Nanomedicine Market Research Report provides a complete analytical study that provides all the details of key players such as company profile, product portfolio, capacity, price, cost and revenue during the forecast period from 2020 to 2026. A Nanomedicine market that includes Future Trends, Current Growth Factors, Meticulous Opinions, Facts, Historical Data and Statistically Supported And Industry-Validated Market Data.

Impact Analysis of COVID-19: The complete version of the Nanomedicine Market Report will include the impact of the COVID-19, and anticipated change on the future outlook of the industry, by taking into account the political, economic, social, regional and technological parameters.

Covid-19 Impact analysison Nanomedicine Market, get on mail athttps://www.worldwidemarketreports.com/sample/364243

This Nanomedicine market research provides a clear explanation of how this market will make a growth impression during the mentioned period. This study report scanned specific data for specific characteristics such as Type, Size, Application and End User. There are basic segments included in the segmentation analysis that are the result of SWOT analysis and PESTEL analysis.

GE Healthcare, Johnson & Johnson, Mallinckrodt plc, Merck & Co. Inc., Nanosphere Inc. are some of the major organizations dominating the global market.(Other Players Can be Added per Request)

Key players in the Nanomedicine market were identified through a second survey, and market share was determined through a first and second survey. All measurement sharing, splitting and analysis were solved using a secondary source and a validated primary source. The Nanomedicine market report starts with a basic overview of the Industry Life Cycle, Definitions, Classifications, Applications, and Industry Chain Structure. The combination of these two factors will help key players meet the market reach and help to understand offered characteristics and customer needs.

Get the Exclusive sample PDF of Nanomedicine Market with few listed Key Players 2020-https://www.worldwidemarketreports.com/sample/364243

The report also makes some important suggestions for the new Nanomedicine market project before evaluating its feasibility. Overall, this report covers Nanomedicine market Sales, Price, Sales, Gross Profit, Historical Growth and Future Prospects. It provides facts related to mergers, acquisitions, partnerships and joint venture activities prevalent in the market.

The Report Covers Segments Analysis also-

On the basis of Types, Nanomedicine Market is segmented into- Regenerative Medicine, In-vitro & In-vivo Diagnostics, Vaccines, Drug Delivery

On the Basis of Application, the Nanomedicine Market is segmented as- Clinical Cardiology, Urology, Genetics, Orthopedics, Ophthalmology

Complete knowledge of the Nanomedicine market is based on the latest industry news, opportunities and trends in the expected region. The Nanomedicine market research report provides clear insights into the influential factors expected to change the global market in the near future.

Remarkable Attributes of Nanomedicine Market Report:

Customization or Quriy on the Report, click athttps://www.worldwidemarketreports.com/quiry/364243

Contact Us:

Mr. ShahWorldwide Market ReportsSeattle, WA 98154,U.S.Email: [emailprotected]

View post:
Nanomedicine Market Actual Strategies of Key Players to Overcome COVID 19 Pendamic | GE Healthcare, Johnson & Johnson, Mallinckrodt plc, Merck...

UPDATE AVAILABLE ON-DEMAND

Global Nanomedicine Market Report provides an overview of the market based on key parameters such as market size, sales, sales analysis and key drivers. The market size of the market is expected to grow on a large scale during the forecast period (2019-2026). This report covers the impact of the latest COVID-19 on the market. The coronavirus epidemic (COVID-19) has affected all aspects of life around the world. This has changed some of the market situation. The main purpose of the research report is to provide users with a broad view of the market. Initial and future assessments of rapidly changing market scenarios and their impact are covered in the report.

The global nanomedicine market was valued at $111,912 million in 2016, and is projected to reach $261,063 million by 2023, growing at a CAGR of 12.6% from 2017 to 2023.

The drug delivery segment accounted for nearly two-fifths share of the global market in 2016.

Click Here To Access Free Sample Report @ https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/request-sample/2021

Nanomedicine is an application of nanotechnology that deals in the prevention & treatment of diseases in humans. This technology uses submicrometer-sized particles for diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of diseases. Nanomedicines are advantageous over generic drugs in several aspects such as, to reduce renal excretion, improve the ability of drugs to accumulate at pathological sites, and enhance the therapeutic index of drugs. Thus, nanomedicine is used in a wide range of applications that include aerospace materials, cosmetics, and medicine.

The global market is driven by increase in the development of nanotechnology-based drugs, advantages of nanomedicine in various healthcare applications, and growth in need of therapies with fewer side effects. However, long approval process and risks associated with nanomedicine (environmental impacts) restrain the market growth. In addition, growth of healthcare facilities in emerging economies is anticipated to provide numerous opportunities for the market growth.

The vaccines segment is expected to register a significant CAGR of 13.2% throughout the forecast period. The treatment segment accounted for about fourth-sevenths share in the global market in 2016, accounting for the highest share during the forecast period. This is due to the high demand for therapeutics among patient and rise in the incidence of chronic diseases.

The neurological diseases segment is expected to grow at the highest CAGR of 13.9% during the forecast period, owing to high demand for brain monitoring & treatment devices and drugs. The oncological diseases segment accounted for the highest revenue in 2016, with one-third share of the global market, and is expected to maintain its dominance throughout the forecast period.

In 2016, Asia-Pacific and LAMEA collectively accounted for about one-fourth share of the global market, and is expected to continue this trend due to increased adoption of nanomedicines, especially in China, India, and the other developing economies. In addition, rise in investments by key players in the field of nanomedicines is key driving factor of the Asia-Pacific market.

Inquire before buying @ https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/purchase-enquiry/2021

The Major Key Players Are:

The Other Prominent Players Are:

About Us:

Allied Market Research (AMR) is a market research and business-consulting firm of Allied Analytics LLP, based in Portland, Oregon. AMR offers market research reports, business solutions, consulting services, and insights on markets across 11 industry verticals. Adopting extensive research methodologies, AMR is instrumental in helping its clients to make strategic business decisions and achieve sustainable growth in their market domains. We are equipped with skilled analysts and experts, and have a wide experience of working with many Fortune 500 companies and small & medium enterprises.

Contact:

David CorreaPortland, OR, United StatesUSA/Canada (Toll Free): +1-800-792-5285, +1-503-894-6022, +1-503-446-1141UK: +44-845-528-1300Hong Kong: +852-301-84916India (Pune): +91-20-66346060Fax: +1(855)550-5975[emailprotected]Web:https://www.alliedmarketresearch.comFollow Us on LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/company/allied-market-research

Go here to see the original:
COVID-19 Impact on Nanomedicine Market Overview With Detailed Analysis, Competitive Landscape, Forecast To 2026 | Abbott Laboratories, CombiMatrix...

Understand the Global Nanomedicine Market with the latest market trends and gain a competitive advantage with beneficial information offered by the report. The research report is a comprehensive study of the global Nanomedicine market and is equipped with insights, facts, historical data, and validated market data. The report provides a statistical analysis of the market segments, geographical bifurcation, product types, and competitive landscape.

The report is equipped with the current changing scenario of the market, the economic slowdown, and the overall impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the industry. The report also explores and studies the current and future impact of the pandemic.

Request a sample copy of the report @ https://www.reportsanddata.com/sample-enquiry-form/1048

The market research report provides insight into the Nanomedicine market and demonstrates a comprehensive evaluation of the market. The report focuses on the study of cost analysis, product specification, product development, and profit margin of manufacturers.

Market drivers:

Increased demand in various industries and segments

Market trends:

Rise in demand for the products

Strategic alliances such as mergers and collaborations adopted by leading players

Market Restraints:

Economic slowdown

Environmental changes

Changing dynamics of the market

Market Challenges:

The report evaluates the current situation and the future prospects by forecast timeline and is analyzed based on the volume and revenue of the market. Advanced analytical tools, such as SWOT Analysis and Porters Five Forces Analysis, are also used in the report. The study provides a thorough report on the top industry players with their scope and growth in the market.

This research report has all the information you need to device optimum market strategies.

In market segmentation by types of Nanomedicine , the report covers-

In market segmentation by applications of the Nanomedicine , the report covers the following uses-

Request a discount on the report @ https://www.reportsanddata.com/discount-enquiry-form/1048

Benefits of Nanomedicine Market Research Report:

On the geographical front, the Nanomedicine market is broadly segmented into North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, and Middle East & Africa. Asia Pacific, North America, and Europe are expected to be the leading regions with significant share in the market.

TOC Highlights of Nanomedicine Report:

To read more about the report @ https://www.reportsanddata.com/report-detail/nanomedicine-market

Important Questions Answered in the Report:

The report provides an in-depth study of the past, present, and growth prospects in the market gathered from validated research sources.

Request for customization of the report @ https://www.reportsanddata.com/request-customization-form/1048

Thank you for reading this report. The report can be customized according to the clients requirements. For further inquiries, kindly connect with us.

Go here to see the original:
Nanomedicine Market Provides in-depth analysis of the Nanomedicine Industry, with current trends and future estimations to elucidate the investment...

A novel compound that uses abundant lipids in cancer cell membranes to deliver a radioisotope to the tumor environment shows early signs of efficacy in a range of B-cell malignancies, including multiple myeloma.1,2

CLR 131 is a phospholipid-drug conjugate (PDC) designed to provide a payload of iodine-131 directly to the cytosol and cytoplasm of tumor cells.3 Cellectar Biosciences, a biopharmaceutical company based in Florham Park, New Jersey, is investigating the potential of CLR 131 in hematologic and solid tumors. The company also is exploring its PDC approach as a platform technology for other oncologic conjugates.4

Positive clinical trial data have been announced for patients with B-cell malignancies, 2 including multiple myeloma, and CLR 131 has secured fast track designation from the FDA for 3 separate indications.5-7 If it lives up to its potential, CLR 131 could be the first of many such drugs from Cellectar, with other payloads being explored.1

Meanwhile, the underlying technology shines a light on the broader use of lipids as vehicles for cancer therapies. With the advent of nanotechnology in medicine, lipid-based carriers have been designed to encapsulate drugs to improve delivery to the tumor site, in the hopes of reducing generalized toxicity and improving therapeutic effect.8-10

Several FDA-approved liposomal formulations of common chemotherapy drugs are on the market.11 Ongoing clinical efforts aim to improve the efficacy of some of these drugs; notably, daunorubicin plus cytarabine (CPX-351; Vyxeos)12 and liposomal irinotecan (Onivyde).13 CPX-351 was initially approved in 2017 in acute myeloid leukemia settings and Onivyde was cleared in 2015 for progressive metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Additionally, newer lipid-based strategies aimed at overcoming the challenges of liposomal formulations are in development. These include SB05-EndoTAG-1 (SynCore Biotechnology), which combines paclitaxel with lipids14; mRNA-2416 (Moderna), which encodes OX40L in a lipid nanoparticle15; and Promitil (LipoMedix), a lipid-based form of mitomycin-C.16

Investigators have long sought more specific cancer drugs with reduced off-target toxicity and enhanced therapeutic efficacy. The development of molecularly targeted therapies has been one result, but new drug delivery systems may achieve similar goals. Thanks to the advent of nanotechnology, significant advances in the development of drug carrier technologies for cancer therapy have occurred in the past several decades.8-10

Broadly speaking, drug carriers are designed to shield drugs from interaction with healthy cells and facilitate accumulation at the tumor site. The latter is believed to occur as a result of the enhanced permeability and retention effect. Nanoparticles are too big to readily pass through the normal vasculature into healthy tissues but not the abnormal, leaky blood vessels characteristic of the tumor microenvironment. The lack of lymphatic drainage from tumor vessels adds to this effect.17

Nanoparticles prepared from natural polymers, such as lipids, proteins, and peptides, represent the most promising approach. In particular, liposomes are the most extensively studied type of nanoparticle drug carrier and account for first generation of FDA-approved lipidbased drug delivery systems.18

Liposomes are spherical vesicles composed of 1 or more phospholipid bilayers surrounding an aqueous core. Depending on its properties, a drug can be encapsulated within the core (a hydrophilic drug) or held in the bilayer (a hydrophobic drug) (Figure 1).8,11

Among their advantages over naked drugs, liposomes and other lipid-based delivery systems can reduce toxicity, prolong half-life in the circulation, and improve pharmacokinetics. Additionally, because of their biocompatibility with cell membranes, they are more readily taken up into cells via endocytosis. Because the drug remains behind a lipid barrier once inside the cell, being released only upon lysosomal degradation, it may avoid eviction from the cell by transporter pumps that play a large role in drug resistance.9,11,19

Chemotherapy Delivery

Beginning with the 1995 approval of doxorubicin hydrochloride liposome injection (Doxil) for the treatment of AIDS-related Kaposi sarcoma and, subsequently, multiple myeloma and ovarian cancer, severalliposomal formulations of conventional chemotherapies have become available.9,11

Despite better developed drug properties, some approved liposomal formulations only moderately improved patient survival compared with conventional chemotherapy.11 Their development revealed a number of inherent challenges. Early on, investigators discovered that liposomes were rapidly recognized and engulfed by macrophages, which led to their destruction by the mononuclear phagocyte system.10,20

Nevertheless, ongoing clinical development has demonstrated greater efficacy for several of these compounds. CPX-351 continued to show an overall survival (OS) benefit versus conventional 7 + 3 chemotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed high-risk/secondary acute myeloid leukemia in findings from a phase 3 trial (NCT01696084) presented at the 2020 European Hematology Association Virtual Congress.12

After a median follow-up of 60.65 months, the median OS was 9.33 months (95% CI, 6.37-11.86) and 5.95 months with CPX-351 and 7 + 3, respectively (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55-0.91). The estimated 3- and 5-year OS rates were also higher with CPX-351 versus 7 + 3, at 21% versus 9% and 18% versus 8%, respectively.12

The combination of Onivyde plus fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (NALIRIFOX) demonstrated promising outcomes as a frontline treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Findings from a phase 1/2 study (NCT02551991) for 32 patients were presented at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) World Congress on Gastrointestinal Cancer 2020. The NALIRIFOX regimen resulted in a median progression-free survival of 9.2 months (95% CI, 7.69-11.96) and a median OS of 12.6 months (95% CI, 8.74-18.69). The overall response was 34.4% (95% CI, 18.6%-53.2%), consisting of 1 complete response (CR) and 10 partial responses (PRs).13

An international, randomized phase 3 trial (NAPOLI 3; NCT04083235) exploring the use of frontline NALIRIFOX compared with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (Abraxane) in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer is now under way.

