Abstract
Background
In recent decades, there has been a considerable increase in the number of nanomedicine-based formulations, and their advantages, including controlled/targeted drug delivery with increased efficacy and reduced toxicity, make them ideal candidates for therapeutic delivery in the treatment of complex and difficult-to-treat diseases, such as cancer.
Areas covered
This review focuses on nanomedicine-based formulation development, approved and marketed nanomedicines, and the challenges faced in nanomedicine development as well as their future prospects.
Expert opinion
To date, the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency have approved several nanomedicines, which are now commercially available. However, several critical challenges, including reproducibility, proper characterization, and biological evaluation, e.g., via assays, are still associated with their use. Therefore, rigorous studies alongside stringent guidelines for effective and safe nanomedicine development and use are still warranted. In this study, we provide an overview of currently available nanomedicine-based formulations. Thus, the findings here reported may serve as a basis for further studies regarding the use of these formulations for therapeutic purposes in near future.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Nanotechnology, which is considered a “modern scientific breakthrough” and has been explored and heralded in several scientific studies over the past decades (Bayda et al. 2019), refers to the production and use of materials, systems, and equipment at the nanoscale (Jain 2008). It offers the possibility to provide solutions to persistent problems and unmet needs via the use of interconnected platforms in a plethora of areas, such as chemistry, physics, engineering, biotechnology, and medical sciences. Thus, it expands the possibilities of modern research, especially in the medical field (Mack 2005). Current nanotechnology-based developments in this area include enhanced and precise medicine, the minimization of adverse effects/toxicity, and meeting previously unmet medical needs of patients (Waheed et al. 2022). In recent decades, nanomedicines have been produced, engineered, and industrialized at the chemical, macromolecular, and cellular levels (Mitchell et al. 2021). For example, the use of nanopharmaceuticals, theranostics, and nanoimaging agents in nanomedicine has resulted in significant advancements in disease detection, tomography, prevention, and care (Farjadian et al. 2019).
Poor pharmacokinetic characteristics, such as poor solubility, permeability, and bioavailability limit the therapeutic utility of many potent drug. Thus, the development of formulations with improved pharmacokinetics profiles is necessary (Chenthamara et al. 2019). Nanomedicine-based formulations, either as therapeutic agents or as carriers, can thus be utilized to ensure that drugs target the desired sites and improve the pharmacokinetics and therapeutic profile of drugs (Yetisgin et al. 2020). Notably, the important characteristics of nanomedicines, including nanoscale size (1–100 nm) and large surface area, offer unique possibilities for precise interactions with cells and tissues based on the identification of the appropriate biological targets (Soares et al. 2018). Further, the advantages of nanomedicine-based formulations include decreased undesirable toxicity resulting from non-specific distribution, improved patient adherence, and favorable clinical outcomes (De Jong and Borm 2008).
The availability of funds and the utilization of multidisciplinary technologies in the industry and academia have resulted in the fabrication of some promising nanomedicine-based formulations, such as liposomes, polymer/lipid nanoparticles, and polymer-conjugates (Puri et al. 2009). Several strategies including: (a) the utilization of new materials, fabrication processes, and techniques for the enhancement of drug stability and targeting; (b) the development of nano-sized formulation to provide access through some biological barriers resulting in potent drug targeting, and (c) the loading of desired amounts of drugs, their protection from hostile environments and delivery at a required concentration to the target site without affecting the co-existing healthy tissue, thereby reducing toxicity, have been developed (Zhang et al. 2013).
In this study, we reviewed nanomedicine-based formulations and their considerations as well as their commercialization. We also reviewed the challenges associated with their development, their limitations, and future prospects. Thus, we provide an overview of currently available nanomedicine-based formulations. This may serve as a basis for their use for therapeutic purposes in the near future.
Importance of nanomedicine-based formulations and their ideal properties
Conventional drug delivery systems (CDDSs) are characterized by immediate and burst drug release; thus, their use often requires an increased frequency of administration (Singh et al. 2019). It has also been reported that drug toxicity resulting from the misuse of drugs owing to increased administration frequency, is probable with CDDSs (Wen et al. 2015). Additionally, the low solubility of drugs in CDDSs is a major challenge for pharmaceutical companies as this affects the overall therapeutic efficacy of the drug. Low drug stability is also another common disadvantage of CDDSs as the drug is prone to degradation by the biological fluids/microenvironments in the body (Wen et al. 2015). These formulation-related issues associated with CDDSs can be tactfully overcome via the use of nanomedicine-based formulations (Patra et al. 2018), which have as major advantages: (1) specific delivery of active pharmaceutical agents to the target site. This results in a decreased dosage and the attenuation of associated adverse effects (Choi and Han 2018), (2) enhancement of drug stability. This improves the pharmacokinetic profile and bioavailability of the drug (Onoue et al. 2014), (3) better drug safety and efficacy profiles (Farjadian et al. 2019), (4) the attainment of sustained and controlled drug release profiles (Patra et al. 2018), (5) passive drug targeting via enhanced permeation and retention (EPR) effects and active targeting of tumors and other pathological sites of the body (Golombek et al. 2018), and (6) potentially cheaper formulation (when produced at large scale) as compared with conventional dosage forms (Farjadian et al. 2019). Such advantages are beneficial for improving the quality of life of patients, while reducing the overall quality and cost of healthcare.
