header logo image


Page 3«..2345..10..»

Archive for the ‘Nano medicine’ Category

Understanding the Health Risks of Graphene – AZoNano

Friday, May 20th, 2022

Graphene is a two-dimensional (2D) carbon nanomaterial, which is often referred to as super material or wonder material. Due to its unique characteristics, graphene is applied in many branches of science and technology, which makes understanding its health risks a critical aspect of its use.

Image Credit:Yurchanka Siarhei/Shutterstock.com

Graphene is a carbon allotrope with a thickness of a single atom, arranged in a honeycomb-like orientation. To date, the majority of carbon nanomaterials developed are based on graphene. Some of the key advantageous features of graphene are that it can be stacked, rolled, or wrapped to form various structures, such as carbon nanotubes (CNTs), which are used in many industries.

As mentioned above, graphene is used in many innovative applications, including nanoelectronics, energy technology that has improved energy storage systems (e.g., highly effective batteries), medical utilities (e.g., antibacterial agents), and the development of composite materials and sensors.

Apart from the aforementioned applications, graphene has been widely applied in biomedical research. For instance, it is used in drug/gene delivery and the development of biocompatible scaffolds for cell culture and biological sensors to detect biomolecules.

Scientists reported that graphene oxide (GO), which is synthesized by fast oxidation of graphite, is an ideal nanocarrier for the efficient delivery of drugs/genes. Gene therapy is a novel approach utilized in the treatment of genetic disorders, such as Parkinson's disease, cystic fibrosis, and cancer.

Owing to the unique properties, such as high specific surface area, superior biocompatibility, enriched oxygen-containing groups, and stability, scientists have been able to load genes/drugs via chemical conjugation or physisorption methods. Recently, researchers have developed polyethyleneimine-modified GO for gene delivery.

Graphene derivatives, e.g., reduced GO (rGO) and doped graphene, have been utilized for the detection of biomolecules, such as amino acids, dopamine, thrombin, and oligonucleotide. GO-based biosensors are also used to identify DNA. Additionally, scientists have used GO for bioimaging of cellular uptake, of polyethylene glycol-modified GO, during drug delivery.

Scientists have performed various nanotoxicological studies to determine the risk factors associated with graphene applications and its derivatives. They determined the toxicological profile of graphene nanosheets in both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacterial models.

These studies have shown that graphene damages bacterial cell membranes via direct contact with the sharp edges of the nanowalls. However, studies have shown that graphene has low toxicity on the luminal macrophages and epithelial cells.

Some of the key determining factors of graphene toxicity to human red blood cells and skin fibroblasts are particulate state, size of the particle, and oxygen content of graphene. Additionally, the functional groups present on the surface of GO nanostructures play a vital role in inducing cytotoxicity.

Genotoxicity and cytotoxicity in human lung fibroblasts associated with GO are due to the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and apoptosis. One of the potential concerns of application GO is that it can induce DNA cleavage, which could lead to many adverse effects on humans.

Unlike CNTs, minimal research is available regarding the safety of graphene. This is partly due to the initial difficulties associated with enhancing its production. Another reason for the limited knowledge could be that graphene is still in its early developmental stage.

The introduction of carbon nanomaterials in human bodies could result in its accumulation in tissues or elimination via excretion. In the case of accumulation, it could affect the proper functioning of human organs. Additionally, it is important to determine if an individual exposed to graphene induces an immune response or causes inflammation.

One of the major concerns of nanoscopic platelets of graphene-based materials is their thin, lightweight, and tough structure, which causes a detrimental effect when inhaled. Scientists stated that the flakes of carbon might be transported deep inside lung tissues, which might either induce chronic inflammatory responses or inhibit normal cellular functions.

Scientists stated that as the skin is the first interface between the body and the surrounding, it is most exposed to graphene materials. The impact of graphene and GO on the skin depends on their size and physicochemical properties.

Several studies have indicated that exposure to a high concentration of graphene and its derivative for a prolonged period causes membrane damage, indicating low toxicity to skin cells.

Several studies have shown that toxicity related to GO can be reduced by altering the surface functional groups and masking the oxygenated functional groups with a biocompatible polymer. For instance, an in vitro study revealed that compared to GO, polyvinylpyrrolidone-modified GO exhibits lower immunogenicity.

Some of the measures undertaken to minimize health risks for workers who are directly associated with the development of graphene or graphene-based technologies include utilizing stable and individual graphene nanosheets that can be easily dispersed in water to reduce aggregation problems in the body.

Other recommendations include using graphene sheets that are small enough to be engulfed by immune cells and readily removed and biodegradable forms of graphene to prevent damages caused by chronic accumulation in tissues.

Foley, T. (2021) Graphene Flagship. [Online] Available at: https://graphene-flagship.eu/graphene/news/understanding-the-health-and-safety-of-graphene/

Arvidsson, R., et al. (2018) "Just Carbon": Ideas About Graphene Risks by Graphene Researchers and Innovation Advisors.Nanoethics,12(3), pp. 199210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-018-0324-y

Awodele, M.K. et al. (2018) Graphene and its Health Effect Review Article. International Journal of Nanotechnology and Nanomedicine, 3 (2), pp. 1-5.

Seabra, B.A. et al. (2014) Nanotoxicity of Graphene and Graphene Oxide. Chemical Research in Toxicology.2014, 27, 2. pp.159168. https://doi.org/10.1021/tx400385x

Bussy, C. et al. (2013) Safety considerations for graphene: lessons learnt from carbon nanotubes. Accounts of Chemical Research, 46(3), pp. 692701. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ar300199e

Bradley, D. (2012) Is graphene safe? Materials Today, 15 (6), pp. 230. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-7021(12)70101-3

Shen, H. et al. (2012) Biomedical applications of graphene.Theranostics,2(3), pp. 283294. https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.3642

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are those of the author expressed in their private capacity and do not necessarily represent the views of AZoM.com Limited T/A AZoNetwork the owner and operator of this website. This disclaimer forms part of the Terms and conditions of use of this website.

Follow this link:
Understanding the Health Risks of Graphene - AZoNano

Read More...

Prevalence and predictors of SARS-CoV-2 | IDR – Dove Medical Press

Friday, May 20th, 2022

Introduction

In December 2019, a novel coronavirus (initially named 2019-nCov) was discovered to be responsible for outbreaks of an unusual series of viral pneumonia of unknown origin in Wuhan. It was later named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), because of the structural similarities with SARS-CoV, that caused the outbreak of SARS in 2003.13

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is an enveloped, single-stranded ribonucleic acid beta coronavirus. This highly contagious pathogen is transmitted by respiratory droplets and aerosols, direct contact of mucous membranes and probably the fecaloral route.46

This viral infection primarily targets the respiratory system, and is usually presented by fever, cough, sore throat or shortness of breath as initial symptoms.7,8 Although some patients may be asymptomatic and they are likely to spread the infection, a group of them may develop symptoms and their condition may worsen.912

Pulmonary symptoms are the most frequently reported symptoms, however recent studies proved the presence of neurological and gastrointestinal manifestations among the SARS-CoV-2 infected patients.13,14

Although real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay is considered the first tool to make a definitive diagnosis of COVID-19, the high false negative results, low sensitivity and limited supplies might delay accurate diagnosis. Computed tomography (CT) has been reported as an important tool to identify and investigate suspected patients with COVID-19 at an early stage.15

Many patients with mild or severe SARS-CoV-2 do not make a full recovery and have a wide range of persistent symptoms for weeks or months after infection, often of a neurological, cognitive or psychiatric nature.16

A standardized case definition for post-COVID-19 syndrome is still being developed. The Centre for Disease Control (CDC) has formulated post-COVID-19 conditions to describe health issues that persist more than four weeks after being infected with COVID-19. The World Health Organization has also developed a clinical case definition of post-COVID-19 syndrome to include individuals with a history of probable or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection usually 3 months from the onset of infection with symptoms that last for at least 2 months and cannot be explained by an alternative diagnosis.17

The pathophysiological basis is not well understood, however immune reaction, inflammation, persistent viremia, relapse or reinfection are all suggested etiologies.16,18,19

To date physicians and researchers are still learning about the symptoms and signs of this novel virus. Many survivors may experience many morbidities and multiple manifestations requiring long-term monitoring. Hence the aim of this study was to determine the persistence of any symptoms or signs after clearance of SARS-CoV-2 in patients with COVID-19 infection during the first wave.

During the period between August 2020 and October 2020, a multicenter cross-sectional survey was done.

A list was made of all patients who had been discharged from quarantine hospitals after recovery from COVID-19 during the period from March to May 2020. Our patients fulfilled the criteria of the World Health Organization for discontinuation of quarantine which include that the patient should have no fever for 3 consecutive days, the test results should be negative for SARS-CoV-2, with improvement of other symptoms. A stratified sampling technique was used to select a random sample from this list.

The sample size was calculated by OpenEpi, Version 3, and open-source calculator. It was found to be 384 with CI 95% and error probability of 5%.

Data on specific symptoms, which may be correlated with COVID-19, were obtained using a standardized questionnaire which was adapted and administered by the researchers to the patients by visit or phone call.

The study tool included two sections, the first one was for demographic data (age, sex, governorate, and smoking), pre-existing comorbidities, medication used, date of initial diagnosis (first positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2) and date of negative PCR for SARS-CoV-2. In addition there was a section on health-care management details (home isolation, hospital or ICU admission) including length of hospital stay, medication used, oxygen therapy and if used ventilation (invasive or non-invasive).

Patients were questioned about the presence or absence of symptoms during the acute phase of COVID-19 and if each symptom persisted at the time of the visit or phone call. Patients were asked about: sense of fever, skin rash, pruritus, bone aches, cough, dyspnea, sore throat, rhinorrhea, chest pain/tightness, palpitation, syncopal attacks, fatigue, muscle pain, joint pain/stiffness, anosmia, ageusia, headache, dizziness, numbness, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, anorexia, abdominal pain, constipation, dyspepsia, dysphagia, jaundice, weight loss/gain, hematemesis, melena, visual changes, hearing changes, vertigo, low/high mood, poor sleep, agitation, self-harm, delusions, hallucinations, thought disorders, suicidal tendency, dysuria, hematuria, vaginal bleeding, abortion, puffy eyes, loss of libido, and erectile dysfunction. Date of appearance and date of resolution were reported. An open text field was added at the end of the symptoms collection sheet to add any other symptoms or possible complications of COVID-19 infection. Patients or the public were not involved in the design, conduct, reporting, or dissemination plans of our research.

The sample size was calculated using OpenEpi, Version 3, for proportion studies. Population size (number of reported COVID-19 patients in Egypt at the time of the study) (N): ~338,000, Hypothesized % frequency of post-COVID-19 symptoms in the population (p): 50% 5, confidence interval of 95%, and design effect (for cluster surveys-DEFF): 1.

The sample size was 384 with CI 95% and error probability of 5%. However, we included 538 cases.

To achieve proper social distancing and to decrease risk of possible transmission of COVID-19, respondents were interviewed either by a visit in a non-COVID designated area or through a phone call. Paper use for documentation was also avoided. We explained to the respondents the objectives of the study and sent them an information sheet containing all details of the study to read before the interview. A written consent to participate in the study was obtained before administration of the questionnaires. This study was approved by the Damietta Faculty of Medicine Al Azhar University Ethical committee IRB 00012367.

There was no direct patient involvement in this study.

Descriptive data analysis was performed for categorical variables including frequencies and proportions. As appropriate, inferential statistics were performed between groups with the Chi square test or KruskalWallis test. Differences within groups were evaluated with the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test. Multiple regression analysis was performed to predict the persistence of symptoms at follow-up. P value level of significance was set at 0.05. Data entry and analysis were completed using MS Excel 2017 and data analysed using SPSS Version 25.

We started with 561 subjects, 23 were excluded either due to difficult communication or refusal of the patient to participate in the study. So, our study included 538 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections. The study flow chart is shown in Figure 1. 54.1% were male. The mean age was 41.17 (SD 14.84, range 587 years) and 18.6% were smokers. The most reported co-morbid conditions were diabetes mellitus in 17.1%, hypertension in 19.5% (5.2% were receiving ARBs and 7.6% were receiving ACEIs), COPD in 5.4%, chronic kidney disease in 1.1%, ischemic heart disease in 4.5% and immunosuppressive state in 0.4% (Table 1).

Table 1 Demographic and Clinical Characters of Studied Patients

Figure 1 Study flow chart.

Almost half of the studied patients (51.3%) were admitted to hospital with an average hospital stay of 13.58 (SD 6.40, range 437) days, 6.5% were admitted to ICU with an average ICU stay of 9.66 (SD 5.85, range 230) days. Symptoms were mild in 61.3%, moderate in 31% and severe in 7.6% of patients (Table 2).

Table 2 Severity and Hospital Stay Characterization of Studied Patients

Frequencies of medication used in treatment of the studied patients are presented in Figure 2. Most commonly reported symptoms persisting after viral cure were fatigue, cough, dyspnea, sore throat, loss of smell, anorexia, loss of taste, diarrhea, headache, low mood, abdominal pain, nausea, muscle pain, chest pain, joint pain and poor sleep (Figure 3). Although reported in the active stage of the disease, the following symptoms were not persistent after viral clearance: abortion (reported initially in 0.6%), puffy eyes (reported initially in 0.4%), hallucination (reported initially in 0.8%), thought disorders (reported initially in 0.2%), suicidal tendency (reported initially in 0.4%), self-harm (reported initially in 0.2%), facial droop (reported initially in 0.2%), photophobia (reported initially in 1%), dysarthria (reported initially in 0.6%), vomiting (reported initially in 12.3%), wheeze (reported initially in 2%), hemoptysis (reported initially in 0.4%) and rhinorrhea (reported initially in 5.8%). The symptoms reported initially and that persisted after viral cure are presented in Table 3. Factors associated with symptoms persistence were hospital admission, disease severity, treatment with hydroxychloroquine, steroid, anticoagulant, azithromycin, multivitamins and receiving oxygen therapy; the rest of the other factors were not associated with symptom persistence in univariate analysis (Table 4). Multivariate analysis showed that treatment with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and multivitamins were the only factors associated with symptom persistence (Table 5).

Table 3 Symptoms Persisting After Clearance of SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Table 4 Factors Associated with Persistent Symptoms Persistence

Table 5 Multivariate Analysis for Predictors of Post-Covid-19 Persisting Symptoms

Figure 2 Frequencies of medication used in treatment of the studied patients.

Figure 3 Post Covid-19 acute and persistent symptoms.

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, Egypt reported 337,487 confirmed cases and 228,583 were discharged after clearance of the virus.8 Interestingly, some of those patients presented to the outpatient clinics complaining of vague symptoms resembling the acute phase symptoms that triggered the concepts of incomplete recovery or persistence of COVID-19 infection. This is an Egyptian study for assessment of the post-discharge persistent symptoms after recovery from COVID-19 and possible long-term impact of COVID19 infection.

In our study, 84.6% of patients who recovered from COVID-19 have one or more persistent symptoms. Fatigue, cough, sense of fever and dyspnea were among the most common reported symptoms followed by sore throat, anorexia, loss of taste and smell, diarrhea, headache, and low mood.

The median duration to symptom resolution among those with persistent symptoms ranged from 1 to 83 days from the negative PCR test date, with the longest duration reported for vertigo (median = 82 days; 23147 days) and numbness (median = 77 days; 1126 days).

A telephone-based report from the USA investigating 274 symptomatic COVID-19 adult outpatients, found 23 weeks are needed by about 30% of contributors to get back to their usual state. Cough, fatigue and shortness of breath at the time of testing were the most persistent symptoms. The median duration for disappearance of symptoms ranged from 48 days from the test date. The longest duration was reported for anosmia (median = 8 days; IQR = 510.5 days) and loss of taste (median = 8 days; IQR = 410 days).20

Also, a single-center study from Rome included 143 hospitalized post-COVID-19 recovered patients who were assessed 60 days following infection. Surprisingly, only about 13% were completely free of any persistent symptoms. Meanwhile, 32% had at least one or two symptoms and 55% showed three or more persistent manifestations.21

A Facebook-based survey in the Netherlands and Belgium that included a large scale of COVID-19 patients either hospitalized or non-hospitalized, confirmed or suspected, showed that only 0.7% of the respondents were symptom-free 79 days after the infection. Fatigue and dyspnea were the most common symptoms, in both hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients.22

Interestingly, 58.5% of our patients with mild COVID-19 infection have one or more persistent symptoms which is consistent with anecdotal evidence, which stated that patients with the so-called mild COVID-19 may still complain about persistent symptoms, even weeks after the onset of symptoms.23,24

In agreement with our results, Davido et al.25 reported that most of the outpatients who experienced mild symptoms attributable to COVID-19 would further present with persistent symptoms, such as sense of fever, severe fatigue, chest tightness, palpitations, muscle aches, anxiety and headaches shortly after convalescence.

In our study, fatigue persisted in about 59.1% of participants for a median of 31 days. This was in accordance with data reported from France,25 Italy21 and UK.26 Fatigue was explained by dysautonomia that was reported in the ALBA COVID registry (2.5%),27, also endocrine disturbance with hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis attenuation, reactive mood disorder such as depression or anxiety could be contributing factors for pathophysiology of post-COVID-19 fatigue syndrome.28,29

Similar results also reported from a single-center study in the UK that investigated 100 post-discharge COVID-19 patients showed that fatigue was the most commonly described symptom in both ICU and ward groups (72% and 60.3%, respectively).26

Contrary to our findings, a Chinese prospective cohort study of 131 COVID-19 patients in Wuhan found that by 34 weeks post-discharge 86% of patients were asymptomatic, only 1.5% had shortness of breath and 0% had fatigue. This could be attributed to the lower case severity of these patients with few co-morbidities. Moreover, underreporting could be expected due to the nature of this study focusing on evaluation of ongoing transmissibility, and participants were asked about the quarantine situation.30

Post viral infection fatigue syndrome was first described in EpsteinBarr virus (EBV) infection.31 In the previously experienced epidemics of SARS, H1N1 and Ebola, many patients with persistent fatigue were serious enough to be diagnosed as Myalgia Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS). More than 50% of patients surviving SARS experienced fatigue during their recovery: 64% reported fatigue at 3 months, 54% at 6 months and 60% at 12 months.32

Fatigue and breathlessness are not uncommonly reported as persistent symptoms following community-acquired pneumonia and ICU admission, but the duration varies substantially.33,34 Hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia in several studies were found to experience breathlessness and fatigue that usually resolved in 1014 days from symptom onset.35

Among the persistent neuropsychiatric symptoms detected in our work were low mood (20.6%), poor sleep (12.6%) and poor concentration (4.8%). Our results are consistent with Garrigues et al.36 who found that after a mean of 110.9 days, the most frequently reported persistent post-COVID-19 symptoms were loss of memory, concentration and sleep disorders (34%, 28% and 30.8%, respectively). These results are in agreement with Srivastava et al. who reported that recovered COVID-19 patients suffered from a significant degree of depression and high rate of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).37

Classic neurological disorder such as loss of taste, smell, headache, numbness and vertigo were present and persist in 22.9%, 21.7%, 21.4, 19% and 12%, respectively, these results were in accordance with results from a systematic review conducted in 2022 by Whittaker et al.38

These neurological disorders are attributed to endothelial injury and microangiopathy, which was described in brain biopsies of severe form of COVID-19.39 Also, severity of condition and PTSD could be co-factor in neuropsychiatric persistence symptoms,40 in children it seems similar to the late Kawasaki syndrome that was reported after COVID-19.41

In the present study, a sense of fever was detected in 250 (46.5%) patients and persisted for 20.68 30.66 days (12 patients confirmed the presence of fever by measuring temperature) in contrast with the progressive decline observed in cases of influenza.

Ng et al. studied 142 patients with COVID-19 for persistence of fever. They observed that 12.7% had fever lasting more than 7 days (prolonged fever), and 9.9% had recurrence of fever lasting less than a day after defervescence after day 7 of illness (saddleback fever) that may be correlated to decreased levels of interleukin 1 alpha and increased levels of interferon gamma-induced protein 10 in their patients with prolonged fever.42

Moreover, it was found that COVID-19 patients may complain of low-grade fever during convalescence which was attributed to the incomplete recovery of their immunity at that stage which elucidates the recurrence of SARS-CoV-2 positivity that was noticed in many patients during convalescence.43

Among the non-respiratory manifestations that are of special concern in COVID-19 patients, were the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) symptoms. They may be solitary, they may become progressive during the course of the disease and they may occur early, which is completely different from the other coronaviruses.44

The most prevalent GI symptom in our study was anorexia which was detected in 131 patients (24.3%) as a persistent symptom after cure for 197 days. Moreover, 131 patients (24.3%) had diarrhea that continued after cure for 1100 days. Diarrhea can be explained by the change in the intestinal permeability that is caused by the virus, leading to dysfunction of the enterocytes.45 That was in agreement with the Garrigues et al.36 study in which diarrhea persisted in 29 patients (24.2%).

