4.6 Review

Current hurdles to the translation of nanomedicines from bench to the clinic

期刊

DRUG DELIVERY AND TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH
卷 12, 期 3, 页码 500-525

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s13346-021-01024-2

关键词

Nanomedicine translation; Regulatory framework; Manufacturing; Scale-up; Characterization

资金

  1. la Caixa Foundation [LCF/PR/HR19/52160021, LCF/TR/CD20/52700005]
  2. FCT-MCTES [SFRH/BD/131969/2017]
  3. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/131969/2017] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The field of nanomedicine faces challenges in regulatory clarity and consistency. Developing nanomedicines requires considerations of critical quality attributes, appropriate analytical methods, important process parameters, and pre-clinical models. Close collaboration with regulatory agencies is advised to accelerate the development of future nanomedicines.
The field of nanomedicine has significantly influenced research areas such as drug delivery, diagnostics, theranostics, and regenerative medicine; however, the further development of this field will face significant challenges at the regulatory level if related guidance remains unclear and unconsolidated. This review describes those features and pathways crucial to the clinical translation of nanomedicine and highlights considerations for early-stage product development. These include identifying those critical quality attributes of the drug product essential for activity and safety, appropriate analytical methods (physical, chemical, biological) for characterization, important process parameters, and adequate pre-clinical models. Additional concerns include the evaluation of batch-to-batch consistency and considerations regarding scaling up that will ensure a successful reproducible manufacturing process. Furthermore, we advise close collaboration with regulatory agencies from the early stages of development to assure an aligned position to accelerate the development of future nanomedicines.

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

4.6
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