Additionally, therapeutic agents can be entrapped, adsorbed, or covalently attached to nanosystems for administration to the body (Yetisgin et al. 2020). A single therapeutic agent or a combination of drugs that provide synergistic therapeutic effects can be delivered using nanomedicine-based formulations (Zhang et al. 2016), which also offer the possibility to realize controlled drug delivery characteristics, resulting in a decrease in dosing frequency and providing huge potential opportunities for designing nanomedicine-based formulations for drugs that go off-patent (Patra et al. 2018). However, different factors (e.g., stability: physical and biological, manufacturing method, scale-up possibility, freeze-drying conditions, and sterilization requirements), which can influence the effectiveness of nanomedicine in drug delivery should be appropriately addressed (Desai 2012). Importantly, the biocompatibility, biodegradability, and non-immunogenicity of nanomedicine-based formulations are characteristics that play important roles in efficient therapeutic delivery, bringing about enhanced bioavailability and reduced adverse/side effects (Chenthamara et al. 2019). Lipids and polymers are the most commonly used materials for preparing biocompatible and biodegradable nanoparticles with higher stabilities, enhanced drug loading capacities, easy surface functionalization for targeting and improving pharmacokinetics profile, and low intrinsic toxicity (Bochicchio et al. 2021).
Considerations in nanomedicine development
Nanomedicine development is a complex process that requires the careful consideration of different aspects, including chemistry, manufacturing, and control aspects as well as economic and regulatory aspects.
The chemistry, manufacturing, and control considerations are a great challenge in the product development and manufacturing scale-up of nanomedicine-based formulations (Desai 2012). Therefore, determining the practicability of developing nanomedicine based on an understanding the composition and structure of the early formulation is necessary. This ensures reproducibility during confirmatory studies as well as safety and efficacy during human clinical trials (Soares et al. 2018). Additionally, for further development as commercial formulations, it is also necessary to determine the physical, chemical, and functional properties of nanomedicines (Mazayen et al. 2022). The appropriate characterization of the chemical properties of each component of nanomedicines using different techniques, such as high-performance liquid chromatography or other chromatography techniques, nuclear magnetic resonance, and mass spectrometry is also necessary (Lin et al. 2014). Furthermore, Lin et al. (2014) reported that nanomedicine characterization should involve the establishment and an understanding of the particle size, zeta potential, purity, viscosity, and pH of the different components. More importantly, for further development, it is necessary to establish acceptable levels of confidence in the biological functions of nanomedicines (Fatehi et al. 2012).
Ensuring the reproducibility of potential commercial-scale manufacturing of nanomedicines, at a reasonable cost, is vital. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the early stages of nanomedicine preparation and determine the feasibility of their industrial-scale chemical handling and processing (Hua et al. 2018). At the laboratory scale, it is possible to process cytotoxic compounds and achieve complex processing. However, realizing such at an industrial scale may be expensive and challenging (Jacquemart et al. 2016). Furthermore, the complex nature of nanomedicine formulation and manufacturing requires close scrutiny to minimize batch-to-batch variations (Sharifi et al. 2022). Therefore, for successful development and commercialization, it is necessary to ensure the purity, potency, safety, and efficacy of the nanomedicines (Desai 2012). Hence, successful industrial-scale manufacturing requires a thorough understanding of the quality of the starting materials as well as the processes involved (Desai 2012).
Furthermore, it is also necessary to consider the investments associated with the development and scaling-up of nanomedicine production (Paliwal et al. 2014). In this regard, it is important to critically analyze proposed nanomedicine development strategies in comparison with other developmental portfolios. The cost of manufacturing equipment, instrumentation, and other facilities also need to be considered when developing investment strategies for nanomedicine development and their subsequent clinical application (Patra et al. 2018).
Regulatory considerations for nanomedicine are also vital. Particularly, consultations with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at the early stages of nanomedicine development will aid in clarifying the associated scientific and regulatory issues and in addressing concerns regarding the safety, efficacy, and regulatory status of the formulations (Đorđević et al. 2022). Consequently, an appropriate evaluation framework needs to be used to evaluate the pathways and processes involved in nanomedicine development that are similar to those used in the conventional drug development process. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has an Expert Working Group that has released some reflection papers for particular nanomedicines to guide marketing authorization applications (Hertig et al. 2021). However, it is still unclear whether the existing regulatory frameworks will pose challenges in future innovative nanomedicine development (Halamoda-Kenzaoui et al. 2022). The uncertainties related to the regulatory processes involving nanomedicines are presented in Fig. 1.
Clinical trials of nanomedicine-based formulations
By 2015, a total of 13 nanomedicines had been approved by the US FDA for the treatment of different diseases (Malviya et al. 2021). However, of recent, there has been a rocketing surge in the number of nanomedicine clinical trials. Based on 2021 data, a total of 100 nanomedicines are already being marketed, with another 563 new nanomedicines under clinical trial or other stages (Shan et al. 2022). Further, the majority of nanomedicines under clinical trial are in Phase I (33%) and Phase II (21%), and the prime focus of these nanomedicines is the treatment of cancer (53%) and infections (14%), as well as other diseases, such as blood disorders, endocrine and metabolic diseases, nervous system diseases, immunological diseases, cardiovascular diseases, ocular diseases, and skin diseases (Fig. 2). Additionally, nanomedicines are used in vaccine development and imaging diagnosis. The most prevalent categories of nanomedicines available in the market or in different phases of clinical trials include liposomes or lipid-based nanoparticles (33%), antibody–drug conjugates (15%), polymer-drug/protein conjugates (10%), and polymeric nanoparticles (10%) (Shan et al. 2022).
