No abstract

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have previously demonstrated considerable promise in regenerative medicine based on their ability to proliferate and differentiate into cells of different lineages. More recently, there has been a significant interest in using MSCs as cellular vehicles for targeted cancer therapy by exploiting their tumor homing properties. Initial studies focused on using genetically modified MSCs for targeted delivery of various proapoptotic, antiangiogenic, and therapeutic proteins to a wide variety of tumors. However, their use as drug delivery vehicles has been limited by poor drug load capacity. This review discusses various strategies for the nongenetic modification of MSCs that allows their use in tumor-targeted delivery of small molecule chemotherapeutic agents. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT There has been considerable interest in exploiting the tumor homing potential of MSCs to develop them as a vehicle for the targeted delivery of cytotoxic agents to tumor tissue. The inherent tumor-tropic and drug-resistant properties make MSCs ideal carriers for toxic payload. While significant progress has been made in the area of the genetic modification of MSCs, studies focused on identification of molecular mechanisms that contribute to the tumor tropism along with optimization of the engineering conditions can further improve their effectiveness as drug delivery vehicles.

Effective treatments for brain tumors remain one of the most urgent and unmet needs in modern oncology. This is due not only to the presence of the neurovascular unit/blood–brain barrier (NVU/BBB) but also to the heterogeneity of barrier alteration in the case of brain tumors, which results in what is referred to as the blood–tumor barrier (BTB). Herein, we discuss this heterogeneity, how it contributes to the failure of novel pharmaceutical treatment strategies, and why a “whole brain” approach to the treatment of brain tumors might be beneficial. We discuss various methods by which these obstacles might be overcome and assess how these strategies are progressing in the clinic. We believe that by approaching brain tumor treatment from this perspective, a new paradigm for drug delivery to brain tumors might be established.

Bioadhesives and glues are widely used as an adjunct to conventional methods employed in healing the post-surgical injuries and restoration of normal tissue functions. Protein-based bioadhesives have been used for a long time, and they are a more biocompatible alternative compared with synthetic adhesives. They offer advantages such as ease of application, reduction in surgery time, improved quality and strength of the seal, and effective sealing. Also, bioadhesives are being exploited in different fields like controlled and site-specific drug delivery systems, and in tissue engineering and regeneration. There are various marketed protein-based glues that are available in different forms. Thus, all in all, it is a patient compliant system, thereby increasing its recent popularity. This article provides insight into different types and sources of protein-based bioadhesives, their history of use, mechanism of adhesion. and various products that have been approved by the regulatory authorities for clinical use. It also includes information regarding the products in clinical trials and potential applications.

Brain tumours have a poor prognosis and lack effective treatments. The blood-brain barrier (BBB) represents a major hurdle to drug delivery to brain tumours. In some locations in the tumour, the BBB may be disrupted to form the blood-brain tumour barrier (BBTB). This leaky BBTB enables diagnosis of brain tumours by contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging; however, this disruption is heterogeneous throughout the tumour. Thus, relying on the disrupted BBTB for achieving effective drug concentrations in brain tumours has met with little clinical success. Because of this, it would be beneficial to design drugs and drug delivery strategies to overcome the 'normal' BBB to effectively treat the brain tumours. In this review, we discuss the role of BBB/BBTB in brain tumour diagnosis and treatment highlighting the heterogeneity of the BBTB. We also discuss various strategies to improve drug delivery across the BBB/BBTB to treat both primary and metastatic brain tumours. Recognizing that the BBB represents a critical determinant of drug efficacy in central nervous system tumours will allow a more rapid translation from basic science to clinical application. A more complete understanding of the factors, such as BBB-limited drug delivery, that have hindered progress in treating both primary and metastatic brain tumours, is necessary to develop more effective therapies.

No abstract

No abstract

Pharmacokinetic (PK) comparisons between therapeutic biologics have largely been based on total area under the concentration‐time curve (AUC) and maximum concentration (Cmax). For biologics with a long half‐life, a PK comparability study may be long in duration and costly to conduct. The goal of this study was to evaluate if truncated AUC (tAUC) can be used to assess pharmacokinetic comparability when bridging prefilled syringe (PFS) and autoinjector (AI) presentations for biologics with a long half‐life. Fifteen biologics license applications (BLAs) were included to determine the concordance and geometric percent coefficient of variation (%CV) between tAUCs evaluated on day 7, 14, 21 and 28 to AUC evaluated to infinity (AUC0‐inf). Concordance is established if the tAUCs are comparable to AUC0‐inf. Trial simulation was performed to examine the effect of absorption rate constant (ka) and sample size on the concordance of tAUCs. The tAUC evaluated on day 14, 21, and 28 had 100% concordance with AUC0‐inf for all 15 BLAs. The concordance of tAUC evaluated at day 7 was 87.5%. Based on the trial simulation, tAUC evaluated to day 28 post‐dose can achieve high concordance (≥85%) for biologics exhibiting linear or non‐linear elimination with ka greater than or equal to 0.1 day−1 with a sample size of 70 subjects per arm. Truncated AUC appears to be a promising alternative PK measure, relative to AUC0‐inf, for PK comparability assessments. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved