 1294 51 of 54 68. Phillips, N.C.; Tsoukas, C. Liposomal encapsulation of azidothymidine results in decreased hematopoietic toxicity and enhanced activity against murine acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. Blood 1992,79, 1137–1143. [CrossRef] 69. Désormeaux, A.; Harvie, P.; Perron, S.; Makabi-Panzu, B.; Beauchamp, D.; Tremblay, M.; Poulin, L.; Bergeron, M.G. Antiviral efficacy, intracellular uptake and pharmacokinetics of free and liposome-encapsulated 2 0 ,3 0 -dideoxyinosine. AIDS 1994 ,8, 1545–1553. [CrossRef] 70. Ramana, L.N.; Sharma, S.; Sethuraman, S.; Ranga, U.; Krishnan, U.M. Stealth anti-CD4 conjugated immunoliposomes with dual antiretroviral drugs—Modern Trojan horses to combat HIV. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 2015,89, 300–311. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 71. Aji Alex, M.R.; Chacko, A.J.; Jose, S.; Souto, E.B. Lopinavir loaded solid lipid nanoparticles (SLN) for intestinal lymphatic targeting. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2011,42, 11–18. [CrossRef] 72. Ansari, H.; Singh, P. Formulation and in-vivo Evaluation of Novel Topical Gel of Lopinavir for Targeting HIV. Curr. HIV Res. 2018,16, 270–279. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 73. Bhalekar, M.; Upadhaya, P.; Madgulkar, A. Formulation and characterization of solid lipid nanoparticles for an anti-retroviral drug darunavir. Appl. Nanosci. 2017,7, 47–57. [CrossRef] 74. Kuo, Y.C.; Chung, C.Y. Solid lipid nanoparticles comprising internal Compritol 888 ATO, tripalmitin and cacao butter for encapsulating and releasing stavudine, delavirdine and saquinavir. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2011,88, 682–690. [CrossRef] 75. Makwana, V.; Jain, R.; Patel, K.; Nivsarkar, M.; Joshi, A. Solid lipid nanoparticles (SLN) of Efavirenz as lymph targeting drug delivery system: Elucidation of mechanism of uptake using chylomicron flow blocking approach. Int. J. Pharm. 2015 ,495, 439–446. [CrossRef] 76. Vyas, S.P.; Subhedar, R.; Jain, S. Development and characterization of emulsomes for sustained and targeted delivery of an antiviral agent to liver. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 2006,58, 321–326. [CrossRef] 77. Bazzoli, C.; Jullien, V.; Tiec, C.L.; Rey, E.; Mentré, F.; Taburet, A.-M. Intracellular Pharmacokinetics of Antiretroviral Drugs in HIV-Infected Patients, and their Correlation with Drug Action. Clin. Pharmacokinet. 2010,49, 17–45. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 78. Taylor, S.; Boffito, M.; Khoo, S.; Smit, E.; Back, D. Stopping antiretroviral therapy. AIDS 2007 ,21, 1673–1682. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 79. Skanji, R.; Andrieux, K.; Lalanne, M.; Caron, J.; Bourgaux, C.; Degrouard, J.; Brisset, F.; Gueutin, C.; Chacun, H.; DereuddreBosquet, N.; et al. A new nanomedicine based on didanosine glycerolipidic prodrug enhances the long term accumulation of drug in a HIV sanctuary. Int. J. Pharm. 2011,414, 285–297. [CrossRef] 80. Sudhakar, B.; Krishna, M.C.; Murthy, K.V.R. Factorial design studies of antiretroviral drug-loaded stealth liposomal injectable: PEGylation, lyophilization and pharmacokinetic studies. Appl. Nanosci. 2016,6, 43–60. [CrossRef] 81. Jin, S.X.; Bi, D.Z.; Wang, J.; Wang, Y.Z.; Hu, H.G.; Deng, Y.H. Pharmacokinetics and tissue distribution of zidovudine in rats following intravenous administration of zidovudine myristate loaded liposomes. Pharmazie 2005,60, 840–843. [PubMed] 82. Desai, J.; Thakkar, H. Darunavir-Loaded Lipid Nanoparticles for Targeting to HIV Reservoirs. AAPS Pharmscitech 2018 ,19, 648–660. [CrossRef] 83. Garg, B.; Beg, S.; Kumar, R.; Katare, O.P.; Singh, B. Nanostructured lipidic carriers of lopinavir for effective management of HIV-associated neurocognitive disorder. J. Drug Deliv. Sci. Technol. 