Commercial nanomedicine-based formulations
Presently, it has been suggested that nanomedicine-based formulations play a vital role in the global pharmaceutical market and healthcare system. To date, a total of approximately 100 nanomedicine-based formulations have been approved by the FDA and EMA (Shan et al. 2022). Further, several reports have suggested a significant annual increase in the number of nanomedicine-based formulations. Each year, several nanomedicine-based formulations of previously approved drugs enter clinical trial for the investigation of their efficacy relative to conventional dosage forms (Caster et al. 2017). Such nanomedicine-based advancements are attributed to the rapid growth in research and development (R&D) and high market demand. A representative list of FDA/EMA-approved and globally-marketed nanomedicine-based formulations is presented in Table 1.
Presently, approved and commercially available nanomedicine-based formulations include lipid-based nanomedicines, polymer-based nanomedicines, nanocrystals, inorganic nanoparticles, and protein-based nanoparticles. Among the lipid-based nanomedicines, liposomes are most commonly used for drug delivery. Specifically, liposomes are spherical vesicles (< 200 nm) composed of a lipid bilayer membrane surrounding a hydrophilic core. Hence, they are capable of delivering both hydrophilic and hydrophobic drugs, monoclonal antibodies, siRNA, and other biomolecules (Nakhaei et al. 2021). Further, they can circulate in the bloodstream for extended time periods, providing a longer treatment effect (Sercombe et al. 2015). More importantly, they can accumulate at tumor or infection sites; thus, they naturally locate and deliver drugs to their target sites (Allahou et al. 2021). Additionally, stimuli responsive (temperature- and pH-sensitive) liposomes can be prepared to allow for controlled drug release (Lee and Thompson 2017). Further, polymer-based nanomedicines include polymer-protein conjugates and micelles. The conjugates provide protein drugs with targeting ability and enhanced circulation times (Kiran et al. 2021). It has also been observed that such polymeric nanoparticles facilitate drug release for an extended time period (Kamaly et al. 2016). Moreover, nanocrystals are versatile nanoparticles that can be used for improving the pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic properties of poorly soluble drugs (Gigliobianco et al. 2018). Specifically, they enhance the bioavailability and solubility of drugs by increasing surface area at the nanoscale to enhance dissolution (Joshi et al. 2019). Alternatively, inorganic nanoparticles can be used for drug delivery and can also be useful in imaging applications (Luther et al. 2020). In particular, metal oxides, metals, or silica are used as inorganic nanoparticles. In this regard, one of the most widely used inorganic nanomedicines are iron oxide nanodrugs, which have been approved for use in iron replacement therapies (Yadavalli and Shukla 2017; Dadfar et al. 2019). Protein-based nanoparticles include drug-conjugated protein carriers, with the protein itself functioning as the active therapeutic agent, or as a part of a combined complex for targeted delivery (Hong et al. 2020). Albumin protein nanoparticles have gained wider interest in the research community owing to their longer circulation times, ability to accumulate at tumors site via enhanced permeation and retention effects, and their ability to undergo cellular uptake via albumin-receptors (Hassanin and Elzoghby 2020).
Challenges in the development of nanomedicine-based formulations
Based on recent advances in nanomedicine-based formulations, several challenges that need to be considered for nanomedicine development have been identified. For example, the lack of proper methods for the characterization of the safety and efficacy of nanomedicines, is one of the major challenges in nanomedicine development (Desai 2012). In general, a large amount of data has been gathered for nanomedicines like liposomes, polymeric nanomedicines, and micelles. However, varied possibilities for formulation and application require toxicity data for each modification (Patra et al. 2018). Furthermore, to avoid the development of unpredictable side effects, there is a glaring need for an enhanced understanding of nanomedicines prior to them becoming commercially available. However, rigorous research is yet to be conducted to clarify and predict the effect of nanomedicines on biological systems, including the development of new assays that are not affected by nanomedicines (Đorđević et al. 2022).
Another challenge in the development of nanomedicine-based formulations is the lack of specific regulatory guidelines (Desai 2012). The FDA approval process for nanomedicines (including preclinical and human clinical studies) are same as those for any other drug or biologic agent (Đorđević et al. 2022). FDA has issued some guidelines for industries regarding the use of nanotechnology. These guidelines encourage manufacturers to consult with the FDA regarding the specific regulatory and scientific issues of relevance for nanomedicines early enough (Mühlebach 2018). Such consultation is also encouraged as it can help in addressing concerns regarding the safety, efficacy, public impact, and regulatory status of the product (Havel et al. 2016). However, separate regulatory guidelines are yet to be established for the development of effective and safe nanomedicine-based formulations. The different challenges associated with the development and commercialization of nanomedicines are presented in Fig. 3.
Failure of some nanomedicine-based formulations
Pharmaceutical companies developing nanomedicines acquire funding from capital markets, venture capital, and partnerships with other companies; however, the clinical failure of the product often results in the termination of their development and business liquidation (He et al. 2019). One of the most common reasons for the clinical failure of nanomedicines is the nanomedicine showing toxicity in Phase I clinical trials (Fogel 2018). Furthermore, the choice of the drug carrier of the nanomedicine affects its physicochemical properties and the resulting payload, leading to failure (Patra et al. 2018). Moreover, the right selection of patients is a critical factor for ensuring successful clinical trials (Sacristán et al. 2016). High-quality production processes and reproducibility are also critical factors that could bring about the failure of nanomedicines (Soares et al. 2018). Therefore, all the factors that could be responsible for the failure of nanomedicines should be critically considered and addressed to ensure their successful development and subsequent approval for clinical use.
