Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31709243›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2019

Hazard Assessment of Polymeric Nanobiomaterials for Drug Delivery: What Can We Learn From Literature So Far.

Sandra Jesus, Mélanie Schmutz, Claudia Som, Gerrit Borchard, Peter Wick, Olga Borges

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
–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

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Advances in constructing biocompatible nanocarriers.Drug delivery and translational research · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Phototherapy in cancer treatment: strategies and challenges.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2025
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors.

Sandra JesusCenter for Neuroscience and Cell Biology, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.
Mélanie SchmutzLaboratory for Technology and Society, Empa Swiss Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Claudia SomLaboratory for Technology and Society, Empa Swiss Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Gerrit BorchardSchool of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Peter WickLaboratory for Particles-Biology Interactions, Empa Swiss Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Olga BorgesCenter for Neuroscience and Cell Biology, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The physicochemical properties of nanobiomaterials, such as their small size and high surface area ratio, make them attractive, novel drug-carriers, with increased cellular interaction and increased permeation through several biological barriers. However, these same properties hinder any extrapolation of knowledge from the toxicity of their raw material. Though, as suggested by the Safe-by-Design (SbD) concept, the hazard assessment should be the starting point for the formulation development. This may enable us to select the most promising candidates of polymeric nanobiomaterials for safe drug-delivery in an early phase of innovation. Nowadays the majority of reports on polymeric nanomaterials are focused in optimizing the nanocarrier features, such as size, physical stability and drug loading efficacy, and in performing preliminary cytocompatibility testing and proving effectiveness of the drug loaded formulation, using the most diverse cell lines. Toxicological studies exploring the biological effects of the polymeric nanomaterials, particularly regarding immune system interaction are often disregarded. The objective of this review is to illustrate what is known about the biological effects of polymeric nanomaterials and to see if trends in toxicity and general links between physicochemical properties of nanobiomaterials and their effects may be derived. For that, data on chitosan, polylactic acid (PLA), polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA), poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) and policaprolactone (PCL) nanomaterials will be evaluated regarding acute and repeated dose toxicity, inflammation, oxidative stress, genotoxicity, toxicity on reproduction and hemocompatibility. We further intend to identify the analytical and biological tests described in the literature used to assess polymeric nanomaterials toxicity, to evaluate and interpret the available results and to expose the obstacles and challenges related to the nanomaterial testing. At the present time, considering all the information collected, the hazard assessment and thus also the SbD of polymeric nanomaterials is still dependent on a case-by-case evaluation. The identified obstacles prevent the identification of toxicity trends and the generation of an assertive toxicity database. In the future,

Indexed as

exposure assessmentgenotoxicityhazard assessmenthemocompatibilityin vivo toxicityoxidative stresspolymeric nanobiomaterialstoxicity on reproduction

Identifiers

PMID31709243
PMCPMC6819371

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.