-
Frontiers in Oncology 2021Breast cancer is one of the most prevalent types of malignant tumors in the world, resulting in a high incidence of death. The development of new molecules and...
Breast cancer is one of the most prevalent types of malignant tumors in the world, resulting in a high incidence of death. The development of new molecules and technologies aiming to apply more effective and safer therapy strategies has been intensively explored to overcome this situation. The association of nanoparticles with known antitumor compounds (including plant-derived molecules such as curcumin) has been considered an effective approach to enhance tumor growth suppression and reduce adverse effects. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review was to summarize published data regarding evaluations about efficacy and toxicity of curcumin nanoparticles (Cur-NPs) in models of breast cancer. The search was carried out in the databases: CINAHL, Cochrane, LILACS, Embase, FSTA, MEDLINE, ProQuest, BSV regional portal, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Web of Science. Studies that evaluated tumor growth in models of breast cancer and showed outcomes related to Cur-NP treatment (without association with other antitumor molecules) were included. Of the 528 initially gathered studies, 26 met the inclusion criteria. These studies showed that a wide variety of NP platforms have been used to deliver curcumin (, micelles, polymeric, lipid-based, metallic). Attachment of poly(ethylene glycol) chains (PEG) and active targeting moieties were also evaluated. Cur-NPs significantly reduced tumor volume/weight, inhibited cancer cell proliferation, and increased tumor apoptosis and necrosis. Decreases in cancer stem cell population and angiogenesis were also reported. All the studies that evaluated toxicity considered Cur-NP treatment to be safe regarding hematological/biochemical markers, damage to major organs, and/or weight loss. These effects were observed in different models of breast cancer (, estrogen receptor-positive, triple-negative, chemically induced) showing better outcomes when compared to treatments with free curcumin or negative controls. This systematic review supports the proposal that Cur-NP is an effective and safe therapeutic approach in models of breast cancer, reinforcing the currently available evidence that it should be further analyzed in clinical trials for breast cancer treatments.
PubMed: 33767985
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.612903 -
Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 2020Administration of substances directly into the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) that surrounds the brain and spinal cord is one approach that can circumvent the blood-brain...
Administration of substances directly into the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) that surrounds the brain and spinal cord is one approach that can circumvent the blood-brain barrier to enable drug delivery to the central nervous system (CNS). However, molecules that have been administered by intrathecal injection, which includes intraventricular, intracisternal, or lumbar locations, encounter new barriers within the subarachnoid space. These barriers include relatively high rates of turnover as CSF clears and potentially inadequate delivery to tissue or cellular targets. Nanomedicine could offer a solution. In contrast to the fate of freely administered drugs, nanomedicine systems can navigate the subarachnoid space to sustain delivery of therapeutic molecules, genes, and imaging agents within the CNS. Some evidence suggests that certain nanomedicine agents can reach the parenchyma following intrathecal administration. Here, we will address the preclinical and clinical use of intrathecal nanomedicine, including nanoparticles, microparticles, dendrimers, micelles, liposomes, polyplexes, and other colloidalal materials that function to alter the distribution of molecules in tissue. Our review forms a foundational understanding of drug delivery to the CSF that can be built upon to better engineer nanomedicine for intrathecal treatment of disease.
Topics: Animals; Biological Transport; Blood-Brain Barrier; Cerebral Ventricles; Cerebrospinal Fluid; Drug Delivery Systems; Humans; Injections, Spinal; Liposomes; Micelles; Nanoparticles; Subarachnoid Space
PubMed: 32142739
DOI: 10.1016/j.addr.2020.02.006 -
JAMA Cardiology Dec 2019Bioresorbable scaffolds were designed to provide clinical benefits after their complete bioresorption. Prior studies demonstrated early risks with the Absorb polymeric... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Bioresorbable scaffolds were designed to provide clinical benefits after their complete bioresorption. Prior studies demonstrated early risks with the Absorb polymeric bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS). Whether this risk profile changes over time during the course of its bioresorption is unknown.
OBJECTIVE
To examine outcomes of the first-generation BVS before and after 3 years, the point of its complete bioresorption in animals.
DATA SOURCES
We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane database, conference proceedings, and public websites for relevant studies.
STUDY SELECTION
Eligible studies were randomized clinical trials of BVS vs metallic drug-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease with at least 5-year follow-up. Four trials of BVS vs everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with 3384 patients met criteria.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Individual patient data from the 4 trials were pooled, and summary-level meta-analysis was performed.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The major effectiveness and safety measures were target lesion failure (TLF; cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) and device thrombosis. Outcomes were examined through 5-year follow-up and between 0 to 3 and 3 to 5 years.
RESULTS
Mean age for the 3384 patients was 62.8 years; 2452 patients were men (72.5%), and diabetes was present in 1020 patients (30.2%). Through 5-year follow-up, treatment with BVS compared with EES was associated with higher rates of TLF (14.9% vs 11.6%; HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.03-1.54; P = .03) and device thrombosis (2.5% vs 0.8%; HR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.46-5.65; P = .002). Target lesion failure occurred in 11.6% of BVS-treated patients vs 7.9% of EES-treated patients between 0 to 3 years (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.12-1.80), and 4.3% of BVS-treated patients vs 4.5% of EES-treated patients between 3 to 5 years (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.64-1.31) (P for interaction = .046). Device thrombosis occurred in 2.4% of BVS-treated patients vs 0.6% of EES-treated patients between 0 to 3 years (HR, 3.86; 95% CI, 1.75-8.50) and 0.1% of BVS-treated patients vs 0.3% of EES-treated patients between 3 to 5 years (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.07-2.70) (P for interaction = .03). These results were consistent by spline analysis and after multiple imputation and multivariable analysis.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The period of excess risk for the first-generation Absorb BVS ends at 3 years. These data provide mechanistic insights into the timing of adverse events after BVS and identify the hurdles to be overcome for bioresorbable technology to be accepted as a valid alternative for patients with coronary artery disease.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01751906, NCT01844284, NCT01923740, and NCT01425281.
Topics: Absorbable Implants; Coronary Artery Disease; Drug-Eluting Stents; Everolimus; Humans; Myocardial Infarction; Myocardial Ischemia; Myocardial Revascularization; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thrombosis; Tissue Scaffolds
PubMed: 31561250
DOI: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.4101