In our study, abdominal pain was reported in 106 patients (18.7%) and 97 patients (18%) had persistent pain after cure for 1104 days. In contrast, Kecler-Pietrzyk et al. reported anorexia, diarrhea and nausea among the common persistent symptoms, but abdominal pain was rare, particularly as the initial presenting complaint.46

Neither age nor presence of co-morbid conditions were associated with persistent symptoms in our study, whereas Tenforde et al.20 found that those with older age and chronic co-morbidities were associated with much prolonged disease.

In our work, it was found that hospital admission and the use of some drugs such as chloroquine, steroids, anticoagulants, azithromycin, multivitamins and oxygen therapy during acute COVID-19 phase, and severity of the disease were associated with persistence of symptoms. However, results of multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the use of chloroquine, azithromycin and multivitamins only were significantly associated with persistence of symptoms (Odds ratio 8.03, 8.89 and 10.12, respectively). This is also in accordance with results of other studies on post-viral/infectious syndromes47,48 and those with critically ill ICU (non-COVID) patients, who still suffer a variety of symptoms months after their hospitalization, what is also named post-ICU syndrome.49,50

Limitations of our study include the lack of information on symptom history before acute COVID-19 illness and being based on a single phone call interview that created an obstacle of contacting certain participants, such as those with dementia and/or learning difficulties. Also, the telephone-based survey is subjected to incomplete recall errors or recall bias. So, we recommend future interviews at monthly intervals for better characterization of symptoms progression of postCOVID19 patients. Furthermore, patients who had a negative swab result and clinical-radiological criteria suggestive of COVID-19 were not included in this study. Our study had the advantage of obtaining detailed symptom severity inquiry. In addition, this is a multi-centre study with a relatively large number of patients.

The post-COVID-19 symptoms should be carefully addressed and evaluated carefully. Those patients could suddenly seek care for what might be considered a chronic fatigue syndrome. Persistent symptomatic post-COVID-19 patients should be managed by a multidisciplinary team including a psychologist, a pulmonologist, a neurologist and a specialist in physical medicine and rehabilitation in specialized post-COVID-19 clinics to optimize our health-care services.

The study was conducted in accordance with ethical guidelines of the 1975 Helsinki Declaration. This study was approved by the Damietta Faculty of Medicine Al Azhar University Ethical committee IRB 00012367. All participants were adults and all of them provided written informed consent before collection of samples. To achieve proper social distancing and to decrease risk of possible transmission of COVID-19, respondents were interviewed either by a visit in a non-COVID designated area or through a phone call. Paper use for documentation was also avoided. We explained to the respondents the objectives of the study and sent them an information sheet containing all details of the study to read before the interview. A written consent to participate in the study was obtained before administration of the questionnaires.

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

All authors made a significant contribution to the work reported, whether that is in the conception, study design, execution, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation, or in all these areas; took part in drafting, revising or critically reviewing the article; gave final approval of the version to be published; have agreed on the journal to which the article has been submitted; and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

1. Zhou P, Yang XL, Wang XG, et al. A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin. Nature. 2020;579(7798):270273. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2012-7

2. Abd Ellah NH, Gad SF, Muhammad K, Batiha EG, Hetta HF. Nanomedicine as a promising approach for diagnosis, treatment and prophylaxis against COVID-19. Nanomedicine. 2020;15(21):20852102. doi:10.2217/nnm-2020-0247

3. Abid SA, Muneer AA, Al-Kadmy IM, et al. Biosensors as a future diagnostic approach for COVID-19. Life Sci. 2021;273:119117. doi:10.1016/j.lfs.2021.119117

4. Xiao F, Tang M, Zheng X, Liu Y, Li X, Shan HJG. Evidence for gastrointestinal infection of SARS-CoV-2. Gastroenterology. 2020;158(6):18311833. e1833. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2020.02.055

5. Mahmood Z, Alrefai H, Hetta HF, et al. Investigating virological, immunological, and pathological avenues to identify potential targets for developing covid-19 treatment and prevention strategies. Vaccines. 2020;8(3):443. doi:10.3390/vaccines8030443

6. Moubarak M, Kasozi KI, Hetta HF, et al. The rise of SARS-CoV-2 variants and the role of convalescent plasma therapy for management of infections. Life. 2021;11(8):734. doi:10.3390/life11080734

7. Almaghaslah D, Kandasamy G, Almanasef M, Vasudevan R, Chandramohan S. Review on the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic: its outbreak and current status. Int J Clin Pract. 2020;74(11):e13637. doi:10.1111/ijcp.13637

8. Abdellatif AA, Tawfeek HM, Abdelfattah A, Batiha GE-S, Hetta HF. Recent updates in COVID-19 with emphasis on inhalation therapeutics: nanostructured and targeting systems. J Drug Deliv Sci Technol. 2021;63:102435. doi:10.1016/j.jddst.2021.102435

9. Dai W, Chen X, Xu X, et al. Clinical characteristics of asymptomatic patients with SARS-CoV-2 in Zhejiang: an imperceptible source of infection. Can Respir J. 2020;2020:2045341. doi:10.1155/2020/2045341

10. Magdy Beshbishy A, Hetta HF, Hussein DE, et al. Factors associated with increased morbidity and mortality of obese and overweight COVID-19 patients. Biology. 2020;9(9):280. doi:10.3390/biology9090280

11. Beshbishy AM, Oti VB, Hussein DE, et al. Factors behind the higher COVID-19 risk in diabetes: a critical review. Front Public Health. 2021;9:591982.

12. Koneru G, Batiha GE-S, Algammal AM, et al. BCG vaccine-induced trained immunity and COVID-19: protective or bystander? Infect Drug Resist. 2021;14:1169. doi:10.2147/IDR.S300162

13. Iltaf S Sr., Fatima M, Salman S Sr., Salam JU, Abbas S. Frequency of neurological presentations of coronavirus disease in patients presenting to a tertiary care hospital during the 2019 coronavirus disease pandemic. Cureus. 2020;12(8):e9846. doi:10.7759/cureus.9846

14. Laszkowska M, Faye AS, Kim J, et al. Disease course and outcomes of COVID-19 among hospitalized patients with gastrointestinal manifestations. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;19(7):14021409.

15. Alsharif W, Qurashi A. Effectiveness of COVID-19 diagnosis and management tools: a review. Radiography. 2021;27(2):682687. doi:10.1016/j.radi.2020.09.010

16. Islam MF, Cotler J, Jason LA. Post-viral fatigue and COVID-19: lessons from past epidemics. Fatigue. 2020;8(2):6169.

17. World Health Organization. A clinical case definition of post COVID-19 condition by a Delphi consensus, 6 October 2021; 2021.

18. Dar HA, Waheed Y, Najmi MH, et al. Multiepitope subunit vaccine design against COVID-19 based on the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2: an in silico analysis. J Immunol Res. 2020;2020:8893483. doi:10.1155/2020/8893483

19. Collaborative G, Collaborative C. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination modelling for safe surgery to save lives: data from an international prospective cohort study. Br J Surg. 2021;108(9):10561063.

20. Tenforde MW, Kim SS, Lindsell CJ, et al. Symptom duration and risk factors for delayed return to usual health among outpatients with COVID-19 in a multistate health care systems networkUnited States, MarchJune 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69(30):993. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6930e1

21. Carf A, Bernabei R, Landi F; Group ftGAC-P-ACS. Persistent symptoms in patients after acute COVID-19. JAMA. 2020;324(6):603605. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.12603

22. Gortz YMJ, Van Herck M, Delbressine JM, et al. Persistent symptoms 3 months after a SARS-CoV-2 infection: the post-COVID-19 syndrome? ERJ Open Res. 2020;6(4):0054202020. doi:10.1183/23120541.00542-2020

23. Garner P. Covid-19 and fatiguea game of snakes and ladders; 2020.

24. Callard F, Perego E. How and why patients made Long Covid. Soc Sci Med. 2021;268:113426. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113426

25. Davido B, Seang S, Tubiana R, de Truchis P. Post-COVID-19 chronic symptoms: a postinfectious entity? Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020;26(11):14481449. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2020.07.028

26. Halpin SJ, McIvor C, Whyatt G, et al. Postdischarge symptoms and rehabilitation needs in survivors of COVID-19 infection: a cross-sectional evaluation. J Med Virol. 2021;93(2):10131022.

27. Romero-Snchez CM, Daz-Maroto I, Fernndez-Daz E, et al. Neurologic manifestations in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: the ALBACOVID registry. Neurology. 2020;95(8):e1060e1070. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000009937

28. Papadopoulos AS, Cleare A. Hypothalamicpituitaryadrenal axis dysfunction in chronic fatigue syndrome. Nature Rev Endocrinol. 2012;8(1):2232.

29. Sandler CX, Wyller VB, Moss-Morris R, et al. Long COVID and post-infective fatigue syndrome: a review. Paper presented at: Open forum infectious diseases; 2021.

30. Wang X, Xu H, Jiang H, et al. Clinical features and outcomes of discharged coronavirus disease 2019 patients: a prospective cohort study. QJM. 2020;113(9):657665. doi:10.1093/qjmed/hcaa178

31. Hotchin NA, Read R, Smith DG, Crawford DH. Active Epstein-Barr virus infection in post-viral fatigue syndrome. J Infect. 1989;18(2):143150.

32. Tansey CM, Louie M, Loeb M, et al. One-year outcomes and health care utilization in survivors of severe acute respiratory syndrome. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(12):13121320. doi:10.1001/archinte.167.12.1312

33. Petrie JG, Cheng C, Malosh RE, et al. Illness severity and work productivity loss among working adults with medically attended acute respiratory illnesses: US influenza vaccine effectiveness network 20122013. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;62(4):448455. doi:10.1093/cid/civ952

34. Wootton DG, Dickinson L, Pertinez H, et al. A longitudinal modelling study estimates acute symptoms of community acquired pneumonia recover to baseline by 10days. Eur Respir J. 2017;49(6):1602170. doi:10.1183/13993003.02170-2016

35. Wyrwich KW, Yu H, Sato R, Powers JH. Observational longitudinal study of symptom burden and time for recovery from community-acquired pneumonia reported by older adults surveyed nationwide using the CAP Burden of Illness Questionnaire. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2015;6:215223. doi:10.2147/PROM.S85779

36. Garrigues E, Janvier P, Kherabi Y, et al. Post-discharge persistent symptoms and health-related quality of life after hospitalization for COVID-19. J Infect. 2020;81(6):e4e6. doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2020.08.029

37. Srivastava A, Bala R, Devi TP, Anal L. Psychological trauma and depression in recovered COVID-19 patients: a telecommunication based observational study. Trends Psychiatry Psychother. 2021. doi:10.47626/2237-6089-2021-0381

38. Whittaker A, Anson M, Harky A. Neurological manifestations of COVID19: a systematic review and current update. Acta Neurol Scand. 2020;142(1):1422. doi:10.1111/ane.13266

View post:
Prevalence and predictors of SARS-CoV-2 | IDR - Dove Medical Press

Read More...

Patches and robotic pills may one day replace injections – Science News for Students

Friday, May 20th, 2022

Do you hate getting shots? If so, youre not alone and you may be in luck. Researchers are devising new, pain-free ways to deliver drugs. One is a robotic pill. Another is a medicine patch worn on the skin. Both are still in the early stages of development. But someday, these innovations could make delivering medicines more patient-friendly.

The new robotic pill comes out of a lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. It holds a teeny, spring-loaded microneedle only about 3 millimeters (a tenth of an inch) long. Once swallowed, the pill injects medicine directly through the stomach wall.

Unlike a normal shot, this needle prick shouldnt hurt, says Giovanni Traverso. Hes a physician and biomedical engineer who specializes in the gut. He also helped develop the robo-pill at MIT. Stomachs can detectsome sensations, such as the deep ache of a stomach ulcer. Or the discomfort of feeling bloated. But those sensations are more related to stretch receptors, Traverso explains. The stomach lacks receptors to detect sharp pains, such as an injection.

Designing a pill that could reliably prick the stomach wall was a bit tricky. Once swallowed, the small but heavy device settles to the bottom of the stomach. In order to prick the stomach wall beneath it, the pill mustland injector-side-down. To make that happen, the MIT team borrowed an idea from the leopard tortoise.

Contrary to popular belief, most tortoisescanget back on their feet if flipped upside-down. Leopard tortoises are aided by steeply domed shells. If one of them is flipped on its back, the shape of that shell helps it roll right-side up. That same shape ensures the new pill always lands upright, too.

Robert Langer is a chemical engineer on the MIT team. Watch, he says, as he drops a chickpea-sized robotic pill onto a table. It bounces, then rolls upright. No matter how I drop it, he notes and he drops it again it always lands the same way.

But what makes the pills tiny needle pop out to do its job? Sugar glass, Langer explains. Hard and brittle, this material holds back a spring that is attached to the needle. In the stomach, that sugar starts to dissolve. All of a sudden, the thing breaks, Langer says. This releases the spring, which jabs the needle into the stomach wall to inject medicine. Its possible to control when that happens by adjusting the sugars thickness.

The MIT team unveiled its design in 2019 in Science.

In new experiments, these robotic pills have delivered an mRNA-based medicine to mini-pigs. The researchers described their success in the March 2 issue of Matter. It was an important test for showing that this new class of medicines could be delivered in this way. (Pfizers COVID-19 vaccine also relies on mRNA.)

The new robo-pills also have successfully delivered insulin in mini-pigs. Many people with diabetes must inject themselves several times a day with this hormone. Normally, insulin cannot be swallowed as a pill because it would break down in the stomach. The robo-pill gets around that problem by feeding insulin straight into the stomach wall.

This is a completely new way to deliver the drug, notes Bruno Sarmento. He works at the University of Porto in Portugal. Although he didnt work on the pill system, as a nanomedicine researcher hes interested in such projects. We know now that its possible for a robotic system to reach the stomach and deliver injections, he says. But he worries that the new pill may be too expensive for widespread use.

Langer isnt so sure. I actually dont know that itll be that expensive, he says. Mechanized pills already exist. Langer points to a class known as osmotic pills. These pills have holes in them to pump drugs out. People might think theyd be a lot more expensive than regular pills, but they really havent been, he says. When you start to make billions of these, the cost just goes way down.

Whats more, normal pills often waste medicine. A swallowed drug must pass through the stomach lining. Thats like going through a brick wall, Traverso says. Its very difficult without the help of a needle. And wasted drug is expensive sometimes more expensive than the device.

One example is a drug used to treat diabetes. Its called semaglutide. Its a giant seller for people with diabetes, Langer says. And when you give this medicine as a pill, he says, you lose 99 percent of the drug. It passes through the body before its absorbed. But the new robo-pill would ensure the drug makes it right through the stomach wall and into the bloodstream. In the end, that could save money.

After successful tests in animals, the robo-pill is now ready for human trials. The Danish pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk, which works with the MIT team, started recruiting volunteers in April.

Researchers in France are developing a technology that skips needles altogether. The teams new patch, when applied in the mouth, delivers a drug through the inside of the cheek.

Needle-less injections its kind of the holy grail, says Karolina Dziemidowicz. She did not help create the new patch. But her work in England at University College London does focus on such new biomaterials.

Sticky, medicine-loaded patches have been around for decades, Dziemidowicz notes. This new one is different. Rather than sticking it on your arm, it goes onto the slippery, mucus-coated membrane inside your mouth. Or even your eyeball! Both are areas that let medicines quickly enter your bloodstream. Gentle heat from a laser device activates the patch to release the medicine.

Sabine Szunerits is an analytical chemist and co-developer of these tiny patches. She works at the University of Lille in France. Her team tested these patches as a way to dispense insulin. Like the MIT team, they tried their system out in mini-pigs and later, in cows. The animals absorbed the drug well, and it reduced their blood sugar as intended.

In another experiment, the researchers even applied drug-free versions of the patches inside the mouths of six volunteers. What did people think of them? Its weird to think about, two male volunteers said. But nobody found the patches uncomfortable. Nor did the patches affect the volunteers ability to talk or eat.

Szunerits and her team described their findingsin ACS Applied Bio Materials on February 21.

In its lab, the French team used a laser to make the patch release its drug. For home use, Szunerits imagines creating something like a lollipop. At its end, she says, youd have a laser. Then, when youre ready to activate a patch, youd put the laser-pop in your mouth. You could trigger just one or as many patches as you need to take the prescribed dose.

This is a very elegant study, Sarmento says. But he sees a limitation. The patches cant provide very much insulin. Each one can pack about 2.9 units of the medication. But even a 40-kilogram (90-pound) child might need about 20 units of insulin per day. Sarmento suspects the new patch might be better suited for other drugs ones given at lower doses.

The patches are small, but some people might be willing wear a bunch if it means avoiding an injection. People, especially kids, dislike shots. Because of that, Traverso says, many people reliably take their insulin only about half the time. Thats why many physicians delay starting people on insulin by almost eight years, Traverso says.

He now hopes innovations like the insulin patch and robotic pill might one day get more people to willingly take the meds they need.

This is one in a series presenting news on technology and innovation, made possible with generous support from the Lemelson Foundation.

Continued here:
Patches and robotic pills may one day replace injections - Science News for Students

Read More...

Nanotechnology in the Nutricosmetics Industry – AZoNano

Friday, May 20th, 2022

Nutricosmetics is a novel developing branch of cosmetics aiming to optimize cosmetic products as well as food supplements for the objective of skin nourishment and reduction of skin aging. This innovative branch of cosmetics is highly desirable for many, and with the world's population predicted to grow to 1.4 billion by 2030, this industry is also expected to gain rapid traction.

Image Credit:photo_gonzo/Shutterstock.com

This novel sector of cosmetics includes both cosmetic products and food supplements that have the underlying purpose of increasing the integrity of skin and maintaining youthfulness through reducing aging.

Food supplements include micronutrients, which can be described as vitamins and minerals, macronutrients, which include peptides and fatty acids, as well as botanicals, comprising herbal extracts and fruit extracts.

These products and supplements provide nutritional support to skin, nails, and hair, encompassing inner wellbeing, including activity and mood.

Nutricosmetics have become the latest trend that has rocketed through the global population. Beauty brands are developing innovative strategies to meet the demand of targeting the root cause of ubiquitous skin and health problems to provide long-term results.

The global market for this novel industry for anti-aging has been estimated by P&S Intelligence to rise from $194 billion in 2020 to $422 billion by 2030. The nutricosmetics market has been predicted to grow significantly, with reports of a compound annual growth rate of 7.07%. Beauty supplements are also estimated to achieve approximately $7 billion at the end of 2024.

The skin is the largest organ in the body as well as the primary defense against the environment; subsequently, exposure to the outside world can cause premature skin aging.

The function of this critical organ, other than protection, includes maintaining the balance of liquids, preventing water loss as well as encouraging perspiration.

Stressors of the skin can include free radicals from pollution and ultraviolet rays, causing reactive oxygen species to be activated and induce unnecessary inflammation; this can affect DNA, lipids and proteins, and destroy the integrity of biological components within the body. It can also include the breakdown of collagen, a significant element of the extracellular matrix that functions to support cells.

Proteins such as collagen and keratin provide the skin with strength and elasticity and waterproofing. The loss of these can be detrimental to the integrity and quality of skin health, resulting in wrinkles and brittle nails or hair.

Additionally, other causes of skin problems can include sportswear, resulting in dryness and irritation due to the increase of friction between the skin and the material of tight clothing.

Showering frequently and the use of detergents can also negatively impact the integrity of the skin with an alteration of hydrolipidic film and affect elasticity.

Nanocarriers are ubiquitous within nanomedicine; however, with skin quality and health in high demand for consumers, these fields have overlapped.

The use of nanotechnology and nanoformulations as delivery systems for improving the performance of active components within cosmetics and supplements can enhance the quality of products to ensure effective results.