Other Payloads

Besides chemotherapy, other cancer drugs can be contained within liposomes. Nucleic acidbased drugs, which include oligodeoxynucleotides, plasmid DNA, short interfering RNA, and messenger RNA (mRNA), can be used for gene therapy. However, the use of naked genetic material is challenging due to its large size, instability in the circulation, and susceptibility to degradation by nucleases. Lipid-based carriers offer a way to address these issues.20,21

Bio-Path Holdings is developing prexigebersen (BP1001), BP1002, and BP1003; the latter is still in preclinical testing. All 3 are liposome-encapsulated antisense oligonucleotides that inhibit synthesis of the GRB2, BCL2, and STAT3 proteins, respectively.22-24 Prexigebersen is most advanced in clinical development; Bio-Path recently announced an updated interim analysis of stage 1 of an ongoing phase 2 study in AML (NCT02781883).

Among 17 evaluable patients treated with a combination of prexigebersen and low-dose cytarabine (LDAC), 11 had a response, including 5 CRs.25 Moving forward, patients in stage 2 of the trial will be treated with a combination of prexigebersen, decitabine, and venetoclax, instead of LDAC, following initial safety testing of this combination in which 3 of 6 patients had a response.26

All the currently approved liposomal formulations rely on passive targeting of the tumor tissue through enhanced permeability and retention.9 However, the irregular tumor vasculature thought to be responsible for this effect can also work against effective drug delivery, as can the elevated fluid pressure surrounding the tumor.10,11

To further enhance active tumor-targeted drug delivery, development of functionalized liposomes has also been explored, in which properties of the liposome are engineered for improvements. This includes altering the type of lipid to affect the size or charge of the liposome or conjugating other drugs to the liposome surface. Immunoliposomes, for example, are generated by chemically coupling liposomes with antibodies or antibody fragments against cancer cellspecific antigens, such as EGFR.9,11,18,19

SB05-EndoTAG-1 encapsulates paclitaxel in positively charged liposomes. These are designed to interact with the negatively charged endothelial cells of newly formed blood vessels, releasing paclitaxel into these cells, killing them, and cutting off the tumors blood supply.14 Phase 3 trials are ongoing in locally advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer (NCT03126435) and triple-negative breast cancer (NCT03002103).

Other types of lipid-based drug deliverysystems, beyond lyposomes, come with advantages and disadvantages. There are several major types of lipid nanoparticles; the lipid core may be solid, liquid, or both, and the core may contain single or multiple compartments of drug, among other distinctive features.8,19

Moderna Therapeutics is developing 2 lipid nanoparticle-based encapsulation systems that contain synthetic mRNAs encoding immunostimulatory proteins.27 Results from an ongoing study of mRNA-2416 (NCT03323398), in which the encapsulated mRNA encodes OX40L, were presented at the 2020 American Association for Cancer Research Virtual Meeting I. Despite being well tolerated, mRNA-2416 had modest antitumor activity, but it is hoped that this may be enhanced by combining it with durvalumab (Imfinzi), a PD-L1 inhibitor. This combination is being evaluated in part B of the study.15

Lipid-drug conjugates (LDCs), in which cancer drugs are linked with lipid molecules, are among the most promising types of lipid nanoparticle. LDCs also can facilitate the loading of hydrophobic drugs into other lipid-based carrier systems.8,28

Promitil is an LDC involving mitomycin-C that is further encapsulated in a pegylated liposomal carrier.16 In a phase 1a doseescalation study, toxicity was lower and dose tolerability higher than historical data for naked mitomycin-C. In the phase 1b portion of the trial in patients with advanced, chemorefractory colorectal cancer, Promitil was evaluated alone or combined with either capecitabine or capecitabine and bevacizumab (NCT01705002).

Among 36 response-evaluable patients, stable disease was observed in 42% at week 12. Median survival was 8.7 months, and adding capecitabine and bevacizumab to Promitil had no further effect. AEs were mostly mild to moderately severe.29

Cellectar Biosciences is developing a different kind of LDC. CLR 131 is a PDC, a proprietary mix of phospholipid ethers (PLEs) covalently linked to a cytotoxic radioactive isotope of iodine-131.3

PDCs offer a lipid-based carrier system with a unique feature: They exploit the altered lipid composition of cancer cell membranes to more actively target tumors. PLEs are naturally occurring lipids that are taken up into cells via lipid rafts, cholesterol-rich regions of the plasma membrane that play a key role in cell signaling. PLEs accumulate in cancer cells, in part because their cell membranes contain an enhanced number of lipid rafts.1,30-32

Thus, the lipid rafts on the surface of cancer cells are bound by multiple PDCs via their PLE moiety. When the lipid rafts eventually undergo transmembrane flipping, they deliver the PLEs and their radioactive payload into the cancer cell. Proposed advantages of this system include the PDCs ability to gain entry into a wide variety of cancer types and indiscriminately target all cells within a tumor without relying on expression of a specific antigen.1

Furthermore, the technology could offer considerable flexibility in the types of payloads that can be used and could be further refined via linker design (Figure 2).1 Cellectar has several other PDCs in preclinical development, including agents designed to produce cell cycle arrest, inhibit protein translation, and disrupt the cytoskeleton.33

CLR 131 has been granted orphan drug status in multiple myeloma, Ewing sarcoma, neuroblastoma, osteosarcoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, and lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma (LPL).34 CLR 131 also has fast track designation for multiple myeloma, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and LPL/Waldenstr.m macroglobulinemia (WM).5-7

The most recent fast track designation, for LPL/WM, follows positive results from the ongoing phase 2 CLOVER-1 trial (NCT02952508); Cellectar announced that all 4 treated participants with LPL/WM so far achieved an objective response, with 1 achieving CR.2,7,34

In this trial, patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) B-cell lymphomas, multiple myeloma, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) were treated with 3 doses of CLR 131: less than 50 mCi total body dose (TBD; an intentionally subtherapeutic dose), 50 mCi TBD, and 75 mCi TBD. Patients in both the multiple myeloma and NHL cohorts had a median age of 70 years and were heavily pretreated.34

The overall response rate (ORR) for patients with multiple myeloma (n = 33) was 34.5% across all doses (42.8% at the 75 mCi dose; 26.3%, 50 mCi). In patients with NHL, the ORR among 19 patients was 42% (43%, 75 mCi; 42%, 50 mCi). Subtype assessments demonstrated ORRs of 30% (with 1 CR) in patients with DLBCL and 33% for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, small lymphocytic leukemia, and marginal zone lymphoma. CLR 131 was well tolerated across all dose groups.34

Cellectar simultaneously announced the completion of a phase 1 dose-escalation study of CLR 131 in patients with R/R multiple myeloma (NCT02278315). In this trial, 4 single-dose cohorts were examined (25, 37.5, 50, and 62.5 mCi TBD). The study was modified in 2018 to test fractionated doses (2 doses of 31, 37.5, or 40 mCi TBD, given 1 week apart). For both the single- and fractionated-dose cohorts, CLR 131 was administered as 30-minute intravenous infusions in combination with 40-mg weekly low-dose dexamethasone.34

All patients (n = 17) enrolled in the single-dose cohorts experienced clinical benefit, with 16 participants achieving stable disease. Pooled median OS from the 4 cohorts was 22 months.

Compared with patients administered the highest single dose of CLR 131, the cohort that received the lowest fractionated dose showed better tolerability and safety; despite receiving an 18% higher dose overall, these patients required less supportive care (such as blood transfusions) and had a 50% greater reduction in M protein levels, a surrogate marker of efficacy.34

The next fractionated-dose cohort, which received a total 75 mCi TBD (2 ~ 37.5 mCi TBD; n = 4), had a 50% PR rate, defined as at least a 50% decrease in M protein from baseline. The remaining 2 patients experienced a minimal response, defined as an M protein decrease between 25% and 49.9%.

The authors concluded that CLR 131 showed a clear dose response, with higher doses producing greater efficacy without unacceptable toxicity.35

1. A proprietary platform that specifically delivers oncologic warheads to tumor cells. Cellectar Biosciences. Accessed June 1, 2020. https://www.cellectar.com/technology

2. Cellectar Biosciences announces CLR 131 achieves primary efficacy endpoints from its phase 2 CLOVER-1 study in relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas and completion of the phase 1 relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma dose escalation study. News release. Cellectar Biosciences. February 19, 2020. Accessed June 1, 2020. bit.ly/2NZUflr

3. Longcor J, Oliver K, Friend J, Callandar N. Interim evaluation of a targeted radiotherapeutic, CLR 131, in relapsed/refractory diffuse large b cell lymphoma patients (R/R DLBCL). Presented at: 2019 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress; Barcelona, Spain; September 27-October 1, 2019. Abstract 5797. bit.ly/2VMpSDc

4. CLR 131. Cellectar Biosciences. Accessed May 25, 2020. http://www.cellectar.com/product-pipeline/clr-131

5. Cellectar receives FDA fast track designation for CLR 131 in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. News release. Cellectar Biosciences, Inc. May 13, 2020. Accessed May 25, 2020. https://www.cellectar.com/news-media/press-releases/detail/206/cellectar-receives-fda-fast-track-designation-for-clr-131

6. Cellectar receives FDA fast track designation for CLR 131 in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. News release. Cellectar Biosciences. July 9, 2020. Accessed May 25, 2020. https://www.cellectar.com/news-media/press-releases/detail/211/cellectar-receives-fda-fast-track-designation-for-clr-131

7. Cellectar receives FDA fast track designation for CLR 131 in lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/Waldenstroms macroglobulinemia. News release. Cellectar Biosciences. May 26, 2020. Accessed June 1, 2020. https://www.cellectar.com/news-media/press-releases/detail/238/cellectar-receives-fda-fast-track-designation-forclr-131

8. Alavi M, Hamidi M. Passive and active targeting in cancer therapy by liposomes and lipid nanoparticles. Drug Metab Pers Ther. 2019;34(1). doi:10.1515/dmpt-2018-0032

9. Yan W, Leung SS, To KK. Updates on the use of liposomes for active tumor targeting in cancer therapy. Nanomedicine (Lond). 2019;15(3):303-318. doi:10.2217/nnm-2019-0308

10. Jahan ST, Sadat SMA, Walliser M, Haddadi A. Targeted therapeutic nanoparticles: an immense promise to fight against cancer. J Drug Deliv. 2017;2017:9090325. doi:10.1155/2017/9090325

11. He H, Yuan D, Wu Y, Cao Y. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics modeling and simulation systems to support the development and regulation of liposomal drugs. Pharmaceutics. 2019;11(3):110. doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics11030110

12. Lancet JE, Uy GY, Newell LF, et al. Five-year final results of a phase 3 study of CPX-351 versus 7+3 in older adults with newly diagnosed high-risk/secondary acute myeloid leukemia. Presented at: 2020 European Hematology Association Virtual Congress; June 11-21, 2020. Abstract EP556.

13. Wainberg ZA, Bekaii-Saab T, Boland PM, et al. First-line liposomal irinotecan 5 fluorouracil/leucovorin oxaliplatin in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: primary analysis from a phase 1/2 study. Presented at: European Society of Medical Oncology World Congress on Gastrointestinal Cancer 2010; July 1-4, 2020. Abstract LBA-001.