Future prospects of nanomedicine-based formulations
Significant progress has been made in the field of nanomedicine-based formulations in the past decades, with several FDA and EMA approvals. Notably, nanomedicines provide a wide range of avenues for the treatment of complex and difficult-to-treat diseases, such as cancer, lung diseases, and ophthalmic diseases. The most common types of commercially available nanomedicine-based formulations include lipid-based nanomedicines, polymer-based nanomedicines, nanocrystals, inorganic nanoparticles, and protein-based nanomedicines. Such formulations are revolutionizing the treatment of different diseases and have significant impact on the healthcare system. However, the incorporation of a broad range of nanomedicine types is making the formulations more complex. Therefore, it is necessary to adequately address concerns regarding safety and efficacy, while following the guidelines established by agencies such as the FDA and EMA. Further, rigorous studies related to the detailed characterization of nanomedicines, their preclinical and clinical testing, and cost–benefit analyses are urgently needed. Hence, based on the findings reported in previous studies, future rigorous studies, and stringent guidelines to promote safe and effective treatment will make nanomedicines a unique solution for unmet clinical needs.
Data availability
Not applicable.
References
Akinc A, Maier MA, Manoharan M, Fitzgerald K, Jayaraman M, Barros S, Ansell S, Xinyao D, Hope MJ, Madden TD, Mui BL, Semple SC, Tam YK, Ciufolini M, Witzigmann D, Kulkarni JA, van der Meel R, Cullis PR (2019) The Onpattro story and the clinical translation of nanomedicines containing nucleic acid-based drugs. Nat Nanotechnol 14(12):1084–1087. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-019-0591-y
Allahou LW, Madani SY, Seifalian A (2021) Investigating the application of liposomes as drug delivery systems for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. Int J Biomater 2021:3041969. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/3041969
Attia MA, Essa EA, Elebyary TT, Faheem AM, Elkordy AA (2021) Brief on recent application of liposomal vaccines for lower respiratory tract viral infections: from influenza to COVID-19 vaccines. Pharmaceuticals (Basel) 14(11):1173. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph14111173
Barenholz Y (2012) Doxil®—the first FDA-approved nano-drug: lessons learned. J Control Release 160(2):117–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2012.03.020
Bartnicki P, Fijałkowski P, Majczyk M, Błaszczyk J, Banach M, Rysz J (2013) Effect of methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta on oxidative stress in predialysis patients with chronic kidney disease. Med Sci Monit 19:954–9. https://doi.org/10.12659/msm.884024
Bayda S, Adeel M, Tuccinardi T, Cordani M, Rizzolio F (2019) The history of nanoscience and nanotechnology: from chemical-physical applications to nanomedicine. Molecules. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25010112
Bhandari S, Kalra PA, Kothari J, Ambühl PM, Christensen JH, Essaian AM, Thomsen LL, Macdougall IC, Coyne DW (2015) A randomized, open-label trial of iron isomaltoside 1000 (Monofer®) compared with iron sucrose (Venofer®) as maintenance therapy in haemodialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 30(9):1577–1589. https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfv096
Bochicchio S, Lamberti G, Barba AA (2021) Polymer-lipid pharmaceutical nanocarriers: innovations by new formulations and production technologies. Pharmaceutics. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics13020198
Bonvalot S, Rutkowski PL, Thariat J, Carrère S, Ducassou A, Sunyach MP, Agoston P, Hong A, Mervoyer A, Rastrelli M, Moreno V, Li RK, Tiangco B, Herraez AC, Gronchi A, Mangel L, Sy-Ortin T, Hohenberger P, de Baère T, Le Cesne A, Helfre S, Saada-Bouzid E, Borkowska A, Anghel R, Co A, Gebhart M, Kantor G, Montero A, Loong HH, Vergés R, Lapeire L, Dema S, Kacso G, Austen L, Moureau-Zabotto L, Servois V, Wardelmann E, Terrier P, Lazar AJ, Le Jvmg Bovée C (2019) NBTXR3, a first-in-class radioenhancer hafnium oxide nanoparticle, plus radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone in patients with locally advanced soft-tissue sarcoma (Act. In.Sarc): a multicentre, phase 2–3, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 20(8):1148–1159. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(19)30326-2
Booth C, Gaspar HB (2009) Pegademase bovine (PEG-ADA) for the treatment of infants and children with severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID). Biologics 3:349–358
Borgå O, Lilienberg E, Bjermo H, Hansson F, Heldring N, Dediu R (2019) Pharmacokinetics of total and unbound paclitaxel after administration of paclitaxel micellar or nab-paclitaxel: an open, randomized, cross-over, explorative study in breast cancer patients. Adv Ther 36(10):2825–2837. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-019-01058-6
Boswell GW, Buell D, Bekersky I (1998) AmBisome (liposomal amphotericin B): a comparative review. J Clin Pharmacol 38(7):583–592. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1552-4604.1998.tb04464.x
Bressler NM, Bressler SB (2000) Photodynamic therapy with verteporfin (Visudyne): impact on ophthalmology and visual sciences. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41(3):624–628
Brucker J, Mayer C, Gebauer G, Mallmann P, Belau AK, Schneeweiss A, Sohn C, Eichbaum M (2016) Non-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin for patients with recurrent ovarian cancer: a multicentric phase II trial. Oncol Lett 12(2):1211–1215. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2016.4740