This diverse field can be used for a range of products, from sunscreen and barrier creams that ensure the skin barrier is strengthened against ultraviolet rays and pollutants to antiacne, anti-aging, and hair products.

Nanoemulsions can be described as colloidal dispersions with a droplet radius of 10 to 100 nm in size; these nanotechnology incorporations into the nutricosmetics industry can be useful as they are used to increase the delivery of active ingredients in the skin.

An example of this includes oil/water nanoemulsions that can hold water-soluble active components such as polyphenols and emulsifiers; these can include Opuntia ficus indica(L.) extract for use within moisturizing. However, hydroalcoholic extracts ofVellozia squamataleaves are used as anti-aging agents in products, while pomegranate seed oil can be developed to protect the skin against photodamage against the ultraviolet light.

Nanoparticles have a diameter of 10 and 1000 nm and can also be used for nutricosmetics, with a range of nanoparticles including but not limited to polymeric nanoparticles, hydrogel nanoparticles, and copolymerized peptide nanoparticles.

Using these colloidal-sized particles as delivery systems can enhance the penetrative ability through the skin barrier, enabling the release of active ingredients within cosmetic products. Additionally, the use of nanoparticles can also involve surface functionalization of active elements to further the skin's targetability and improve particular areas of concern.

Metallic nanoparticles are examples of nanoparticles used within suncream and cosmetic formulations, with zinc oxide or titanium dioxide being used to create sunscreens that are more transparent. Safranal nanoparticles, which include solid and lipid nanoparticles, have been shown to increase sunscreen activity when used within a size range of 103-230 nm; this illustrates the optimization nature of nanotechnology and versatility in finding the optimum level for an application.

The administration of antioxidants, including vitamins A, C and E, significant for skin repair, can be challenging, with the biological activity level being low due to the low solubility in aqueous environments and instability as a result of pH and degradation by enzymes.

The use of nanotechnology delivery systems can increase the availability of these substances within food supplements or as a topical formulation. Using biodegradable polymer-based delivery systems including liposomes or lipid nanoparticles, active ingredients can achieve permeability as well as maintain stability in the body.

The future of nutricosmetics has been predicted to be monumental and fast-moving, and with the incorporation of nanotechnology as a delivery system for the holistic health of skin, this field may be revolutionary.

Skin integrity is a critical component of health. With the skin being the largest organ in the body, protecting its functionality against the continuous onslaught of carcinogens and stressors from the environment should be a significant priority for wellbeing.

Dini, I., 2022. Contribution of Nanoscience Research in Antioxidants Delivery Used in Nutricosmetic Sector.Antioxidants, 11(3), p.563. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox11030563

Dini, I. and Laneri, S., 2019. Nutricosmetics: A brief overview.Phytotherapy Research, 33(12), pp.3054-3063. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/ptr.6494

Kaul, S., Gulati, N., Verma, D., Mukherjee, S. and Nagaich, U., 2018. Role of Nanotechnology in Cosmeceuticals: A Review of Recent Advances.Journal of Pharmaceutics, 2018, pp.1-19. Available at: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155%2F2018%2F3420204

Merchet, S., 2022.Beauty-from-within complements overall wellness strategies. [online] Natural Products INSIDER. Available at: https://www.naturalproductsinsider.com/personal-care/beauty-within-complements-overall-wellness-strategies

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are those of the author expressed in their private capacity and do not necessarily represent the views of AZoM.com Limited T/A AZoNetwork the owner and operator of this website. This disclaimer forms part of the Terms and conditions of use of this website.

See more here:
Nanotechnology in the Nutricosmetics Industry - AZoNano

Read More...

Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine …

Wednesday, December 22nd, 2021

The mission of Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology, and Medicine (Nanomedicine: NBM) is to promote the emerging interdisciplinary field of nanomedicine.

Nanomedicine: NBM is an international, peer-reviewed journal presenting novel, significant, and interdisciplinary theoretical and experimental results related to nanoscience and nanotechnology in the life and health sciences. Content includes basic, translational, and clinical research addressing diagnosis, treatment, monitoring, prediction, and prevention of diseases.

Nanomedicine: NBM journal publishes articles on artificial cells, regenerative medicine, gene therapy, infectious disease, nanotechnology, nanobiotechnology, nanomedicine, stem cell and tissue engineering.

Sub-categories include synthesis, bioavailability, and biodistribution of nanomedicines; delivery, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics of nanomedicines; imaging; diagnostics; improved therapeutics; innovative biomaterials; interactions of nanomaterials with cells, tissues, and living organisms; public health; toxicology; theranostics; point of care monitoring; nutrition; nanomedical devices; prosthetics; biomimetics; and bioinformatics.

Article formats include Rapid Communications, Original Articles, Reviews, Perspectives, Technical and Commercialization Notes, and Letters to the Editor. We invite authors to submit original manuscripts in these categories.

See the rest here:
Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine ...

Read More...

Frontiers | Nanomedicine: Principles, Properties, and …

Wednesday, December 22nd, 2021

Introduction

Over the last years, nanotechnology has been introduced in our daily routine. This revolutionary technology has been applied in multiple fields through an integrated approach. An increasing number of applications and products containing nanomaterials or at least with nano-based claims have become available. This also happens in pharmaceutical research. The use of nanotechnology in the development of new medicines is now part of our research and in the European Union (EU) it has been recognized as a Key Enabling Technology, capable of providing new and innovative medical solution to address unmet medical needs (Bleeker et al., 2013; Ossa, 2014; Tinkle et al., 2014; Pita et al., 2016).

The application of nanotechnology for medical purposes has been termed nanomedicine and is defined as the use of nanomaterials for diagnosis, monitoring, control, prevention and treatment of diseases (Tinkle et al., 2014). However, the definition of nanomaterial has been controversial among the various scientific and international regulatory corporations. Some efforts have been made in order to find a consensual definition due to the fact that nanomaterials possess novel physicochemical properties, different from those of their conventional bulk chemical equivalents, due to their small size. These properties greatly increase a set of opportunities in the drug development; however, some concerns about safety issues have emerged. The physicochemical properties of the nanoformulation which can lead to the alteration of the pharmacokinetics, namely the absorption, distribution, elimination, and metabolism, the potential for more easily cross biological barriers, toxic properties and their persistence in the environment and human body are some examples of the concerns over the application of the nanomaterials (Bleeker et al., 2013; Tinkle et al., 2014).

To avoid any concern, it is necessary establishing an unambiguous definition to identify the presence of nanomaterials. The European Commission (EC) created a definition based on the European Commission Joint Research Center and on the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks. This definition is only used as a reference to determine whether a material is considered a nanomaterial or not; however, it is not classified as hazardous or safe. The EC claims that it should be used as a reference for additional regulatory and policy frameworks related to quality, safety, efficacy, and risks assessment (Bleeker et al., 2013; Boverhof et al., 2015).

According to the EC recommendation, nanomaterial refers to a natural, incidental, or manufactured material comprising particles, either in an unbound state or as an aggregate wherein one or more external dimensions is in the size range of 1100 nm for 50% of the particles, according to the number size distribution. In cases of environment, health, safety or competitiveness concern, the number size distribution threshold of 50% may be substituted by a threshold between 1 and 50%. Structures with one or more external dimensions below 1 nm, such as fullerenes, graphene flakes, and single wall carbon nanotubes, should be considered as nanomaterials. Materials with surface area by volume in excess of 60 m2/cm3 are also included (Commission Recommendation., 2011). This defines a nanomaterial in terms of legislation and policy in the European Union. Based on this definition, the regulatory bodies have released their own guidances to support drug product development.

The EMA working group introduces nanomedicines as purposely designed systems for clinical applications, with at least one component at the nanoscale, resulting in reproducible properties and characteristics, related to the specific nanotechnology application and characteristics for the intended use (route of administration, dose), associated with the expected clinical advantages of nano-engineering (e.g., preferential organ/tissue distribution; Ossa, 2014).

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not established its own definition for nanotechnology, nanomaterial, nanoscale, or other related terms, instead adopting the meanings commonly employed in relation to the engineering of materials that have at least one dimension in the size range of approximately 1 nanometer (nm) to 100 nm. Based on the current scientific and technical understanding of nanomaterials and their characteristics, FDA advises that evaluations of safety, effectiveness, public health impact, or regulatory status of nanotechnology products should consider any unique properties and behaviors that the application of nanotechnology may impart (Guidance for Industry, FDA, 2014).

According to the former definition, there are three fundamental aspects to identify the presence of a nanomaterial, which are size, particle size distribution (PSD) and surface area (Commission Recommendation., 2011; Bleeker et al., 2013; Boverhof et al., 2015).

The most important feature to take into account is size, because it is applicable to a huge range of materials. The conventional range is from 1 to 100 nm. However, there is no bright line to set this limit. The maximum size that a material can have to be considered nanomaterial is an arbitrary value because the psychochemical and biological characteristics of the materials do not change abruptly at 100 nm. To this extent, it is assumed that other properties should be taken in account (Lvestam et al., 2010; Commission Recommendation., 2011; Bleeker et al., 2013; Boverhof et al., 2015).

The pharmaceutical manufacturing of nanomaterials involves two different approaches: top down and bottom down. The top down process involves the breakdown of a bulk material into a smaller one or smaller pieces by mechanical or chemical energy. Conversely, the bottom down process starts with atomic or molecular species allowing the precursor particles to increase in size through chemical reaction (Luther, 2004; Oberdrster, 2010; Boverhof et al., 2015). These two processes of manufacturing are in the origin of different forms of particles termed primary particle, aggregate and agglomerate (Figure 1). The respective definition is (sic):

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the different forms of particles: primary particle, aggregate, and agglomerate (reproduced with permission from Oberdrster, 2010).

particle is a minute piece of matter with defined physical boundaries (Oberdrster, 2010; Commission Recommendation., 2011);

aggregate denotes a particle comprising strongly bound or fused particlesand the external surface can be smaller than the sum of the surface areas of the individual particles (Oberdrster, 2010; Commission Recommendation., 2011);

agglomerate means a collection of weakly bound particles or aggregates where the resulting external surface area are similar to the sum of the surface areas of the individual components (Oberdrster, 2010; Commission Recommendation., 2011).

Considering the definition, it is understandable why aggregates and agglomerates are included. They may still preserve the properties of the unbound particles and have the potential to break down in to nanoscale (Lvestam et al., 2010; Boverhof et al., 2015). The lower size limit is used to distinguish atoms and molecules from particles (Lvestam et al., 2010).

The PSD is a parameter widely used in the nanomaterial identification, reflecting the range of variation of sizes. It is important to set the PSD, because a nanomaterial is usually polydisperse, which means, it is commonly composed by particles with different sizes (Commission Recommendation., 2011; Bleeker et al., 2013; Boverhof et al., 2015).

The determination of the surface area by volume is a relational parameter, which is necessary when requested by additional legislation. The material is under the definition if the surface area by volume is larger than 60 m2/cm3, as pointed out. However, the PSD shall prevail, and for example, a material is classified as a nanomaterial based on the particle size distribution, even if the surface area by volume is lower than the specified 60 m2/cm3 (Commission Recommendation., 2011; Bleeker et al., 2013; Boverhof et al., 2015).

Nanomaterials can be applied in nanomedicine for medical purposes in three different areas: diagnosis (nanodiagnosis), controlled drug delivery (nanotherapy), and regenerative medicine. A new area which combines diagnostics and therapy termed theranostics is emerging and is a promising approach which holds in the same system both the diagnosis/imaging agent and the medicine. Nanomedicine is holding promising changes in clinical practice by the introduction of novel medicines for both diagnosis and treatment, having enabled to address unmet medical needs, by (i) integrating effective molecules that otherwise could not be used because of their high toxicity (e.g., Mepact), (ii) exploiting multiple mechanisms of action (e.g., Nanomag, multifunctional gels), (iii) maximizing efficacy (e.g., by increasing bioavailability) and reducing dose and toxicity, (iv) providing drug targeting, controlled and site specific release, favoring a preferential distribution within the body (e.g., in areas with cancer lesions) and improved transport across biological barriers (Chan, 2006; Mndez-Rojas et al., 2009; Zhang et al., 2012; Ossa, 2014).

This is a result of intrinsic properties of nanomaterials that have brought many advantages in the pharmaceutical development. Due to their small size, nanomaterials have a high specific surface area in relation to the volume. Consequently, the particle surface energy is increased, making the nanomaterials much more reactive. Nanomaterials have a tendency to adsorb biomolecules, e.g., proteins, lipids, among others, when in contact with the biological fluids. One of the most important interactions with the living matter relies on the plasma/serum biomoleculeadsorption layer, known as corona, that forms on the surface of colloidal nanoparticles (Pino et al., 2014). Its composition is dependent on the portal of entry into the body and on the particular fluid that the nanoparticles come across with (e.g., blood, lung fluid, gastro-intestinal fluid, etc.). Additional dynamic changes can influence the corona constitution as the nanoparticle crosses from one biological compartment to another one (Pearson et al., 2014; Louro, 2018).

Furthermore, optical, electrical and magnetic properties can change and be tunable through electron confinement in nanomaterials. In addition, nanomaterials can be engineered to have different size, shape, chemical composition and surface, making them able to interact with specific biological targets (Oberdrster et al., 2005; Kim et al., 2010). A successful biological outcome can only be obtained resorting to careful particle design. As such, a comprehensive knowledge of how the nanomaterials interact with biological systems are required for two main reasons.

The first one is related to the physiopathological nature of the diseases. The biological processes behind diseases occur at the nanoscale and can rely, for example, on mutated genes, misfolded proteins, infection by virus or bacteria. A better understanding of the molecular processes will provide the rational design on engineered nanomaterials to target the specific site of action desired in the body (Kim et al., 2010; Albanese et al., 2012). The other concern is the interaction between nanomaterial surface and the environment in biological fluids. In this context, characterization of the biomolecules corona is of utmost importance for understanding the mutual interaction nanoparticle-cell affects the biological responses. This interface comprises dynamic mechanisms involving the exchange between nanomaterial surfaces and the surfaces of biological components (proteins, membranes, phospholipids, vesicles, and organelles). This interaction stems from the composition of the nanomaterial and the suspending media. Size, shape, surface area, surface charge and chemistry, energy, roughness, porosity, valence and conductance states, the presence of ligands, or the hydrophobic/ hydrophilic character are some of the material characteristics that influence the respective surface properties. In turn, the presence of water molecules, acids and bases, salts and multivalent ions, surfactants are some of the factors related to the medium that will influence the interaction. All these aspects will govern the characteristics of the interface between the nanomaterial and biological components and, consequently, promote different cellular fates (Nel et al., 2009; Kim et al., 2010; Albanese et al., 2012; Monopoli et al., 2012).

A deeper knowledge about how the physicochemical properties of the biointerface influence the cellular signaling pathway, kinetics and transport will thus provide critical rules to the design of nanomaterials (Nel et al., 2009; Kim et al., 2010; Albanese et al., 2012; Monopoli et al., 2012).

The translation of nanotechnology form the bench to the market imposed several challenges. General issues to consider during the development of nanomedicine products including physicochemical characterization, biocompatibility, and nanotoxicology evaluation, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics assessment, process control, and scale-reproducibility (Figure 2) are discussed in the sections that follow.

Figure 2. Schematic representation of the several barriers found throughout the development of a nanomedicine product.

The characterization of a nanomedicine is necessary to understand its behavior in the human body, and to provide guidance for the process control and safety assessment. This characterization is not consensual in the number of parameters required for a correct and complete characterization. Internationally standardized methodologies and the use of reference nanomaterials are the key to harmonize all the different opinions about this topic (Lin et al., 2014; Zhao and Chen, 2016).

Ideally, the characterization of a nanomaterial should be carried out at different stages throughout its life cycle, from the design to the evaluation of its in vitro and in vivo performance. The interaction with the biological system or even the sample preparation or extraction procedures may modify some properties and interfere with some measurements. In addition, the determination of the in vivo and in vitro physicochemical properties is important for the understanding of the potential risk of nanomaterials (Lin et al., 2014; Zhao and Chen, 2016).

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development started a Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials with the International Organization for Standardization to provide scientific advice for the safety use of nanomaterials that include the respective physicochemical characterization and the metrology. However, there is not an effective list of minimum parameters. The following characteristics should be a starting point to the characterization: particle size, shape and size distribution, aggregation and agglomeration state, crystal structure, specific surface area, porosity, chemical composition, surface chemistry, charge, photocatalytic activity, zeta potential, water solubility, dissolution rate/kinetics, and dustiness (McCall et al., 2013; Lin et al., 2014).

Concerning the chemical composition, nanomaterials can be classified as organic, inorganic, crystalline or amorphous particles and can be organized as single particles, aggregates, agglomerate powders or dispersed in a matrix which give rise to suspensions, emulsions, nanolayers, or films (Luther, 2004).

Regarding dimension, if a nanomaterial has three dimensions below 100 nm, it can be for example a particle, a quantum dot or hollow sphere. If it has two dimensions below 100 nm it can be a tube, fiber or wire and if it has one dimension below 100 nm it can be a film, a coating or a multilayer (Luther, 2004).

Different techniques are available for the analysis of these parameters. They can be grouped in different categories, involving counting, ensemble, separation and integral methods, among others (Linsinger et al., 2012; Contado, 2015).

Counting methods make possible the individualization of the different particles that compose a nanomaterial, the measurement of their different sizes and visualization of their morphology. The particles visualization is preferentially performed using microscopy methods, which include several variations of these techniques. Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), High-Resolution TEM, Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM), cryo-SEM, Atomic Force Microscopy and Particle Tracking Analysis are just some of the examples. The main disadvantage of these methods is the operation under high-vacuum, although recently with the development of cryo-SEM sample dehydration has been prevented under high-vacuum conditions (Linsinger et al., 2012; Contado, 2015; Hodoroaba and Mielke, 2015).

These methods involve two steps of sample treatment: the separation of the particles into a monodisperse fraction, followed by the detection of each fraction. Field-Flow Fractionation (FFF), Analytical Centrifugation (AC) and Differential Electrical Mobility Analysis are some of the techniques that can be applied. The FFF techniques include different methods which separate the particles according to the force field applied. AC separates the particles through centrifugal sedimentation (Linsinger et al., 2012; Contado, 2015; Hodoroaba and Mielke, 2015).

Ensemble methods allow the report of intensity-weighted particle sizes. The variation of the measured signal over time give the size distribution of the particles extracted from a combined signal. Dynamic Light Scattering (DLS), Small-angle X-ray Scattering (SAXS) and X-ray Diffraction (XRD) are some of the examples. DLS and QELS are based on the Brownian motion of the sample. XRD is a good technique to obtain information about the chemical composition, crystal structure and physical properties (Linsinger et al., 2012; Contado, 2015; Hodoroaba and Mielke, 2015).

The integral methods only measure an integral property of the particle and they are mostly used to determine the specific surface area. Brunauer Emmet Teller is the principal method used and is based on the adsorption of an inert gas on the surface of the nanomaterial (Linsinger et al., 2012; Contado, 2015; Hodoroaba and Mielke, 2015).

Other relevant technique is the electrophoretic light scattering (ELS) used to determine zeta potential, which is a parameter related to the overall charge a particle acquires in a particular medium. ELS measures the electrophoretic mobility of particles in dispersion, based on the principle of electrophoresis (Linsinger et al., 2012).

The Table 1 shows some of principal methods for the characterization of the nanomaterials including the operational principle, physicochemical parameters analyzed and respective limitations.

Another challenge in the pharmaceutical development is the control of the manufacturing process by the identification of the critical parameters and technologies required to analyse them (Gaspar, 2010; Gaspar et al., 2014; Sainz et al., 2015).

New approaches have arisen from the pharmaceutical innovation and the concern about the quality and safety of new medicines by regulatory agencies (Gaspar, 2010; Gaspar et al., 2014; Sainz et al., 2015).

Quality-by-Design (QbD), supported by Process Analytical Technologies (PAT) is one of the pharmaceutical development approaches that were recognized for the systematic evaluation and control of nanomedicines (FDA, 2004; Gaspar, 2010; Gaspar et al., 2014; Sainz et al., 2015; European Medicines Agency, 2017).

Note that some of the physicochemical characteristics of nanomaterials can change during the manufacturing process, which compromises the quality and safety of the final nanomedicine. The basis of QbD relies on the identification of the Quality Attributes (QA), which refers to the chemical, physical or biological properties or another relevant characteristic of the nanomaterial. Some of them may be modified by the manufacturing and should be within a specific range for quality control purposes. In this situation, these characteristics are considered Critical Quality Attributes (CQA). The variability of the CQA can be caused by the critical material attributes and process parameters (Verma et al., 2009; Riley and Li, 2011; Bastogne, 2017; European Medicines Agency, 2017).