2019,53. [CrossRef] 84. Gupta, S.; Kesarla, R.; Chotai, N.; Misra, A.; Omri, A. Systematic Approach for the Formulation and Optimization of Solid Lipid Nanoparticles of Efavirenz by High Pressure Homogenization Using Design of Experiments for Brain Targeting and Enhanced Bioavailability. Biomed Res. Int. 2017,2017, 5984014. [CrossRef] 85. Jindal, A.B.; Bachhav, S.S.; Devarajan, P.V. In situ hybrid nano drug delivery system (IHN-DDS) of antiretroviral drug for simultaneous targeting to multiple viral reservoirs: An in vivo proof of concept. Int. J. Pharm. 2017,521, 196–203. [CrossRef] 86. Khan, S.A.; Rehman, S.; Nabi, B.; Iqubal, A.; Nehal, N.; Fahmy, U.A.; Kotta, S.; Baboota, S.; Md, S.; Ali, J. Boosting the Brain Delivery of Atazanavir through Nanostructured Lipid Carrier-Based Approach for Mitigating NeuroAIDS. Pharmaceutics 2020 , 12, 1059. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 87. Rojekar, S.; Fotooh Abadi, L.; Pai, R.; Mahajan, K.; Kulkarni, S.; Vavia, P.R. Multi-organ targeting of HIV-1 viral reservoirs with etravirine loaded nanostructured lipid carrier: An in-vivo proof of concept. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2021 ,164, 105916. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 88. Mahajan, H.S.; Mahajan, M.S.; Nerkar, P.P.; Agrawal, A. Nanoemulsion-based intranasal drug delivery system of saquinavir mesylate for brain targeting. Drug Deliv. 2014,21, 148–154. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 89. Prabhakar, K.; Afzal, S.M.; Surender, G.; Kishan, V. Tween 80 containing lipid nanoemulsions for delivery of indinavir to brain. Acta Pharm. Sin. B 2013,3, 345–353. [CrossRef] 90. Vyas, T.K.; Shahiwala, A.; Amiji, M.M. Improved oral bioavailability and brain transport of Saquinavir upon administration in novel nanoemulsion formulations. Int. J. Pharm. 2008,347, 93–101. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 91. Kim, S.; Scheerer, S.; Geyer, M.A.; Howell, S.B. Direct cerebrospinal fluid delivery of an antiretroviral agent using multivesicular liposomes. J. Infect. Dis. 1990,162, 750–752. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 92. Makabi-Panzu, B.; Lessard, C.; Beauchamp, D.; Desormeaux, A.; Poulin, L.; Tremblay, M.; Bergeron, M.G. Uptake and binding of liposomal 2 0 ,3 0 -dideoxycytidine by RAW 264.7 cells: A three-step process. J. Acquir. Immune Defic. Syndr. Hum. Retrovirol. 1995 ,8, 227–235. [CrossRef] 93. Katragadda, A.; Bridgman, R.; Betageri, G. Effect of liposome composition and cholesterol on the cellular uptake of stavudine by human monocyte/macrophages. Cell. Mol. Biol. Lett. 2000,5, 483–494.
Pharmaceutics 2021,13, 1294 52 of 54 94. Gagné, J.F.; Désormeaux, A.; Perron, S.; Tremblay, M.J.; Bergeron, M.G. Targeted delivery of indinavir to HIV-1 primary reservoirs with immunoliposomes. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2002,1558, 198–210. [CrossRef] 95. Kinman, L.; Brodie, S.J.; Tsai, C.C.; Bui, T.; Larsen, K.; Schmidt, A.; Anderson, D.; Morton, W.R.; Hu, S.L.; Ho, R.J. Lipid-drug association enhanced HIV-1 protease inhibitor indinavir localization in lymphoid tissues and viral load reduction: A proof of concept study in HIV-2287-infected macaques. J. Acquir. Immune Defic. Syndr. 