14. EndoTAG-1. SynCoreBio. Accessed June 2, 2020. https://www.syncorebio.com/en/focus-area/sb05-endotag-1/

15. Jimeno A, Gupta S, Sullivan R, et al. A phase 1/2, open-label, multicenter, dose escalation and efficacy study of mRNA-2416, a lipid nanoparticle encapsulated mRNA encoding human OX40L, for intratumoral injection alone or in combination with durvalumab for patients with advanced malignancies. Presented at: 2020 American Association for Cancer Research Virtual Meeting I; April 27-28, 2020. Accessed June 1, 2020. Abstract CT032. https://www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#!/9045/presentation/10742

16. Technology. LipoMedix. Accessed July 5, 2020. http://lipomedix.com/Products/Technology

17. Golombek SK, May JN, Theek B, et al. Tumor targeting via EPR: strategies to enhance patient responses. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2018;130:17-38. doi:10.1016/j.addr.2018.07.007

18. Yingchoncharoen P, Kalinowski DS, Richardson DR. Lipid-based drug delivery systems in cancer therapy: what is available and what is yet to come. Pharmacol Rev. 2016;68(3):701-787. doi:10.1124/pr.115.012070

19. Battaglia L, Ugazio E. Lipid nano- and microparticles: an overview of patent-related research. J Nanomater. 2019:1-22. doi:10.1155/2019/2834941

20. Barba AA, Bochicchio S, Dalmoro A, Lamberti G. Lipid delivery systems for nucleic-acid-based-drugs: from production to clinical applications. Pharmaceutics. 2019;11(8):360. doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics11080360

21. Liposomes and lipid nanoparticles as delivery vehicles for personalized medicine. Exelead. November 16, 2018. Accessed June 1, 2020. https://www.exeleadbiopharma.com/news/liposomes-and-lipid-nanoparticles-as-delivery-vehicles-for-personalized-medicine

22. BP1002 (liposomal Bcl2) for follicular lymphoma and other forms of non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Bio-Path Holdings. Accessed June 1, 2020. http://www.dnabilize.com/bp1002/

23. Prexigebersen (liposomal Grb2 antisense) for acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Bio-Path Holdings. Accessed June 1, 2020. http://www.dnabilize.com/bp1001

24. BP1003 (liposomal Stat3) for pancreatic cancer. Bio-Path Holdings. Accessed June 1, 2020. http://www.dnabilize.com/bp1003/

25. Bio-Path announces clinical update to interim analysis of phase 2 prexigebersen trial in acute myeloid leukemia. News release. Bio-Path Holdings. March 6, 2019. Accessed June 1, 2020. http://www.biopathholdings.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/BPTH_Press_Release_20190306.pdf

26. Bio-Path Holdings provides clinical update and 2020 business outlook. News release. Bio-Path Holdings. January 8, 2020. Accessed June 1, 2020. http://www.biopathholdings.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/BPTH_2020_Business_Outlook.pdf

27. Modernas pipeline. Moderna. Accessed June 2, 2020. https://www.modernatx.com/pipeline

28. Sreekanth V, Bajaj A. Recent advances in engineering of lipid drug conjugates for cancer therapy. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 2019;5(9):4148-4166. doi:10.1021/acsbiomaterials.9b00689

29. Gabizon AA, Tahover E, Golan T, et al. Pharmacokinetics of mitomycin-c lipidic prodrug entrapped in liposomes and clinical correlations in metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Published online January 18, 2020. Invest New Drugs. doi:10.1007/s10637-020-00897-3

30. Deming DA, Maher ME, Leystra AA, et al. Phospholipid ether analogs for the detection of colorectal tumors. PLoS One. 2014;9(10):e109668. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0109668

31. Weichert JP, Clark PA, Kandela IK, et al. Alkylphosphocholine analogs for broad-spectrum cancer imaging and therapy. Sci Transl Med. 2014;6(240):240ra75. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3007646

32. Li YC, Park MJ, Ye SK, Kim CW, Kim YN. Elevated levels of cholesterol-rich lipid rafts in cancer cells are correlated with apoptosis sensitivity induced by cholesterol-depleting agents. Am J Pathol. 2006;168(4):1107-1118. doi:10.2353/ajpath.2006.050959

33. Multi-asset product portfolio for treatment of various cancers. Cellectar Biosciences. Accessed May 25, 2020. https://www.cellectar.com/product-pipeline

34. Annual Report. Cellectar Biosciences. Accessed June 1, 2020. bit.ly/2CwItfO

35. Longcor J, Ailawadhi S, Oliver K, Callander N, Stiff P. CLR 131 demonstrates high rate of activity in a phase 1, dose escalation study in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2019;19(suppl 10):E356-E357. doi:10.1016/j.clml.2019.09.589

Visit link:
CLR 131 Leads a New Generation of Lipid-Based Cancer Drug Delivery Systems - OncLive

]]> What are the challenges to developing more convenient, oral-based biologics? Credit: Shutterstock.

Sign up here for GlobalData's free bi-weekly Covid-19 report on the latest information your industry needs to know.

Over the past few decades, the rise of biologics has been nothing short of meteoric. Between 2010 and 2017, around a quarter of the new molecular entities approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) fell into this bracket (63 out of a total of 262). That may not sound like a lot, but since biologics are much more expensive than small molecule drugs, they account for most of the worlds top-selling drugs by revenues. They also represent one of the fastest growing categories in pharma.

Unfortunately, biologics have a major downside when it comes to delivery. Unlike small molecule drugs, which can generally be taken orally, biologics are large, complex entities that degrade rapidly in the gastrointestinal tract. Weighing between 200 and 1,000 times the size of a small molecule drug, they almost always need to be delivered via injection or infusion. This is far less convenient than swallowing a pill, not to mention far more costly.

To take diabetes management as an example, most people with diabetes still rely on multiple daily injections. Inhalable insulin has been tried out (as per Exubera in 2006 and Afrezza in 2014) but both suffered with safety concerns and poor sales volume. Oral insulin the holy grail of diabetes treatment has yet to hit the market.

There are dozens of groups around the world intent on creating oral delivery methods. Some focus on modifying the drugs chemical structure to improve their stability in the body. Others focus on the epithelial barrier in the gut if you can make that more permeable, large molecules will be able to pass through more easily.

To give an example of the first approach, researchers at EFPL in Switzerland are working on a method to deliver peptides orally. In 2018, the team developed double bridged peptides a structure with much more stability than a typical amino acid chain. Unfortunately, despite this added stability, most of them still disintegrated in the digestive tract.

Since then, the researchers have found a way to trawl through a peptide library (billions of random peptide sequences, twisted into the double bridged format) to identify the ones that actually are stable. After they have isolated the surviving candidates, they do further tests to find the ones that bind to the disease target.

Its a bit like searching for a needle in a haystack, and this method makes this easy, said Professor Christian Heinis, the lead researcher.

An example of the latter approach comes from Israeli biotech Chiasma. Its Transient Permeability Enhancer (TPE) aims to protect drug molecules from digestive enzymes, as well as triggering the temporary expansion of tight spaces in that gut barrier.

This gives just enough space for the drug molecule to pass into the bloodstream, but not enough space for viruses and bacteria. Last year, the company completed a phase III trial on oral capsules called Mycapssa, which could be used as a maintenance treatment for acromegaly.

There are also a number of oral delivery approaches involving nanoparticles. As the thinking goes: if you incorporate the drug into tiny transporting particles, those particles will be able to protect it from stomach acid, as well as accurately targeting its delivery.

Researchers at Houston Methodist Research Institute in Texas are trialling one such approach, in which a peptide-based drug is chemically linked to fatty acids, and packaged in a nanoparticle. In mouse studies, the animals absorbed almost a quarter of the drug dosage (a lot, considering the typical oral bioavailability for a biologic stands at around 1%).

We know the human body can absorb fatty acids, so we decided to chemically link biological drug molecules to fatty acids to see how well these drugs are absorbed into the gastrointestinal system. It turns out that our transporter approach was effective, saidDr Haifa Shen, Professor of Nanomedicine at Houston Methodist.

Nanotechnology could have many further applications within drug delivery. In particular, it could be used for delivering drugs across the blood-brain barrier, a network of blood vessels that functions a bit like neurological armour. While this barrier protects the brain from harmful chemicals, it also prevents therapeutic agents from getting through.

Researchers at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in California are working on a new type of nano-immunotherapy, which could deliver cancer drugs directly into brain tumours. Again, they are at an early stage of research, but mouse studies have shown promising results.

Current clinically proven methods of brain cancer immunotherapy do not ensure that therapeutic drugs cross the blood-brain barrier, said Dr Julia Ljubimova, Professor of Neurosurgery and Biomedical Sciences at Cedars-Sinai. Although our findings were not made in humans, they bring us closer to developing a treatment that might effectively attack brain tumours with systematic drug administration.

Another exciting research avenue is microneedles. The promise is clear a minimally invasive, painless technique that could deliver the drug through the skin.

One example is a smart, adhesive insulin-delivery patch, being developed by bioengineers at UCLA. The patch, which is adhesive and resembles a sticking plaster, is pre-loaded with insulin and releases the medicine once blood sugar levels exceed a certain threshold. The technology has been accepted into the FDAs Emerging Technology Program, and human trials could start within the next few years.

US biotech Rani Therapeutics is combining both approaches microneedles and oral biologics delivery with its so-called robotic pill. This capsule, which could be used to deliver a number of biologics, moves through the stomach intact, before reaching the desired location in the gut. Here, it releases biodegradable microneedles, which inject the biologic.

This delivery system is still at an early stage of development, but in preclinical tests it performed as well as a subcutaneous injection. The company also has one human trial to its name a phase I trial for a drug called octreotide, which is normally injected intravenously.

While these research groups, and many others, are seeing promising results in the lab and early trials, it remains to be seen which new delivery methods will become a clinical reality. Given the challenges associated with existing delivery methods, and the seemingly unstoppable rise of biologics, there is everything to play for.

Read more:
How research groups are tackling the problem of biologic drug delivery - Pharmaceutical Technology

Abstract

Nanoparticle (NP) delivery to solid tumors has recently been questioned. To better understand the magnitude of NP tumor delivery, we reanalyzed published murine NP tumor pharmacokinetic (PK) data used in the Wilhelm et al. study. Studies included in their analysis reporting matched tumor and blood concentration versus time data were evaluated using classical PK endpoints and compared to the unestablished percent injected dose (%ID) in tumor metric from the Wilhelm et al. study. The %ID in tumor was poorly correlated with standard PK metrics that describe NP tumor delivery (AUCtumor/AUCblood ratio) and only moderately associated with maximal tumor concentration. The relative tumor delivery of NPs was ~100-fold greater as assessed by the standard AUCtumor/AUCblood ratio than by %ID in tumor. These results strongly suggest that PK metrics and calculations can influence the interpretation of NP tumor delivery and stress the need to properly validate novel PK metrics against traditional approaches.

The theoretical advantages of nanoparticles (NPs) in cancer treatment include increased solubility, prolonged duration of exposure, selective delivery to the tumor, and an improved therapeutic index of the encapsulated or conjugated drug (1, 2). The number of available NP-based drug delivery systems for the treatment of cancer and other diseases has seen exponential growth in the past three decades. In 2017 alone, there were more than 300 nanomedicine patent filings, with more than half related to drug delivery (3). While the number of NP-based agents used clinically is still limited, the plethora that is emerging as potential therapeutic agents warrants the need for detailed studies of their unique pharmacology in animal models and in humans. Doxil, Onivyde, and Abraxane are the only members of this relatively new class of drugs that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of solid tumors and currently available on the U.S. market. Despite the regulatory success of these drugs, the promise of NP-based agents for the treatment of cancer remains unfulfilled because of several factors including potential overall low tumor delivery (4, 5).

The disposition of NPs is dependent on the carrier and not on the therapeutic entity until the drug is released (6, 7). This complexity required the creation of nomenclature to describe NP pharmacokinetics (PK), including encapsulated or conjugated (the drug within or bound to the carrier), released (active drug that no longer associates with the carrier), and sum total or total (encapsulated/conjugated drug plus released drug) (6, 8). NPs act as prodrugs and are not active until the small-molecule (SM) drug is released from the carrier. In theory, the PK disposition of the drug after release from the carrier is the same as after administration of the SM formulation (6). Examples of various types of NPs include liposomes, polymeric micelles, fullerenes, carbon nanotubes, quantum dots, nanoshells, polymers, dendrimers, and conjugates, including antibody-drug conjugates (9). Thus, the types of NP carriers are vast and highly variable, and each type may have unique biological interactions and PK characteristics (10). As a result, detailed analytical studies must be performed to assess the disposition of encapsulated/conjugated and released forms of the drug in plasma, tumor, and tissues as part of PK and biodistribution studies in animals and patients (7). However, there are currently few, if any, robust and validated bioanalytical methods capable of quantifying released drug in tumors and tissues, which limits the ability to fully characterize the disposition of NP-based agents and compare them to conventional SM formulations (11). This has led to a limited number of published studies that evaluated the PK of NP encapsulated/conjugated and released drug in tumors. However, the use of modeling and simulation approaches to characterize this complex interplay is also emerging (12).

In theory, size-selective permeability of the tumor vasculature allows NPs to enter the tumor interstitial space, while suppressed lymphatic filtration prevents clearance, resulting in accumulation. This phenomenon, termed the enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect, may be exploited by NPs to deliver drugs to tumors (4, 5, 13). Unfortunately, progress in developing effective NPs relying on this approach has been hampered by heterogeneity of the EPR effect and lack of information on factors that influence EPR (4, 5, 14). Cancer cells in tumors are surrounded by a complex microenvironment composed of endothelial cells of the blood and lymphatic circulation, stromal fibroblasts, collagen, cells of the mononuclear phagocyte system, and other immune cells. Each of these components is a potential barrier to tumor delivery and intratumoral distribution of NPs and may be associated with variability in EPR (4, 1417). In addition, these potential barriers may be highly variable both within and across tumors, which further increases heterogeneity in the EPR effect. Thus, all solid tumors may not be conducive for treatment by NPs, which rely on EPR for delivery.