Caster JM, Patel AN, Zhang T, Wang A (2017) Investigational nanomedicines in 2016: a review of nanotherapeutics currently undergoing clinical trials. WIREs Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 9(1):e1416. https://doi.org/10.1002/wnan.1416
Chenthamara D, Subramaniam S, Ramakrishnan SG, Krishnaswamy S, Essa MM, Lin F-H, Walid Qoronfleh M (2019) Therapeutic efficacy of nanoparticles and routes of administration. Biomater Res 23(1):20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40824-019-0166-x
Choi YH, Han H-K (2018) Nanomedicines: current status and future perspectives in aspect of drug delivery and pharmacokinetics. J Pharm Investig 48(1):43–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40005-017-0370-4
Chou H, Lin H, Liu JM (2015) A tale of the two PEGylated liposomal doxorubicins. Onco Targets Ther 8:1719–1720. https://doi.org/10.2147/ott.s79089
Curtis JR, Mariette X, Gaujoux-Viala C, Blauvelt A, Kvien TK, Sandborn WJ, Winthrop K, de Longueville M, Huybrechts I, Bykerk VP (2019) Long-term safety of certolizumab pegol in rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis and Crohn’s disease: a pooled analysis of 11,317 patients across clinical trials. RMD Open 5(1):e000942. https://doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2019-000942
Dadfar SM, Roemhild K, Drude NI, von Stillfried S, Knüchel R, Kiessling F, Lammers T (2019) Iron oxide nanoparticles: diagnostic, therapeutic and theranostic applications. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 138:302–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2019.01.005
De Jong WH, Borm PJ (2008) Drug delivery and nanoparticles: applications and hazards. Int J Nanomed 3(2):133–149. https://doi.org/10.2147/ijn.s596
Desai N (2012) Challenges in development of nanoparticle-based therapeutics. Aaps j 14(2):282–295. https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-012-9339-4
Đorđević S, Gonzalez MM, Conejos-Sánchez I, Carreira B, Pozzi S, Acúrcio RC, Satchi-Fainaro R, Florindo HF, Vicent MJ (2022) Current hurdles to the translation of nanomedicines from bench to the clinic. Drug Deliv Transl Res 12(3):500–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13346-021-01024-2
Duncan R (2005) Nanomedicine gets clinical. Mater Today 8:16–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-7021(05)71032-4
Dunn AL, Ahuja SP, Mullins ES (2018) Real-world experience with use of antihemophilic factor (Recombinant), PEGylated for prophylaxis in severe haemophilia A. Haemophilia 24(3):e84–e92. https://doi.org/10.1111/hae.13403
Duvic M, Talpur R (2008) Optimizing denileukin diftitox (Ontak) therapy. Future Oncol 4(4):457–469. https://doi.org/10.2217/14796694.4.4.457
Epstein NE (2015) Preliminary study showing safety/efficacy of nanoss bioactive versus vitoss as bone graft expanders for lumbar noninstrumented fusions. Surg Neurol Int 6(Suppl 10):S318–S322. https://doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.159380
Ettinger AR (1995) Pegaspargase (Oncaspar). J Pediatr Oncol Nurs 12(1):46–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/104345429501200110
Ezban M, Hermit MB, Persson E (2019) FIXing postinfusion monitoring: assay experiences with N9-GP (nonacog beta pegol; Refixia(®); Rebinyn(®)). Haemophilia 25(1):154–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/hae.13671
Farjadian F, Ghasemi A, Gohari O, Roointan A, Karimi M, Hamblin MR (2019) Nanopharmaceuticals and nanomedicines currently on the market: challenges and opportunities. Nanomedicine (lond) 14(1):93–126. https://doi.org/10.2217/nnm-2018-0120
Fatehi L, Wolf SM, McCullough J, Hall R, Lawrenz F, Kahn JP, Jones C, Campbell SA, Dresser RS, Erdman AG, Haynes CL, Hoerr RA, Hogle LF, Keane MA, Khushf G, King NM, Kokkoli E, Marchant G, Maynard AD, Philbert M, Ramachandran G, Siegel RA, Wickline S (2012) Recommendations for nanomedicine human subjects research oversight: an evolutionary approach for an emerging field. J Law Med Ethics 40(4):716–750. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2012.00703.x
Fogel DB (2018) Factors associated with clinical trials that fail and opportunities for improving the likelihood of success: a review. Contemp Clin Trials Commun 11:156–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2018.08.001
Frampton JE (2010) Mifamurtide. Pediatr Drugs 12(3):141–153. https://doi.org/10.2165/11204910-000000000-00000
Garnock-Jones KP (2016) Fosaprepitant dimeglumine: a review in the prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy. Drugs 76(14):1365–1372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-016-0627-7
Gigliobianco MR, Casadidio C, Censi R, Di Martino P (2018) Nanocrystals of poorly soluble drugs: drug bioavailability and physicochemical stability. Pharmaceutics 10(3):134. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics10030134
Glantz MJ, Jaeckle KA, Chamberlain MC, Phuphanich S, Recht L, Swinnen LJ, Maria B, LaFollette S, Schumann GB, Cole BF, Howell SB (1999) A randomized controlled trial comparing intrathecal sustained-release cytarabine (DepoCyt) to intrathecal methotrexate in patients with neoplastic meningitis from solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res 5(11):3394–3402
Gohil K (2014) Pharmaceutical approval update. P t 39(10):684–694
Golombek SK, May JN, Theek B, Appold L, Drude N, Kiessling F, Lammers T (2018) Tumor targeting via EPR: Strategies to enhance patient responses. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 130:17–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2018.07.007