2003,34, 387–397. [CrossRef] 96. Garg, M.; Garg, B.R.; Jain, S.; Mishra, P.; Sharma, R.K.; Mishra, A.K.; Dutta, T.; Jain, N.K. Radiolabeling, pharmacoscintigraphic evaluation and antiretroviral efficacy of stavudine loaded 99mTc labeled galactosylated liposomes. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2008 ,33, 271–281. [CrossRef] 97. Lalanne, M.; Paci, A.; Andrieux, K.; Dereuddre-Bosquet, N.; Clayette, P.; Deroussent, A.; Re, M.; Vassal, G.; Couvreur, P.; Desmaele, D. Synthesis and biological evaluation of two glycerolipidic prodrugs of didanosine for direct lymphatic delivery against HIV. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2007,17, 2237–2240. [CrossRef] 98. Kapitza, S.B.; Michel, B.R.; van Hoogevest, P.; Leigh, M.L.; Imanidis, G. Absorption of poorly water soluble drugs subject to apical efflux using phospholipids as solubilizers in the Caco-2 cell model. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 2007,66, 146–158. [CrossRef] 99. Kaur, C.D.; Nahar, M.; Jain, N.K. Lymphatic targeting of zidovudine using surface-engineered liposomes. J. Drug Target. 2008 ,16, 798–805. [CrossRef] 100. Clayton, R.; Ohagen, A.; Nicol, F.; Del Vecchio, A.M.; Jonckers, T.H.; Goethals, O.; Van Loock, M.; Michiels, L.; Grigsby, J.; Xu, Z.; et al. Sustained and specific in vitro inhibition of HIV-1 replication by a protease inhibitor encapsulated in gp120-targeted liposomes. Antivir. Res. 2009,84, 142–149. [CrossRef] 101. Ramana, L.N.; Sethuraman, S.; Ranga, U.; Krishnan, U.M. Development of a liposomal nanodelivery system for nevirapine. J. Biomed. Sci. 2010,17, 57. [CrossRef] 102. Franquelim, H.G.; De-Sousa, F.F.; Veiga, A.S.; Santos, N.C.; Castanho, M.A.R.B. Cationic liposomes are possible drug-delivery systems for HIV fusion inhibitor sifuvirtide. Soft Matter 2011,7, 11089–11092. [CrossRef] 103. Zidan, A.S.; Rahman, Z.; Khan, M.A. Product and process understanding of a novel pediatric anti-HIV tenofovir niosomes with a high-pressure homogenizer. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2011,44, 93–102. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 104. Ramana, L.N.; Sharma, S.; Sethuraman, S.; Ranga, U.; Krishnan, U.M. Investigation on the stability of saquinavir loaded liposomes: Implication on stealth, release characteristics and cytotoxicity. Int. J. Pharm. 2012,431, 120–129. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 105. Xu, X.; Khan, M.A.; Burgess, D.J. A two-stage reverse dialysis in vitro dissolution testing method for passive targeted liposomes. Int. J. Pharm. 2012,426, 211–218. [CrossRef] 106. Zidan, A.S.; Spinks, C.; Fortunak, J.; Habib, M.; Khan, M.A. Near-infrared investigations of novel anti-HIV tenofovir liposomes. AAPS J. 2010,12, 202–214. [CrossRef] 107. Zidan, A.S.; Spinks, C.B.; Habib, M.J.; Khan, M.A. Formulation and transport properties of tenofovir loaded liposomes through Caco-2 cell model. J. Liposome Res. 2013,23, 318–326. [CrossRef] 108. Spinks, C.B.; Zidan, A.S.; Khan, M.A.; Habib, M.J.; Faustino, P.J. Pharmaceutical characterization of novel tenofovir liposomal formulations for enhanced oral drug delivery: In vitro pharmaceutics and Caco-2 permeability investigations. Clin. Pharm. 2017 , 9, 29–38. [CrossRef] 109. Patel, G.M.; Shelat, P.K.; Lalwani, A.N. QbD based development of proliposome of lopinavir for improved oral bioavailability. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2017,108, 50–61. [CrossRef] 110. Ahammed, V.; Narayan, R.; Paul, J.; Nayak, Y.; Roy, B.; Shavi, G.V.; Nayak, U.Y. Development and in vivo evaluation of functionalized ritonavir proliposomes for lymphatic targeting. Life Sci. 2017,183, 11–20. [CrossRef] 111. Figueira, T.N.; Domingues, M.M.; Illien, F.; Cadima-Couto, I.; Todorovski, T.; Andreu, D.; Sagan, S.; Castanho, M.A.R.B.; Walrant, A.; Veiga, A.S. Enfuvirtide-Protoporphyrin IX Dual-Loaded Liposomes: In Vitro Evidence of Synergy against HIV-1 Entry into Cells. ACS Infect. Dis. 2020,6, 224–236. [CrossRef] 112. Jain, S.; Tiwary, A.K.; Sapra, B.; Jain, N.K. Formulation and evaluation of ethosomes for transdermal delivery of lamivudine. AAPS Pharmscitech 2007,8, E111. [CrossRef] 113. Chettupalli, A.K.; Ananthula, M.; Amarachinta, P.R.; Bakshi, V.; Yata, V.K. Design, Formulation, In-Vitro and Ex-Vivo Evaluation of Atazanavir Loaded Cubosomal Gel. Biointerface Res. Appl. Chem. 2021,11, 12037–12054. [CrossRef] 114. Hosny, K.M. Nanosized Cubosomal Thermogelling Dispersion Loaded with Saquinavir Mesylate to Improve Its Bioavailability: Preparation, Optimization, in vitro and in vivo Evaluation. Int. J. Nanomed. 2020,15, 5113–5129. [CrossRef] 115. Tomitaka, A.; Arami, H.; Huang, Z.; Raymond, A.; Rodriguez, E.; Cai, Y.; Febo, M.; Takemura, Y.; Nair, M. Hybrid magnetoplasmonic liposomes for multimodal image-guided and brain-targeted HIV treatment. Nanoscale 2017,10, 184–194. [CrossRef] 116. Saiyed, Z.M.; Gandhi, N.H.; Nair, M.P.N. Magnetic nanoformulation of azidothymidine 5 0 -triphosphate for targeted delivery across the blood-brain barrier. Int. J. Nanomed. 2010,5, 157–166. [CrossRef] 117. Nunes, R.; Bogas, S.; Faria, M.J.; Gonçalves, H.; Lúcio, M.; Viseu, T.; Sarmento, B.; das Neves, J. Electrospun fibers for vaginal administration of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine in the context of topical pre-exposure prophylaxis. J. Control. Release 2021,334, 453–462. [CrossRef] 118. Alukda, D.; Sturgis, T.; Youan, B.C. Formulation of tenofovir-loaded functionalized solid lipid nanoparticles intended for HIV prevention. J. Pharm. Sci. 2011,100, 3345–3356. [CrossRef] 119. Shegokar, R.; Singh, K.K. Stavudine entrapped lipid nanoparticles for targeting lymphatic HIV reservoirs. Die Pharm. 2011 ,66, 264–271.
Pharmaceutics 2021,13, 1294 53 of 54 120. Kuo, Y.C.; Chung, J.F. Physicochemical properties of nevirapine-loaded solid lipid nanoparticles and nanostructured lipid carriers. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2011,83, 299–306. [CrossRef] 121. Joshi, K.S.; Sharma, C.P.; Kalarikkal, N.; Sandeep, K.; Thomas, S.; Pothen, L.A. Evaluation of in-vitro cytotoxicity and cellular uptake efficiency of zidovudine-loaded solid lipid nanoparticles modified with Aloe Vera in glioma cells. Mater. Sci. Eng. C Mater. Biol. Appl. 2016,66, 40–50. [CrossRef] 122. Javan, F.; Vatanara, A. Encapsulation of ritonavir in solid lipid nanoparticles: In-vitro anti-HIV-1 activity using lentiviral particles. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 2017,69, 1002–1009. [CrossRef] 123. Cavalcanti, S.M.T.; Nunes, C.; Lima, S.A.C.; Soares-Sobrinho, J.L.; Reis, S. Multiple Lipid Nanoparticles (MLN), a New Generation of Lipid Nanoparticles for Drug Delivery Systems: Lamivudine-MLN Experimental Design. Pharm. Res. 2017 ,34, 1204–1216. [CrossRef] 124. Mahajan, K.Y.; Rojekar, S.V.; Desai, D.V.; Kulkarni, S.S.; Vavia, P.R. Efavirenz loaded nanostructured lipid carriers for efficient and prolonged viral inhibition in HIV-infected macrophages. Pharm. Sci. 2020. [CrossRef] 125. Shaikh, N.A.; Lala, R.R. Formulation development of dolutegravir sodium loaded nano lipid carriers for improved solubility and permeability. Int. J. Pharm. Sci. Res. 2021,12, 3654–3665. [CrossRef] 126. Beloqui, A.; Solinís, M.; des Rieux, A.; Préat, V.; Rodríguez-Gascón, A. Dextran-protamine coated nanostructured lipid carriers as mucus-penetrating nanoparticles for lipophilic drugs. Int. J. Pharm. 