A workshop by the Alliance for Nanotechnology in Cancer concluded that there are major gaps in the understanding of factors that affect and inhibit EPR effect and NP tumor delivery, and new fundamental preclinical and clinical studies in this area are needed to effectively advance NP drug delivery and efficacy in solid tumors (4). Recent meta-analyses, described in detail below, have reported lower than expected NP tumor delivery, highlighting the potential limitations of current EPR-based NP delivery to tumors and the need to systematically evaluate NP disposition (18, 19).

Despite great promise, the impact of NPs on the treatment of solid tumors in patients, and in some cases, preclinical models, has been limited. To evaluate NP tumor delivery as compared to SM drugs, our group previously conducted a meta-analysis evaluating the plasma and tumor PK of NPs and SM anticancer agents using both standard PK parameters and a PK metric called relative distribution index over time (RDI-OT) that measures efficiency of tumor delivery (18). In general, standard PK parameters such as plasma and tumor Cmax and area under the time concentration curves (AUCs) were higher for NP agents than their respective SM drugs, as expected. However, when examining measures of tumor delivery efficiency, NPs underperform compared to SM drugs. AUCtumor/AUCplasma ratio was higher for the SM drug compared to the NP formulation for 14 of 17 datasets, and similar to this traditional PK approach, every SM tumor RDI-OT AUC06h value was also greater than that of its comparator NP. The lower efficiency of delivery seen with NPs compared with SMs suggests that even though NPs can deliver an overall greater total drug exposure to the tumor, there may be a limit to the extent or amount of NPs that can enter tumors (18). An important caveat to this conclusion, however, is that active, released NP drug concentrations were not evaluated, and without this key component of the PK analysis, it is impossible to infer potential advantages or disadvantages of the NP-mediated tumor delivery in comparison to SM. Regardless, the extent of NP-mediated tumor delivery estimated in our study, with a median AUCtumor/AUCplasma ratio of 0.4 (i.e., tumor exposure was 40% of plasma exposure), was still much higher than suggested in a recent study by Wilhelm et al. that attempted to relate NP tumor exposure to the injected dose, with a median estimated tumor value of 0.7% of the injected dose.

Wilhelm et al. (19) recently performed a meta-analysis evaluating the percentage of injected dose (%ID) of NPs that reaches the tumor from 117 published preclinical studies. The results of this analysis were somewhat unexpected and disappointing in that a median of only 0.7 %ID of NPs was found to be delivered to a solid tumor. The authors concluded that this overall low tumor delivery has negative consequences for the translation of nanotechnology for human use with respect to manufacturing, cost, toxicity, and imaging and therapeutic efficacy. However, there were several limitations to this study, such as highly variable study designs in the source publications, which included differences in dosing regimens, sampling schemes (especially limited sample numbers or short sampling durations), sample processing and analytical methods (limited data on exposures of active-released drug in tumors), and, in some cases, absence of matched blood PK data. The study was criticized in a follow-up perspective article by McNeil (20) that argued that the PK analysis used by Wilhelm et al. may be flawed because of the use of non-traditional methods. The tumor delivery efficiency in the Wilhelm et al. study was estimated using an unestablished PK metric, %ID in tumor, that was not supported by traditional PK analysis. The %ID in tumor parameter, calculated as %ID in tumor = (AUCtumor/tend)*tumor mass, is not a true measure of tissue exposure or delivery efficiency, because it reduces the time-concentration series to a single average drug mass value that neglects exposure time and does not relate tumor and systemic exposures. Further, the %ID in tumor metric is heavily influenced by the time points and total duration used in the estimation, and this single mass value does not reflect the overall PK disposition of a NP. Traditional comparison of AUCtumor to AUCblood (AUCtumor/AUCblood ratio) is considerably more meaningful because it takes into account the entire time-concentration series and relates tumor exposure to systemic exposure.

The goal of our current study was to compare the tumor disposition of NPs as depicted by the nonstandard %ID in tumor PK metric generated by Wilhelm et al. compared with standard PK metrics. In the present reanalysis, we compiled the source data from the 117 NP PK studies in mice that were evaluated in the original Wilhelm et al. study and then extracted and analyzed those studies that included matched tumor and blood concentration versus time data. We then compared established PK parameters resulting from the reanalysis of these extracted data to the %ID in tumor metric used in the prior study by Wilhelm et al. The %ID in tumor metric was found to correlate very poorly with established PK measures of exposure and delivery efficiency in tumors. These data refute the use of the exposure term %ID in tumor in the Wilhelm et al. study and suggest that the resulting conclusions regarding the efficiency of NP tumor distribution were misleading. The results of our present reanalysis support the use of established PK approaches and metrics to evaluate NP tumor delivery and stress the necessity to properly validate novel metrics against traditional PK metrics using standard methods.

From the 117 articles included in the data analysis by Wilhelm et al., 256 NP PK datasets were identified and evaluated. A total of 136 unique datasets contained sufficient data for calculation of both blood and tumor PK parameters and were included in the analysis. Each dataset included PK data collected following a single intravenous dose of a NP agent to tumor-bearing mice. The majority of included studies were conducted in xenograft models (120 of 136 datasets) with a smaller proportion in orthotopic models (13 of 136 datasets).

The relationship between the Wilhelm et al. %ID in tumor PK metric and established PK parameters, AUCtumor/AUCblood ratio, RDI-OT AUCtumor, and tumor Cmax for all NP types combined, is presented in Fig. 1. The Spearman correlation coefficients and Pearson correlation coefficients for these relationships are included in tables S1 and S2, respectively. Including different types of NPs together, there was no relationship between %ID in tumor and AUCtumor/AUCblood ratio, a weak relationship between %ID in tumor and RDI-OT AUCtumor, and a moderate relationship between %ID in tumor and tumor Cmax, based on value (see Materials and Methods for criteria). For all NP types combined, the median and interquartile range of values for %ID in tumor, AUCtumor/AUCblood ratio (as a percentage), RDI-OT AUCtumor, and tumor Cmax are presented in Table 1. The median (interquartile range) for %ID in tumor was 0.67% (0.36 to 1.19%) and that for AUCtumor/AUCblood ratio was 76.12% (48.79 to 158.81%).

Correlation plots for all datasets between %ID in tumor (per Wilhelm et al.) and AUCtumor/AUCblood ratio (%) (A), RDI-OT AUCtumor (B), and tumor Cmax (C). Plots are shown with all datasets (i, outliers shown as ) and with outliers excluded (ii). There was no relationship between %ID in tumor and AUCtumor/AUCblood ratio (%) [ = 0.183 all data (AD); = 0.151 excluding outliers (EO)] and a weak relationship between %ID in tumor and RDI-OT AUCtumor ( = 0.319 AD; = 0.289 EO). There was a moderate relationship between %ID in tumor and the tumor Cmax ( = 0.562 AD; = 0.572 EO).

The relationship between the Wilhelm et al. %ID in tumor estimation and established PK parameters, AUCtumor/AUCblood ratio, RDI-OT AUCtumor, and tumor Cmax, for the liposomal NP subset is presented in Fig. 2. The Spearman correlation coefficients and Pearson correlation coefficients for these relationships are included in tables S1 and S2, respectively. For the liposomal NP subset, there was no relationship between %ID in tumor and AUCtumor/AUCblood ratio, no relationship between %ID in tumor and RDI-OT AUCtumor, and a weak relationship between %ID in tumor and tumor Cmax, based on value (see Materials and Methods for criteria). For liposomes, the median and interquartile range of values for %ID in tumor, AUCtumor/AUCblood ratio as a percentage, RDI-OT AUCtumor, and tumor Cmax are presented in Table 1. The median (interquartile range) for %ID in tumor was 0.55% (0.31 to 2.17%) and that for AUCtumor/AUCblood ratio was 45.46% (31.16 to 63.48%).

Correlation plots for the liposome subset between %ID in tumor (per Wilhelm et al.) and AUCtumor/AUCblood ratio (%) (A), RDI-OT AUCtumor (B), and tumor Cmax (C). Plots are shown with all liposome datasets (i, outliers shown as ) and with outliers excluded (ii). There was no relationship between %ID in tumor and AUCtumor/AUCblood ratio (%) ( = 0.145 AD; = 0.023 EO) and no relationship between %ID in tumor and RDI-OT AUCtumor ( = 0.150 AD; = 0.029 EO). There was a weak relationship between %ID in tumor and the tumor Cmax ( = 0.412 AD; = 0.514 EO).

The relationship between the Wilhelm et al. %ID in tumor estimation and established PK parameters, AUCtumor/AUCblood ratio, RDI-OT AUCtumor, and tumor Cmax, for the polymeric NP subset is presented in Fig. 3. The Spearman correlation coefficients and Pearson correlation coefficients for these relationships are included in tables S1 and S2, respectively. For the polymeric NP subset, there was no relationship between %ID in tumor and AUCtumor/AUCblood ratio, a weak relationship between %ID in tumor and RDI-OT AUCtumor, and a moderate relationship between %ID in tumor and tumor Cmax, based on value (see Materials and Methods for criteria). For polymeric NPs, the median and interquartile range of values for %ID in tumor, AUCtumor/AUCblood ratio as a percentage, RDI-OT AUCtumor, and tumor Cmax are presented in Table 1. The median (interquartile range) for %ID in tumor was 0.68% (0.42 to 1.26%) and that for AUCtumor/AUCblood ratio was 143.94% (56.00 to 318.87%).

Correlation plots for the polymeric subset between %ID in tumor (per Wilhelm et al.) and AUCtumor/AUCblood ratio (%) (A), RDI-OT AUCtumor (B), and tumor Cmax (C). Plots are shown with all polymeric datasets (i, outliers shown as ) and with outliers excluded (ii). There was no relationship between %ID in tumor and AUCtumor/AUCblood ratio (%) ( = 0.094 AD; = 0.097 EO) and a weak relationship between %ID in tumor and RDI-OT AUCtumor ( = 0.422 AD; = 0.447 EO). There was a moderate relationship between %ID in tumor and the tumor Cmax ( = 0.547 AD; = 0.519 EO).

The relationship between the Wilhelm et al. %ID in tumor estimation and established PK parameters, AUCtumor/AUCblood ratio, RDI-OT AUCtumor, and tumor Cmax, for the inorganic NP subset is presented in Fig. 4. Spearman correlation coefficients and Pearson correlation coefficients for these relationships are included in tables S1 and S2, respectively. For inorganic NPs, there was no relationship between %ID in tumor and AUCtumor/AUCblood ratio, a weak relationship between %ID in tumor and RDI-OT AUCtumor, and a moderate relationship between %ID in tumor and tumor Cmax, based on value (see Materials and Methods for criteria). For inorganic NPs, the median and interquartile range of values for %ID in tumor, AUCtumor/AUCblood ratio as a percentage, RDI-OT AUCtumor, and tumor Cmax are presented in Table 1. The median (interquartile range) for %ID in tumor was 0.64% (0.35 to 1.14%) and that for AUCtumor/AUCblood ratio was 81.44% (55.01 to 135.92%).

Correlation plots for the inorganic subset between %ID in tumor (per Wilhelm et al.) and AUCtumor/AUCblood ratio (%) (A), RDI-OT AUCtumor (B), and tumor Cmax (C). Plots are shown with all inorganic datasets (i, outliers shown as ) and with outliers excluded (ii). There was no relationship between %ID in tumor and AUCtumor/AUCblood ratio (%) ( = 0.265 AD; = 0.243 EO) and a weak relationship between %ID in tumor and RDI-OT AUCtumor ( = 0.322 AD). There was a moderate relationship between %ID in tumor and the tumor Cmax ( = 0.618 AD; = 0.605 EO).

Currently, only three NP-based anticancer agents are FDA-approved for treatment of solid tumors. Both the pharmacology of NPs and the physiology of solid tumors are complex, and the interactions between the two are not fully understood. Recent analyses have questioned the utility of NPs for the treatment of solid tumors due to potential low tumor delivery efficiency and extent, especially the often-cited study by Wilhelm et al. (19) However, the conclusions of the study by Wilhelm et al. were based on a nonstandard PK metric, %ID in tumor, which was several orders of magnitude lower than other published PK metrics describing the tumor delivery efficiency of SM and NP drugs (18). To better characterize the delivery of drug-loaded NPs to solid tumors, we compiled and analyzed the source data from the published NP PK studies in mice used by the Wilhelm et al. study and evaluated the relationship between established PK parameters describing the tumor disposition of NP agents and the novel %ID in tumor metric. The goal of this study was to directly compare the relationship and absolute values of these PK metrics and consider how these values influence the interpretation of results.

