Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34126169›Full record

ReviewJournal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society2021

Methodological needs in the quality and safety characterisation of nanotechnology-based health products: Priorities for method development and standardisation.

B Halamoda-Kenzaoui, R J Vandebriel, A Howarth, M Siccardi, C A W David, N J Liptrott, M Santin, S E Borgos, S Bremer-Hoffmann, F Caputo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing 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

40 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Recent advances and future challenges in nanosystems for ocular drug delivery.The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Harnessing nanotechnology for cancer treatment.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Limitations ofNanomedicine (London, England) · 2024
    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

10 authors.

B Halamoda-KenzaouiEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy.
R J VandebrielNational Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
A HowarthDepartment of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Institute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
M SiccardiDepartment of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Institute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
C A W DavidDepartment of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Institute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
N J LiptrottDepartment of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Institute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
M SantinCentre for Regenerative Medicine and Devices, School of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, University of Brighton, Brighton, UK.
S E BorgosDepartment of Biotechnology and Nanomedicine, SINTEF Industry, Trondheim, Norway. Electronic address: SvenEven.Borgos@sintef.no.
S Bremer-HoffmannEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy. Electronic address: susanne.bremer-hoffmann@ec.europa.eu.
F CaputoDepartment of Biotechnology and Nanomedicine, SINTEF Industry, Trondheim, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nanotechnology-based health products are providing innovative solutions in health technologies and the pharmaceutical field, responding to unmet clinical needs. However, suitable standardised methods need to be available for quality and safety assessments of these innovative products prior to their translation into the clinic and for monitoring their performance when manufacturing processes are changed. The question arises which technological solutions are currently available within the scientific community to support the requested characterisation of nanotechnology-based products, and which methodological developments should be prioritized to support product developers in their regulatory assessment. To this end, the work presented here explored the state-of-the-art methods to identify methodological gaps associated with the preclinical characterisation of nanotechnology-based medicinal products and medical devices. The regulatory information needs, as expressed by regulatory authorities, were extracted from the guidance documents released so far for nanotechnology-based health products and mapped against available methods, thus allowing an analysis of methodological gaps and needs. In the first step, only standardised methods were considered, leading to the identification of methodological needs in five areas of characterisation, including: (i) surface properties, (ii) drug loading and release, (iii) kinetic properties in complex biological media, (iv) ADME (absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion) parameters and (v) interaction with blood and the immune system. In the second step, a detailed gap analysis included analytical approaches in earlier stages of development, and standardised test methods from outside of the nanotechnology field that could address the identified areas of gaps. Based on this analysis, three categories of methodological needs were identified, including (i) method optimisation/adaptation to nanotechnological platforms, (ii) method validation/standardisation and (iii) method development for those areas where no technological solutions currently exist. The results of the analysis presented in this work should raise awareness within the scientific community on existing and emerging methodological needs, setting priorities for the development and standardisation of relevant analytical and toxicological methods allowing the development of a robust testing strategy for nanotechnology-based health products.

Indexed as

NanomedicineNanotechnologyReference StandardsImmunotoxicity assessmentMethod developmentMethodological gapsMethod standardisationNanomedicineNanotechnology-based productsPhysicochemical characterisationRegulatory needs

Identifiers

PMID34126169
PMCPMC8390938

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.