ArticleDrug delivery and translational research2014
Core-shell nanoparticulate formulation of gemcitabine: lyophilization, stability studies, and in vivo evaluation.
Article in Drug delivery and translational research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Core-shell nanoparticulate formulation of gemcitabine was prepared by incorporating gemcitabine in a hydrophilic bovine serum albumin (BSA) core surrounded by hydrophobic poly(DL-lactic acid-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) shell with a particle size of 243 nm and encapsulation efficiency of 40.5 %. Prepared formulations were lyophilized, wherein several cryoprotectants were screened for product attributes such as cake appearance, reconstitution with water, and size constancy. Trehalose was screened as a lyoprotectant, which showed stability for 6 months at 5 °C and 25 °C/60 % relative humidity (RH) conditions. However, an increase in particle size was observed at accelerated conditions (40 °C/75 % RH). In vitro evaluation of these nano-formulations in MCF-7 breast cancer cells showed enhanced cellular uptake (90 %) as compared to GEMCITE® uptake (51 %) in 6 h along with reduced IC50 value at 72 h (16 μM versus 30 μM). In vivo studies in Sprague Dawley rats showed C max, t 1/2, and area under the curve (AUC) at 2.55 μg/ml, 13.6 h, and 28,322.5 μg/l/h, respectively, whereas GEMCITE® at the same dose showed significantly lower corresponding values at 1.94 μg/ml, 6.89 h, and 13,967 μg/l/h. In the same study, AUC and C max of inactive metabolite of gemcitabine (dFdU) were reduced by 33 and 42 %, respectively, for these nanoparticles compared to GEMCITE®. In 7,12-dimethylbenz[a]anthracene (DMBA)-induced breast cancer model, significantly reduced tumor growth was observed in gemcitabine-loaded-nanoparticle-treated animals compared with GEMCITE®-treated animal at equivalent dose (121 versus 243 % in 30 days). The results indicated that our core-shell nanoparticles are more effective for tumor reduction compared to marketed formulation of gemcitabine, GEMCITE®.
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.