No abstract

Cancer immunotherapies have generated some miracles in the clinic by orchestrating our immune system to combat cancer cells. However, the safety and efficacy concerns of the systemic delivery of these immunostimulatory agents has limited their application. Nanomedicine-based delivery strategies (e.g., liposomes, polymeric nanoparticles, silico, etc.) play an essential role in improving cancer immunotherapies, either by enhancing the anti-tumor immune response, or reducing their systemic adverse effects. The versatility of working with biocompatible polymers helps these polymeric nanoparticles stand out as a key carrier to improve bioavailability and achieve specific delivery at the site of action. This review provides a summary of the latest advancements in the use of polymeric micelles for cancer immunotherapy, including their application in delivering immunological checkpoint inhibitors, immunostimulatory molecules, engineered T cells, and cancer vaccines.

BackgroundThree strategies using lamivudine have been proposed to prevent chemotherapy-induced HBV (hepatitis B virus) reactivation in the clinical setting. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy of the early preemptive strategy, deferred preemptive strategy and therapeutic strategy in patients with HBsAg-positive breast cancer during chemotherapy.MethodsClinical studies published from database inception until Nov 1, 2014, were included for analysis. The primary outcomes were overall survival, rate of chemotherapy disruption and virological and clinical reactivation. The secondary outcomes were the rates of HBV-related chemotherapy disruption, HBV-related mortality, YMDD mutations and withdrawal hepatitis.ResultsFour hundred and thirty patients in four studies that compared the early preemptive strategy with a therapeutic strategy were included. Application of early preemptive lamivudine was superior in reducing HBV recurrence (pooled OR: 0.12, 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.31, P< 0.0001), the incidence of HBV-related hepatitis (pooled OR: 0.13, 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.37, P< 0.0001) and the rate of chemotherapy disruption (pooled OR: 0.37, 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.60, P< 0.0001). In these two groups, no significant difference was found in overall mortality (P = 0.32), YMDD mutant rate (P = 0.13) or incidence of withdrawal hepatitis (P = 0.38). Of the two studies that compared the efficacy of an early and a deferred preemptive strategy, one showed that an early preemptive strategy significantly reduced the incidence of hepatitis (P = 0.046), whereas the other showed no significant difference (P = 0.7).ConclusionsAn early preemptive strategy is superior to a therapeutic strategy in decreasing the incidence of HBV reactivation, incidence of HBV-related hepatitis and rate of chemotherapy disruption in patients with breast cancer. A deferred preemptive strategy might be an alternative approach to controlling viral replication.

The dapivirine (DPV) vaginal ring was developed by the nonprofit International Partnership for Microbicides (IPM) for reducing the risk of HIV infection. A clinical study (IPM 028) showed that concomitant use of the DPV ring and miconazole (MIC) altered DPV pharmacokinetic profile. In this work, we investigated whether or not DPV transport and permeation contributed to the observed DPV-MIC interaction. Our study evaluated the interaction between DPV and several transporters that are highly expressed in the human female reproductive tract, including MRP1, MRP4, P-gp, BCRP, and ENT1, using vesicular and cellular systems. We also evaluated the impact of DPV/MIC on cellular tight junctions by monitoring transepithelial electrical resistance with the Ussing chamber. Lastly, we evaluated the effect of MIC on DPV permeability across human cervical tissue. Our findings showed that DPV was not a substrate of MRP1, MRP4, P-gp, BCRP, or ENT1 transporters. Additionally, DPV did not inhibit the activity of these transporters. DPV, MIC, and their combination also did not disrupt cellular tight junctions. MIC did not affect DPV tissue permeability but significantly reduced DPV tissue levels. Therefore, our results suggest that the DPV-MIC interaction is not due to these five transporters, altered tight junction integrity, or altered tissue permeability.