Halamoda-Kenzaoui B, Holzwarth U, Roebben G, Bogni A, Bremer-Hoffmann S (2019) Mapping of the available standards against the regulatory needs for nanomedicines. WIREs Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 11(1):e1531. https://doi.org/10.1002/wnan.1531
Halamoda-Kenzaoui B, Geertsma R, Pouw J, Prina-Mello A, Carrer M, Roesslein M, Sips A, Weltring KM, Spring K, Bremer-Hoffmann S (2022) Future perspectives for advancing regulatory science of nanotechnology-enabled health products. Drug Deliv Transl Res 12(9):2145–2156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13346-022-01165-y
Hassanin I, Elzoghby A (2020) Albumin-based nanoparticles: a promising strategy to overcome cancer drug resistance. Cancer Drug Resist 3(4):930–946. https://doi.org/10.20517/cdr.2020.68
Havel H, Finch G, Strode P, Wolfgang M, Zale S, Bobe I, Youssoufian H, Peterson M, Liu M (2016) Nanomedicines: from bench to bedside and beyond. Aaps j 18(6):1373–1378. https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-016-9961-7
He H, Liu L, Morin EE, Liu M, Schwendeman A (2019) Survey of clinical translation of cancer nanomedicines—lessons learned from successes and failures. Acc Chem Res 52(9):2445–2461. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.accounts.9b00228
Hertig JB, Shah VP, Flühmann B, Mühlebach S, Stemer G, Surugue J, Moss R, Di Francesco T (2021) Tackling the challenges of nanomedicines: are we ready? Am J Health Syst Pharm 78(12):1047–1056. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajhp/zxab048
Herzog C, Hartmann K, Künzi V, Kürsteiner O, Mischler R, Lazar H, Glück R (2009) Eleven years of Inflexal V-a virosomal adjuvanted influenza vaccine. Vaccine 27(33):4381–4387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.05.029
Hong S, Choi DW, Kim HN, Park CG, Lee W, Park HH (2020) Protein-based nanoparticles as drug delivery systems. Pharmaceutics 12(7):604. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics12070604
Hood SA, O’Brien M, Higgins R (2000) The safety of intravenous iron dextran (Dexferrum) during hemodialysis in patients with end stage renal disease. Nephrol Nurs J 27(1):41–42
Hua S, de Matos MBC, Metselaar JM, Storm G (2018) Current trends and challenges in the clinical translation of nanoparticulate nanomedicines: pathways for translational development and commercialization. Front Pharmacol 9:790. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2018.00790
Hui CK, Lau GK (2005) Peginterferon-alpha2a (40 kDa) (Pegasys) for hepatitis B. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 3(4):495–504. https://doi.org/10.1586/14787210.3.4.495
Jacquemart R, Vandersluis M, Zhao M, Sukhija K, Sidhu N, Stout J (2016) A single-use strategy to enable manufacturing of affordable biologics. Comput Struct Biotechnol J 14:309–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2016.06.007
Jain KK (2008) Nanomedicine: application of nanobiotechnology in medical practice. Med Princ Pract 17(2):89–101. https://doi.org/10.1159/000112961
James JS (1995) DOXIL approved for KS. AIDS Treat News 236:6
Joshi K, Chandra A, Jain K, Talegaonkar S (2019) Nanocrystalization: an emerging technology to enhance the bioavailability of poorly soluble drugs. Pharm Nanotechnol 7(4):259–278. https://doi.org/10.2174/2211738507666190405182524
Kaddar N, Vigneault P, Pilote S, Patoine D, Simard C, Drolet B (2012) Tizanidine (Zanaflex): a muscle relaxant that may prolong the QT interval by blocking IKr. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther 17(1):102–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1074248410395020
Kamaly N, Yameen B, Wu J, Farokhzad OC (2016) Degradable controlled-release polymers and polymeric nanoparticles: mechanisms of controlling drug release. Chem Rev 116(4):2602–2663. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00346
Kaur IP, Kakkar V, Deol PK, Yadav M, Singh M, Sharma I (2014) Issues and concerns in nanotech product development and its commercialization. J Control Release 193:51–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2014.06.005
Kiran P, Khan A, Neekhra S, Pallod S, Srivastava R (2021) Nanohybrids as protein-polymer conjugate multimodal therapeutics. Front Med Technol 3:676025. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmedt.2021.676025
Lallemand F, Schmitt M, Bourges J-L, Gurny R, Benita S, Garrigue J-S (2017) Cyclosporine A delivery to the eye: a comprehensive review of academic and industrial efforts. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 117:14–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpb.2017.03.006
Lee Y, Thompson DH (2017) Stimuli-responsive liposomes for drug delivery. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol. https://doi.org/10.1002/wnan.1450
Lin PC, Lin S, Wang PC, Sridhar R (2014) Techniques for physicochemical characterization of nanomaterials. Biotechnol Adv 32(4):711–726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.11.006
Luther DC, Huang R, Jeon T, Zhang X, Lee YW, Nagaraj H, Rotello VM (2020) Delivery of drugs, proteins, and nucleic acids using inorganic nanoparticles. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 156:188–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2020.06.020
Mack J (2005) Nanotechnology: what’s in it for biotech? Biotechnol Healthc 2(6):29–36
Malviya R, Fuloria S, Verma S, Subramaniyan V, Sathasivam KV, Kumarasamy V, Hari Kumar D, Vellasamy S, Meenakshi DU, Yadav S, Sharma A, Fuloria NK (2021) Commercial utilities and future perspective of nanomedicines. PeerJ 9:e12392. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.12392
