4.7 Review

Current Trends and Challenges in the Clinical Translation of Nanoparticulate Nanomedicines: Pathways for Translational Development and Commercialization

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PHARMACOLOGY
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2018.00790

关键词

nanomedicine; nanoparticles; drug delivery systems; clinical translation; challenges; commercialization; biological; regulations

资金

  1. Pharmacy Research Trust of New South Wales
  2. Rebecca L. Cooper Medical Research Foundation
  3. Gladys M Brawn Fellowship
  4. ausEE Research Foundation
  5. University of Newcastle

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of nanotechnology in medicine has the potential to have a major impact on human health for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. One particular aspect of the nanomedicine field which has received a great deal of attention is the design and development of nanoparticulate nanomedicines (NNMs) for drug delivery (i.e., drug-containing nanoparticles). NNMs are intended to deliver drugs via various mechanisms: solubilization, passive targeting, active targeting, and triggered release. The NNM approach aims to increase therapeutic efficacy, decrease the therapeutically effective dose, and/or reduce the risk of systemic side effects. In order to move a NNM from the bench to the bedside, several experimental challenges need to be addressed. This review will discuss the current trends and challenges in the clinical translation of NNMs as well as the potential pathways for translational development and commercialization. Key issues related to the clinical development of NNMs will be covered, including biological challenges, large-scale manufacturing, biocompatibility and safety, intellectual property (IP), government regulations, and overall cost-effectiveness in comparison to current therapies. These factors can impose significant hurdles limiting the appearance of NNMs on the market, irrelevant of whether they are therapeutically beneficial or not.

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