Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24932437›Full record

ArticleDrug delivery and translational research2013

Questioning the Use of PEGylation for Drug Delivery.

Johan J F Verhoef, Thomas J Anchordoquy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Drug delivery and translational research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 145 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
145citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

145 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Liposomal delivery of gene therapy for ovarian cancer: a systematic review.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

85 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Johan J F VerhoefUniversity of Utrecht, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht, 3584 CG The Netherlands.
Thomas J AnchordoquyUniversity of Colorado Denver, Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Aurora, CO 80045 USA.

Funding

Tumor-Homing Exosomes for Drug DeliveryR01EB016378 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI ANCHORDOQUY, THOMAS, GRANER, MICHAEL W. · 2013 to 2016
$1.5M
Exploiting Cholesterol Nanodomains to Improve TargetingR01GM093287 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI ANCHORDOQUY, THOMAS · 2011 to 2014
$1.1M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB016378NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM093287
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is widely utilized in drug delivery and nanotechnology due to its reported "stealth" properties and biocompatibility. It is generally thought that PEGylation allows particulate delivery systems and biomaterials to evade the immune system and thereby prolong circulation lifetimes. However, numerous studies over the past decade have demonstrated that PEGylation causes significant reductions in drug delivery, including enhanced serum protein binding, reduced uptake by target cells, and the elicitation of an immune response that facilitates clearance in vivo. This report reviews some of the extensive literature documenting the detrimental effects of PEGylation, and thereby questions the wisdom behind employing this strategy in drug development.

Indexed as

DNAdrug deliveryimmunogenicityPEGpolyethylene glycolRNAstealthtransfection

Identifiers

PMID24932437
PMCPMC4051498

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.