Critical questions in development of targeted nanoparticle therapeutics

One of the fourteen Grand Challenges for Engineering articulated by the US National Academy of Engineering is ‘Engineer Better Medicines’. Although there are many ways that better medicines could be engineered, one of the most promising ideas is to improve our ability to deliver the therapeutic molecule more precisely to the desired target. Most conventional drug delivery methods (oral absorption, intravenous infusion etc.) result in systemic exposure to the therapeutic molecule, which places severe constraints on the types of molecules that can be used. A molecule administered by systemic delivery must be effective at low concentrations in the target tissue, yet safe everywhere else in the body. If drug carriers could be developed to deliver therapeutic molecules selectively to the desired target, it should be possible to greatly improve safety and efficacy of therapy. Nanoparticles (and related nanostructures, such as liposomes, nanoemulsions, micelles and dendrimers) are an attractive drug carrier concept because they can be made from a variety of materials engineered to have properties that allow loading and precise delivery of bound therapeutic molecules. The field of targeted nanoparticles has been extraordinarily active in the academic realm, with thousands of articles published over the last few years. Many of these publications seem to demonstrate very promising results in in vitro studies and even in animal models. In addition, a handful of human clinical trials are in progress. Yet, the biopharmaceutical industry has been relatively slow to make major investments in targeted nanoparticle development programs, despite a clear desire to introduce innovative new therapies to the market. What is the reason for such caution? Some degree of caution is no doubt due to the use of novel materials and the unproven nature of targeted nanoparticle technology, but many other unproven technologies have generated intense interest at various times. We believe that the major barrier to the exploration of nanoparticles is because they are so complex. The very design flexibility that makes the nanoparticle approach attractive also makes it challenging. Fortunately, continuing progress in experimental tools has greatly improved the ability to study biology and potential interventions at a nanoscale. Thus, it is increasingly possible to answer detailed questions about how nanoparticles can and should work. However, a detailed understanding at the mechanistic level is only the beginning. Any new medicine must not only work at the molecular level, but must also be manufactured reproducibly at scale and proven in the clinic. New materials will require new methods at all scales. The purpose of this short article is to focus on a set of questions that are being asked in the large biopharmaceutical companies and that must be answered if targeted nanoparticles are to become the medicines of the 21st century.

[1]  Hamidreza Ghandehari,et al.  In vivo methods of nanotoxicology. , 2012, Methods in molecular biology.

[2]  F. Lombardo,et al.  Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings , 1997 .

[3]  A. Ullrich,et al.  Paul Ehrlich's magic bullet concept: 100 years of progress , 2008, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[4]  Kevin J. Kauffman,et al.  Cancer nanotherapeutics in clinical trials. , 2015, Cancer treatment and research.

[5]  C. Lipinski Drug-like properties and the causes of poor solubility and poor permeability. , 2000, Journal of pharmacological and toxicological methods.

[6]  M. Dobrovolskaia,et al.  Strategy for selecting nanotechnology carriers to overcome immunological and hematological toxicities challenging clinical translation of nucleic acid-based therapeutics , 2015, Expert opinion on drug delivery.

[7]  Marina A Dobrovolskaia,et al.  Understanding the correlation between in vitro and in vivo immunotoxicity tests for nanomedicines. , 2013, Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society.

[8]  Mark E. Davis,et al.  Targeting kidney mesangium by nanoparticles of defined size , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[9]  V. Venditto,et al.  Cancer nanomedicines: so many papers and so few drugs! , 2013, Advanced drug delivery reviews.

[10]  Aniruddha Roy,et al.  Factors controlling the pharmacokinetics, biodistribution and intratumoral penetration of nanoparticles. , 2013, Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society.

[11]  Parag Aggarwal,et al.  Preclinical studies to understand nanoparticle interaction with the immune system and its potential effects on nanoparticle biodistribution. , 2008, Molecular pharmaceutics.

[12]  Mauro Ferrari,et al.  Principles of nanoparticle design for overcoming biological barriers to drug delivery , 2015, Nature Biotechnology.

[13]  K Dane Wittrup,et al.  Practical theoretic guidance for the design of tumor-targeting agents. , 2012, Methods in enzymology.

[14]  Rebekah Drezek,et al.  In vivo biodistribution of nanoparticles. , 2011, Nanomedicine.

[15]  Marina A Dobrovolskaia,et al.  Pre-clinical immunotoxicity studies of nanotechnology-formulated drugs: Challenges, considerations and strategy. , 2015, Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society.

[16]  Hiroshi Maeda,et al.  Toward a full understanding of the EPR effect in primary and metastatic tumors as well as issues related to its heterogeneity. , 2015, Advanced drug delivery reviews.

[17]  M. Dobrovolskaia,et al.  Qualitative analysis of total complement activation by nanoparticles. , 2011, Methods in molecular biology.

[18]  Baojian Wu,et al.  Effects of pharmaceutical PEGylation on drug metabolism and its clinical concerns , 2014, Expert opinion on drug metabolism & toxicology.

[19]  Marina A Dobrovolskaia,et al.  Current understanding of interactions between nanoparticles and the immune system. , 2016, Toxicology and applied pharmacology.

[20]  Arthur G Erdman,et al.  The big picture on nanomedicine: the state of investigational and approved nanomedicine products. , 2013, Nanomedicine : nanotechnology, biology, and medicine.

[21]  Rachael M. Crist,et al.  Inhibition of phosphoinositol 3 kinase contributes to nanoparticle-mediated exaggeration of endotoxin-induced leukocyte procoagulant activity. , 2014, Nanomedicine.

[22]  A. Gruber,et al.  Overview about the localization of nanoparticles in tissue and cellular context by different imaging techniques , 2015, Beilstein journal of nanotechnology.