The quality should not be tested in nanomedicine, but built on it instead, by the understanding of the therapeutic purpose, pharmacological, pharmacokinetic, toxicological, chemical and physical properties of the medicine, process formulation, packaging, and the design of the manufacturing process. This new approach allows better focus on the relevant relationships between the characteristics, parameters of the formulation and process in order to develop effective processes to ensure the quality of the nanomedicines (FDA, 2014).

According to the FDA definition PAT is a system for designing, analzsing, and controlling manufacturing through timely measurements (i.e., during processing) of critical quality and performance attributes of raw and in-process materials and processes, with the goal of ensuring final product quality (FDA, 2014). The PAT tools analyse the critical quality and performance attributes. The main point of the PAT is to assure and enhance the understanding of the manufacturing concept (Verma et al., 2009; Riley and Li, 2011; FDA, 2014; Bastogne, 2017; European Medicines Agency, 2017).

Biocompatibility is another essential property in the design of drug delivery systems. One very general and brief definition of a biocompatible surface is that it cannot trigger an undesired' response from the organism. Biocompatibility is alternatively defined as the ability of a material to perform with an appropriate response in a specific application (Williams, 2003; Keck and Mller, 2013).

Pre-clinical assessment of nanomaterials involve a thorough biocompatibility testing program, which typically comprises in vivo studies complemented by selected in vitro assays to prove safety. If the biocompatibility of nanomaterials cannot be warranted, potentially advantageous properties of nanosystems may raise toxicological concerns.

Regulatory agencies, pharmaceutical industry, government, and academia are making efforts to accomplish specific and appropriate guidelines for risk assessment of nanomaterials (Hussain et al., 2015).

In spite of efforts to harmonize the procedures for safety evaluation, nanoscale materials are still mostly treated as conventional chemicals, thus lacking clear specific guidelines for establishing regulations and appropriate standard protocols. However, several initiatives, including scientific opinions, guidelines and specific European regulations and OECD guidelines such as those for cosmetics, food contact materials, medical devices, FDA regulations, as well as European Commission scientific projects (NanoTEST project, http://www.nanotest-fp7.eu) specifically address nanomaterials safety (Juillerat-Jeanneret et al., 2015).

In this context, it is important to identify the properties, to understand the mechanisms by which nanomaterials interact with living systems and thus to understand exposure, hazards and their possible risks.

Note that the pharmacokinetics and distribution of nanoparticles in the body depends on their surface physicochemical characteristics, shape and size. For example, nanoparticles with 10 nm in size were preferentially found in blood, liver, spleen, kidney, testis, thymus, heart, lung, and brain, while larger particles are detected only in spleen, liver, and blood (De Jong et al., 2008; Adabi et al., 2017).

In turn, the surface of nanoparticles also impacts upon their distribution in these organs, since their combination with serum proteins available in systemic circulation, influencing their cellular uptake. It should be recalled that a biocompatible material generates no immune response. One of the cause for an immune response can rely on the adsorption pattern of body proteins. An assessment of the in vivo protein profile is therefore crucial to address these interactions and to establish biocompatibility (Keck et al., 2013).

Finally, the clearance of nanoparticles is also size and surface dependent. Small nanoparticles, bellow 2030 nm, are rapidly cleared by renal excretion, while 200 nm or larger particles are more efficiently taken up by mononuclear phagocytic system (reticuloendothelial system) located in the liver, spleen, and bone marrow (Moghimi et al., 2001; Adabi et al., 2017).

Studies are required to address how nanomaterials penetrate cells and tissues, and the respective biodistribution, degradation, and excretion.

Due to all these issues, a new field in toxicology termed nanotoxicology has emerged, which aims at studying the nanomaterial effects deriving from their interaction with biological systems (Donaldson et al., 2004; Oberdrster, 2010; Fadeel, 2013).

The evaluation of possible toxic effects of the nanomaterials can be ascribed to the presence of well-known molecular responses in the cell. Nanomaterials are able to disrupt the balance of the redox systems and, consequently, lead to the production of reactive species of oxygen (ROS). ROS comprise hydroxyl radicals, superoxide anion and hydrogen peroxide. Under normal conditions, the cells produce these reactive species as a result of the metabolism. However, when exposed to nanomaterials the production of ROS increases. Cells have the capacity to defend itself through reduced glutathione, superoxide dismutase, glutathione peroxidase and catalase mechanisms. The superoxide dismutase converts superoxide anion into hydrogen peroxide and catalase, in contrast, converts it into water and molecular oxygen (Nel et al., 2006; Arora et al., 2012; Azhdarzadeh et al., 2015). Glutathione peroxidase uses glutathione to reduce some of the hydroperoxides. Under normal conditions, the glutathione is almost totally reduced. Nevertheless, an increase in ROS lead to the depletion of the glutathione and the capacity to neutralize the free radicals is decreased. The free radicals will induce oxidative stress and interact with the fatty acids in the membranes of the cell (Nel et al., 2006; Arora et al., 2012; Azhdarzadeh et al., 2015).

Consequently, the viability of the cell will be compromised by the disruption of cell membranes, inflammation responses caused by the upregulation of transcription factors like the nuclear factor kappa , activator protein, extracellular signal regulated kinases c-Jun, N-terminal kinases and others. All these biological responses can result on cell apoptosis or necrosis. Distinct physiological outcomes are possible due to the different pathways for cell injury after the interaction between nanomaterials and cells and tissues (Nel et al., 2006; Arora et al., 2012; Azhdarzadeh et al., 2015).

Over the last years, the number of scientific publications regarding toxicological effects of nanomaterials have increased exponentially. However, there is a big concern about the results of the experiments, because they were not performed following standard and harmonized protocols. The nanomaterial characterization can be considered weak once there are not standard nanomaterials to use as reference and the doses used in the experiences sometimes cannot be applied in the biological system. Therefore, the results are not comparable. For a correct comparison, it is necessary to perform a precise and thorough physicochemical characterization to define risk assessment guidelines. This is the first step for the comparison between data from biological and toxicological experiments (Warheit, 2008; Fadeel et al., 2015; Costa and Fadeel, 2016).

Although nanomaterials may have an identical composition, slight differences e.g., in the surface charge, size, or shape could impact on their respective activity and, consequently, on their cellular fate and accumulation in the human body, leading to different biological responses (Sayes and Warheit, 2009).

Sayes and Warheit (2009) proposed a three phases model for a comprehensive characterization of nanomaterials. Accordingly, the primary phase is achieved in the native state of the nanomaterial, specifically, in its dry state. The secondary characterization is performed with the nanomaterials in the wet phase, e.g., as solution or suspension. The tertiary characterization includes in vitro and in vivo interactions with biological systems. The tertiary characterization is the most difficult from the technical point of view, especially in vivo, because of all the ethical questions concerning the use of animals in experiments (Sayes and Warheit, 2009).

Traditional toxicology uses of animals to conduct tests. These types of experiments using nanomaterials can be considered impracticable and unethical. In addition, it is time-consuming, expensive and sometimes the end points achieved are not enough to correctly correlate with what happens in the biological systems of animals and the translation to the human body (Collins et al., 2017).

In vitro studies are the first assays used for the evaluation of cytotoxicity. This approach usually uses cell lines, primary cells from the tissues, and/or a mixture of different cells in a culture to assess the toxicity of the nanomaterials. Different in vitro cytotoxicity assays to the analysis of the cell viability, stress, and inflammatory responses are available. There are several cellular processes to determine the cell viability, which consequently results in different assays with distinct endpoints. The evaluation of mitochondrial activity, the lactate dehydrogenase release from the cytosol by tretazolium salts and the detection of the biological marker Caspase-3 are some of the examples that imposes experimental variability in this analysis. The stress response is another example which can be analyzed by probes in the evaluation of the inflammatory response via enzyme linked immunosorbent assay are used (Kroll et al., 2009).

As a first approach, in vitro assays can predict the interaction of the nanomaterials with the body. However, the human body possesses compensation mechanisms when exposed to toxics and a huge disadvantage of this model is not to considered them. Moreover, they are less time consuming, more cost-effective, simpler and provide an easier control of the experimental conditions (Kroll et al., 2009; Fadeel et al., 2013b).

Their main drawback is the difficulty to reproduce all the complex interactions in the human body between sub-cellular levels, cells, organs, tissues and membranes. They use specific cells to achieve specific endpoints. In addition, in vitro assays cannot predict the physiopathological response of the human body when exposed to nanomaterials (Kroll et al., 2009; Fadeel et al., 2013b).

Another issue regarding the use of this approach is the possibility of interaction between nanomaterials and the reagents of the assay. It is likely that the reagents used in the in vitro assays interfere with the nanomaterial properties. High adsorption capacity, optical and magnetic properties, catalytic activity, dissolution, and acidity or alkalinity of the nanomaterials are some of the examples of properties that may promote this interaction (Kroll et al., 2009).

Many questions have been raised by the regulators related to the lack of consistency of the data produced by cytotoxicity assays. New assays for a correct evaluation of the nanomaterial toxicity are, thus, needed. In this context, new approaches have arisen, such as the in silico nanotoxicology approach. In silico methods are the combination of toxicology with computational tools and bio-statistical methods for the evaluation and prediction of toxicity. By using computational tools is possible to analyse more nanomaterials, combine different endpoints and pathways of nanotoxicity, being less time-consuming and avoiding all the ethical questions (Warheit, 2008; Raunio, 2011).

Quantitative structure-activity relationship models (QSAR) were one the first applications of computational tools applied in toxicology. QSAR models are based on the hypothesis that the toxicity of nanomaterials and their cellular fate in the body can be predicted by their characteristics, and different biological reactions are the result of physicochemical characteristics, such as size, shape, zeta potential, or surface charge, etc., gathered as a set of descriptors. QSAR aims at identifying the physicochemical characteristics which lead to toxicity, so as to provide alterations to reduce toxicology. A mathematical model is created, which allows liking descriptors and the biological activity (Rusyn and Daston, 2010; Winkler et al., 2013; Oksel et al., 2015).

Currently, toxigenomics is a new area of nanotoxicology, which includes a combination between genomics and nanotoxicology to find alterations in the gene, protein and in the expressions of metabolites (Rusyn et al., 2012; Fadeel et al., 2013a).

Hitherto, different risk assessment approaches have been reported. One of them is the DF4nanoGrouping framework, which concerns a functionality driven scheme for grouping nanomaterials based on their intrinsic properties, system dependent properties and toxicological effects (Arts et al., 2014, 2016). Accordingly, nanomaterials are categorized in four groups, including possible subgroups. The four main groups encompass (1) soluble, (2) biopersistent high aspect ratio, (3) passive, that is, nanomaterials without obvious biological effects and (4) active nanomaterials, that is, those demonstrating surface-related specific toxic properties. The DF4nanoGrouping foresees a stepwise evaluation of nanomaterial properties and effects with increasing biological complexity. In case studies that includes carbonaceous nanomaterials, metal oxide, and metal sulfate nanomaterials, amorphous silica and organic pigments (all nanomaterials having primary particle sizes smaller than 100 nm), the usefulness of the DF4nanoGrouping for nanomaterial hazard assessment has already been established. It facilitates grouping and targeted testing of nanomaterials, also ensuring that enough data for the risk assessment of a nanomaterial are available, and fostering the use of non-animal methods (Landsiedel et al., 2017). More recently, DF4nanoGrouping developed three structure-activity relationship classification, decision tree, models by identifying structural features of nanomaterials mainly responsible for the surface activity (size, specific surface area, and the quantum-mechanical calculated property lowest unoccupied molecular orbital), based on a reduced number of descriptors: one for intrinsic oxidative potential, two for protein carbonylation, and three for no observed adverse effect concentration (Gajewicz et al., 2018)

Keck and Mller also proposed a nanotoxicological classification system (NCS) (Figure 3) that ranks the nanomaterials into four classes according to the respective size and biodegradability (Mller et al., 2011; Keck and Mller, 2013).

Due to the size effects, this parameter is assumed as truly necessary, because when nanomaterials are getting smaller and smaller there is an increase in solubility, which is more evident in poorly soluble nanomaterials than in soluble ones. The adherence to the surface of membranes increases with the decrease of the size. Another important aspect related to size that must be considered is the phagocytosis by macrophages. Above 100 nm, nanomaterials can only be internalized by macrophages, a specific cell population, while nanomaterials below 100 nm can be internalized by any cell due to endocytosis. Thus, nanomaterials below 100 nm are associated to higher toxicity risks in comparison with nanomaterials above 100 nm (Mller et al., 2011; Keck and Mller, 2013).

In turn, biodegradability was considered a required parameter in almost all pharmaceutical formulations. The term biodegradability applies to the biodegradable nature of the nanomaterial in the human body. Biodegradable nanomaterials will be eliminated from the human body. Even if they cause some inflammation or irritation the immune system will return to the regular function after elimination. Conversely, non-biodegradable nanomaterials will stay forever in the body and change the normal function of the immune system (Mller et al., 2011; Keck and Mller, 2013).

There are two more factors that must be taken into account in addition to the NCS, namely the route of administration and the biocompatibility surface. When a particle is classified by the NCS, toxicity depends on the route of administration. For example, the same nanomaterials applied dermally or intravenously can pose different risks to the immune system.

In turn, a non-biocompatibility surface (NB) can activate the immune system by adsorption to proteins like opsonins, even if the particle belongs to the class I of the NCS (Figure 3). The biocompatibility (B) is dictated by the physicochemical surface properties, irrespective of the size and/or biodegradability. This can lead to further subdivision in eight classes from I-B, I-NB, to IV-B and IV-NB (Mller et al., 2011; Keck and Mller, 2013).

NCS is a simple guide to the evaluation of the risk of nanoparticles, but there are many other parameters playing a relevant role in nanotoxicity determination (Mller et al., 2011; Keck and Mller, 2013). Other suggestions encompass more general approaches, combining elements of toxicology, risk assessment modeling, and tools developed in the field of multicriteria decision analysis (Rycroft et al., 2018).

A forthcoming challenge in the pharmaceutical development is the scale-up and reproducibility of the nanomedicines. A considerable number of nanomedicines fail these requirements and, consequently, they are not introduced on the pharmaceutical market (Agrahari and Hiremath, 2017).

The traditional manufacturing processes do not create three dimensional medicines in the nanometer scale. Nanomedicine manufacturing processes, as already mentioned above, compromise top-down and bottom-down approaches, which include multiple steps, like homogenization, sonication, milling, emulsification, and sometimes, the use of organic solvents and further evaporation. In a small-scale, it is easy to control and achieve the optimization of the formulation. However, at a large scale it becomes very challenging, because slight variations during the manufacturing process can originate critical changes in the physicochemical characteristics and compromise the quality and safety of the nanomedicines, or even the therapeutic outcomes. A detailed definition of the acceptable limits for the CQA is very important, and these parameters must be identified and analyzed at the small-scale, in order to understand how the manufacturing process can change them: this will help the implementation of the larger scale. Thus, a deep process of understanding the critical steps and the analytical tools established for the small-scale will be a greatly help for the introduction of the large scale (Desai, 2012; Kaur et al., 2014; Agrahari and Hiremath, 2017).

Another requirement for the introduction of medicines in the pharmaceutical market is the reproducibility of every batch produced. The reproducibility is achieved in terms of physicochemical characterization and therapeutic purpose. There are specific ranges for the variations between different batches. Slight changes in the manufacturing process can compromise the CQA and, therefore, they may not be within a specific range and create an inter-batch variation (Desai, 2012; Kaur et al., 2014; Agrahari and Hiremath, 2017).

Over the last decades, nanomedicines have been successfully introduced in the clinical practice and the continuous development in pharmaceutical research is creating more sophisticated ones which are entering in clinic trials. In the European Union, the nanomedicine market is composed by nanoparticles, liposomes, nanocrystals, nanoemulsions, polymeric-protein conjugates, and nanocomplexes (Hafner et al., 2014). Table 2 shows some examples of commercially available nanomedicines in the EU (Hafner et al., 2014; Choi and Han, 2018).

In the process of approval, nanomedicines were introduced under the traditional framework of the benefit/risk analysis. Another related challenge is the development of a framework for the evaluation of the follow-on nanomedicines at the time of reference medicine patent expiration (Ehmann et al., 2013; Tinkle et al., 2014).

Nanomedicine comprises both biological and non-biological medical products. The biological nanomedicines are obtained from biological sources, while non-biological are mentioned as non-biological complex drugs (NBCD), where the active principle consists of different synthetic structures (Tinkle et al., 2014; Hussaarts et al., 2017; Mhlebach, 2018).

In order to introduce a generic medicine in the pharmaceutical market, several parameters need to be demonstrated, as described elsewhere. For both biological and non-biological nanomedicines, a more complete analysis is needed, that goes beyond the plasma concentration measurement. A stepwise comparison of bioequivalence, safety, quality, and efficacy, in relation to the reference medicine, which leads to therapeutic equivalence and consequently interchangeability, is required (Astier et al., 2017).

For regulatory purposes, the biological nanomedicines are under the framework set by European Medicines Agency (EMA) This framework is a regulatory approach for the follow-on biological nanomedicines, which include recommendations for comparative quality, non-clinical and clinical studies (Mhlebach et al., 2015).

The regulatory approach for the follow-on NBCDs is still ongoing. The industry frequently asks for scientific advice and a case-by-case is analyzed by the EMA. Sometimes, the biological framework is the base for the regulation of the NBCDs, because they have some features in common: the structure cannot be fully characterized and the in vivo activity is dependent on the manufacturing process and, consequently, the comparability needs to establish throughout the life cycle, as happens to the biological nanomedicines. Moreover, for some NBCDs groups like liposomes, glatiramoids, and iron carbohydrate complexes, there are draft regulatory approaches, which help the regulatory bodies to create a final framework for the different NBCDs families (Schellekens et al., 2014).

EMA already released some reflection papers regarding nanomedicines with surface coating, intravenous liposomal, block copolymer micelle, and iron-based nano-colloidal nanomedicines (European Medicines Agency, 2011, 2013a,b,c). These papers are applied to both new nanomedicines and nanosimilars, in order to provide guidance to developers in the preparation of marketing authorization applications.The principles outlined in these documents address general issues regarding the complexity of the nanosystems and provide basic information for the pharmaceutical development, non-clinical and early clinical studies of block-copolymer micelle, liposome-like, and nanoparticle iron (NPI) medicinal products drug products created to affect pharmacokinetic, stability and distribution of incorporated or conjugated active substances in vivo. Important factors related to the exact nature of the particle characteristics, that can influence the kinetic parameters and consequently the toxicity, such as the physicochemical nature of the coating, the respective uniformity and stability (both in terms of attachment and susceptibility to degradation), the bio-distribution of the product and its intracellular fate are specifically detailed.

After a nanomedicine obtains the marketing authorization, there is a long way up to the introduction of the nanomedicine in the clinical practice in all EU countries. This occurs because the pricing and reimbursement decisions for medicines are taken at an individual level in each member state of the EU (Sainz et al., 2015).

In order to provide patient access to medicines, the multidisciplinary process of Health Technology Assessment (HTA), is being developed. Through HTA, information about medicine safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness is generated so as support health and political decision-makers (Sainz et al., 2015).

Currently, pharmacoeconomics studies assume a crucial role previous to the commercialization of nanomedicines. They assess both the social and economic importance through the added therapeutic value, using indicators such as quality-adjusted life expectancy years and hospitalization (Sainz et al., 2015).

The EUnetHTA was created to harmonize and enhance the entry of new medicines in the clinical practice, so as to provide patients with novel medicines. The main goal of EUnetHTA is to develop decisive, appropriate and transparent information to help the HTAs in EU countries.

Currently, EUnetHTA is developing the Joint Action 3 until 2020 and the main aim is to define and implement a sustainable model for the scientific and technical cooperation on Health Technology Assessment (HTA) in Europe.

The reformulation of pre-existing medicines or the development of new ones has been largely boosted by the increasing research in nanomedicine. Changes in toxicity, solubility and bioavailability profile are some of the modifications that nanotechnology introduces in medicines.

In the last decades, we have assisted to the translation of several applications of nanomedicine in the clinical practice, ranging from medical devices to nanopharmaceuticals. However, there is still a long way toward the complete regulation of nanomedicines, from the creation of harmonized definitions in all Europe to the development of protocols for the characterization, evaluation and process control of nanomedicines. A universally accepted definition for nanomedicines still does not exist, and may even not be feasible at all or useful. The medicinal products span a large range in terms of type and structure, and have been used in a multitude of indications for acute and chronic diseases. Also, ongoing research is rapidly leading to the emergence of more sophisticated nanostructured designs that requires careful understanding of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of nanomedicines, determined by the respective chemical composition and physicochemical properties, which thus poses additional challenges in regulatory terms.

EMA has recognized the importance of the establishment of recommendations for nanomedicines to guide their development and approval. In turn, the nanotechnology methods for the development of nanomedicines bring new challenges for the current regulatory framework used.

EMA have already created an expert group on nanomedicines, gathering members from academia and European regulatory network. The main goal of this group is to provide scientific information about nanomedicines in order to develop or review guidelines. The expert group also helps EMA in discussions with international partners about nanomedicines. For the developer an early advice provided from the regulators for the required data is highly recommended.

The equivalence of complex drug products is another topic that brings scientific and regulatory challenges. Evidence for sufficient similarity must be gathered using a careful stepwise, hopefully consensual, procedure. In the coming years, through all the innovation in science and technology, it is expected an increasingly higher number of medicines based on nanotechnology. For a common understanding among different stakeholders the development of guidelines for the development and evaluation of nanomedicines is mandatory, in order to approve new and innovative nanomedicines in the pharmaceutical market. This process must be also carried out along with interagency harmonization efforts, to support rational decisions pertaining to scientific and regulatory aspects, financing and market access.

CV conceived the original idea and directed the work. SS took the lead in writing the manuscript. AP and JS helped supervise the manuscript. All authors provided critical feedback and helped shape the research, analysis and revision of the manuscript.

This work was financially supported by Fundao para a Cincia e a Tecnologia (FCT) through the Research Project POCI-01-0145-FEDER-016648, the project PEst-UID/NEU/04539/2013, and COMPETE (Ref. POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007440). The Coimbra Chemistry Center is supported by FCT, through the Project PEst-OE/QUI/UI0313/2014 and POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007630. This paper was also supported by the project UID/QUI/50006/2013LAQV/REQUIMTE.

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Adabi, M., Naghibzadeh, M., Adabi, M., Zarrinfard, M. A., Esnaashari, S., Seifalian, A. M., et al. (2017). Biocompatibility and nanostructured materials: applications in nanomedicine. Artif. Cells Nanomed. Biotechnol. 45, 833842. doi: 10.1080/21691401.2016.1178134

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Agrahari, V., and Hiremath, P. (2017). Challenges associated and approaches for successful translation of nanomedicines into commercial products. Nanomedicine 12, 819823. doi: 10.2217/nnm-2017-0039

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Albanese, A., Tang, P. S., and Chan, W. C. (2012). The effect of nanoparticle size, shape, and surface chemistry on biological systems. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng.14, 116. doi: 10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071811-150124

See more here:
Frontiers | Nanomedicine: Principles, Properties, and ...

Read More...

Nanotechnology In Medicine: Huge Potential, But What Are …

Wednesday, December 22nd, 2021

Nanotechnology, the manipulation of matter at the atomic and molecular scale to create materials with remarkably varied and new properties, is a rapidly expanding area of research with huge potential in many sectors, ranging from healthcare to construction and electronics. In medicine, it promises to revolutionize drug delivery, gene therapy, diagnostics, and many areas of research, development and clinical application.

This article does not attempt to cover the whole field, but offers, by means of some examples, a few insights into how nanotechnology has the potential to change medicine, both in the research lab and clinically, while touching on some of the challenges and concerns that it raises.

The prefix nano stems from the ancient Greek for dwarf. In science it means one billionth (10 to the minus 9) of something, thus a nanometer (nm) is is one billionth of a meter, or 0.000000001 meters. A nanometer is about three to five atoms wide, or some 40,000 times smaller than the thickness of human hair. A virus is typically 100 nm in size.

The ability to manipulate structures and properties at the nanoscale in medicine is like having a sub-microscopic lab bench on which you can handle cell components, viruses or pieces of DNA, using a range of tiny tools, robots and tubes.

Therapies that involve the manipulation of individual genes, or the molecular pathways that influence their expression, are increasingly being investigated as an option for treating diseases. One highly sought goal in this field is the ability to tailor treatments according to the genetic make-up of individual patients.

This creates a need for tools that help scientists experiment and develop such treatments.

Imagine, for example, being able to stretch out a section of DNA like a strand of spaghetti, so you can examine or operate on it, or building nanorobots that can walk and carry out repairs inside cell components. Nanotechnology is bringing that scientific dream closer to reality.

For instance, scientists at the Australian National University have managed to attach coated latex beads to the ends of modified DNA, and then using an optical trap comprising a focused beam of light to hold the beads in place, they have stretched out the DNA strand in order to study the interactions of specific binding proteins.

Meanwhile chemists at New York University (NYU) have created a nanoscale robot from DNA fragments that walks on two legs just 10 nm long. In a 2004 paper published in the journal Nano Letters, they describe how their nanowalker, with the help of psoralen molecules attached to the ends of its feet, takes its first baby steps: two forward and two back.

One of the researchers, Ned Seeman, said he envisages it will be possible to create a molecule-scale production line, where you move a molecule along till the right location is reached, and a nanobot does a bit chemisty on it, rather like spot-welding on a car assembly line. Seemans lab at NYU is also looking to use DNA nanotechnology to make a biochip computer, and to find out how biological molecules crystallize, an area that is currently fraught with challenges.

The work that Seeman and colleagues are doing is a good example of biomimetics, where with nanotechnology they can imitate some of the biological processes in nature, such as the behavior of DNA, to engineer new methods and perhaps even improve them.

DNA-based nanobots are also being created to target cancer cells. For instance, researchers at Harvard Medical School in the US reported recently in Science how they made an origami nanorobot out of DNA to transport a molecular payload. The barrel-shaped nanobot can carry molecules containing instructions that make cells behave in a particular way. In their study, the team successfully demonstrates how it delivered molecules that trigger cell suicide in leukemia and lymphoma cells.

Nanobots made from other materials are also in development. For instance, gold is the material scientists at Northwestern University use to make nanostars, simple, specialized, star-shaped nanoparticles that can href=http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/243856.php>deliver drugs directly to the nuclei of cancer cells. In a recent paper in the journal ACS Nano, they describe how drug-loaded nanostars behave like tiny hitchhikers, that after being attracted to an over-expressed protein on the surface of human cervical and ovarian cancer cells, deposit their payload right into the nuclei of those cells.

The researchers found giving their nanobot the shape of a star helped to overcome one of the challenges of using nanoparticles to deliver drugs: how to release the drugs precisely. They say the shape helps to concentrate the light pulses used to release the drugs precisely at the points of the star.

Scientists are discovering that protein-based drugs are very useful because they can be programmed to deliver specific signals to cells. But the problem with conventional delivery of such drugs is that the body breaks most of them down before they reach their destination.

But what if it were possible to produce such drugs in situ, right at the target site? Well, in a recent issue of Nano Letters, researchers at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the US show how it may be possible to do just that. In their proof of principle study, they demonstrate the feasibility of self-assembling nanofactories that make protein compounds, on demand, at target sites. So far they have tested the idea in mice, by creating nanoparticles programmed to produce either green fluorescent protein (GFP) or luciferase exposed to UV light.

The MIT team came up with the idea while trying to find a way to attack metastatic tumors, those that grow from cancer cells that have migrated from the original site to other parts of the body. Over 90% of cancer deaths are due to metastatic cancer. They are now working on nanoparticles that can synthesize potential cancer drugs, and also on other ways to switch them on.

Nanofibers are fibers with diameters of less than 1,000 nm. Medical applications include special materials for wound dressings and surgical textiles, materials used in implants, tissue engineering and artificial organ components.

Nanofibers made of carbon also hold promise for medical imaging and precise scientific measurement tools. But there are huge challenges to overcome, one of the main ones being how to make them consistently of the correct size. Historically, this has been costly and time-consuming.

But last year, researchers from North Carolina State University, revealed how they had developed a new method for making carbon nanofibers of specific sizes. Writing in ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces in March 2011, they describe how they managed to grow carbon nanofibers uniform in diameter, by using nickel nanoparticles coated with a shell made of ligands, small organic molecules with functional parts that bond directly to metals.

Nickel nanoparticles are particularly interesting because at high temperatures they help grow carbon nanofibers. The researchers also found there was another benefit in using these nanoparticles, they could define where the nanofibers grew and by correct placement of the nanoparticles they could grow the nanofibers in a desired specific pattern: an important feature for useful nanoscale materials.

Lead is another substance that is finding use as a nanofiber, so much so that neurosurgeon-to-be Matthew MacEwan, who is studying at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, started his own nanomedicine company aimed at revolutionizing the surgical mesh that is used in operating theatres worldwide.

The lead product is a synthetic polymer comprising individual strands of nanofibers, and was developed to repair brain and spinal cord injuries, but MacEwan thinks it could also be used to mend hernias, fistulas and other injuries.

Currently, the surgical meshes used to repair the protective membrane that covers the brain and spinal cord are made of thick and stiff material, which is difficult to work with. The lead nanofiber mesh is thinner, more flexible and more likely to integrate with the bodys own tissues, says MacEwan. Every thread of the nanofiber mesh is thousands of times smaller than the diameter of a single cell. The idea is to use the nanofiber material not only to make operations easier for surgeons to carry out, but also so there are fewer post-op complications for patients, because it breaks down naturally over time.

Researchers at the Polytechnic Institute of New York University (NYU-Poly) have recently demonstrated a new way to make nanofibers out of proteins. Writing recently in the journal Advanced Functional Materials, the researchers say they came across their finding almost by chance: they were studying certain cylinder-shaped proteins derived from cartilage, when they noticed that in high concentrations, some of the proteins spontaneously came together and self-assembled into nanofibers.

They carried out further experiments, such as adding metal-recognizing amino acids and different metals, and found they could control fiber formation, alter its shape, and how it bound to small molecules. For instance, adding nickel transformed the fibers into clumped mats, which could be used to trigger the release of an attached drug molecule.

The researchers hope this new method will greatly improve the delivery of drugs to treat cancer, heart disorders and Alzheimers disease. They can also see applications in regeneration of human tissue, bone and cartilage, and even as a way to develop tinier and more powerful microprocessors for use in computers and consumer electronics.

Recent years have seen an explosion in the number of studies showing the variety of medical applications of nanotechnology and nanomaterials. In this article we have glimpsed just a small cross-section of this vast field. However, across the range, there exist considerable challenges, the greatest of which appear to be how to scale up production of materials and tools, and how to bring down costs and timescales.

But another challenge is how to quickly secure public confidence that this rapidly expanding technology is safe. And so far, it is not clear whether that is being done.

There are those who suggest concerns about nanotechnology may be over-exaggerated. They point to the fact that just because a material is nanosized, it does not mean it is dangerous, indeed nanoparticles have been around since the Earth was born, occurring naturally in volcanic ash and sea-spray, for example. As byproducts of human activity, they have been present since the Stone Age, in smoke and soot.

Of attempts to investigate the safety of nanomaterials, the National Cancer Institute in the US says there are so many nanoparticles naturally present in the environment that they are often at order-of-magnitude higher levels than the engineered particles being evaluated. In many respects, they point out, most engineered nanoparticles are far less toxic than household cleaning products, insecticides used on family pets, and over-the-counter dandruff remedies, and that for instance, in their use as carriers of chemotherapeutics in cancer treatment, they are much less toxic than the drugs they carry.

It is perhaps more in the food sector that we have seen some of the greatest expansion of nanomaterials on a commercial level. Although the number of foods that contain nanomaterials is still small, it appears set to change over the next few years as the technology develops. Nanomaterials are already used to lower levels of fat and sugar without altering taste, or to improve packaging to keep food fresher for longer, or to tell consumers if the food is spoiled. They are also being used to increase the bioavailablity of nutrients (for instance in food supplements).

But, there are also concerned parties, who highlight that while the pace of research quickens, and the market for nanomaterials expands, it appears not enough is being done to discover their toxicological consequences.

This was the view of a science and technology committee of the House of Lords of the British Parliament, who in a recent report on nanotechnology and food, raise several concerns about nanomaterials and human health, particularly the risk posed by ingested nanomaterials.

For instance, one area that concerns the committee is the size and exceptional mobility of nanoparticles: they are small enough, if ingested, to penetrate cell membranes of the lining of the gut, with the potential to access the brain and other parts of the body, and even inside the nuclei of cells.

Another is the solubility and persistence of nanomaterials. What happens, for instance, to insoluble nanoparticles? If they cant be broken down and digested or degraded, is there a danger they will accumulate and damage organs? Nanomaterials comprising inorganic metal oxides and metals are thought to be the ones most likely to pose a risk in this area.

Also, because of their high surface area to mass ratio, nanoparticles are highly reactive, and may for instance, trigger as yet unknown chemical reactions, or by bonding with toxins, allow them to enter cells that they would otherwise have no access to.

For instance, with their large surface area, reactivity and electrical charge, nanomaterials create the conditions for what is described as particle aggregation due to physical forces and particle agglomoration due to chemical forces, so that individual nanoparticles come together to form larger ones. This may lead not only to dramatically larger particles, for instance in the gut and inside cells, but could also result in disaggregation of clumps of nanoparticles, which could radically alter their physicochemical properties and chemical reactivity.

Such reversible phenomena add to the difficulty in understanding the behaviour and toxicology of nanomaterials, says the committee, whose overall conclusion is that neither Government nor the Research Councils are giving enough priority to researching the safety of nanotechnology, especially considering the timescale within which products containing nanomaterials may be developed.

They recommend much more research is needed to ensure that regulatory agencies can effectively assess the safety of products before they are allowed onto the market.

It would appear, therefore, whether actual or perceived, the potential risk that nanotechnology poses to human health must be investigated, and be seen to be investigated. Most nanomaterials, as the NCI suggests, will likely prove to be harmless.

But when a technology advances rapidly, knowledge and communication about its safety needs to keep pace in order for it to benefit, especially if it is also to secure public confidence. We only have to look at what happened, and to some extent is still happening, with genetically modified food to see how that can go badly wrong.

Written by Catharine Paddock PhD

Excerpt from:
Nanotechnology In Medicine: Huge Potential, But What Are ...

Read More...

Verseon Praised for Disruptive Approach to Physics- and AI-Based Drug Discovery – Digital Journal

Wednesday, December 22nd, 2021

Verseons groundbreaking drug discovery platform was featured in Nano Magazines article on whether AI can fundamentally change drug discovery.

Fremont, United States December 21, 2021

Fremont, CA Verseons groundbreaking drug discovery platform was featured in Nano Magazines article on whether AI can fundamentally change drug discovery.

Nano Magazine concluded that although Verseon has built and used its own AI tools for parts of its drug development long before AI was a trendy buzzword, it has avoided the AI hype-fest. With its unique approach that combines physics-based molecular modeling and AI, Verseons platform changes how completely new drugs can be discovered. Whereas other players in AI-driven pharmaceutical development can only find small variations on existing compounds, Verseons platform drives pharmaceutical innovation with rapid, systematic development of multiple previously unexplored, chemically diverse candidates for each of its drug programs, which Nano Magazine called a feat unheard of in the pharmaceutical industry.

Pfizers former SVP of R&D Strategy and Verseon advisor Robert Karr said, Everyone else has merely dabbled in the field of systematic drug discovery. Verseons disruptive platform changes how drugs can be discovered and developed, and the company is poised to make a dramatic impact on modern medicine.

Verseon currently has 14 drug candidates spanning 7 programs in the areas of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and liver disease in various stages of development and clinical testing.

Verseons anticoagulant program is currently in Phase 1 clinical trials. This drug (VE-1902) promises to change the standard of care for tens of millions of patients at risk for stroke and heart attack. Ideal treatment for these patients would be long-term combination therapy with antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs, but this treatment protocol poses significant risk of major bleeding events. Verseons Precision Oral Anticoagulants (PROACs) promise to significantly reduce the risk of major bleeding and would make long-term combination therapy a safe and viable treatment.

UCL Professor of Cardiology John Deanfield remarked: Verseons platelet-sparing anticoagulants with their unique mode of action and low bleeding risk look very promising. Their drugs represent an exciting precision medicine opportunity for the treatment of a large population of cardiovascular disease patients.

About Verseon

To advance global health, Verseon International Corporation (www.verseon.com) has created a better, more scalable process for designing and developing new drugs addressing currently untreatable or poorly treated conditions. The companys drug development platform incorporates fundamental advancements in molecular modeling, directed synthesis, integrated translational research and advanced AI to develop drug compounds that have never before been synthesizedand are virtually impossible to find using conventional methods. Verseon is a clinical-stage company with a growing pipeline that currently includes seven drug programs in the areas of anticoagulation, diabetic retinopathy, hereditary angioedema, oncology, and metabolic disorders.

Contact Info:Name: Walter JonesEmail: Send EmailOrganization: VerseonAddress: 47000 Warm Springs Boulevard, Fremont, CA 94539, United StatesWebsite: https://www.verseon.com

Release ID: 89057403

COMTEX_399338900/2773/2021-12-21T05:54:13

Here is the original post:
Verseon Praised for Disruptive Approach to Physics- and AI-Based Drug Discovery - Digital Journal

Read More...

Nanotech opens up job options in variety of industries – BL on Campus

Tuesday, August 17th, 2021

The word nano refers to the length scale (one nanometre is one-billionth of a metre) that is one thousand times smaller than the micro scale, the scale that was traditionally associated with the electronics industry. Viruses and DNA are examples of natural objects on the nano scale; in contrast a human cell can appear enormous.

The term nanotechnology refers to the engineering, measurement and understanding of nano-scaled materials and devices. Manipulating matter atom by atom and creating features on the atomic or nano scale is now a proven technology and there is an ever growing catalogue that utilises nanotechnology.

Nanotechnology represents an entire scientific and engineering field, broadly within Materials Science and Engineering, and not just a single product or even group of products. As a consequence of this there are several different types of nanotechnology, and many applications associated with each type. There are also several other types of nano-sized objects which exist in our environment, both natural and unnatural such as films and coatings, embedded nanotechnology, biologically natural, biological nanotechnology, natural particles, manufactured particles, nano-electrical mechanical systems.

Building on current nanotechnology-enabled applications in areas as diverse as consumer electronics, medicine, energy, water purification, aerospace, automotive, infrastructure, sporting goods, textiles, and agriculture, the nanotechnology research underway today will enable entirely new capabilities and products. Nanotechnology also underpins key industries of the future. For example, new architecture and paradigms exploiting nanotechnology are providing the foundation for artificial intelligence (AI), quantum information science (QIS), next-generation wireless communications, and advanced manufacturing.

While advances in modern electronics have long been at the nanoscale, new nanomaterials and designs will ensure the continued strength of the semiconductor industry, which powers computing, e-commerce, and national security. Nanotechnology also enables the rapid genomic sequencing and sensing required to advance medicine and biotechnology. Nanotechnology R&D has enabled early detection of emerging diseases and will lead to the treatments of the future. Past investments in nanotechnology research and development have provided a foundation to support the response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Nanotechnology-enabled applications include vaccines, sensors, masks, filters, and antimicrobial coatings.

Examples of nanotechnology innovations are: a highly sensitive wearable gas sensor; nanoparticles absorbed by plants to deliver nutrients; durable, conductive yarns made with MXene; electrodes that incorporate nanoparticles and enable the conversion of sunlight to hydrogen fuel; nano-engineered pores in a membrane for water filtration; drug-loaded nano particles carried by red blood cells; and the first programmable memristor computer, enabling low-power AI applications. Nanotechnology advances are impacting a variety of other sectors including consumer electronics, aerospace, automotive, infrastructure, sporting goods, and agriculture.

Research Infrastructure

The research infrastructure, including physical and cyber resources as well as education and workforce development efforts, is critical to support the entire funding ecosystem (National Nanotechnology Initiative), and agencies will continue to invest in these important areas. Agencies use a wide variety of mechanisms to support the research infrastructure, including Centre grants, instrumentation development or acquisition programmes, training grants, fellowships, and collaborative programmes that support workforce development.