Our findings reinforce the importance of adequate study design and PK metric selection when investigating NP PK. The calculation of %ID in tumor by Wilhelm et al. differs from the standard calculation of %ID. The conventional calculation of tissue %ID represents the amount of drug in the target tissue at a single time point and is calculated as follows%ID=100*(Amount of drug or decay corrected activity in tissue)/Dose

The calculation of %ID in tumor used by Wilhelm et al. begins with AUCtumor (in units of hours*%ID/g) and cancels units (dividing by tlast in hours and multiplying by tumor mass in grams) to arrive at final units of %ID. Given that the duration of PK studies are generally greater than 1 hour and the size of tumors in mouse models are typically less than 1 g, modifying or normalizing the AUCtumor by these values (e.g., divide by 72 hours, which is the duration of the PK study; multiply by 0.2 g, which is the size of the tumor) results in progressively smaller values. Rather than representing the total amount of drug in the tumor at a single time point (as used by conventional calculations of %ID), this nonstandard calculation actually describes the average amount of drug in the tumor within separate 1-hour intervals throughout the entire PK evaluation period.

By time-averaging and converting to drug mass, the Wilhelm et al. calculation excludes the important pharmacological concepts of drug concentration (i.e., law of mass action), exposure duration, and relative distribution (i.e., on/off target exposure) that are fundamental to understanding drug effect. Thus, the %ID in tumor metric is difficult to interpret, as it is not a measure of how much available drug distributes to the tumor, or even how much injected drug distributes to the tumor (as it has been interpreted). The inference from the %ID in tumor calculation is that perfect tumor uptake would be 100 %ID in tumor, but that would only be the case if the entire injected dose of drug instantaneously distributed to the tumor and remained in the tumor over the entire observation period without clearing, based on the calculations used. To clarify this point, using this calculation, systemic exposure itself upon intravenous injection would only be 100 %ID if the drug circulated indefinitely and never cleared. Obviously, this is a very flawed calculation. Established PK metrics that describe the extent and efficiency of NP tumor delivery take into account both the systemic (blood or plasma) and tumor exposure (i.e., drug concentration and duration, AUC). An example of standard PK metric and %ID in tumor calculations from blood and tumor concentration versus time profiles is shown in Fig. 5. The mock dataset portrayed by the solid lines represents approximately median values for %ID in tumor (0.7 %ID) and AUCtumor/AUCblood ratio (70%) assuming a tumor mass of 0.2 g. The dotted lines represent the approximate interquartile ranges. Given that the %ID in tumor metric ignores systemic exposure, any degree of change in AUCblood does not affect the calculation or interpretation of the %ID in tumor metric. In contrast, AUCtumor/AUCblood ratio is, by definition, sensitive to changes in either or both systemic exposure and target tissue exposure. These differences highlight the disconnect between the %ID in tumor metric and standard PK parameters and explain the lack of relationship between parameters identified in this analysis. This example and our results show how the use of non-standard PK metrics can markedly alter the interpretation of drug delivery to tumors.

The concentration versus time profile in blood is represented by the red symbols and lines. The concentration versus time profile in tumor is represented by the blue symbols and lines. The dotted red and blue lines represent the approximate variability in interquartile range for the blood and tumor concentration versus time profiles, respectively. The dashed gray line represents a constant tumor concentration of 3.5 %ID/g that yields the same AUCtumor (250 hours*%ID/g) as the actual tumor concentration versus time profile. The %ID in tumor calculated by Wilhelm et al. of 0.7% is the average %ID found in the tumor at every 1-hour interval throughout the entire PK evaluation period and is represented by the vertical white and green bar.

Not only was the %ID in tumor metric used by Wilhelm et al. a nonstandard calculation of %ID, it was also found not to be related to other standard PK parameters. The %ID in tumor metric used by Wilhelm et al. was not related to the more commonly and historically used PK metric describing the extent of tumor delivery (i.e., AUCtumor/AUCblood ratio). This observation was consistent for the full dataset and all three subsets (liposomes, polymeric NPs, or inorganic NPs), whether outliers were included or excluded. However, the %ID in tumor calculated by Wilhelm et al. could have been measuring a different process, such as efficiency of delivery. Similarly, there was a weak or no relationship between %ID in tumor and a metric of efficiency of tumor delivery (i.e., RDI-OT AUCtumor). Furthermore, the absolute values and resultant interpretations of these metrics differ substantially. The median %ID in tumor for all subsets combined was 0.67 %ID, while the median AUCtumor/AUCblood ratio was 76.12%. Per Wilhelm et al., this %ID in tumor was interpreted as only 7 of every 1000 administered NPs entering the tumor, a disappointingly low NP delivery. As described above, a more accurate description would be that an average of 0.67% of the injected dose could be found in the tumor at every 1-hour interval throughout the entire PK evaluation period. Using the more appropriate AUCtumor/AUCblood ratio metric from the same datasets, the PK results have a completely different and ultimately far more positive interpretation. For example, with an AUCtumor/AUCblood ratio of 76.12%, the overall exposure of NP in the tumor (AUCtumor) was 76.12% of the overall exposure in the plasma (AUCblood), which is a much more promising result.

There was a moderate relationship between %ID in tumor and tumor Cmax. Again, %ID in tumor resulted in substantially smaller absolute values (median, 0.67 %ID; interquartile range, 0.36 to 1.19 %ID) than tumor Cmax (median, 4.71 %ID/g; interquartile range, 2.65 to 7.97 %ID/g). Given that the tumor Cmax directly contributes to the calculation of AUCtumor and, in turn, %ID in tumor, the moderate relationship is expected. As opposed to the two previously described metrics (AUCtumor/AUCblood ratio and RDI-OT AUCtumor), both %ID in tumor and tumor Cmax exclusively evaluate the disposition of the NP in tumor without considering the systemic disposition and are therefore of lower utility to describe the extent or efficiency of NP tumor delivery.

Our study has several limitations and factors to consider. The source studies included in this analysis were limited to those previously identified and evaluated by Wilhelm et al. to provide a direct comparison of PK metric results and interpretations. There are many additional published NP PK studies that did not meet the selection criteria or were not identified in the initial evaluation. In addition, the calculations completed in this analysis rely on the quality and accuracy of the data collected and published by the authors in the source studies. The study designs, analytical methods, and measured moieties may all influence the results and interpretation of PK data. For example, simply excluding those studies with no matching blood concentration data reported decreased the overall sample size of our analysis by approximately one-third relative to the original analysis by Wilhelm et al. Another important issue is that most of these studies measured total drug (i.e., encapsulated plus released), and not the biologically active, released drug fraction. Although encapsulated drug dominates the total drug profile for most NP formulations, and therefore, NP-encapsulated tumor uptake can be inferred from the total drug profile, it is the released drug fraction that correlates with toxicity and efficacy (7).

Despite these limitations, our study provides direct comparison of PK metrics calculated from identical source data and highlights how the interpretation of NP PK results can be markedly influenced by the differing PK metrics selected. For example, the median (interquartile range) for %ID in tumor was 0.67 %ID (0.36 to 1.19%) and that for AUCtumor/AUCblood ratio was 76.12% (48.79 to 158.81%). The median values for %ID in tumor and AUCtumor/AUCblood ratio were 113-fold different, and thus, metric selection greatly influences the interpretation of the results and the conclusion of the study. Optimal study design, including analysis of both tumor and blood concentrations, is critical to understanding the efficiencies and deficiencies of NP tumor delivery.

To fully evaluate the current and potential impact of NPs on the treatment of solid tumors, more detailed and extensive meta-analyses, modeling, and statistical comparisons, ideally using PK datasets that include all drug fractions (i.e., total, encapsulated, and released drug), are needed to evaluate and predict what NP formulation attributes, dosing regimens, and animal model characteristics are associated with high tumor delivery and efficacy of NPs for solid tumor treatment.

All 117 articles included in the data analysis by Wilhelm et al. (19) were accessed and reviewed. Each identifiable dataset was given a unique identifier, and data were extracted from published text, tables, and figures for inclusion in a comprehensive database. Retrieved information included NP specifications (NP type and encapsulated or conjugated drug) and PK study data (dose, route, regimen, analytical methods, and concentration versus time data for tumor and blood or plasma). When available, concentration data were preferentially sourced from published text or tables (including the Supplementary Materials). If numerical concentration data were not published in text or tables, WebPlotDigitizer version 3.12 (Ankit Rohatgi, Austin, TX) was used to extract data from concentration versus time plots.

Following data extraction, the raw concentration versus time data were used to calculate various PK metrics for each unique dataset. When needed, data were converted to units of %ID/g using assumptions published by Wilhelm et al. The tumor AUC and delivery efficiency (%ID) were calculated per Wilhelm et al. (19). For clarity, the Wilhelm et al. delivery efficiency metric is described as %ID in tumor throughout this analysis. In addition, the blood AUC was calculated by the linear trapezoidal rule (to match tumor AUC calculations) from 0 to tlast. The ratio of tumor AUC to blood AUC was calculated as followsAUCtumor/AUCbloodratio(%)=100*AUCtumor(hours*%ID/gtumor)/AUCblood(hours*%ID/gblood)

The RDI-OT, used to evaluate the efficiency of tumor delivery from systemic circulation, is calculated as the ratio of tumor concentration to blood concentration at the same time point (e.g., 24 hours) (18). The area under the tumor RDI-OT curve (RDI-OT AUCtumor) from 0 to tlast was calculated using the linear trapezoidal rule for each dataset. Last, the tumor Cmax was determined by visual inspection.

After data extraction and PK metric calculation, each unique dataset was assessed for inclusion in the final analysis. Datasets were excluded if there were missing, incomplete, insufficient (i.e., <3 time points), or unmatched tumor and blood data, or if units could not be converted to %ID/g. In addition, datasets representing NPs administered by nonintravenous routes (i.e., intraperitoneal or subcutaneous), to animals other than mice, or those with duplicate data were excluded.

All remaining datasets were evaluated in the final analysis. For each metric, outliers were identified by the Grubbs test (P < 0.01). The correlation between PK metrics used by Wilhelm et al. (%ID in tumor) and standard PK metrics (AUCtumor/AUCblood ratio and tumor Cmax) and tumor delivery efficiency metrics (RDI-OT AUCtumor) was estimated using Spearmans rank correlation coefficients () and Pearson correlation coefficients (r). For each comparison, and r were determined with all datasets and after exclusion of outliers. Correlation coefficients between metrics were interpreted as follows: or |r| < 0.3, no relationship; 0.3 or |r| < 0.5, weak relationship; 0.5 or |r| < 0.7, moderate relationship; 0.7 or |r|, strong relationship (21). The median and interquartile range for each metric were also determined.

Last, datasets included all NPs and three NP subsets defined as liposomes and solid lipid NPs (liposome subset); polymeric NPsincluding micelles, hydrogels, and dendrimers(polymeric subset); and inorganic, graphene, hybrid, or other NPs (inorganic subset). Statistical analysis as above was repeated for each NP type subset.

V. V. Ambardekar, S. T. Stern, NBCD pharmacokinetics and bioanalytical methods to measure drug release, in Non-Biological Complex Drugs; the Science and the Regulatory Landscape (Springer International Publishing, ed. 1, 2015), pp. 261287.

Acknowledgments: Funding: This study was supported by NIH Carolina Center of Cancer Nanotechnology Excellence 1U54CA19899-01 Pilot Grant and T32 Carolina Cancer Nanotechnology Training Program 1T32CA196589 and R01CA184088. Author contributions: L.S.L.P., S.T.S., A.V.K., and W.C.Z. designed the study. L.S.L.P. collected the data. L.S.L.P. and A.M.D. performed the statistical analysis. L.S.L.P. and W.C.Z. drafted the manuscript. All authors contributed to the interpretation of the results and to the final manuscript text. This manuscript reflects the views of the authors and should not be construed to represent the US Food and Drug Administration's views or policies. Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Data and materials availability: All data needed to evaluate the conclusions in the paper are present in the paper and/or the Supplementary Materials. Additional data related to this paper may be requested from the authors.

Read the original:
A reanalysis of nanoparticle tumor delivery using classical pharmacokinetic metrics - Science Advances

Most recent report on the global Nanomedicine market

A recent market study reveals that the global Nanomedicine market is likely to grow at a CAGR of ~XX% over the forecast period (2019-2029) largely driven by factors including, factor 1, factor 2, factor 3, and factor 4. The value of the global Nanomedicine market is estimated to reach ~US$ XX Bn/Mn by the end of 2029 owing to consistent focus on research and development activities in the Nanomedicine field.

Valuable Data included in the report:

Request Sample Report @https://www.mrrse.com/sample/3117?source=atm

Competitive Outlook

The presented business intelligence report includes a SWOT analysis for the leading market players along with vital information including, revenue analysis, market share, pricing strategy of each market players.

market dynamics section of this report analyzes the impact of drivers and restraints on the global nanomedicine market. The impact of these drivers and restraints on the global nanomedicine market provides a view on the market growth during the course of the forecast period. Increasing research activities to improve the drug efficacy coupled with increasing government support are considered to be some of the major driving factors in this report. Moreover, few significant opportunities for the existing and new market players are detailed in this report.

Porters five forces analysis provides insights on the intensity of competition which can aid in decision making for investments in the global nanomedicine market. The market attractiveness section of this report provides a graphical representation for attractiveness of the nanomedicine market in four major regions North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific and Rest of the World, based on the market size, growth rate and industrial environment in respective regions, in 2012.