2014,468, 105–111. [CrossRef] 127. Dixit, G.R.; Mathur, V.B. Formulation and characterization of solid microemulsion of darunavir for enhanced solubility and dissolution. Int. J. Pharm. Sci. Res. 2015,6, 3990–3999. [CrossRef] 128. Carvalho, A.L.; Silva, J.A.; Lira, A.A.; Conceição, T.M.; Nunes Rde, S.; de Albuquerque Junior, R.L.; Sarmento, V.H.; Leal, L.B.; de Santana, D.P. Evaluation of Microemulsion and Lamellar Liquid Crystalline Systems for Transdermal Zidovudine Delivery. J. Pharm. Sci. 2016,105, 2188–2193. [CrossRef] 129. Kotta, S.; Khan, A.W.; Ansari, S.H.; Sharma, R.K.; Ali, J. Anti HIV nanoemulsion formulation: Optimization and in vitro - in vivo evaluation. Int. J. Pharm. 2014,462, 129–134. [CrossRef] 130. McConville, C.; Friend, D. Development and characterisation of a self-microemulsifying drug delivery systems (SMEDDSs) for the vaginal administration of the antiretroviral UC-781. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 2013,83, 322–329. [CrossRef] 131. Senapati, P.C.; Sahoo, S.K.; Sahu, A.N. Mixed surfactant based (SNEDDS) self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery system presenting efavirenz for enhancement of oral bioavailability. Biomed. Pharm. 2016,80, 42–51. [CrossRef] 132. De Melo-Diogo, D.; Pais-Silva, C.; Dias, D.R.; Moreira, A.F.; Correia, I.J. Strategies to Improve Cancer Photothermal Therapy Mediated by Nanomaterials. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2017,6, 1700073. [CrossRef] 133. Chenthamara, D.; Subramaniam, S.; Ramakrishnan, S.G.; Krishnaswamy, S.; Essa, M.M.; Lin, F.-H.; Qoronfleh, M.W. Therapeutic efficacy of nanoparticles and routes of administration. Biomater. Res. 2019,23, 20. [CrossRef] 134. Raoufi, E.; Bahramimeimandi, B.; Salehi-Shadkami, M.; Chaosri, P.; Mozafari, M.R. Methodical Design of Viral Vaccines Based on Avant-Garde Nanocarriers: A Multi-Domain Narrative Review. Biomedicines 2021,9, 520. [CrossRef] 135. Danaei, M.; Kalantari, M.; Raji, M.; Samareh Fekri, H.; Saber, R.; Asnani, G.P.; Mortazavi, S.M.; Mozafari, M.R.; Rasti, B.; Taheriazam, A. Probing nanoliposomes using single particle analytical techniques: Effect of excipients, solvents, phase transition and zeta potential. Heliyon 2018,4. [CrossRef] 136. Danaei, M.; Dehghankhold, M.; Ataei, S.; Hasanzadeh Davarani, F.; Javanmard, R.; Dokhani, A.; Khorasani, S.; Mozafari, M.R. Impact of Particle Size and Polydispersity Index on the Clinical Applications of Lipidic Nanocarrier Systems. Pharmaceutics 2018 , 10, 57. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 137. Churchill, M.J.; Deeks, S.G.; Margolis, D.M.; Siliciano, R.F.; Swanstrom, R. HIV reservoirs: What, where and how to target them. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2016,14, 55–60. [CrossRef] 138. Kerns, E.H.; Di, L. Chapter 5—Lipophilicity. In Drug-Like Properties: Concepts, Structure Design and Methods; Kerns, E.H., Di, L., Eds.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2008; pp. 43–47. [CrossRef] 139. Zhang, X.; Qi, J.; Lu, Y.; He, W.; Li, X.; Wu, W. Biotinylated liposomes as potential carriers for the oral delivery of insulin. Nanomed. Nanotechnol. Biol. Med. 2014,10, 167–176. [CrossRef] 140. Benziger, D.P.; Edelson, J. Absorption from the vagina. Drug Metab. Rev. 1983,14, 137–168. [CrossRef] 141. das Neves, J.; Palmeira-de-Oliveira, R.; Palmeira-de-Oliveira, A.; Rodrigues, F.; Sarmento, B. Vaginal Mucosa and Drug Delivery. In Mucoadhesive Materials and Drug Delivery Systems; Khutoryanskiy, V.V., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014; pp. 99–132. [CrossRef] 142. das Neves, J.; Amiji, M.; Sarmento, B. Mucoadhesive nanosystems for vaginal microbicide development: Friend or foe? Wires Nanomed. Nanobiotechnol. 