Career opportunities

The scope and application of nanotechnology is tremendous. Indian engineering and science graduates are increasingly opting for nanotechnology. Right from medicine, pharmaceuticals, information technology, electronic, opto-electronics, energy, chemicals, advanced materials to textiles, nanotechnology has its applications. Nanotechnology provides job opportunities in health industry; pharmaceutical industry; agriculture industry; environment industry; food and beverage industry as well in government and private research institutes.

Skills

One needs to have a diehard passion for research, especially to find out new structures in the field of nanotechnology. It is important to have sound analytical skills, along with a scientific bent of mind. Analysing and interpreting skills are a necessity in this field and also to accept failures in experiments as a challenge. Other necessary skills which are required are: Good mathematical and computer programming skills; adequate laboratory training for expert handling of advanced equipment; ability to learn and adopt new techniques; have a systematic way of working; a natural propensity for research work; keep track of the latest scientific news, books and research magazines; a good background of physics, chemistry, medicine, electronics and biotechnology

Job Prospects

A lot of job opportunities and a research career exists in the areas of nano-device, nano-packaging, nano-wires, nano-tools, nano-biotechnology, nano-crystalline materials, nano-photonics and nano-porous materials to name a few. It is estimated that around three million nanotechnology skilled workforce will be required worldwide by 2021. Many government institutes and Indian industries have focused on nano-materials. It is also estimated nano-technology will create another five million jobs worldwide in support fields and industries. A professional in the field of nanotechnology can easily find lucrative jobs in most of fields.

Since nanotechnology is a special branch that essentially combines physics, chemistry, biology, engineering and technology, it is opening up job prospects for students specialising in these subjects. The career opportunities in the fields of nanoscale science and technology are expanding rapidly, as these fields have increasing impact on many aspects of our daily lives.

A professional in the field of nanotechnology can easily find viable career opportunities in various sectors. They can work in the field of nano-medicine, bio-informatics, stem cell development, pharmaceutical companies, and nano toxicology and nano power generating sectors.

The major areas for the development of applications involving nanotechnology are medical and pharmaceuticals, information technology, electronics, magnetics and opto-electronics, energy chemicals, advanced materials and textiles.

Nanotechnology has varied applications in drug delivery to treat cancer tumours (without using radiotherapy and chemotherapy), solar energy, batteries, display technologies, opto-electronic devices, semiconductor devices, biosensors, luminous paints, and many others. A major challenge in this emerging field is the training for a new generation of skilled professionals.

An abundance of job opportunities awaits candidates with an MTech in Nanotechnology from India and abroad. Indian industry has focused on nanomaterials and many scientific institutions have started research and development activities in the field. The CSIR has set up 38 laboratories, across the country, to carry out research and development work in this field. Those with a PhD in Nanotechnology will have vibrant opportunities in the R&D sectors.

It is a perfect career for those who have a scientific bent of mind and a passion for studying and experimenting with the minutest molecules. Students with a science and engineering background and even mathematics with a physics background can pursue Nanotechnology as a career. Candidates with MTech in Nanotechnology are in great demand both in India and abroad.

(The writer is Associate Professor, Department of Physics and Nanotechnology, SRM University)

Read this article:
Nanotech opens up job options in variety of industries - BL on Campus

Read More...

Homeopathic remedies that cattle farmers can use – Thats Farming

Tuesday, August 17th, 2021

Dr Chris Aukland BVSc VetMFHom MRCVS, Head of Livestock Health Programmes, Whole Health Agriculture, discusses homeopathy.

Chris leads the farmer education and support team at Whole Health Agriculture (WHAg). They offer training and support to help farmers develop skills to create resilient natural health and longevity in their livestock.

Chris has over 30 years experience in holistic veterinary practice and combines his work at WHAg with small animal surgery, ensuring he keeps up with the latest advances in alternative and conventional veterinary practice.

Dr CA: Homeopathy is an established system of medicine that supports the individuals own healing process, stimulating a state of dynamic homeostasis (or optimum balance), thereby minimising susceptibility to disease and fostering good health.

Homeopathy works by reminding the bodys natural healing mechanisms of what needs to be done to get back into a state of balance.

Often termed nano-medicine, homeopathy uses ultra-dilute substances to individualise treatment.

The symptoms presented by a sick animal or person are matched to the symptom picture of various remedies, choosing the remedy which is the closest match.

For example, caffeine can make us more alert. However, too much caffeine in some people can provoke sleeplessness, restlessness, anxiety and inability to focus.

Working on the homeopathic principle of treating like-with-like for somebody experiencing these symptoms perhaps due to worry or stress.

The best match might be the homeopathic remedy Coffea (produced from coffee), which has a symptom picture of sleeplessness, anxiety, restlessness and an inability to focus.

We have seen increasing demand for training and ongoing support from farmers, particularly over the last five years.

Our training webinars sell out. We are close to launching a membership and online learning platform developed to meet needs and support farmers no matter where they are in the world.

There appears to have been a quiet underground movement for some years. Suddenly, it is becoming more mainstream. Interest has always spread through word of mouth farmers trust farmers; if they say something is working, it creates demand.

A question to which we also wanted to know the answer!

We recently conducted a survey into the use of CAM (Complementary & Alternative Methods /Products/Medicines) among farmers to find out what they were using and why.

221 farmers, mainly from UK and Ireland, responded, the majority, 88%, of which used homeopathy. We looked at (among other things) specific markers based on figures that farmers are required to record.

Of all farmers who responded, 66% reported lower vet and medicine costs, and 65% responded that their use of CAMs has resulted in or contributed to zero, low or reduced antibiotic usage.

40% reported zero, low or reduced wormer usage and 36% reported reduced frequency or severity of lameness. One third reported increased financial profitability of the farm.

Of the 70 commercial dairy farmers who responded:

Also highly noteworthy is that 69% of dairy farmers reported fewer cases of milk withdrawal, and over half noted less frequent/severe mastitis and lower cell counts.

52% of dairy farmers have seen increased financial profitability of the farm.

Homeopathy is particularly useful because there is no risk of:a) Toxic side-effects,b) Drug residues, so no withdrawal period,c) Can help farmers reduce reliance on antibiotics

It can mitigate stress in routine events where conventional veterinary options have little to offer; events that we take for granted, such as weaning, tail ringing, castration, routine examination, separation etc. which can result in loss of condition or production.

A sick animal is an expensive animal. It can also improve herd vitality so that they are more resistant to infectious disease, parasites, etc. and animals thrive better.

Farmers also use homeopathy for infections. The following slide is taken from our survey and shows responses to the question: What conditions have you treated successfully without antibiotics? The dark blue bar shows the responses for homeopathy.

NB: The use of homeopathy should NEVER replace the vet. Our advice is always based on a holistic traffic-light triage. For any problem:

Look at the RED level first and for any serious condition, contact your vet as usual.

Then look at the GREEN level; this is your husbandry level. Can you mitigate any potential maintaining causes such as draughty barns, a change in feed, stress to the animal?

Finally, you can address the AMBER level and look at homeopathic and other natural medicine options.

In the UK, it is illegal to treat TB, which is a notifiable disease. As such, homeopathy should never be used to treat TB.

Always be aware of the local regulations. For any farm, we want all livestock to be as healthy and naturally resilient as possible.

Used well, homeopathy can improve the overall health of the farm, which will mean the farmer experiences less disease generally. A healthier, more vibrant cow is much less likely to be susceptible to TB.

Homeopathy has the potential, applied correctly, to not only treat symptoms but also to increase resilience and reduce susceptibility to disease.

TF: What should they take into account before they do so?

Seek advice and support. Do your research. Speak to other farmers using it with good results about how they integrate it into their health planning.

It is important also to get appropriate veterinary support. Contact the Irish Society of Veterinary Homeopaths.

In the UK, there are no restrictions on farmers sourcing and using remedies in the UK. There are various useful remedy kits available. In Ireland, remedies must be sourced via a homeopathic vet.

There are hundreds of homeopathic remedies but some key ones that farmers use all the time are:

Farmers tend to use liquid remedies and spray bottles for ease of administration to individuals/groups or put remedies into the troughs if dosing the whole herd/flock.

This is difficult to quantify as every farm is different, and one farm may measure success by a different set of criteria than others.

However, our survey showed that 66% of farmers/71% of dairy farmers reported lower vet and medicine costs.

Sally Wood, who is a conventional turned organic farmer in Wales, told us:

I think the mainstream assumption is always that if you use homeopathy to reduce antibiotics, your welfare will go down and your cull rate will go up, but ours proved the opposite, and our herd is so healthy that we can sell our surplus stock.

When people ask me whether homeopathy works, I tell them that our vet and med bill has halved.

Interest appears to be growing. A group of homeopathic vets and farmers have done training together via NOTS, who all support one another in their learning.

Pat Ahernes Homeopathic Dairy Farm on Facebook is great for insight into how it can be used on the farm.

Anyone can start with a few simple remedies. (Obviously, farmers need to observe the regulations in their country and stay legal!)

We know some farmers who ONLY use the remedies Aconite and Arnica and report success.

Training and support are important for best results and to transform the health of a herd/flock. This is something that WHAg is dedicated to providing, including piloting a scheme to train farmers to provide coaching to other farmers.

This is not to replace the vet but to help them integrate strategies to foster health and resilience.

I think it is inevitable. People generally are taking a more holistic view on health.

Overall, we are more planet conscious. Furthermore, farmers are exploring less toxic health options such as fermented foods, herbs and homeopathy.

Also, Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) is not going away; farmers are under a lot of pressure to reduce antibiotics.

In the UK, we see buyers and supermarkets leading the trend for reduction in antibiotics, and some organic milk buyers expect members to achieve PWAB status (Produced Without Antibiotics).

In conclusion, homeopathy and other non-toxic inputs such as ferments, herbs etc., offer a viable alternative for farmers.

For more information on WHAgs new learning and membership platform, and to sign up to our newsletter: see http://www.wholehealthag.org

See Facebook The Farmacy at WHAg

To share your story with Thats Farming, email catherina@thatsfarming.com

View original post here:
Homeopathic remedies that cattle farmers can use - Thats Farming

Read More...

Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market Trend, Technology Innovations and Growth Prediction 2021-2027 The Manomet Current – The Manomet…

Tuesday, August 17th, 2021

The research analysis of Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) market offers significant information regarding the major trends that define this business landscape with regards to the regional outlook and competitive scenario. The report also highlights the limitations & challenges that could hamper the industry remuneration alongside the key opportunities that will aid in business expansion. Moreover, the document provides crucial insights regarding the effect of COVID-19 pandemic on the overall market outlook.

This report contains market size and forecasts of Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) in Global, including the following market information:Global Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market Revenue, 2016-2021, 2022-2027, ($ millions)Global top five companies in 2020 (%)

The global Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) market was valued at 200560 million in 2020 and is projected to reach US$ 285060 million by 2027, at a CAGR of 9.2% during the forecast period.Research has surveyed the Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) companies, and industry experts on this industry, involving the revenue, demand, product type, recent developments and plans, industry trends, drivers, challenges, obstacles, and potential risks.

Download PDF Sample of Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market report @ https://www.themarketinsights.com/request-sample/253870

Total Market by Segment:Global Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market, By Type, 2016-2021, 2022-2027 ($ millions)Global Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market Segment Percentages, By Type, 2020 (%)NanomedicineNano Medical DevicesNano DiagnosisOther

China Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market, By Application, 2016-2021, 2022-2027 ($ millions)China Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market Segment Percentages, By Application, 2020 (%)AnticancerCNS ProductAnti-infectiveOther

Global Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market, By Region and Country, 2016-2021, 2022-2027 ($ Millions)Global Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market Segment Percentages, By Region and Country, 2020 (%)North AmericaUSCanadaMexicoEuropeGermanyFranceU.K.ItalyRussiaNordic CountriesBeneluxRest of EuropeAsiaChinaJapanSouth KoreaSoutheast AsiaIndiaRest of AsiaSouth AmericaBrazilArgentinaRest of South AmericaMiddle East & AfricaTurkeyIsraelSaudi ArabiaUAERest of Middle East & Africa

Report Customization available as per requirements Request Customization@ https://www.themarketinsights.com/request-customization/253870

Competitor AnalysisThe report also provides analysis of leading market participants including:Total Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market Competitors Revenues in Global, by Players 2016-2021 (Estimated), ($ millions)Total Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market Competitors Revenues Share in Global, by Players 2020 (%)

Further, the report presents profiles of competitors in the market, including the following:AmgenTeva PharmaceuticalsAbbottUCBRocheCelgeneSanofiMerck & CoBiogenStrykerGilead SciencesPfizer3M CompanyJohnson & JohnsonSmitH& NephewLeadiant BiosciencesKyowa Hakko KirinTakedaIpsenEndo International

To Check Discount @ https://www.themarketinsights.com/check-discount/253870

Table of ContentChapter One: Introduction to Research & Analysis Reports

Chapter Two: Global Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Overall Market Size

Chapter Three: Company Landscape

Chapter Four: Market Sights by Product

Chapter Five: Sights by Application

Chapter Six: Sights by Region

Chapter Seven: Players Profiles

Chapter Eight: Conclusion

Chapter Nine: Appendix9.1 Note

9.2 Examples of Clients

9.3 Disclaimer

List of Table and FigureTable 1. Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market Opportunities & Trends in Global Market

Table 2. Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market Drivers in Global Market

Table 3. Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market Restraints in Global Market

Table 4. Key Players of Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) in Global Market

Table 5. Top Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Players in Global Market, Ranking by Revenue (2019)

Table 6. Global Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Revenue by Companies, (US$, Mn), 2016-2021

Table 7. Global Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Revenue Share by Companies, 2016-2021

Table 8. Global Companies Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Product Type

Table 9. List of Global Tier 1 Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Companies, Revenue (US$, Mn) in 2020 and Market Share

Table 10. List of Global Tier 2 and Tier 3 Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Companies, Revenue (US$, Mn) in 2020 and Market Share

Table 11. By Type Global Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Revenue, (US$, Mn), 2021 VS 2027

Table 12. By Type Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Revenue in Global (US$, Mn), 2016-2021

Table 13. By Type Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Revenue in Global (US$, Mn), 2022-2027

Table 14. By Application Global Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Revenue, (US$, Mn), 2021 VS 2027

Table 15. By Application Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Revenue in Global (US$, Mn), 2016-2021

Table 16. By Application Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Revenue in Global (US$, Mn), 2022-2027

Table 17. By Region Global Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Revenue, (US$, Mn), 2021 VS 2027

Table 18. By Region Global Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Revenue (US$, Mn), 2016-2021

Table 19. By Region Global Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Revenue (US$, Mn), 2022-2027

Table 20. By Country North America Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Revenue, (US$, Mn), 2016-2021

Table 21. By Country North America Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Revenue, (US$, Mn), 2022-2027

Table 22. By Country Europe Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Revenue, (US$, Mn), 2016-2021

Table 23. By Country Europe Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Revenue, (US$, Mn), 2022-2027

Table 24. By Region Asia Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Revenue, (US$, Mn), 2016-2021 continued

About us.The Market Insights is a sister company to SI Market research and The Market Insights is into reselling. The Market Insights is a company that is creating cutting edge, futuristic and informative reports in many different areas. Some of the most common areas where we generate reports are industry reports, country reports, company reports and everything in between. At The Market Insights, we give our clients the best reports that can be made in the market. Our reports are not only about market statistics, but they also contain a lot of information about new and niche company profiles. The companies that feature in our reports are pre-eminent. The database of the reports on market research is constantly updated by us. This database contains a broad variety of reports from the cardinal industries. Our clients have direct access online to our databases. This is done to ensure that the client is always provided with what they need. Based on these needs, we at The Market Insights also include insights from experts about the global industries, market trends as well as the products in the market. These resources that we prepare are also available on our database for our esteemed clients to use. It is our duty at The Market Insights to ensure that our clients find success in their endeavors and we do everything that we can to help make that possible.

Direct ContactJessica Joyal+91-9284395731 | +91 9175986728sales@themarketinsights.com

See the rest here:
Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market Trend, Technology Innovations and Growth Prediction 2021-2027 The Manomet Current - The Manomet...

Read More...

Regenerative Medicine Market Size Worth $57.08 Billion By 2027: Grand View Research, Inc. – PRNewswire

Tuesday, August 17th, 2021

SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 12, 2021 /PRNewswire/ --The global regenerative medicine marketsize is expectedto reach USD 57.08 billion by 2027, growing at a CAGR of 11.27% over the forecast period, according to a new report by Grand View Research, Inc. Recent advancements in biological therapies have resulted in a gradual shift in preference toward personalized medicinal strategies over the conventional treatment approach. This has resulted in rising R&D activities in the regenerative medicine arena for the development of novel regenerative therapies.

Key Insights & Findings:

Read 273 page research report, "Regenerative Medicine Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report By Product (Cell-based Immunotherapies, Gene Therapies), By Therapeutic Category (Cardiovascular, Oncology), And Segment Forecasts, 2021 - 2027", by Grand View Research

Furthermore,advancements in cell biology, genomics research, and gene-editing technology are anticipated to fuel the growth of the industry. Stem cell-based regenerative therapies are in clinical trials, which may help restore damaged specialized cells in many serious and fatal diseases, such as cancer, Alzheimer's, neurodegenerative diseases, and spinal cord injuries. For instance, various research institutes have adopted Human Embryonic Stem Cells (hESCs) to develop a treatment for Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD).

Constant advancements in molecular medicines have led to the development of gene-based therapy, which utilizes targeted delivery of DNA as a medicine to fight against various disorders. Gene therapy developments are high in oncology due to the rising prevalence and genetically driven pathophysiology of cancer. The steady commercial success of gene therapies is expected to accelerate the growth of the global market over the forecast period.

Grand View Research has segmented the global regenerative medicine market on the basis of product, therapeutic category, and region:

List of Key Players of Regenerative Medicine Market

Check out more studies related to Global Biotechnology Industry, conducted by Grand View Research:

Gain access to Grand View Compass, our BI enabled intuitive market research database of 10,000+ reports

About Grand View Research

Grand View Research, U.S.-based market research and consulting company, provides syndicated as well as customized research reports and consulting services. Registered in California and headquartered in San Francisco, the company comprises over 425 analysts and consultants, adding more than 1200 market research reports to its vast database each year. These reports offer in-depth analysis on 46 industries across 25 major countries worldwide. With the help of an interactive market intelligence platform, Grand View Research helps Fortune 500 companies and renowned academic institutes understand the global and regional business environment and gauge the opportunities that lie ahead.

Contact:Sherry JamesCorporate Sales Specialist, USAGrand View Research, Inc.Phone: 1-415-349-0058Toll Free: 1-888-202-9519Email: [emailprotected]Web: https://www.grandviewresearch.comFollow Us: LinkedIn| Twitter

SOURCE Grand View Research, Inc.

Go here to see the original:
Regenerative Medicine Market Size Worth $57.08 Billion By 2027: Grand View Research, Inc. - PRNewswire

Read More...

Nanotechnology Market Share, Industry Size, Leading Companies Outlook, Upcoming Challenges and Opportunities till 2028 – The Market Writeuo – The…

Tuesday, August 17th, 2021

The Latest research study released by DBMR Global Nanotechnology Market with 350+ pages of analysis on business Strategy taken up by key and emerging industry players and delivers know how of the current market development, landscape, technologies, drivers, opportunities, market viewpoint and status. Understanding the segments helps in identifying the importance of different factors that aid the market growth. The report shows market share, size, trends, growth, trends, applications, competition analysis, development patterns, and the correlations between the market dynamics and forecasts for 2020 to 2027 time-frames. The report aims to provide an overview of global Nanotechnology Market with detailed market segmentation by product/application and geography. The report provides key statistics on the Market status of the players and offers key trends and opportunities in the market. Research report has been compiled by studying the market in-depth along with drivers, opportunities, restraints & other strategies as well as new-developments that can help a reader to understand the exact situation of the market along with the factors that can limit or hamper the market growth and the report also has been updated with Impacts & effects of Coronavirus pandemic and how it has influenced consumer behavior& the growth of the market as well as industries.