Mazayen ZM, Ghoneim AM, Elbatanony RS, Basalious EB, Bendas ER (2022) Pharmaceutical nanotechnology: from the bench to the market. Future J Pharm Sci 8(1):12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43094-022-00400-0
Milano G, Innocenti F, Minami H (2022) Liposomal irinotecan (Onivyde): exemplifying the benefits of nanotherapeutic drugs. Cancer Sci 113(7):2224–2231. https://doi.org/10.1111/cas.15377
Mitchell MJ, Billingsley MM, Haley RM, Wechsler ME, Peppas NA, Langer R (2021) Engineering precision nanoparticles for drug delivery. Nat Rev Drug Discovery 20(2):101–124. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41573-020-0090-8
Moen MD, Keam SJ (2009) Dexmethylphenidate extended release: a review of its use in the treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. CNS Drugs 23(12):1057–1083. https://doi.org/10.2165/11201140-000000000-00000
Mühlebach S (2018) Regulatory challenges of nanomedicines and their follow-on versions: a generic or similar approach? Adv Drug Delivery Rev 131:122–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2018.06.024
Nagino K, Koh T, Harada Y (2011) Pharmacological properties of paliperidone ER (INVEGA(®)) and results of its clinical studies. Nihon Yakurigaku Zasshi 137(6):245–254. https://doi.org/10.1254/fpj.137.245
Nakhaei P, Margiana R, Bokov DO, Abdelbasset WK, Jadidi Kouhbanani MA, Varma RS, Marofi F, Jarahian M, Beheshtkhoo N (2021) Liposomes: structure, biomedical applications, and stability parameters with emphasis on cholesterol. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 9:705886. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2021.705886
Oerlemans C, Bult W, Bos M, Storm G, Nijsen JF, Hennink WE (2010) Polymeric micelles in anticancer therapy: targeting, imaging and triggered release. Pharm Res 27(12):2569–2589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-010-0233-4
Onoue S, Yamada S, Chan HK (2014) Nanodrugs: pharmacokinetics and safety. Int J Nanomed 9:1025–1037. https://doi.org/10.2147/ijn.s38378
Padda IS, Bhatt R, Parmar M (2022) Pegloticase. StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island
Paik J, Duggan ST, Keam SJ (2019) Triamcinolone acetonide extended-release: a review in osteoarthritis pain of the knee. Drugs 79(4):455–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-019-01083-3
Paliwal R, Babu RJ, Palakurthi S (2014) Nanomedicine scale-up technologies: feasibilities and challenges. AAPS PharmSciTech 15(6):1527–1534. https://doi.org/10.1208/s12249-014-0177-9
Parkinson C, Scarlett JA, Trainer PJ (2003) Pegvisomant in the treatment of acromegaly. Adv Drug Delivery Rev 55(10):1303–1314. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-409X(03)00111-X
Pasero C, McCaffery M (2005) Extended-release epidural morphine (DepoDur™). J PeriAnesthesia Nurs 20(5):345–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jopan.2005.07.004
Patra JK, Das G, Fraceto LF, Campos EVR, Rodriguez-Torres MDP, Acosta-Torres LS, Diaz-Torres LA, Grillo R, Swamy MK, Sharma S, Habtemariam S, Shin HS (2018) Nano based drug delivery systems: recent developments and future prospects. J Nanobiotechnology 16(1):71. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12951-018-0392-8
Prommer E (2005) Aprepitant (EMEND): the role of substance P in nausea and vomiting. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother 19(3):31–39
Puri A, Loomis K, Smith B, Lee JH, Yavlovich A, Heldman E, Blumenthal R (2009) Lipid-based nanoparticles as pharmaceutical drug carriers: from concepts to clinic. Crit Rev Ther Drug Carrier Syst 26(6):523–580. https://doi.org/10.1615/critrevtherdrugcarriersyst.v26.i6.10
Ramanathan R, Rasmussen MR, Gerstmann DR, Finer N, Sekar K (2004) A randomized, multicenter masked comparison trial of poractant alfa (Curosurf) versus beractant (Survanta) in the treatment of respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants. Am J Perinatol 21(3):109–119. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2004-823779
Ranson MR, Cheeseman S, White S, Margison J (2001) Caelyx (stealth liposomal doxorubicin) in the treatment of advanced breast cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 37(2):115–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1040-8428(00)00107-4
Rizzieri D (2016) Zevalin(®) (ibritumomab tiuxetan): after more than a decade of treatment experience, what have we learned? Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 105:5–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2016.07.008
Rust DM, Jameson G (1998) The novel lipid delivery system of amphotericin B: drug profile and relevance to clinical practice. Oncol Nurs Forum 25(1):35–48
Sacristán JA, Aguarón A, Avendaño-Solá C, Garrido P, Carrión J, Gutiérrez A, Kroes R, Flores A (2016) Patient involvement in clinical research: why, when, and how. Patient Prefer Adherence 10:631–640. https://doi.org/10.2147/ppa.s104259
Sarcoma K (1996) Kaposi’s sarcoma: DaunoXome approved. AIDS Treat News 246:3–4
Saurav A, Kaushik M, Mohiuddin SM (2012) Fenofibric acid for hyperlipidemia. Expert Opin Pharmacother 13(5):717–722. https://doi.org/10.1517/14656566.2012.658774
Semenchuk MR (2002) Avinza Elan. Curr Opin Investig Drugs 3(9):1369–1372
Sercombe L, Veerati T, Moheimani F, Wu SY, Sood AK, Hua S (2015) Advances and challenges of liposome assisted drug delivery. Front Pharmacol 6:286. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2015.00286