The global nanomedicine market is segmented on the basis of application and geography and the market size for each of these segments, in terms of USD billion, is provided in this report for the period 2011 2019. Market forecast for this applications and geographies is provided for the period 2013 2019, considering 2012 as the base year.

Based on the type of applications, the global nanomedicine market is segmented into neurological, cardiovascular, oncology, anti-inflammatory, anti-infective and other applications. Other applications include dental, hematology, orthopedic, kidney diseases, ophthalmology, and other therapeutic and diagnostic applications of nanomedicines. Nanoparticle based medications are available globally, which are aimed at providing higher bioavilability and hence improving the efficacy of drug. There have been increasing research activities in the nanomedicine filed for neurology, cardiovascular and oncology applications to overcome the barriers in efficient drug delivery to the target site. Moreover, the global nanomedicine market is also estimated and analyzed on the basis of geographic regions such as North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific and Rest of the World. This section describes the nanomedicine support activities and products in respective regions, thus determining the market dynamics in these regions.

The report also provides a few recommendations for the exisitng as well as new players to increase their market share in the global nanomedicine market. Some of the key players of this market include GE Healthcare, Mallinckrodt plc, Nanosphere Inc., Pfizer Inc., Merck & Co Inc., Celgene Corporation, CombiMatrix Corporation, Abbott Laboratories and others. The role of these market players in the global nanomedicine market is analyzed by profiling them on the basis of attributes such as company overview, financial overview, product portfolio, business strategies, and recent developments.

Link:
Nanomedicine Market 2020 Industry Share, Size, Consumption, Growth, Top Manufacturers, Type and Forecast to 2028 Bulletin Line - Bulletin Line

Global Nanorobotics Market is accounted for $4.10 Billion in 2020 and is expected to reach $11.88 Billion by 2026 growing at a CAGR of 12.5% during the forecast period. Growing application of nanotechnology and regenerative medicine, rising acceptance and preferment of entrepreneurship and increasing investments by government and universities are the key factors fuelling the market growth. However, high manufacturing cost may hinder the growth of the market.

Get Sample Copy of this report @https://www.orianresearch.com/request-sample/1067188

Some of the key players in Nanorobotics include Bruker, JEOL, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Ginkgo Bioworks, Oxford Instruments, EV Group, Imina Technologies, Toronto Nano Instrumentation, Klocke Nanotechnik, Kleindiek Nanotechnik, Xidex, Synthace, Park Systems, Smaract and Nanonics Imaging

Nanorobotics is an evolving technology arena that creates robots or machines which have machinery near to the scale of a nanometre (109 meters). It denotes the nanotechnology engineering regulation of planning, designing, and building nanorobots, primarily from molecular components. Nanorobotics is an attractive new field, especially in medicine, which focus on directed drug delivery using nanoscale molecular machines.

Purchase Directly @https://www.orianresearch.com/checkout/1067188

By Type, Nanomanipulator is expected to hold considerable market growth during the forecast period. Nanomanipulator is a specialized nanorobot and microscopic viewing system for working with objects on an extremely small scale. Nanomanipulators are mainly used to influence the atoms and molecules and were among the first nanorobotic systems to be commercially accessible. By geography, Europe dominated the highest market share due to rising aging population and rising governmental healthcare expenditure.

Types Covered: Nanomanipulator Magnetically Guided Bacteria-Based Bio-Nanorobotics

Applications Covered: Biomedical Nanomedicine Mechanical Other Applications

What our report offers: Market share assessments for the regional and country level segments Market share analysis of the top industry players Strategic recommendations for the new entrants Market forecasts for a minimum of 9 years of all the mentioned segments, sub segments and the regional markets Market Trends (Drivers, Constraints, Opportunities, Threats, Challenges, Investment Opportunities, and recommendations) Strategic recommendations in key business segments based on the market estimations Competitive landscaping mapping the key common trends Company profiling with detailed strategies, financials, and recent developments Supply chain trends mapping the latest technological advancements

Inquire more or share questions if any before the purchase on this report @https://www.orianresearch.com/enquiry-before-buying/1067188

Table of Content:

1 Executive Summary

2 Preface2.1 Abstract2.2 Stake Holders2.3 Research Scope2.4 Research Methodology2.4.1 Data Mining2.4.2 Data Analysis2.4.3 Data Validation2.4.4 Research Approach2.5 Research Sources2.5.1 Primary Research Sources2.5.2 Secondary Research Sources2.5.3 Assumptions

3 Market Trend Analysis3.1 Introduction3.2 Drivers3.3 Restraints3.4 Opportunities3.5 Threats3.6 Application Analysis3.7 Emerging Markets3.8 Futuristic Market Scenario

4 Porters Five Force Analysis4.1 Bargaining power of suppliers4.2 Bargaining power of buyers4.3 Threat of substitutes4.4 Threat of new entrants4.5 Competitive rivalry

5 Nanorobotics Market by Type5.1 Introduction5.2 Nanomanipulator5.2.1 Scanning Probe Microscope (SPM)5.2.1.1 Scanning Tunneling Microscope (STM)5.2.1.2 Atomic Force Microscopes (AFM)5.2.2 Electron Microscope (EM)5.2.2.1 Transmission Electron Microscope (TEM)5.2.2.2 Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM)5.3 Magnetically Guided5.4 Bacteria-Based5.5 Bio-Nanorobotics

6 Nanorobotics Market by Application6.1 Introduction6.2 Biomedical6.3 Nanomedicine6.4 Mechanical6.5 Other Applications

7 Global Nanorobotics Market, By Geography7.1 Introduction7.2 North America7.2.1 US7.2.2 Canada7.2.3 Mexico7.3 Europe7.3.1 Germany7.3.2 UK7.3.3 Italy7.3.4 France7.3.5 Spain7.3.6 Rest of Europe7.4 Asia Pacific7.4.1 Japan7.4.2 China7.4.3 India7.4.4 Australia7.4.5 New Zealand7.4.6 South Korea7.4.7 Rest of Asia Pacific7.5 South America7.5.1 Argentina7.5.2 Brazil7.5.3 Chile7.5.4 Rest of South America7.6 Middle East & Africa7.6.1 Saudi Arabia7.6.2 UAE7.6.3 Qatar7.6.4 South Africa7.6.5 Rest of Middle East & Africa

8 Key Developments8.1 Agreements, Partnerships, Collaborations and Joint Ventures8.2 Acquisitions & Mergers8.3 New Product Launch8.4 Expansions8.5 Other Key Strategies

9 Company Profiling9.1 Bruker9.2 JEOL9.3 Thermo Fisher Scientific9.4 Ginkgo Bioworks9.5 Oxford Instruments9.6 EV Group9.7 Imina Technologies9.8 Toronto Nano Instrumentation9.9 Klocke Nanotechnik9.10 Kleindiek Nanotechnik9.11 Xidex9.12 Synthace9.13 Park Systems9.14 Smaract9.15 Nanonics Imaging

Contact UsRuwin MendezVice President Global Sales & Partner RelationsOrian Research ConsultantsUS: +1 (832) 380-8827 | UK: +44 0161-818-8027Email: [emailprotected]

About UsOrian Research is one of the most comprehensive collections of market intelligence reports on the World Wide Web. Our reports repository boasts of over 500000+ industry and country research reports from over 100 top publishers. We continuously update our repository so as to provide our clients easy access to the worlds most complete and current database of expert insights on global industries, companies, and products. We also specialize in custom research in situations where our syndicate research offerings do not meet the specific requirements of our esteemed clients.

See original here:
NanoRobotics Market Worth $11.88 Billion with CAGR of 12.5% by 2026 | Top Players: Bruker, JEOL, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Ginkgo Bioworks, Oxford...

New Jersey, United States,- Latest update on Nanomedicine Market Analysis report published with extensive market research, Nanomedicine Market growth analysis, and forecast by 2026. this report is highly predictive as it holds the overall market analysis of topmost companies into the Nanomedicine industry. With the classified Nanomedicine market research based on various growing regions, this report provides leading players portfolio along with sales, growth, market share, and so on.

The research report of the Nanomedicine market is predicted to accrue a significant remuneration portfolio by the end of the predicted time period. It includes parameters with respect to the Nanomedicine market dynamics incorporating varied driving forces affecting the commercialization graph of this business vertical and risks prevailing in the sphere. In addition, it also speaks about the Nanomedicine Market growth opportunities in the industry.

Nanomedicine Market Report covers the manufacturers data, including shipment, price, revenue, gross profit, interview record, business distribution etc., these data help the consumer know about the competitors better. This report also covers all the regions and countries of the world, which shows a regional development status, including Nanomedicine market size, volume and value, as well as price data.

Nanomedicine Market competition by top Manufacturers:

Nanomedicine Market Classification by Types:

Nanomedicine Market Size by End-user Application:

Listing a few pointers from the report:

The objective of the Nanomedicine Market Report:

Cataloging the competitive terrain of the Nanomedicine market:

Unveiling the geographical penetration of the Nanomedicine market:

The report of the Nanomedicine market is an in-depth analysis of the business vertical projected to record a commendable annual growth rate over the estimated time period. It also comprises of a precise evaluation of the dynamics related to this marketplace. The purpose of the Nanomedicine Market report is to provide important information related to the industry deliverables such as market size, valuation forecast, sales volume, etc.

Major Highlights from Table of contents are listed below for quick lookup into Nanomedicine Market report

About Us:

Market Research Intellect provides syndicated and customized research reports to clients from various industries and organizations with the aim of delivering functional expertise. We provide reports for all industries including Energy, Technology, Manufacturing and Construction, Chemicals and Materials, Food and Beverage, and more. These reports deliver an in-depth study of the market with industry analysis, the market value for regions and countries, and trends that are pertinent to the industry.

Contact Us:

Mr. Steven Fernandes

Market Research Intellect

New Jersey ( USA )

Tel: +1-650-781-4080

Read the original:
Nanomedicine Market Size By Product Analysis, Application, End-Users, Regional Outlook, Competitive Strategies And Forecast Up To 2026 - 3rd Watch...

Healthcare Nanotechnology Market 2020 Research Report cover detailed competitive outlook including the Healthcare Nanotechnology Industry share and company profiles of the key participants operating in the global market. It provides key analysis on the market status of the Healthcare Nanotechnology manufacturers with best facts and figures, meaning, definition, SWOT analysis, expert opinions and the latest developments across the globe. The Report also calculate the market size, Healthcare Nanotechnology Sales, Price, Revenue, Gross Margin, cost structure and growth rate. The report considers the revenue generated from the sales and technologies by various application segments.

COVID-19 can affect the global economy in three main ways: by directly affecting production and demand, by creating supply chain and market disruption, and by its financial impact on firms and financial markets.

Final Report will add the analysis of the impact of COVID-19 on this industry.

TO UNDERSTAND HOW COVID-19 IMPACT IS COVERED IN THIS REPORT REQUEST SAMPLE

Short Description About Healthcare Nanotechnology Market :

It is defined as the study of controlling, manipulating and creating systems based on their atomic or molecular specifications. As stated by the US National Science and Technology Council, the essence of nanotechnology is the ability to manipulate matters at atomic, molecular and supra-molecular levels for creation of newer structures and devices. Generally, this science deals with structures sized between 1 to 100 nanometer (nm) in at least one dimension and involves in modulation and fabrication of nanomaterials and nanodevices.

Get a Sample PDF of reporthttps://www.360researchreports.com/enquiry/request-sample/13841588

The research covers the current Healthcare Nanotechnology market size of the market and its growth rates based on 5-year records with company outline ofKey players/manufacturers:

Scope of the Healthcare Nanotechnology Market Report:

Nanotechnology is becoming a crucial driving force behind innovation in medicine and healthcare, with a range of advances including nanoscale therapeutics, biosensors, implantable devices, drug delivery systems, and imaging technologies.

The classification of Healthcare Nanotechnology includes Nanomedicine, Nano Medical Devices, Nano Diagnosis and Other product. And the sales proportion of Nanomedicine in 2017 is about 86.5%, and the proportion is in increasing trend from 2013 to 2017.

The global Healthcare Nanotechnology market is valued at 160800 million USD in 2018 and is expected to reach 255500 million USD by the end of 2024, growing at a CAGR of 9.7% between 2019 and 2024.

The Asia-Pacific will occupy for more market share in following years, especially in China, also fast growing India and Southeast Asia regions.

North America, especially The United States, will still play an important role which cannot be ignored. Any changes from United States might affect the development trend of Healthcare Nanotechnology.

Europe also play important roles in global market, with market size of xx million USD in 2019 and will be xx million USD in 2024, with a CAGR of xx%.

This report studies the Healthcare Nanotechnology market status and outlook of Global and major regions, from angles of players, countries, product types and end industries; this report analyzes the top players in global market, and splits the Healthcare Nanotechnology market by product type and applications/end industries.

Get a Sample Copy of the Healthcare Nanotechnology Market Report 2020

Report further studies the market development status and future Healthcare Nanotechnology Market trend across the world. Also, it splits Healthcare Nanotechnology market Segmentation by Type and by Applications to fully and deeply research and reveal market profile and prospects.