The Global Nanotechnology Market is expected to reach USD 24.56 billion by 2025, from USD 7.24 billion in 2017 growing at a CAGR of 16.5% during the forecast period of 2020 to 2025

Download Free Sample (350 Pages PDF) Report: To Know the Impact of COVID-19 on this [emailprotected]https://www.databridgemarketresearch.com/request-a-sample/?dbmr=global-nanotechnology-market&ab

Nanoscience is the study of extremely small things. The development of nanotechnology is being growing in many fields, as it has various applications, such as in chemistry, biology, physics, materials science and engineering. Nanotechnology deals with the use of nanoparticle of size of 1 to 100 nm to be used in all major field of medical. Materials designed from nanotechnology are lighter, stronger and more durable. In oncology research, nanotechnology assists in cancer eradication. Nanotechnology based device are also used in fitness monitoring. Smartphone apps and bracelets are developed based on nanotechnology concept. A nano based device is used to sense the body temperature, heartbeat and others which are sent back to the reader. After analysing the temperature and heartbeat, medical staff monitors the condition. All these nano based devices helps to drive the market. For elder people, battery-free printed graphene sensors are also developed which helps in gathering the health condition of the elder population, enables remote healthcare and improves the quality of life. In diagnostic and prevention, nanotechnology plays a vital role in cancer diagnostics. Nanotechnology based devices can detects the biomarker produced by the circulating tumor cells (CTCs) on the onset of cancer. Based on nanotechnology, two main methods of circulating tumor cells (CTC) isolations are magnetic and microfluidic methods. In clinical development fluorescent nano sensors are used for in-vivo monitoring of biomarkers. Another application of nanotechnology is nanomedicine which has potential application in diagnosis and therapy medicine for regeneration of tissues and organs.

This Nanotechnology Market 2020 Reportencompasses an infinite knowledge and information on what the markets definition, classifications, applications, and engagements are and also explains the drivers and restraints of the market which is obtained from SWOT analysis. By applying market intelligence for this Nanotechnology Market report, industry expert measure strategic options, summarize successful action plans and support companies with critical bottom-line decisions. Additionally, the data, facts and figures collected to generate this market report are obtained forms the trustworthy sources such as websites, journals, mergers, newspapers and other authentic sources. Development policies and plans are discussed as well as manufacturing processes and cost structures are also analyzed. This report also states import/export consumption, supply and demand Figures, price, cost, revenue and gross margins.

According to this reportGlobal Nanotechnology Marketwill rise from Covid-19 crisis at moderate growth rate during 2020 to 2027. Nanotechnology Market includes comprehensive information derived from depth study on Nanotechnology Industry historical and forecast market data. Global Nanotechnology Market Size To Expand moderately as the new developments in Nanotechnology and Impact of COVID19 over the forecast period 2020 to 2027.

TO UNDERSTAND HOW COVID-19 IMPACT IS COVERED IN THIS REPORT, GET FREE COVID-19 SAMPLE @https://www.databridgemarketresearch.com/covid-19-impact/global-nanotechnology-market?ab

Nanotechnology Market report provides depth analysis of the market impact and new opportunities created by theCOVID19/CORONAVirus pandemic. Report covers Nanotechnology Market report is helpful for strategists, marketers and senior management, And Key Players in Nanotechnology Industry.

List of Companies Profiled in the Nanotechnology Market Report are:

Complete Report is Available (Including Full TOC, List of Tables & Figures, Graphs, and Chart) @https://www.databridgemarketresearch.com/toc/?dbmr=global-nanotechnology-market&Ab

Nanotechnology Reportdisplays data on key players, majorcollaborations, merger & acquisitions along with trending innovation and business policies. The report highlights current and future market trends and carries out analysis of the effect of buyers, substitutes, new entrants, competitors, and suppliers on the market. The key topics that have been explained in this Nanotechnology market report include market definition, market segmentation, key developments, competitive analysis and research methodology. To accomplish maximum return on investment (ROI), its very essential to be acquainted with market parameters such as brand awareness, market landscape, possible future issues, industry trends and customer behavior where this Nanotechnology report comes into play.

The Segments and Sub-Section of Nanotechnology Market are shown below:

By Type (Nano composites, Nano materials, Nano tools, Nano devices, Others)

By Applications (Healthcare, Environment, Energy, Food & Agriculture, Information & Technology, Others)

By Industry (Electronics, Cosmetics, Pharmaceutical, Biotechnology, Others

Market Size Segmentation by Region & Countries (Customizable):

Key questions answered

What impact does COVID-19 have made on Global Nanotechnology Market Growth & Sizing?

Who are the Leading key players and what are their Key Business plans in the Global Nanotechnology market?

What are the key concerns of the five forces analysis of the Global Nanotechnology market?

What are different prospects and threats faced by the dealers in the Global Nanotechnology market?

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the key vendors?

Market Segmentation: Global Nanotechnology Market

The global nanotechnology market is segmented based on product type, application, industry and geographical segments.

By Product Type (Nano Composites, Nano Materials, Nano Tools, Nano Devices, Others), By Applications (Healthcare, Environment, Energy, Food & Agriculture, Information & Technology, Others), By Industry (Electronics, Cosmetics, Pharmaceutical, Biotechnology, Others), By Geography (North America, South America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, Middle East and Africa)

Based on product type , the market is segmented into nano-composites and nano materials, nano tools, nano devices, and others. Nano-composites are further sub segmented into nanoparticles, nanotubes and nano clays. Nano materials are further sub-segmented into nano fibers, nano ceramic products and nano magnetics. Nano tools are further sub-segmented into nanolithography tools and scanning probe microscopes. Nanodevices are further sub-segmented into nanosensors and nanoelectronics.

On the basis of application, the market is further segmented into healthcare, environment, energy, food & agriculture, information & technology and others.

Based on industries, the market is segmented into electronics, cosmetics, pharmaceutical, biotechnology and others.

Based on geography, the market report covers data points for 28 countries across multiple geographies namely North America & South America, Europe, Asia-Pacific and, Middle East & Africa. Some of the major countries covered in this report are U.S., Canada, Germany, France, U.K., Netherlands, Switzerland, Turkey, Russia, China, India, South Korea, Japan, Australia, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and, Brazil among others.

Strategic Points Covered in Table of Content of Global Nanotechnology Market:

Chapter 1: Introduction, market driving force product Objective of Study and Research Scope the Nanotechnology market

Chapter 2: Exclusive Summary the basic information of the Nanotechnology Market.

Chapter 3: Displaying the Market Dynamics- Drivers, Trends and Challenges of the Nanotechnology

Chapter 4: Presenting the Nanotechnology Market Factor Analysis Porters Five Forces, Supply/Value Chain, PESTEL analysis, Market Entropy, Patent/Trademark Analysis.

Chapter 5: Displaying market size by Type, End User and Region 2010-2019

Chapter 6: Evaluating the leading manufacturers of the Nanotechnology market which consists of its Competitive Landscape, Peer Group Analysis, BCG Matrix & Company Profile

Chapter 7: To evaluate the market by segments, by countries and by manufacturers with revenue share and sales by key countries (2020-2027).

Chapter 8 & 9: Displaying the Appendix, Methodology and Data Source

Finally, Nanotechnology Market is a valuable source of guidance for individuals and companies in decision framework.

Thanks for reading this article; you can also get individual chapter wise section or region wise report version like North America, Europe or Asia.

AboutDataBridge Market Research:

An absolute way to forecast what future holds is to comprehend the trend today!Data Bridge set forth itself as an unconventional and neoteric Market research and consulting firm with unparalleled level of resilience and integrated approaches. We are determined to unearth the best market opportunities and foster efficient information for your business to thrive in the market. Data Bridge endeavors to provide appropriate solutions to the complex business challenges and initiates an effortless decision-making process.

Data Bridge adepts in creating satisfied clients who reckon upon our services and rely on our hard work with certitude. We are content with our glorious 99.9 % client satisfying rate.

Contact Us:

Data Bridge Market Research

US: +1 888 387 2818

UK: +44 208 089 1725

Hong Kong: +852 8192 7475

Mail:[emailprotected]

Read more:
Nanotechnology Market Share, Industry Size, Leading Companies Outlook, Upcoming Challenges and Opportunities till 2028 - The Market Writeuo - The...

Read More...

Global Nanomedicine Market is Expected to Grow at an Impressive CAGR by 2028 The Manomet Current – The Manomet Current

Tuesday, August 17th, 2021

DBMR has added a new report titled Global Nanomedicine Market with data Tables for historical and forecast years represented with Chats & Graphs spread through Pages with easy to understand detailed analysis. This Report performs the methodical and comprehensive market research study that puts forth the facts and figures linked with any subject about industry. It all-inclusively estimates general market conditions, the growth prospects in the market, possible restrictions, significant industry trends, market size, market share, sales volume and future trends. A team of skilled analysts, statisticians, research experts, enthusiastic forecasters, and economists work painstakingly to structure such a great market report for the businesses seeking a potential growth. A Global Nanomedicine Market analysis report is generated with the best and advanced tools of collecting, recording, estimating, and analyzing market data.

Major insights of the realistic Global Nanomedicine Market report are complete and distinct analysis of the market drivers and restraints, major market players involved like industry, detailed analysis of the market segmentation and competitive analysis of the key players involved. Market segmentation categorizes the market depending upon application, vertical, deployment model, end-user, and geography etc. This global market document also presents an idea about consumers demands, preferences, and their altering likings about particular product. Furthermore, big sample sizes have been utilized for the data collection in the winning Global Nanomedicine Market report which suits the necessities of small, medium, as well as large size of businesses.

Global nanomedicine market is registering a healthy CAGR of 15.50% in the forecast period of 2019-2026. This rise in the market value can be attributed to increasing number of applications and wide acceptance of the product globally. There is a significant rise in the number of researches done in this field which accelerate growth of nanomedicine market globally.

Get Sample Report + All Related Graphs & Charts @ https://www.databridgemarketresearch.com/request-a-sample/?dbmr=global-nanomedicine-market

Key Market Competitors

Few of the major market competitors currently working in the global nanomedicine market are Abbott, Invitae Corporation, General Electric Company, Leadiant Biosciences, Inc., Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc., Mallinckrodt, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., NanoSphere Health Sciences, Inc., Pfizer Inc., CELGENE CORPORATION, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Gilead Sciences, Inc., Amgen Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, AbbVie Inc., Novartis AG, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Luminex Corporation, Eli Lilly and Company, Nanobiotix, Sanofi, UCB S.A., Ablynx among others.

Competitive Landscape

Global Nanomedicine Market is highly fragmented and the major players have used various strategies such as new product launches, expansions, agreements, joint ventures, partnerships, acquisitions, and others to increase their footprints in this market. The report includes market shares of nanomedicine market for global, Europe, North America, Asia-Pacific, South America and Middle East & Africa.

Key Insights in the report:

Complete and distinct analysis of the market drivers and restraints

Key Market players involved in this industry

Detailed analysis of the Market Segmentation

Competitive analysis of the key players involved

Market Drivers are Restraints

Grab Your Report at an Impressive 30% Discount! Please click Here @ https://www.databridgemarketresearch.com/request-a-discount/global-nanomedicine-market

Market Segmentation:-

By Product Type

By Application

By Indication

By Modality

Some of the Major Highlights of TOC covers:

Chapter 1: Methodology & Scope

Definition and forecast parameters

Methodology and forecast parameters

Data Sources

Chapter 2: Executive Summary

Business trends

Regional trends

Product trends

End-use trends

Chapter 3: Industry Insights

Industry segmentation

Industry landscape

Vendor matrix

Technological and innovation landscape

For More Insights Get Detailed TOC @ https://www.databridgemarketresearch.com/toc/?dbmr=global-nanomedicine-market

Nanomedicine Market report effectively provides required features of the global market for the population and for the business looking people for mergers & acquisitions, making investments, new vendors or concerned in searching for the appreciated global market research facilities. It offers sample on the size, offer, and development rate of the market. The Nanomedicine report provides the complete structure and fundamental overview of the industry market.

Note: If you have any special requirements, please let us know and we will offer you the report as you want.

About Data Bridge Market Research:

Data Bridge Market Research set forth itself as an unconventional and neoteric Market research and consulting firm with unparalleled level of resilience and integrated approaches. We are determined to unearth the best market opportunities and foster efficient information for your business to thrive in the market. Data Bridge endeavors to provide appropriate solutions to the complex business challenges and initiates an effortless decision-making process.

Contact:

Data Bridge Market Research

US: +1 888 387 2818

UK: +44 208 089 1725

Hong Kong: +852 8192 7475

Email: Corporatesales@databridgemarketresearch.com

Here is the original post:
Global Nanomedicine Market is Expected to Grow at an Impressive CAGR by 2028 The Manomet Current - The Manomet Current

Read More...

Nanorobotics Market By Player, Region, Type, Application And Sales Channel, Regions, Type and Application, Revenue Market Forecast to 2028 – Digital…

Tuesday, August 17th, 2021

Rising investment in urgent care and increasing global geriatric population are key factors driving revenue growth of the global nanorobotics market

The globalNanorobotics marketsize is expected to reach USD 14.03 Billion in 2028 and register a CAGR of 10.9% over the forecast period, according to the latest report by Emergen Research. Nanorobotics market revenue growth is driven by key factors such as rapid innovations in nanorobotics technology and increasing application of the technology in treatment of neurological cardiovascular, oncological, infectious, orthopedic diseases, and others.

Nanorobotics is the technology which creates robots or machines at a very small scale. The field of nanorobotics brings together various disciplines, including nanofabrication processes used for producing nanoactuators, nanomotors, and nanosensors, among others. Rising focus on regenerative medicine coupled with technological advancements is boosting market revenue growth. Furthermore, increasing adoption of medical equipment and more advanced technologies such as Machine Learning (ML) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) is driving growth of the global nanorobotics market, and the trend is expected to continue going ahead.

Access full Report Description, TOC, Table of Figure, [emailprotected] https://www.emergenresearch.com/request-sample/744

Some Key Highlights From the Report

Key Growth Prospects:The report specializes in examining the major growth prospects of the global Nanorobotics market, such as new product launches, collaborations, joint ventures, mergers & acquisitions, agreements, partnerships, and the progress of the key market players functioning in the market, on regional and global levels.

The market intelligence report exhaustively examines the market value, share, demand, growth prospects, latest and historical trends, manufacturers, gross revenue collection, competitive terrain, market growth forecast, available products, and end-use applications.

Geographical Terrain of the Global Nanorobotics Market:

Please connect with our representative to get a Inquiry Of the Nanorobotics [emailprotected] https://www.emergenresearch.com/request-sample/744

For the purpose of this report, Emergen Research has segmented the global nanorobotics market based on type, application, and region:

To Get This Report At A Profitable [emailprotected] https://www.emergenresearch.com/request-discount/744

Table Of content

Chapter 1. Market Synopsis 1.1. Market Definition 1.2. Research Scope & Premise 1.3. Methodology 1.4. Market Estimation TechniqueChapter 2. Executive Summary 2.1. Summary Snapshot, 2020-2028Chapter 3. Indicative MetricsChapter 4. Nanorobotics Market Segmentation & Impact Analysis 4.1. Nanorobotics Market Material Segmentation Analysis 4.2. Industrial Outlook 4.2.1. Market indicators analysis 4.2.2. Market drivers analysis 4.2.2.1. Rising Focus on Nanotechnology and Regenerative Medicine 4.2.2.2. Increasing Government Support and Level of Investment in Nanorobotics 4.2.3. Market restraints analysis 4.2.3.1. Implementation of Excise Tax and Heavy Custom Duty on 4.3. Technological Insights 4.4. Regulatory Framework 4.5. ETOP Analysis 4.6. Porters Five Forces Analysis 4.7. Competitive Metric Space Analysis 4.8. Price trend Analysis 4.9. Customer Mapping 4.10. Covid-19 Impact Analysis 4.11. Global Recession Influence

Chapter 5. Nanorobotics Market By Type Insights & Trends 5.1. Type Dynamics & Market Share, 2021 & 2028 5.2. Nanomanipulator 5.2.1. Market estimates and forecast, 2018 2028 (USD Million) 5.2.2. Market estimates and forecast, By Region, 2018 2028 (USD Billion) 5.2.3. Electron Microscope (EM) 5.2.3.1. Market estimates and forecast, 2018 2028 (USD Million) 5.2.3.2. Market estimates and forecast, By Region, 2018 2028 (USD Billion) 5.2.3.3. Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) 5.2.3.3.1. Market estimates and forecast, 2018 2028 (USD Million) 5.2.3.3.2. Market estimates and forecast, By Region, 2018 2028 (USD Billion) 5.2.3.4. Transmission Electron Microscope (TEM) 5.2.3.4.1. Market estimates and forecast, 2018 2028 (USD Million) 5.2.3.4.2. Market estimates and forecast, By Region, 2018 2028 (USD Billion) 5.2.4. Scanning Probe Microscope (SPM) 5.2.4.1. Market estimates and forecast, 2018 2028 (USD Million) 5.2.4.2. Market estimates and forecast, By Region, 2018 2028 (USD Billion) 5.2.4.3. Atomic Force Microscopes (AFM) 5.2.4.3.1. Market estimates and forecast, 2018 2028 (USD Million) 5.2.4.3.2. Market estimates and forecast, By Region, 2018 2028 (USD Billion) 5.2.4.4. Scanning Tunneling Microscope (STM) 5.2.4.4.1. Market estimates and forecast, 2018 2028 (USD Billion) 5.2.4.4.2. Market estimates and forecast, By Region, 2018 2028 (USD Billion) 5.3. Bio-Nanorobotics 5.3.1. Market estimates and forecast, 2018 2028 (USD Billion) 5.3.2. Market estimates and forecast, By Region, 2018 2028 (USD Billion) 5.4. Magnetically Guided 5.4.1. Market estimates and forecast, 2018 2028 (USD Billion) 5.4.2. Market estimates and forecast, By Region, 2018 2028 (USD Billion) 5.5. Bacteria-Based 5.5.1. Market estimates and forecast, 2018 2028 (USD Billion) 5.5.2. Market estimates and forecast, By Region, 2018 2028 (USD Billion)

Chapter 6. Nanorobotics Market By Application Insights & Trends 6.1. Application Dynamics & Market Share, 2021 & 2028 6.2. Nanomedicine 6.2.1. Market estimates and forecast, 2018 2028 (USD Billion) 6.2.2. Market estimates and forecast, By Region, 2018 2028 (USD Billion) 6.3. Biomedical 6.3.1. Market estimates and forecast, 2018 2028 (USD Billion) 6.3.2. Market estimates and forecast, By Region, 2018 2028 (USD Billion) 6.4. Mechanical 6.4.1. Market estimates and forecast, 2018 2028 (USD Billion) 6.4.2. Market estimates and forecast, By Region, 2018 2028 (USD Billion) 6.5. Others (Space and Oil & Gas) 6.5.1. Market estimates and forecast, 2018 2028 (USD Billion) 6.5.2. Market estimates and forecast, By Region, 2018 2028 (USD Billion)

Continue..!

Request customization of the report: https://www.emergenresearch.com/request-for-customization/744

Thank you for reading our report. For further details or to inquire about customization, please let us know, and we will offer you a report well-suited to your requirements.

Media ContactCompany Name: Emergen ResearchContact Person: Eric LeeEmail: Send EmailPhone: +1 (604) 757-9756Address:14671 110 Avenue Surrey, British Columbia, V3R2A9City: SurreyState: British ColumbiaCountry: CanadaWebsite: http://www.emergenresearch.com/industry-report/nanorobotics-market

Read the original post:
Nanorobotics Market By Player, Region, Type, Application And Sales Channel, Regions, Type and Application, Revenue Market Forecast to 2028 - Digital...

Read More...

Complementary Protection May Be at Hand With a COVID-19-Preventing Nasal Spray – Newsweek

Tuesday, August 17th, 2021

Vaccinated citizens can still transmit the COVID-19 virus and its variants to other people. Salvacion USA Inc. is therefore excited to introduce the development of a complementary product, designed for adults 18 and older, it hopes could accompany COVID-19 vaccines to offer additional protection: a nasal spray to shield the nasal passages and prevent further viral transmission. (However, CDC guidelines should still be followed, and those who are eligible should receive the COVID-19 vaccination.)

COVID-19 vaccination numbers in the U.S. have now reached nearly 50 percent, and Americans are eager to resume life post-pandemic. However, as flu season approaches and the COVID-19 vaccines' efficacy and longevity have come under question, communities are increasingly concerned about the virus and its Delta and unknown variantsespecially as children return to school this fall. Experts have also speculated this pandemic could become endemic, cycling from season to season. For these reasons, we must continue to stay ahead of the rapidly updating situation and arrive at innovative strategies.