Shan X, Gong X, Li J, Wen J, Li Y, Zhang Z (2022) Current approaches of nanomedicines in the market and various stage of clinical translation. Acta Pharm Sin B 12(7):3028–3048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsb.2022.02.025
Sharifi S, Mahmoud NN, Voke E, Landry MP, Mahmoudi M (2022) Importance of standardizing analytical characterization methodology for improved reliability of the nanomedicine literature. Nano-Micro Lett 14(1):172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40820-022-00922-5
Silverman JA, Deitcher SR (2013) Marqibo® (vincristine sulfate liposome injection) improves the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of vincristine. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 71(3):555–564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00280-012-2042-4
Simon JA (2006) Estradiol in micellar nanoparticles: the efficacy and safety of a novel transdermal drug-delivery technology in the management of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms. Menopause 13(2):222–231. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.gme.0000174096.56652.4f
Singh AP, Biswas A, Shukla A, Maiti P (2019) Targeted therapy in chronic diseases using nanomaterial-based drug delivery vehicles. Signal Transduct Target Ther 4(1):33. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41392-019-0068-3
Soares S, Sousa J, Pais A, Vitorino C (2018) Nanomedicine: principles, properties, and regulatory issues. Front Chem 6:360. https://doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2018.00360
Terblanche N, Coetzee JF (2008) A comparison of induction of anaesthesia using two different propofol preparations. South Afr J Anaesth Analg 14(6):25–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/22201173.2008.10872573
Tobin KA (2006) Macugen treatment for wet age-related macular degeneration. Insight 31(1):11–14
Tseng TC, Kao JH, Chen DS (2014) Peginterferon α in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B. Expert Opin Biol Ther 14(7):995–1006. https://doi.org/10.1517/14712598.2014.907784
Tuca A, Jimenez-Fonseca P, Gascón P (2013) Clinical evaluation and optimal management of cancer cachexia. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 88(3):625–636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2013.07.015
Van den Driessche C, Bastian M, Peyre H, Stordeur C, Acquaviva É, Bahadori S, Delorme R, Sackur J (2017) Attentional lapses in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: blank rather than wandering thoughts. Psychol Sci 28(10):1375–1386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617708234
Waheed S, Li Z, Zhang F, Chiarini A, Armato U, Jun W (2022) Engineering nano-drug biointerface to overcome biological barriers toward precision drug delivery. J Nanobiotechnol 20(1):395. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12951-022-01605-4
Wen H, Jung H, Li X (2015) Drug delivery approaches in addressing clinical pharmacology-related issues: opportunities and challenges. Aaps j 17(6):1327–1340. https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-015-9814-9
Yadavalli T, Shukla D (2017) Role of metal and metal oxide nanoparticles as diagnostic and therapeutic tools for highly prevalent viral infections. Nanomedicine 13(1):219–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nano.2016.08.016
Yetisgin AA, Cetinel S, Zuvin M, Kosar A, Kutlu O (2020) Therapeutic nanoparticles and their targeted delivery applications. Molecules 25(9):2193. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25092193
Yuan H, Guo H, Luan X, He M, Li F, Burnett J, Truchan N, Sun D (2020) albumin nanoparticle of paclitaxel (Abraxane) decreases while taxol increases breast cancer stem cells in treatment of triple negative breast cancer. Mol Pharm 17(7):2275–2286. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.9b01221
Zhang Y, Chan HF, Leong KW (2013) Advanced materials and processing for drug delivery: the past and the future. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 65(1):104–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2012.10.003
Zhang RX, Wong HL, Xue HY, Eoh JY, Wu XY (2016) Nanomedicine of synergistic drug combinations for cancer therapy—strategies and perspectives. J Control Release 240:489–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2016.06.012
Zhang J, Pan Y, Shi Q, Zhang G, Jiang L, Dong X, Gu K, Wang H, Zhang X, Yang N, Li Y, Xiong J, Yi T, Peng M, Song Y, Fan Y, Cui J, Chen G, Tan W, Zang A, Guo Q, Zhao G, Wang Z, He J, Yao W, Wu X, Chen K, Hu X, Hu C, Yue L, Jiang D, Wang G, Liu J, Yu G, Li J, Bai J, Xie W, Zhao W, Wu L, Zhou C (2022) Paclitaxel liposome for injection (Lipusu) plus cisplatin versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin in the first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic lung squamous cell carcinoma: a multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel controlled clinical study. Cancer Commun (lond) 42(1):3–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/cac2.12225
Acknowledgements
The study was supported by Yeungnam University Research Grant in 2022.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All authors (R.K. Thapa and J.O. Kim) declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Research involving human and animal rights
This article does not contain any studies with human and animal subjects performed by the author.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Thapa, R.K., Kim, J.O. Nanomedicine-based commercial formulations: current developments and future prospects. J. Pharm. Investig. 53, 19–33 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40005-022-00607-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40005-022-00607-6