Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28883724›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of nanomedicine2017

Nanomedicinal products: a survey on specific toxicity and side effects.

Walter Brand, Cornelle W Noorlander, Christina Giannakou, Wim H De Jong, Myrna W Kooi, Margriet Vdz Park, Rob J Vandebriel, Irene Em Bosselaers, Joep Hg Scholl, Robert E Geertsma

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of nanomedicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Liposomes in tumor treatment: a double-edged sword.Science China. Life sciences · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Walter Brand *Centre for Safety of Substances and Products.
Cornelle W Noorlander *Centre for Safety of Substances and Products.
Christina GiannakouCentre for Health Protection, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven.
Wim H De JongCentre for Health Protection, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven.
Myrna W KooiCentre for Safety of Substances and Products.
Margriet Vdz ParkCentre for Health Protection, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven.
Rob J VandebrielCentre for Health Protection, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven.
Irene Em BosselaersSection Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmacokinetics, Medicines Evaluation Board (CBG-MEB), Utrecht.
Joep Hg SchollResearch & Analysis Department, Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands.
Robert E GeertsmaCentre for Health Protection, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven.
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment · NLMaastricht University · NLNetherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb · NLPharmacoGenetics (China) · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Due to their specific properties and pharmacokinetics, nanomedicinal products (NMPs) may present different toxicity and side effects compared to non-nanoformulated, conventional medicines. To facilitate the safety assessment of NMPs, we aimed to gain insight into toxic effects specific for NMPs by systematically analyzing the available toxicity data on approved NMPs in the European Union. In addition, by comparing five sets of products with the same active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) in a conventional formulation versus a nanoformulation, we aimed to identify any side effects specific for the nano aspect of NMPs. The objective was to investigate whether specific toxicity could be related to certain structural types of NMPs and whether a nanoformulation of an API altered the nature of side effects of the product in humans compared to a conventional formulation. The survey of toxicity data did not reveal nanospecific toxicity that could be related to certain types of structures of NMPs, other than those reported previously in relation to accumulation of iron nanoparticles (NPs). However, given the limited data for some of the product groups or toxicological end points in the analysis, conclusions with regard to (a lack of) potential nanomedicine-specific effects need to be considered carefully. Results from the comparison of side effects of five sets of drugs (mainly liposomes and/or cytostatics) confirmed the induction of pseudo-allergic responses associated with specific NMPs in the literature, in addition to the side effects common to both nanoformulations and regular formulations, eg, with liposomal doxorubicin, and possibly liposomal daunorubicin. Based on the available data, immunotoxicological effects of certain NMPs cannot be excluded, and we conclude that this end point requires further attention.

Indexed as

AlbuminsAmphotericin BDaunorubicinDoxorubicinDrug CarriersHumansLiposomesNanomedicineNanoparticlesNanostructuresPaclitaxelPolyethylene GlycolsSurveys and Questionnaires130-nm albumin-bound paclitaxelAlbuminsAmphotericin BDaunorubicinDoxorubicinDrug Carriersliposomal doxorubicinLiposomesPaclitaxelPolyethylene Glycolsadverse effectsdrug safetyimmunotoxicitynanomedicinenanotoxicologypharmacovigilance

Identifiers

PMID28883724
PMCPMC5574663
OpenAlexW2748536775

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.