4.7 Editorial Material

Do HPMA copolymer conjugates have a future as clinically useful nanomedicines? A critical overview of current status and future opportunities

期刊

ADVANCED DRUG DELIVERY REVIEWS
卷 62, 期 2, 页码 272-282

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.addr.2009.12.005

关键词

HPMA copolymers; Polymer therapeutics; Nanomedicines; Cancer; Phase I/II

向作者/读者索取更多资源

N-(2-Hydroxypropyl)methacrylamide (HPMA) copolymer conjugates containing doxorubicin designed in the late 1970s/early 1980s as anticancer polymer therapeutics were the first synthetic polymer-based anticancer conjugates to enter clinical trial beginning in 1994. Early clinical results were promising, confirming activity in chemotherapy refractory patients and the safety of HPMA copolymers as a new polymer platform in this setting. Subsequent Phase I/II trials have investigated conjugates containing paclitaxel (PNU 166945), camptothecin (PNU 166148) (both failed in clinical trials underlining the importance of rational design), and most recently HPMA-copolymer platinates (AP5280 and then AP5346-ProLindac (TM)) entered Phase II clinical development. There are a growing array of second generation HPMA copolymer-based systems involving combination therapy, incorporating putative targeting ligands, having an ever more complex architecture, and both. drug and protein conjugates are being proposed as novel treatments for diseases other than cancer. Despite their promise, and the success of polymeric drugs and polymer-protein conjugates, no polymer-drug conjugate (HPMA copolymer-based or otherwise) has yet entered routine clinical use. It is timely to reflect on the progress made over the last 30 years, the relative merits of HPMA copolymers as a platform compared to other polymeric carriers, and comment on their future potential as polymer-based nanomedicines into the 21st century in comparison with the many alternative strategies now emerging for creation of nanopharmaceuticals. (C) 2009 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