4.7 Article

Functional benefits of PLGA particulates carrying VEGF and CoQ10 in an animal of myocardial ischemia

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICS
卷 454, 期 2, 页码 784-790

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2013.04.015

关键词

VEGF; CoQ(10); Protein delivery; Angiogenesis; Tissue engineering; Myocardial ischemia

资金

  1. Royal Society [JP100124]
  2. ISCIII-RETIC [RD12/0019/0031]
  3. MINECO [PLE2009-0116 CARDIOBIO]
  4. Program INNPACTO (PROCARDIO)
  5. European Union FPVII (INELPY)
  6. FUN (University of Navarra) Caja de Ahorros de Navarra (Programa Tu Eliges: Tu Decides)
  7. Spanish Ministerio de Educacion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Myocardial ischemia (MI) remains one of the leading causes of death worldwide. Angiogenic therapy with the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is a promising strategy to overcome hypoxia and its consequences. However, from the clinical data it is clear that fulfillment of the potential of VEGF warrants a better delivery strategy. On the other hand, the compelling evidences of the role of oxidative stress in diseases like MI encourage the use of antioxidant agents. Coenzyme Q(10) (CoQ(10)) due to its role in the electron transport chain in the mitochondria seems to be a good candidate to manage MI but is associated with poor biopharmaceutical properties seeking better delivery approaches. The female Sprague Dawley rats were induced MI and were followed up with VEGF microparticles intramyocardially and CoQ(10) nanoparticles orally or their combination with appropriate controls. Cardiac function was assessed by measuring ejection fraction before and after three months of therapy. Results demonstrate significant improvement in the ejection fraction after three months with both treatment forms individually; however the combination therapy failed to offer any synergism. In conclusion, VEGF microparticles and CoQ(10) nanoparticles can be considered as promising strategies for managing MI. (C) 2013 Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据