Major Classifications are as follows:

Major Applications are as follows:

Geographically, this report is segmented into several key regions, with sales, revenue, market share and growth Rate of Healthcare Nanotechnology in these regions, from 2014 to 2024, covering

This Healthcare Nanotechnology Market Research/Analysis Report Contains Answers to your following Questions

Inquire more and share questions if any before the purchase on this report at https://www.360researchreports.com/enquiry/pre-order-enquiry/13841588

Major Points from Table of Contents:

1. Market Overview1.1 Healthcare Nanotechnology Introduction1.2 Market Analysis by Type1.3 Market Analysis by Applications1.4 Market Dynamics1.4.1 Market Opportunities1.4.2 Market Risk1.4.3 Market Driving Force

2.Manufacturers Profiles

2.4.1 Business Overview2.4.2 Healthcare Nanotechnology Type and Applications2.4.2.1 Product A2.4.2.2 Product B

3.Global Healthcare Nanotechnology Sales, Revenue, Market Share and Competition By Manufacturer (2019-2020)

3.1 Global Healthcare Nanotechnology Sales and Market Share by Manufacturer (2019-2020)3.2 Global Healthcare Nanotechnology Revenue and Market Share by Manufacturer (2019-2020)3.3 Market Concentration Rates3.3.1 Top 3 Healthcare Nanotechnology Manufacturer Market Share in 20203.3.2 Top 6 Healthcare Nanotechnology Manufacturer Market Share in 20203.4 Market Competition Trend

4.Global Healthcare Nanotechnology Market Analysis by Regions

4.1 Global Healthcare Nanotechnology Sales, Revenue and Market Share by Regions4.1.1 Global Healthcare Nanotechnology Sales and Market Share by Regions (2014-2019)4.1.2 Global Healthcare Nanotechnology Revenue and Market Share by Regions (2014-2019)4.2 North America Healthcare Nanotechnology Sales and Growth Rate (2014-2019)4.3 Europe Healthcare Nanotechnology Sales and Growth Rate (2014-2019)4.4 Asia-Pacific Healthcare Nanotechnology Sales and Growth Rate (2014-2019)4.6 South America Healthcare Nanotechnology Sales and Growth Rate (2014-2019)4.6 Middle East and Africa Healthcare Nanotechnology Sales and Growth Rate (2014-2019)

5.Healthcare Nanotechnology Market Forecast (2020-2024)5.1 Global Healthcare Nanotechnology Sales, Revenue and Growth Rate (2020-2024)5.2 Healthcare Nanotechnology Market Forecast by Regions (2020-2024)5.3 Healthcare Nanotechnology Market Forecast by Type (2020-2024)5.3.1 Global Healthcare Nanotechnology Sales Forecast by Type (2020-2024)5.3.2 Global Healthcare Nanotechnology Market Share Forecast by Type (2020-2024)5.4 Healthcare Nanotechnology Market Forecast by Application (2020-2024)5.4.1 Global Healthcare Nanotechnology Sales Forecast by Application (2020-2024)5.4.2 Global Healthcare Nanotechnology Market Share Forecast by Application (2020-2024)

6.Sales Channel, Distributors, Traders and Dealers6.1 Sales Channel6.1.1 Direct Marketing6.1.2 Indirect Marketing6.1.3 Marketing Channel Future Trend6.2 Distributors, Traders and Dealers

7.Research Findings and Conclusion

8.Appendix8.1 Methodology8.2 Data Source

Continued..

Purchase this report (Price3480 USD for a single-user license) https://www.360researchreports.com/purchase/13841588

About Us:

360 Research Reports is the credible source for gaining the market reports that will provide you with the lead your business needs. At 360 Research Reports, our objective is providing a platform for many top-notch market research firms worldwide to publish their research reports, as well as helping the decision makers in finding most suitable market research solutions under one roof. Our aim is to provide the best solution that matches the exact customer requirements. This drives us to provide you with custom or syndicated research reports.

Contact Us:Name: Mr. Ajay MoreEmail: [emailprotected]Organization: 360 Research ReportsPhone: +44 20 3239 8187/ +14242530807

For More Related Reports Click Here :

Wet Tissues and Wipes Market Size 2020 : Covid 19 Impact Analysis with Top Countries Data, Revenue Growth Development, Business Opportunities with Forecast to 2026

Lip Balm Market Size 2020 : Top Countries Data with Global Demand Analysis and Opportunity Outlook 2026

Hair Loss&growth Treatments and Products Market Size 2020 : Covid 19 Impact Analysis with Top Countries Data, Revenue Growth Development, Business Opportunities with Forecast to 2026

See the original post here:
Healthcare Nanotechnology Market 2020 Global Industry Brief Analysis by Top Countries Data with Market Size, Growth Drivers, Investment Opportunity...

University of Toronto researchers have discovered that an active rather than passive process dictates which nanoparticles enter solid tumours, upending decades of thinking in the field of cancer nanomedicine and pointing toward more effective nanotherapies.

The prevailing theory in cancer nanomedicine an approach that enables more targeted therapies than standard chemotherapy has been that nanoparticles mainly diffuse passively into tumours through tiny gaps between cells in the endothelium, which lines the inner wall of blood vessels that support tumour growth.

The researchers previously showed thatless than one per centof nanoparticle-based drugs typically reach their tumour targets. In the current study, they found that among nanoparticles that do penetrate tumours, more than 95 per cent pass through endothelial cells not between gaps among those cells.

Our work challenges long-held dogma in the field and suggests a completely new theory, saysAbdullah Syed, a co-lead author on the study and post-doctoral researcher in the lab ofWarren Chan, a professor at theInstitute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineeringand theDonnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research.

We saw many nanoparticles enter the endothelial cells from blood vessels and exit into the tumour in various conditions. Endothelial cells appear to be crucial gatekeepers in the nanoparticle transport process.

The findings were recently published in thejournalNature Materials.

From left to right: U of T researchers Jessica Ngai, Shrey Sindhwani, Abdullah Syed and Benjamin Kingston (photo by Qin Dai)

Syed compares nanoparticles to people trying to get into popular restaurants on a busy night. Some restaurants dont require a reservation, while others have bouncers who check if patrons made reservations, he says. The bouncers are a lot more common than researchers thought, and most places only accept patrons with a reservation.

The researchers established that passive diffusion was not the mechanism of entry with multiple lines of evidence. They took over 400 images of tissue samples from animal modelsand saw few endothelial gaps relative to nanoparticles. They observed the same trend using 3D fluorescent imaging and live-animal imaging.

Similarly, they found few gaps between endothelial cells in samples from human cancer patients.

The group then devised an animal model that completely stopped the transportation of nanoparticles through endothelial cells. This allowed them to isolate the contribution of passive transport via gaps between endothelial cells, which proved to be miniscule.

The researchers posit several active mechanisms by which endothelial cells might transport nanoparticles into tumours, including binding mechanisms, intra-endothelial channels and as-yet undiscovered processes all of which they are investigating.

Meanwhile, the results have major implications for nanoparticle-based therapeutics.

These findings will change the way we think about delivering drugs to tumours using nanoparticles, saysShrey Sindhwani, also a co-lead author on the paper and an MD/PhD student in the Chan lab. A better understanding of the nanoparticle transport phenomenon will help researchers design more effective therapies.

The research included collaborators from U of Ts department of physics in the Faculty of Arts & Science, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory In New York and the University of Ottawa. The study was funded by the Canada Research Chairs Program, Canadian Cancer Society, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canadaand the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Continued here:
Most engineered nanoparticles enter tumours through cells not between them, U of T researchers find - News@UofT

Nanotechnology is one of the most promising technologies in 21st century. Nanotechnology is a term used when technological developments occur at 0.1 to 100 nm scale. Nano medicine is a branch of nanotechnology which involves medicine development at molecular scale for diagnosis, prevention, treatment of diseases and even regeneration of tissues and organs.

Thus it helps to preserve and improve human health. Nanomedicine offers an impressive solution for various life threatening diseases such as cancer, Parkinson, Alzheimer, diabetes, orthopedic problems, diseases related to blood, lungs, neurological, and cardiovascular system.

Development of a new nenomedicine takes several years which are based on various technologies such as dendrimers, micelles, nanocrystals, fullerenes, virosome nanoparticles, nanopores, liposomes, nanorods, nanoemulsions, quantum dots, and nanorobots.

In the field of diagnosis, nanotechnology based methods are more precise, reliable and require minimum amount of biological sample which avoid considerable reduction in consumption of reagents and disposables.

Get Sample Copy of Report @https://www.persistencemarketresearch.com/samples/6370

Apart from diagnosis, nanotechnology is more widely used in drug delivery purpose due to nanoscale particles with larger surface to volume ratio than micro and macro size particle responsible for higher drug loading. Nano size products allow to enter into body cavities for diagnosis or treatment with minimum invasiveness and increased bioavailability. This will not only improve the efficacy of treatment and diagnosis, but also reduces the side effects of drugs in case of targeted therapy.

Globalnanomedicinemarket is majorly segmented on the basis of applications in medicines, targeted disease and geography. Applications segment includes drug delivery (carrier), drugs, biomaterials, active implant, in-vitro diagnostic, and in-vivo imaging. Global nanomedicine divided on the basis of targeted diseases or disorders in following segment: neurology, cardiovascular, oncology, anti-inflammatory, anti-infective and others.

Geographically, nanomedicine market is classified into North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, and MEA. Considering nanomedicine market by application, drug delivery contribute higher followed by in-vitro diagnostics. Global nanomedicine market was dominated by oncology segment in 2012 due to ability of nanomedicine to cross body barriers and targeted to tumors specifically however cardiovascular nanomedicine market is fastest growing segment. Geographically, North America dominated the market in 2013 and is expected to maintain its position in the near future.

Request Customization of this Report @https://www.persistencemarketresearch.com/request-customization/6370

Asia Pacific market is anticipated to grow at faster rate due to rapid increase in geriatric population and rising awareness regarding health care. Europe is expected to grow at faster rate than North America due to extensive product pipeline portfolio and constantly improving regulatory framework.

Major drivers for nanomedicine market include improved regulatory framework, increasing technological know-how and research funding, rising government support and continuous increase in the prevalence of chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes, cancer, kidney disorder, and orthopedic diseases. Some other driving factors include rising number of geriatric population, awareness of nanomedicine application and presence of high unmet medical needs. Growing demand of nanomedicines from the end users is expected to drive the market in the forecast period.

However, market entry of new companies is expected to bridge the gap between supply and demand of nanomedicines. Above mentioned drivers currently outweigh the risk associated with nanomedicines such as toxicity and high cost. At present, cancer is one of the major targeted areas in which nanomedicines have made contribution. Doxil, Depocyt, Abraxane, Oncospar, and Neulasta are some of the examples of pharmaceuticals formulated using nanotechnology.

For In-depth Competitive Analysis, Pre-Book Report Now @https://www.persistencemarketresearch.com/checkout/6370

Market Players

Key players in the global nanomedicine market include:

Go here to see the original:
Healthcare Nanotechnology Nanomedicine Market : Outlook Continues to Remain Positive by 2015 2021 - The Trusted Chronicle

Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) released from damaged or dead cells combines with LL37 and is converted into an immune response activator to exacerbate psoriasis. Here, we show that cationic nanoparticles (cNPs) efficiently compete for DNA from the DNA-LL37 immunocomplex and inhibit DNA-LL37-induced cell activation. Using phenotypical images, psoriasis area and severity index scoring, histology, and immunohistochemical analysis, we demonstrate that topical application of cNPs on psoriasiform skin of a mouse model relieves psoriatic symptoms. It is noteworthy that the results were confirmed in a cynomolgus monkey model. Moreover, topically administrated cNPs showed low in vivo toxicity because of their retention in skin. Mechanistic analyses of cytokine expression in the psoriatic site, cfDNA levels in circulation and inflamed skin, skin permeation, and biodistribution of cNPs also matched the therapeutic outcomes. Therefore, we present a previously unidentified strategy of nanomedicine to treat skin inflammatory diseases, which demonstrates great potential for clinical application.

Follow this link:
Topical nanoparticles interfering with the DNA-LL37 complex to alleviate psoriatic inflammation in mice and monkeys - Science Advances

Global Nanorobotics Marketwas valued at US$ 3.7 Bn in 2018 and is expected to reach US$ 9.2Bn by 2026, at a CAGR of 12.06%during a forecast period.

Developments in nanotechnology coupled with demand for minimally aggressive procedures are expected to drive market growth over the forecast period. Nanobots possess likely in the medical sector for destroying cancerous cells at the genetic level. Increasing support for nanomedicine by many nations and the increasing geriatric population are factors which can augur market demand.

REQUEST FOR FREE SAMPLE REPORT:https://www.maximizemarketresearch.com/request-sample/30888

The report study has analyzed revenue impact of covid-19 pandemic on the sales revenue of market leaders, market followers and disrupters in the report and same is reflected in our analysis.

Utilization of nanobots in the ranostics can be beneficial for the market in the near future. A rise in miniaturization and demand for automation across various sectors are anticipated to fuel market growth. Training of new personnel to use nanobots can restrain market growth in the upcoming years.Nanomedicine application segment to grow at the highest CAGR during the forecast period. Nanorobotics is widely used in nanomedicine owning to its healthcare features. The large share of this application aspects to the large level of commercialization in the healthcare sector for drug delivery, in vivo imaging, biomaterial, in vitro diagnostic, active implants, and drug therapy.

