ReviewBritish journal of pharmacology2014
Optimizing nanomedicine pharmacokinetics using physiologically based pharmacokinetics modelling.
Review in British journal of pharmacology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 120 citations in OpenAlex.
- Meta-Analysis of Pharmacokinetic Studies of Nanobiomaterials for the Prediction of Excretion Depending on Particle Characteristics.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2019Pooled it
- New approach methodologies in nanomedicine: bridging the gap betweenChemical Society reviews · 2026Review
- Dynamics of spatiotemporal pharmacological models for hepatitis B virus infection under lamivudine and pegylated interferon alfa-2b therapies.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Green-Synthesized Nanomaterials from Edible and Medicinal Mushrooms: A Sustainable Strategy Against Antimicrobial Resistance.Pharmaceutics · 2025Review
- Article
- Challenging Traditional ADME Assumptions for Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Models for Intravenous Administration of Iron-Carbohydrate Nanomedicines: Potential Utility of Gold Nanoparticle Models as a Roadmap.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2025Review
- 33 Unresolved Questions in Nanoscience and Nanotechnology.ACS nano · 2025Article
- Biomimetic Tumour Model Systems for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma in Relation to Photodynamic Therapy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Separation of 100 nm-sized nanoparticles using a poly-Lys-modified monolith column.RSC advances · 2025Article
- Comprehensive insights into mechanism of nanotoxicity, assessment methods and regulatory challenges of nanomedicines.Discover nano · 2024Review
- Strategies, Challenges, and Prospects of Nanoparticles in Gynecological Malignancies.ACS omega · 2024Review
- Emerging Trends in Hybrid Nanoparticles: Revolutionary Advances and Promising Biomedical Applications.Current drug metabolism · 2024Review
- Advancements in Nanoparticle Characterization.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024Article
- Nanoplatform-Mediated Autophagy Regulation and Combined Anti-Tumor Therapy for Resistant Tumors.International journal of nanomedicine · 2024Review
- Review
- An artificial intelligence-assisted physiologically-based pharmacokinetic model to predict nanoparticle delivery to tumors in mice.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2023Article
- Nanotherapeutic Approaches to Treat COVID-19-Induced Pulmonary Fibrosis.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2023Review
- Controlled Drug Release from Nanoengineered Polysaccharides.Pharmaceutics · 2023Review
- Mechanistic evaluation of the inhibitory effect of four SGLT-2 inhibitors on SGLT 1 and SGLT 2 using physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling approaches.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Niosomes: a novel targeted drug delivery system for cancer.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The delivery of therapeutic agents is characterized by numerous challenges including poor absorption, low penetration in target tissues and non-specific dissemination in organs, leading to toxicity or poor drug exposure. Several nanomedicine strategies have emerged as an advanced approach to enhance drug delivery and improve the treatment of several diseases. Numerous processes mediate the pharmacokinetics of nanoformulations, with the absorption, distribution, metabolism and elimination (ADME) being poorly understood and often differing substantially from traditional formulations. Understanding how nanoformulation composition and physicochemical properties influence drug distribution in the human body is of central importance when developing future treatment strategies. A helpful pharmacological tool to simulate the distribution of nanoformulations is represented by physiologically based pharmacokinetics (PBPK) modelling, which integrates system data describing a population of interest with drug/nanoparticle in vitro data through a mathematical description of ADME. The application of PBPK models for nanomedicine is in its infancy and characterized by several challenges. The integration of property-distribution relationships in PBPK models may benefit nanomedicine research, giving opportunities for innovative development of nanotechnologies. PBPK modelling has the potential to improve our understanding of the mechanisms underpinning nanoformulation disposition and allow for more rapid and accurate determination of their kinetics. This review provides an overview of the current knowledge of nanomedicine distribution and the use of PBPK modelling in the characterization of nanoformulations with optimal pharmacokinetics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.