Gather wisdom to overcome barriers: Well-designed nano-drug delivery systems for treating gliomas.

Due to the special physiological and pathological characteristics of gliomas, most therapeutic drugs are prevented from entering the brain. To improve the poor prognosis of existing therapies, researchers have been continuously developing non-invasive methods to overcome barriers to gliomas therapy. Although these strategies can be used clinically to overcome the blood‒brain barrier (BBB), the accurate delivery of drugs to the glioma lesions cannot be ensured. Nano-drug delivery systems (NDDS) have been widely used for precise drug delivery. In recent years, researchers have gathered their wisdom to overcome barriers, so many well-designed NDDS have performed prominently in preclinical studies. These meticulous designs mainly include cascade passing through BBB and targeting to glioma lesions, drug release in response to the glioma microenvironment, biomimetic delivery systems based on endogenous cells/extracellular vesicles/protein, and carriers created according to the active ingredients of traditional Chinese medicines. We reviewed these well-designed NDDS in detail. Furthermore, we discussed the current ongoing and completed clinical trials of NDDS for gliomas therapy, and analyzed the challenges and trends faced by clinical translation of these well-designed NDDS.

Tumor-derived extracellular vesicles as messengers of natural products in cancer treatment.

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are kinds of two-layer vesicles secreted by cells. They play significant roles in mediating component exchange between cells, signal transduction, and pathological development. Among them, the tumor-derived EVs (TDEVs) are found related to the tumor microenvironment and cancer development. TDEVs can be designed as a natural drug carrier with high tumor targeting and permeability. In recent years, drug delivery systems (DDS) based on TDEVs for cancer treatments have received considerable attention. In this review, the biological characteristics of TDEVs are introduced, especially the effect on the tumor. Furthermore, the various approaches to constructing DDS based on TDEVs are summarized. Then we listed examples of TDEVs successfully constructing treatment systems. The use of chemical drugs, biological drugs, and engineered drugs as encapsulated drugs are respectively introduced, particularly the application progress of active ingredients in traditional Chinese medicine. Finally, this article introduces the latest clinical research progress, especially the marketed preparations and challenges of clinical application of TDEVs.

Mineral medicine: from traditional drugs to multifunctional delivery systems.

Mineral drugs are an important constituent of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). Taking minerals that contain heavy metals as drugs is a very national characteristic part of TCM. However, the safety and scientific nature of mineral drugs are controversial owing to their heavy metals and strong toxicity. In 2000, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized arsenic trioxide (ATO) as first-line therapy for acute promyelocytic leukemia. This makes the development and utilization of mineral drugs become a research hotspot. The development of nanomedicine has found a great prospect of mineral drugs in nano-delivery carriers. And that will hold promise to address the numerous biological barriers facing mineral drug formulations. However, the studies on mineral drugs in the delivery system are few at present. There is also a lack of a detailed description of mineral drug delivery systems. In this review, the advanced strategies of mineral drug delivery systems in tumor therapy are summarized. In addition, the therapeutic advantages and research progress of novel mineral drug delivery systems are also discussed. Here, we hope that this will provide a useful reference for the design and application of new mineral drug delivery systems.

Recommendations for the characterization of immunogenicity response to multiple domain biotherapeutics.

Many biotherapeutics currently in development have complex mechanisms of action and contain more than one domain, each with a specific role or function. Examples include antibody-drug conjugates (ADC), PEGylated, fusion proteins and bi-specific antibodies. As with any biotherapeutic molecule, a multi-domain biotherapeutic (MDB) can elicit immune responses resulting in the production of specific anti-drug antibodies (ADA) when administered to patients. As it is beneficial to align industry standards for evaluating immunogenicity of MDBs, this paper highlights pertinent immunogenicity risk factors and describes steps involved in the design of a testing strategy to detect and characterize binding (non-neutralizing and neutralizing, NAb) ADAs. In a common tier based approach, samples identified as ADA screen positive are confirmed for the binding specificity of the antibodies to the drug molecule via a confirmatory assay. The confirmation of specificity is generally considered as a critical step of the tier based approach in overall ADA response evaluation. Further characterization of domain specificity of polyclonal anti-MDB ADA response may be required based on the analysis of molecule specific risk factors. A risk based approach in evaluating the presence of NAbs for MDB is discussed in this article. Analysis of domain-specific neutralizing antibody reactivity should be based on the risk assessment as well as the information learned during binding ADA evaluation. Situations where additional characterization of NAb specificity is possible and justified are discussed. Case studies demonstrating applicability of the risk factor based approach are presented. In general, the presence of a domain with high immunogenicity risk or presence of a domain with high endogenous protein homology may result in an overall high immunogenicity risk level for the entire MDB and can benefit from domain specificity characterization of immune response. For low immunogenicity risk MDBs, domain specificity characterization could be re-considered at later clinical phases based on the need to explain specific clinical observations. Inclusion of domain specificity characterization in early phase clinical studies for MDBs with limited clinical immunogenicity experience may be considered to help understand its value in later clinical development. It is beneficial and is recommended to have a well-defined plan for the characterization of ADA domain specificity and data analysis prior to the initiation of sample testing. Overall, best practices for immunogenicity evaluation of complex MDBs are discussed.