ArticleThe AAPS journal2017
Early Development Challenges for Drug Products Containing Nanomaterials.
Article in The AAPS journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Scientific and Regulatory Standards for Dissolution Similarity: a Statistical Game of Matchmaking Neither Force to Pass or Nor Fail to Pass.AAPS PharmSciTech · 2026Review
- Inhalable Nanomaterial Discoveries for Lung Cancer Therapy: A Review.Pharmaceutics · 2025Review
- Articulating the Pharmacological and Nanotechnological Aspects of Genistein: Current and Future Prospectives.Current pharmaceutical biotechnology · 2024Review
- Parenteral Lipid-Based Nanoparticles for CNS Disorders: Integrating Various Facets of Preclinical Evaluation towards More Effective Clinical Translation.Pharmaceutics · 2023Review
- Multicolor flow cytometry-based immunophenotyping for preclinical characterization of nanotechnology-based formulations: an insight into structure activity relationship and nanoparticle biocompatibility profiles.Frontiers in allergy · 2023Article
- Trends and patterns in cancer nanotechnology research: A survey of NCI's caNanoLab and nanotechnology characterization laboratory.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2022Review
- Immunophenotyping: Analytical approaches and role in preclinical development of nanomedicines.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2022Review
- Targeted Drug Delivery for the Treatment of Blood Cancers.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Nanocarrier-Based Delivery of SN22 as a Tocopheryl Oxamate Prodrug Achieves Rapid Tumor Regression and Extends Survival in High-Risk Neuroblastoma Models.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Ultrasound-Responsive Nanocarriers in Cancer Treatment: A Review.ACS pharmacology & translational science · 2021Review
- Physical characterization of liposomal drug formulations using multi-detector asymmetrical-flow field flow fractionation.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2020Article
- Sizing up the Next Generation of Nanomedicines.Pharmaceutical research · 2019Review
- Nano based drug delivery systems: recent developments and future prospects.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2018Review
- Advances in nanomedicine drug delivery applications for HIV therapy.Future science OA · 2018Article
- Advancing Medical Applications of Cancer Nanotechnology: Highlighting Two Decades of the NCI'S Nanotechnology Characterization Laboratory Service to the Research Community.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The vast majority of drug product candidates in early development fail to progress to clinics. This is true for products containing nanomaterials just as for other types of pharmaceuticals. Early development pathways should therefore place high priority on experiments that help candidates fail faster and less expensively. Nanomedicines fail for many reasons, but some are more avoidable than others. Some of the points of failure are not considerations in the development of small molecules or biopharmaceuticals, and so may be unexpected, even to those with previous experience bringing drug products to the clinic. This article reviews experiments that have proven useful in providing "go/no-go" decision-making data for nanomedicines in early preclinical development. Of course, the specifics depend on the particulars of the drug product and the nanomaterial type, and not every product shares the same development pathway or the same potential points of failure. Here, we focus on challenges that differ from those in the development of traditional small molecule therapeutics, and on experiments that reveal deficiencies that can only be corrected by essentially starting over-altering the nanomedicine to an extent that all previous characterization and proof-of-concept testing must be repeated. Conducting these experiments early in the development process can save significant resources and time and allow developers to focus on derisked candidates with a greater likelihood of ultimate success.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27612680What 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.