2011,3, 389–399. [CrossRef] 143. Parboosing, R.; Maguire, G.E.M.; Govender, P.; Kruger, H.G. Nanotechnology and the treatment of HIV infection. Viruses 2012 ,4, 488–520. [CrossRef] 144. Pollock, S.; Dwek, R.A.; Burton, D.R.; Zitzmann, N. N-Butyldeoxynojirimycin is a broadly effective anti-HIV therapy significantly enhanced by targeted liposome delivery. AIDS 2008,22, 1961–1969. [CrossRef] 145. Flasher, D.; Konopka, K.; Chamow, S.M.; Dazin, P.; Ashkenazi, A.; Pretzer, E.; Düzgünes, N. Liposome targeting to human immunodeficiency virus type 1-infected cells via recombinant soluble CD4 and CD4 immunoadhesin (CD4-IgG). Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1994,1194, 185–196. [CrossRef]
Pharmaceutics 2021,13, 1294 54 of 54 146. Bestman-Smith, J.; Gourde, P.; Désormeaux, A.; Tremblay, M.J.; Bergeron, M.G. Sterically stabilized liposomes bearing antiHLA-DR antibodies for targeting the primary cellular reservoirs of HIV-1. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Biomembr. 2000 ,1468, 161–174. [CrossRef] 147. Kinman, L.; Bui, T.; Larsen, K.; Tsai, C.C.; Anderson, D.; Morton, W.R.; Hu, S.L.; Ho, R.J. Optimization of lipid-indinavir complexes for localization in lymphoid tissues of HIV-infected macaques. J. Acquir. Immune Defic. Syndr. 2006 ,42, 155–161. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 148. Bobbin, M.L.; Burnett, J.C.; Rossi, J.J. RNA interference approaches for treatment of HIV-1 infection. Genome Med. 2015 ,7, 50. [CrossRef] 149. Fire, A.; Xu, S.; Montgomery, M.K.; Kostas, S.A.; Driver, S.E.; Mello, C.C. Potent and specific genetic interference by doublestranded RNA in Caenorhabditis elegans. Nature 1998,391, 806–811. [CrossRef] 150. Oliveira, A.C.N.; Fernandes, J.; Gonçalves, A.; Gomes, A.C.; Real Oliveira, M.E.C.D. Lipid-based Nanocarriers for siRNA Delivery: Challenges, Strategies and the Lessons Learned from the DODAX: MO Liposomal System. Curr. Drug Targets 2019 ,20, 29–50. [CrossRef] 151. Berkhout, B.; ter Brake, O. Towards a durable RNAi gene therapy for HIV-AIDS. Expert Opin. Biol. Ther. 2009 ,9, 161–170. [CrossRef] 152. Haasnoot, J.; Westerhout, E.M.; Berkhout, B. RNA interference against viruses: Strike and counterstrike. Nat. Biotechnol. 2007 ,25, 1435–1443. [CrossRef] 153. Kim, S.-S.; Peer, D.; Kumar, P.; Subramanya, S.; Wu, H.; Asthana, D.; Habiro, K.; Yang, Y.-G.; Manjunath, N.; Shimaoka, M.; et al. RNAi-mediated CCR5 silencing by LFA-1-targeted nanoparticles prevents HIV infection in BLT mice. Mol. Ther. 2010 ,18, 370–376. [CrossRef] 154. Karlsen, T.A.; Brinchmann, J.E. Liposome delivery of microRNA-145 to mesenchymal stem cells leads to immunological off-target effects mediated by RIG-I. Mol. Ther. 2013,21, 1169–1181. [CrossRef] 155. Krebs, M.D.; Alsberg, E. Localized, targeted, and sustained siRNA delivery. Chem. Weinh. Bergstr. Ger. 2011 ,17, 3054–3062. [CrossRef] 156. Kaeser, G.E.; Chun, J. Mosaic Somatic Gene Recombination as a Potentially Unifying Hypothesis for Alzheimer’s Disease. Front. Genet. 2020,11. [CrossRef] 157. Chai, G.; Gleeson, J.G. A newly discovered mechanism driving neuronal mutations in Alzheimer’s disease. Nature 2018 ,563, 631–632. [CrossRef]