Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32681950›Full record

ReviewJournal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society2020

Delivering the power of nanomedicine to patients today.

Matthieu Germain, Fanny Caputo, Su Metcalfe, Giovanni Tosi, Kathleen Spring, Andreas K O Åslund, Agnes Pottier, Raymond Schiffelers, Alexandre Ceccaldi, Ruth Schmid

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 155 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
155citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

155 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Analyzing Molecular Determinants of Nanodrugs' Cytotoxic Effects.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

95 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

10 authors.

Matthieu GermainCuradigm SAS, 60 rue de wattignies, 75012 Paris, France. Electronic address: matthieu.germain@curadigm.com.
Fanny CaputoDepartment of Biotechnology and Nanomedicine, SINTEF Industry, 7465 Trondheim, Norway.
Su MetcalfeLIFNano Therapeutics, 10 Fendon Road, University of Cambridge Clinical School, Cambridge CB1 7RT, UK.
Giovanni TosiNanotech Lab, Te.Far.T.I., Department of Life Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Via Campi 103, 41124 Modena, Italy.
Kathleen SpringGesellschaft fuer Bioanalytik Muenster e.V., Mendelstrasse 17, 48151 Muenster, Germany.
Andreas K O ÅslundDepartment of Biotechnology and Nanomedicine, SINTEF Industry, 7465 Trondheim, Norway.
Agnes PottierETPN association, 64-66 rue des archives, 75003 Paris, France.
Raymond SchiffelersDepartment of Clinical Chemistry and Haematology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, 3584, CX, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Alexandre CeccaldiETPN association, 64-66 rue des archives, 75003 Paris, France.
Ruth SchmidDepartment of Biotechnology and Nanomedicine, SINTEF Industry, 7465 Trondheim, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The situation of the COVID-19 pandemic reminds us that we permanently need high-value flexible solutions to urgent clinical needs including simplified diagnostic technologies suitable for use in the field and for delivering targeted therapeutics. From our perspective nanotechnology is revealed as a vital resource for this, as a generic platform of technical solutions to tackle complex medical challenges. It is towards this perspective and focusing on nanomedicine that we take issue with Prof Park's recent editorial published in the Journal of Controlled Release. Prof. Park argued that in the last 15 years nanomedicine failed to deliver the promised innovative clinical solutions to the patients (Park, K. The beginning of the end of the nanomedicine hype. Journal of Controlled Release, 2019; 305, 221-222 [1]. We, the ETPN (European Technology Platform on Nanomedicine) [2], respectfully disagree. In fact, the more than 50 formulations currently in the market, and the recent approval of 3 key nanomedicine products (e. g. Onpattro, Hensify and Vyxeos), have demonstrated that the nanomedicine field is concretely able to design products that overcome critical barriers in conventional medicine in a unique manner, but also to deliver within the cells new drug-free therapeutic effects by using pure physical modes of action, and therefore make a difference in patients lives. Furthermore, the >400 nanomedicine formulations currently in clinical trials are expecting to bring novel clinical solutions (e.g. platforms for nucleic acid delivery), alone or in combination with other key enabling technologies to the market, including biotechnologies, microfluidics, advanced materials, biomaterials, smart systems, photonics, robotics, textiles, Big Data and ICT (information & communication technologies) more generally. However, we agree with Prof. Park that " it is time to examine the sources of difficulty in clinical translation of nanomedicine and move forward ". But for reaching this goal, the investments to support clinical translation of promising nanomedicine formulations should increase, not decrease. As recently encouraged by EMA in its roadmap to 2025, we should create more unity through a common knowledge hub linking academia, industry, healthcare providers and hopefully policy makers to reduce the current fragmentation of the standardization and regulatory body landscape. We should also promote a strategy of cross-technology innovation, support nanomedicine development as a high value and low-cost solution to answer unmet medical needs and help the most promising innovative projects of the field to get better and faster to the clinic. This global vision is the one that the ETPN chose to encourage for the last fifteen years. All actions should be taken with a clear clinical view in mind, " without any fanfare", to focus "on what matters in real life", which is the patient and his/her quality of life. This ETPN overview of achievements in nanomedicine serves to reinforce our drive towards further expanding and growing the maturity of nanomedicine for global healthcare, accelerating the pace of transformation of its great potential into tangible medical breakthroughs.

Indexed as

Drug Delivery SystemsNanomedicineAnimalsClinical Trials as TopicCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19Drug CarriersHumansNanotechnologyNeoplasmsPandemicsPneumonia, ViralDrug CarriersClinical translationHealthtechNanomedicineNanotechnologyRegulatoryStandardization

Identifiers

PMID32681950
PMCPMC7362824

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.