Salvacion's new technology is gaining momentum among the scientific community. The National Cancer Instituteestablished Nanotechnology Characterization Laboratory (NCL) recently selected Salvacion USA Inc. as one of its Assay Cascade awardees for Salvacion's nasal spray, trade name: COVIXYL-V. The announcement appeared in NCL's June 2021 quarterly newsletter, in which Salvacion noted, "COVIXYL-V is intended to reduce SARS-CoV-2 in nasal passages, a main point of entry for the virus in humans. Our unique virus-blocking product, optimized in collaboration with NCL, contains agents which block the virus from attaching to tissue and reducing the viral load in the tissue milieu."

According to NCL's announcement, "Nanomedicines accepted into the program will undergo a rigorous evaluation that may include sterility and endotoxin testing, physicochemical characterization, in vitro hemato- and immunotoxicity, and in vivo studies to evaluate safety, efficacy and pharmacokinetics. The studies are tailored to each individual nanomedicine and are designed to promote the clinical translation of these novel therapies."

Among Nanotechnology Characterization Laboratory's's five awardees, Salvacion is the only one working on a product intended to avert the spread of COVID-19. As an Assay Cascade awardee, NCL commits to funding Salvacion studies free of charge.

Ryan Hwang, a Salvacion spokesman, said, "Our product is preventative and protects nasal passages, halting transmission. Vaccines are developed to protect against COVID-19, but they are not designed to stop transmission. Our strategy is complementary to the effectiveness of vaccines by deterring COVID-19 infection by blocking the transmission."

Salvacion's clinical human trials are currently underway. In vitro and in vivo testing performed thus far suggested that the nasal spray inhibited 99.99 percent of COVID-19. This spray effectively blocked COVID-19 activity in the nasal passages of hamsters, the prime entry points for the virus. One study, performed by an independent BSL-3 laboratory (which, according to Public Health Emergency, is a lab "used to study infectious agents or toxins that may be transmitted through the air and cause potentially lethal infections"), showed that COVID-19 was 99.99 percent inactivated post-spray, with no clinical symptoms experienced by Syrian hamsters from the treatment. No adverse reactions were reported in the hamsters following administration. The data developed in this study showed that the nasal spray product was effective in neutralizing the virus within low concentrations. An additional barrier effect animal study undertaken at an independent laboratory also assessed the COVID-19 blocking effects of the nasal spray. It concluded that the spray created a physical barrier to block the viral particles from taking hold on the surface of the nasal passages. The testing was to prove the mechanism of the nasal spray is capable of blocking the transmission of COVID-19 by creating a physical barrier. The next step is the conducting of a human clinical trial, which is now underway. Salvacion is currently seeking an Emergency Use Authorization (EAU) for its COVIXYL-V nasal spray from the FDA.

This nasal spray is made of ingredients listed as GRAS, or "Generally Recognized As Safe," by the FDA. Unlike other products based on isopropyl alcohol currently being tested, it appears Salvacion's nasal spray could offer a unique blocking system with enhanced effectiveness at a very low concentration. A worldwide patent has been filed for this technology.

"Our nasal spray product may well be the key to moving back to a world that some have thought lost forever to the 'new normalcy,'" said Abdul Gaffar, a Salvacion chemist and recipient of the American Chemistry Society's Heroes of Chemistry Award, who invented this nasal spray.

The contents of this article are for informational purposes only and do not constitute medical advice. It's important to consult with your medical providers and the CDC before making any medical decisions or changes to your health plan, particularly with regard to COVID-19 and its variants.

Read this article:
Complementary Protection May Be at Hand With a COVID-19-Preventing Nasal Spray - Newsweek

Read More...

MagForce AG announces results of 2021 Annual General Meeting and changes to the Supervisory Board – Yahoo Eurosport UK

Tuesday, August 17th, 2021

DGAP-News: MagForce AG / Key word(s): AGM/EGM12.08.2021 / 17:15 The issuer is solely responsible for the content of this announcement.

MagForce AG announces results of 2021 Annual General Meeting and changes to the Supervisory Board

Berlin, Germany, and Nevada, USA, August 12, 2021 - MagForce AG (Frankfurt, Scale, Xetra: MF6, ISIN: DE000A0HGQF5), a leading medical device company in the field of nanomedicine focused on oncology, today announced the results of the 2021 Annual General Meeting (AGM). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the meeting was held virtually, as in the previous year. In total, 44.5 percent of the share capital with voting rights was represented.

The Annual General Meeting approved resolution items 2 to 5 as well as 7, 8 and 10 - most of them with a significant majority. Resolution item 6 (Authorized Capital 2021) did not receive the required qualified majority. Norbert Neef, Chairman of the Supervisory Board, informed the Annual General Meeting that he resigns from office effective as of the end of the AGM. Thus, the vote on agenda item 9 was not applicable. Following the suggestion of the supplementary motion of shareholder Avalon Capital One GmbH dated July 29, 2021, Stefan Schtze, attorney and Managing Director of C3 Management GmbH, was elected to the Supervisory Board from the end of this AGM until the end of the AGM that resolves on the ratification of the actions of the members of the Supervisory Board for fiscal year 2021. The Supervisory Board of MagForce AG, which also includes Klemens Hallmann and Aaron Weaver, will hold a constituent meeting shortly to vote on the new chair.

Ben Lipps, CEO of MagForce AG and MagForce USA, Inc.: "From the Management as well as the employees of MagForce, I would like to express my sincere gratitude. Norbert has overseen the Company through its formative years and contributed significantly to the constructive cooperation between the Supervisory Board and the Executive Board that has supported the important decisions in corporate strategy and direction. As a result we have two unique and effective treatment options for glioblastoma and focal intermediate risk prostate cancer. The Management Board wishes Norbert every success in his professional as well as private future. At the same time, we welcome Mr Schtze as new member of the Supervisory Board and look forward to working together to achieve further important milestones for MagForce."

Additional information on the 2021 Annual General Meeting 2021, including detailed voting results, the video address by CEO Ben J. Lipps, as well as the Management presentation on current operational developments, the overview of fiscal year 2020 and outlook for the current year, are available on the Company's website at https://www.magforce.com/en/home/for-press-investors/#general_meetings.

About MagForce AG and MagForce USA, Inc.

MagForce AG, listed in the Scale segment of the Frankfurt Stock Exchange (MF6, ISIN: DE000A0HGQF5), together with its subsidiary MagForce USA, Inc., is a leading medical device company in the field of nanomedicine focused on oncology. The Group's proprietary NanoTherm(R) therapy system enables the targeted treatment of solid tumors through the intratumoral generation of heat via activation of superparamagnetic nanoparticles.

NanoTherm(R), NanoPlan(R), and NanoActivator(R) are components of the therapy and have received EU-wide regulatory approval as medical devices for the treatment of brain tumors. MagForce, NanoTherm, NanoPlan, and NanoActivator are trademarks of MagForce AG in selected countries.

For more information, please visit: http://www.magforce.comGet to know our Technology: video (You Tube)Stay informed and subscribe to our mailing list

Contact:MagForce AGBarbara von FrankenbergVice President Communications & Investor RelationsT +49-30-308380-77E-Mail: bfrankenberg@magforce.com

Disclaimer

This release may contain forward-looking statements and information which may be identified by terms such as "expects", "aims", "anticipates", "intends", "plans", "believes", "seeks", "estimates" or "will". Such forward-looking statements are based on our current expectations and certain assumptions, which may be subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties. The results actually achieved by MagForce AG may substantially differ from these forward-looking statements. MagForce AG assumes no obligation to update these forward-looking statements or to correct them in case of developments, which differ from those, anticipated.

12.08.2021 Dissemination of a Corporate News, transmitted by DGAP - a service of EQS Group AG.The issuer is solely responsible for the content of this announcement.

The DGAP Distribution Services include Regulatory Announcements, Financial/Corporate News and Press Releases. Archive at http://www.dgap.de

Original post:
MagForce AG announces results of 2021 Annual General Meeting and changes to the Supervisory Board - Yahoo Eurosport UK

Read More...

McMaster University researchers awarded more than $3M in Federal funds for projects – insauga.com

Tuesday, August 17th, 2021

Eleven researchers working out of Hamilton's McMaster University have been awarded almost $3.3 million from the Federal Government for projects deemed to be "on the cutting edge of science andinnovation."

On Wednesday (Aug. 11), Francois-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, announced that more than $77 million had been earmarked to support 332 research infrastructure projects at 50 universities acrossCanada.

The funding, made possible through the Canada Foundation for Innovation's (CFI) John R. Evans Leaders Fund (JELF), is expected to help universities attract and retain topresearchers.

"From developing sustainable building materials to creating new laboratories based on Indigenous principles and community engagement, these awards support essential and urgent research," said CFI president and CEO Roseann O'Reilly Runte, in a pressrelease.

"With the necessary spaces and tools, Canada's researchers will play a meaningful role on the global stage and contribute significantly to the quality of life today and for generations tocome."

The more than $3 million going to Mac researchers will help advance their work in health, materials and electrificationresearch.

Projects at Mac that will benefit from the fundinginclude:

Faculty ofEngineering

Bilgen Berker, Electrical and Computer Engineering Project: An Acoustic Noise and Vibration Measurement Facility for Low-noise and High-efficiency Electric Motor DrivesAward:$200,000

Ryan Lewis, Engineering Physics Project: Advanced Epitaxial Nanostructures and Materials LaboratoryAward:$190,584

Zahra Keshavarz-Motamed, Mechanical Engineering Project: Developments of Diagnostic and Predictive Tools and Regulatory Device Testing Machines for Cardiovascular DiseasesAward:$185,000

Maureen Lagos Paredes, Materials Science & Engineering Project: Momentum-resolved EELS Spectroscopy of Beam-sensitive Nanoscale MaterialsAward:$387,788

Faculty of HealthSciences

Lisa Carlesso, Rehabilitation Science Project: Understanding Pain Mechanisms and Management in Neuromusculoskeletal RehabilitationAward:$129,000

Michael McGillion, Nursing Project: Improving Perioperative and canceR Outcomes Through Excellence and appliCation of Virtual Technologies (PROTECT) LabAward:$800,000

Ishac Nazy, Medicine Project: Investigating Novel Mechanisms in Immune-mediated Platelet DisordersAward:$160,000

Michael Surette, Medicine Project: Metagemomics and Genomics of the Microbiome, Infectious Disease and Host ResponseAward:$650,000

Faculty ofScience

Katherine Bujold, Chemistry & Chemical Biology Project: Establishment of Nucleic Acid Nanomedicine Laboratory at McMaster UniversityAward:$75,005

Katrina Choe, Psychology, Neuroscience & Behaviour Project: Neural Mechanisms Linking Autism-risk Genes with Impaired Social BehaviorAward:$400,000

Jeremy Walsh, Kinesiology Project: Integrative Psychophysiology Research LabAward:$100,000

A full list of research projects and funding recipients benefitting from this investment can be found on the CFI website.

Read more:
McMaster University researchers awarded more than $3M in Federal funds for projects - insauga.com

Read More...

Global NANOTECHNOLOGY IN MEDICAL APPLICATIONS Statistics, CAGR, Outlook, and Covid-19 Impact 2016 The Bisouv Network – The Bisouv Network

Sunday, February 14th, 2021

Nanotechnology in Medical Applications: The Global Market

This report discusses the implications of technology and commercial trends in the context of the current size and growth of the pharmaceutical market, both in global terms and analyzed by the most important national markets. The important technologies supporting nanomedicine are reviewed, and the nature and structure of the nanomedicine industry are discussed with profiles of the leading 60+ companies, including recent merger and acquisition (M&A) activity. Five-year sales forecasts are provided for the national markets including the major therapeutic categories of products involved. Specific product categories quantified include diagnostics, cancer, CNS, anti-infective agents, cardiovasculars and anti-inflammatories.

Also Read:https://telegra.ph/Global-Dancewear-Market-Statistics-Development-and-Growth-2025-02-02

Report Includes:

Also Read: http://wiseguyes8.total-blog.com/global-china-digital-audio-broadcasting-dab-market-outlook-industry-analysis-and-prospect-2020-2026-22894697

An overview of the global markets for nanotechnology used in medical applications

Analyses of global market trends, with data from 2016, estimates for 2017, and projections of compound annual growth rates (CAGRs) through 2022

A review of technologies involved, in-depth analysis of applications in practice, and evaluation of future or potential applications

Also Read: https://techsite.io/p/1944999

Information on many significant products in which the nano dimension has made a significant contribution to product effectiveness

A look at the regulatory environment, healthcare policies, demographics, and other factors that directly affect nanotechnology used in medicine

Analysis of the markets dynamics, specifically growth drivers, inhibitors, and opportunities

Coverage of strategies employed by companies specializing in nanomedicine to meet the challenges of this highly competitive marketSummary

Also Read:https://wiseguyreports12.blogspot.com/2021/02/global-china-digital-audio-broadcasting.html

Nano-enabled medical products began appearing on the market over a decade ago, and some have become best-sellers in their therapeutic categories. The principal areas in which nanomedical products have made an impact are cancer, CNS diseases, cardiovascular disease and infection control. The Summary Table gives estimates of the historical and current markets for these nanomedicine areas with a forecast through 2022.

The U.S. market is by far the largest in the global nanomedicine market and is set to continue to dominate the world marketplace; however, other national markets are expected to increase their shares over the next five years.

Reasons for Doing the Study

Also Read:https://penzu.com/p/240d32a5

Nanomedicine is already an established market. Unlike some other potential applications of nanotechnology, which are still largely experimental, nanomedicine has already produced some significant products in which the nano dimension has made a significant contribution to product effectiveness. Now that aspects of the nanomedicine market are established, it is appropriate to review the technology, see its practical applications so far, evaluate the participating companies and look to its future.ABLYNX NV

ABRAXIS BIOSCIENCE (CELGENE)

APHIOS CORP.

BIOFORCE NANOSCIENCES HOLDINGS INC.

BIO-GATEAG

CALANDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC.

C SIXTY INC. (ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS)

ELAN (ALKERMES CORP.)

FARFIELD SCIENTIFIC (BIOLIN SCIENTIFIC AB)

IGI LABORATORIES (TELIGENT INC.)

KEREOS INC.

KEYSTONE NANO INC.

KLEINDIEK NANOTECHNIKGMBH

LABOPHARM (PALADIN LABS)

LIPLASOME PHARMA APS

MAGFORCE NANOTECHNOLOGIES

MAGNAMEDICS GMBH

MICROFLUIDICS CORP.

MOLECULAR PROFILES (JUNIPER PHARMA SERVICES)

NANOBIO CORP.

NANOBIOTIX

NANOCARRIER CO. LTD

NANOCOPOEIA, INC.

NANOCYTE INC.

NANOLOGIX INC.

NANOMED PHARMACEUTICALSINC.

NANOMIX INC.

NANOPHARM AG

NANOSPECTRA BIOSCIENCESINC.

NANOSPHERE INC. (LUMINEX CORP.)

NANOSTRUCTURES INC.

NANOSYN INC.

NANOTHERAPEUTICS INC.

NANOTROPE INC.

NANOVIRICIDES INC

NUCRYST PHARMACEUTICALS

NUTRALEASE

ORTHOVITA INC. (STRYKER CORP.)

PIONEER SURGICAL TECHNOLOGY (RTI SURGICAL)

PSIVIDA LTD.

SOLUBEST LTD

STARPHARMA

TECANGROUP LTD.

TRANSGENEX NANOBIOTECH INC.

FOR MORE DETAILS :https://www.wiseguyreports.com/reports/5545026-global-plastic-and-competitive-pipe-market-insights-and-forecast-to-2016

About Us:

Wise Guy Reports is part of the Wise Guy Research Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and offers premium progressive statistical surveying, market research reports, analysis & forecast data for industries and governments around the globe.

Contact Us:

NORAH TRENT

[emailprotected]

Ph: +162-825-80070 (US)

Ph: +44 2035002763 (UK)

Here is the original post:
Global NANOTECHNOLOGY IN MEDICAL APPLICATIONS Statistics, CAGR, Outlook, and Covid-19 Impact 2016 The Bisouv Network - The Bisouv Network

Read More...

Nanotechnology in Medical Market Demand Analysis To 2026 Lead By-Smith and Nephew, Novartis, Merck, Mitsui Chemicals, Amgen, Cytimmune KSU | The…

Sunday, February 14th, 2021

TheNanotechnology in Medical market outlooklooks extremely promising is a valuable source of insightful data for business strategists. It provides the industry overview with growth analysis and historical & futuristic cost, revenue, demand and supply data (as applicable). The research analysts provide an elaborate description of the value chain and its distributor analysis. This Market study provides comprehensive data that enhances the understanding, scope and application of this report.

The report presents the market competitive landscape and a corresponding detailed analysis of the majorvendor/key playersin the market.Top Companiesin the Global Nanotechnology in Medical Market:Smith and Nephew, Novartis, Merck, Mitsui Chemicals, Amgen, Cytimmune, Access, Camurus, Roche, Dentsply International, 3M, Celgene, Pfizer.

SPECIAL OFFER (Avail an Up-to 25% discount on this report, please fill the form and mention the code: MIR25 in the comments section)

Click the link to get a free Sample Copy of the Report@:

https://www.marketinsightsreports.com/reports/01122532008/global-nanotechnology-in-medical-market-research-report-with-opportunities-and-strategies-to-boost-growth-covid-19-impact-and-recovery/inquiry?source=Now&Mode=24

This report segments the global Nanotechnology in Medical market on the basis ofTypesare:

Nano Medicine

Nano Diagnosis

Other

On the basis ofApplication, the Global Nanotechnology in Medical market is segmented into:

Hospitals

Clinics

Others

Investigator Observers Strong Growth in Specific Regions:

EuropeMarket (Germany, UK, France, Russia, Italy)

Center East and AfricaMarket (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Nigeria, South Africa)

South AmericaMarket (Brazil, Argentina, Colombia)

North AmericaMarket (United States, Canada, Mexico)

Asia PacificMarket (China, Japan, Korea, India, Southeast Asia).

Inquire For Discount at:

https://www.marketinsightsreports.com/reports/01122532008/global-nanotechnology-in-medical-market-research-report-with-opportunities-and-strategies-to-boost-growth-covid-19-impact-and-recovery/discount?source=Now&Mode=24

Influence of the Nanotechnology in Medical market report:

-Comprehensive assessment of all opportunities and risk in the Nanotechnology in Medical market.

-Nanotechnology in Medical market recent innovations and major events

-Detailed study of business strategies for growth of the Nanotechnology in Medical market-leading players.

-Conclusive study about the growth plot of Nanotechnology in Medical market for forthcoming years.

-In-depth understanding of Nanotechnology in Medical market-particular drivers, constraints and major micro markets.

-Favorable impression inside vital technological and market latest trends striking the Nanotechnology in Medical market.

Important Features that are under Offering and Key Highlights of the Reports:

Detailed overview of Market

Changing market dynamics of the industry

In-depth market segmentation by Type, Application etc.

Historical, current and projected market size in terms of volume and value

Recent industry trends and developments

Competitive landscape of Market

Strategies of key players and product offerings

Potential and niche segments/regions exhibiting promising growth.

Finally, the Nanotechnology in Medical Market report is the believable source for gaining the market research that will exponentially accelerate your business. The report gives the principle locale, economic situations with the item value, benefit, limit, generation, supply, request, and market development rate and figure, and so on. Nanotechnology in Medical Industry report additionally Presents a new task SWOT examination, speculation attainability investigation, and venture return investigation.

We also offer customization on reports based on specific client requirement:

1-Freecountry level analysis forany 5 countriesof your choice

2-FreeCompetitive analysis ofany 5 key market players.

3-Free40 analyst hoursto cover any other data points.

About Us:

MarketInsightsReportsprovides syndicated market research on industry verticals including Healthcare, Information and Communication Technology (ICT), Technology and Media, Chemicals, Materials, Energy, Heavy Industry, etc.MarketInsightsReportsprovides global and regional market intelligence coverage, a 360-degree market view which includes statistical forecasts, competitive landscape, detailed segmentation, key trends, and strategic recommendations.

MediaContact Us:

Irfan Tamboli (Head of Sales) Market Insights Reports

Phone: + 1704 266 3234 | +91-750-707-8687

sales@marketinsightsreports.com | irfan@marketinsightsreports.com

See the article here:
Nanotechnology in Medical Market Demand Analysis To 2026 Lead By-Smith and Nephew, Novartis, Merck, Mitsui Chemicals, Amgen, Cytimmune KSU | The...

Read More...

Page 3«..2345..10..»


2025 © StemCell Therapy is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) Comments (RSS) | Violinesth by Patrick