North America region accounted for the largest share of 12.2%, in terms of value, of the nanorobotics market globally. Presence of many nanotechnology companies, well-developed healthcare infrastructure, and government initiatives to create patient awareness are factors driving the market. The U.S is anticipated to contribute to market revenue owing to the increase in cardiovascular diseases and the rising elderly populace.

Europe follows North America as the second biggest nanorobotics market. Presence of chronic diseases and the burgeoning population are factors expected to indicate the Europe nanobots market. Establishment of organizations to develop standards pertaining to nanotechnology can expand market growth. In 2018, DNA-Robotics, an organization including 12 European companies, has outlined steps to expedite production of nanobots on a large scale. These standards can help scale the market exponentially in the upcoming years.

A recent development in nanorobotics market: In March 2018, Thermo Fisher Scientific acquired Gatan, an exclusively owned subsidiary of Roper Technologies. Gatan is an electron microscopy solutions provider in the U.S, which accompaniments the Thermo Fisher Scientifics electron microscopy solutions business.In March 2017, Oxford Instruments (U.K) Asylum Research introduced its new SurfRider HQ-Series of high quality, budget-priced AFM probes, which are also existing in a model suitable for nanomechanical image mode.

The objective of the report is to present a comprehensive assessment of the market and contains thoughtful insights, facts, historical data, industry-validated market data and projections with a suitable set of assumptions and methodology. The report also helps in understanding Global Nanorobotics Market dynamics, structure by identifying and analyzing the market segments and project the global market size. Further, the report also focuses on the competitive analysis of key players by product, price, financial position, product portfolio, growth strategies, and regional presence. The report also provides PEST analysis, PORTERs analysis, SWOT analysis to address the question of shareholders to prioritizing the efforts and investment in the near future to the emerging segment in the Global Nanorobotics Market.

DO INQUIRY BEFORE PURCHASING REPORT HERE:https://www.maximizemarketresearch.com/inquiry-before-buying/30888

Scope of the Global Nanorobotics Market

Global Nanorobotics Market, By Type

Nanomanipulatoro Electron Microscope (EM) Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) Transmission Electron Microscope (TEM)o Scanning Probe Microscope (SPM) Atomic Force Microscopes (AFM) Scanning Tunneling Microscope (STM) Bio-Nanorobotics Magnetically Guided Bacteria-BasedGlobal Nanorobotics Market, By Application

Nanomedicine Biomedical Mechanical OthersGlobal Nanorobotics Market, By Region

North America Europe Asia Pacific Middle East and Africa South AmericaKey players operating in Global Nanorobotics Market:

Bruker JEOL Thermo Fisher Scientific Ginkgo Bioworks Oxford Instruments EV Group Imina Technologies Toronto Nano Instrumentation KlockeNanotechnik KleindiekNanotechnik Xidex Synthace Park Systems Smaract Nanonics ImagingKey Innovators:

Novascan Technologies Angstrom Advanced Hummingbird Scientific NT-MDT Spectrum Instruments Witec

MAJOR TOC OF THE REPORT

Chapter One: Nanorobotics Market Overview

Chapter Two: Manufacturers Profiles

Chapter Three: Global Nanorobotics Market Competition, by Players

Chapter Four: Global Nanorobotics Market Size by Regions

Chapter Five: North America Nanorobotics Revenue by Countries

Chapter Six: Europe Nanorobotics Revenue by Countries

Chapter Seven: Asia-Pacific Nanorobotics Revenue by Countries

Chapter Eight: South America Nanorobotics Revenue by Countries

Chapter Nine: Middle East and Africa Revenue Nanorobotics by Countries

Chapter Ten: Global Nanorobotics Market Segment by Type

Chapter Eleven: Global Nanorobotics Market Segment by Application

Chapter Twelve: Global Nanorobotics Market Size Forecast (2019-2026)

Browse Full Report with Facts and Figures of Nanorobotics Market Report at:https://www.maximizemarketresearch.com/market-report/global-nanorobotics-market/30888/

About Us:

Maximize Market Research provides B2B and B2C market research on 20,000 high growth emerging technologies & opportunities in Chemical, Healthcare, Pharmaceuticals, Electronics & Communications, Internet of Things, Food and Beverages, Aerospace and Defense and other manufacturing sectors.

Contact info:

Name: Vikas Godage

Organization: MAXIMIZE MARKET RESEARCH PVT. LTD.

Email: sales@maximizemarketresearch.com

Contact: +919607065656/ +919607195908

Website:www.maximizemarketresearch.com

Read more here:
Global Nanorobotics Market : Industry Analysis and Forecast (2019-2026) by Type, Application, and... - Azizsalon News

Virtual 3D Nanorobots Market: Global Size, Trends, Competitive, Historical & Forecast Analysis, 2020-2025Increasing prevalence of chronic diseases and rising adoption of technologically advanced medical equipments drive the growth of global virtual 3D nanorobots Market.

Get Sample Copy of The Activated Alumina Market Report 2020@ https://brandessenceresearch.com/requestSample/PostId/555

*The sample pages of this report is immediately accessible on-demand.**

Scope of Global Virtual 3D Nanorobots Market Report-

Nanorobots are nano electromechanical systems designed to perform a specific task with precision at nano scale dimensions. It will be mainly used for the treatment in field of nanomedicine. An interesting utilization of nanorobots may be their attachment to transmigrating inflammatory cells or WBC, to reach inflamed tissues and assist in their healing process. It can also used for biomedical instrumentation, early diagnosis and targeted drug delivery for cancer, pharmacokinetics, surgery, monitoring of diabetes and health care. Virtual 3D nanorobots are expected to provide personalized treatments with improved efficacy and reduced side effects that are not available today. Virtual 3D nanorobots can be used to treat genetic diseases by comparing the molecular structures of both DNA and proteins found in the cell to known or desired reference structures. Some of its potential applications are; early diagnosis and targeted drug delivery for cancer biomedical instrumentation, pharmacokinetics, monitoring of diabetes, surgery and others. Another possible application can be the capability to locate atherosclerotic lesions in stenosed blood vessels, particularly in the coronary circulation, and treat them either mechanically, chemically or pharmacologically.

Virtual 3D nanorobots marketreport is segmented on the basis of type, application, distribution channel and region & country level. Based upon type, global virtual 3D nanorobots market is classified into microbivore nanorobots, respirocyte nanorobots, clottocyte nanorobots. Based upon application, global virtual 3D nanorobots market is divided into dentistry, emerging drug delivery, brain aneurysm, cancer detection, gene therapy, nanomedicine, biomedical, healthcare and others.

The regions covered in this Virtual 3D Nanorobots Market report are North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific and Rest of the World. On the basis of country level, the market of Virtual 3D Nanorobots is sub divided into U.S., Mexico, Canada, U.K., France, Germany, Italy, China, Japan, India, South East Asia, Middle East Asia (UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt) GCC, Africa, etc.

Some major key players for Global Virtual 3D Nanorobots Market Gingko Bioworks, Synthace, Zymergen Inc., Advanced Diamond Technologies and Advanced Nano Products Co. Limited and others.

Increasing Prevalence of Chronic Diseases and Rising Adoption of Technologically Advanced Medical Equipments Drive the Growth of Global Virtual 3D Nanorobots Market

Nanorobots are expected to provide new treatments for the patients suffering from different diseases. Latest developments in the field of biomolecular computing have demonstrated the feasibility of processing logic tasks by bio-computers. The major factor driving the growth of global virtual 3D nanorobots market is increasing adoption of technologically advanced products in healthcare coupled with the rising government initiatives in this field. In addition, increasing prevalence of chronic diseases, improving healthcare infrastructure and technological advancements to develop more innovative, better and effective medical treatments are also anticipated to foster the market growth within the forecast period. In recent years, the potential of nanotechnology motivated many governments to devote significant resources to this new field. The U.S. National Science Foundation launched a program in Scientific Visualization in part to harness supercomputers in picturing the nanoworld. Firms such as; IBM, PARC, Hewlett Packard, Bell Laboratories, and Intel Corp. and others are collaborating to produce new nano products.

Cancer can be successfully treated with current stages of medical technologies and therapy tools. One of the important aspect to achieve a successful treatment for cancer patients is the development of efficient targeted drug delivery to decrease the side effects from chemotherapy. Nanorobots can help on such extremely important aspects of cancer therapy owing to the properties of nanorobots to navigate as blood borne devices. Nanorobots with embedded chemical biosensors can be used to perform detection of tumour cells in early stages of development inside the patients body. Thus all these advantages of nanorobots are expected to boost the market growth.

However, lack of trained professional may hamper the market growth. In spite of that, increasing advancements in the field can provide various opportunities for the further growth of the market. The use of nanorobots may advance biomedical intervention with minimally invasive surgeries and help patients who need constant body functions monitoring, or ever improve treatments efficiency through early diagnosis of possible serious diseases.

North America is Expected to Dominate the Global Virtual 3D Nanorobots Market

The global virtual 3D nanorobots market is segmented into North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific Latin America and Middle East & Africa. North America is expected to dominate the global virtual 3D nanorobots market within the forecast period attributed to the highly developed healthcare infrastructure and increasing adoption of new technologies in healthcare in this region. In addition, increasing government initiative in this field are also supplementing the growth of virtual 3D nanorobots market in this region. Asia Pacific is anticipated to witness a significant growth in global Virtual 3D Nanorobots market owing to emerging economies and growing awareness about nanorobotics in healthcare. In addition, improving healthcare infrastructure due to the favourable government initiatives regarding health are also expected to foster the growth of virtual 3D nanorobots market in this region within the forecast period.

Key Benefits for Market Report

Virtual 3D Nanorobots MarketSegmentation:-

By Type: Respirocyte Nanorobots, Microbivore Nanorobots, Clottocyte Nanorobots

By Application:-Dentistry, Gene therapy, Brain Aneurysm, Emerging Drug Delivery, Cancer detection, NanoMedicine, Biomedical, Healthcare, Others

By Regional & Country Analysis

North America, US, Mexico, Chily, Canada, Europe, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Asia Pacific, China, South Korea, Japan, India, Southeast Asia, Latin America, Brazil, The Middle East and Africa, GCC, Africa, Rest of Middle East and Africa

Get Full Report :@ https://brandessenceresearch.com/technology-and-media/virtual-d-nanorobots-market

Related Links : https://sites.google.com/view/industrytrends/healthcare-industry-trends/contract-research-organization-market-size-will-grow-at-a-cagr-of-7-4

https://sites.google.com/view/industrytrends/ict-and-media/cyber-security-in-healthcare-market-2020-industry-analysis

https://sites.google.com/view/industrytrends/ict-and-media/data-monetization-market-key-vendors-growth-analysis-revenue-strategies

https://sites.google.com/view/industrytrends/semiconductor-and-electronics/electronic-shelf-label-esl-market-insights-forecasts-to-2025

https://sites.google.com/view/industrytrends/ict-and-media/endpoint-security-market-to-undertake-strapping-growth-by-the-end-2025

https://sites.google.com/view/industrytrends/healthcare-industry-trends/enteral-syringe-market-to-hit-usd-840-2-million-with-a-cagr-of-4-9-2025

https://sites.google.com/view/industrytrends/healthcare-industry-trends/epigenetics-market-size-to-reach-2-83-billion-by-2025

https://teletype.in/@shubhamgosavi/QXRihGbpR

https://teletype.in/@shubhamgosavi/0WtqR9ujr

https://teletype.in/@shubhamgosavi/3M6_tiypz

https://teletype.in/@shubhamgosavi/So4_UMfi2

https://teletype.in/@shubhamgosavi/QUPceMECm

https://teletype.in/@shubhamgosavi/-SkVcnYSW

https://teletype.in/@shubhamgosavi/h-MbmBF30i

https://teletype.in/@shubhamgosavi/UIsVVmi9Z

https://socialmarketingsubmisssion1.blogspot.com/2020/12/chemical-catalyst-market-expected-to.html

https://socialmarketingsubmisssion1.blogspot.com/2020/12/contract-research-organization-market.html

https://socialmarketingsubmisssion1.blogspot.com/2020/12/cyber-security-in-healthcare-market.html

https://socialmarketingsubmisssion1.blogspot.com/2020/12/data-monetization-market-key-vendors.html

https://socialmarketingsubmisssion1.blogspot.com/2020/12/electronic-shelf-label-market-size-2020.html

https://socialmarketingsubmisssion1.blogspot.com/2020/12/endpoint-security-market-to-undertake.html

https://socialmarketingsubmisssion1.blogspot.com/2020/12/enteral-syringe-market-to-hit-usd-8402.html

https://socialmarketingsubmisssion1.blogspot.com/2020/12/epigenetics-market-size-to-reach-283.html

About Us:

Brandessence Market Research and Consulting Pvt. ltd.

Brandessence market research publishes market research reports & business insights produced by highly qualified and experienced industry analysts. Our research reports are available in a wide range of industry verticals including aviation, food & beverage, healthcare, ICT, Construction, Chemicals and lot more. Brand Essence Market Research report will be best fit for senior executives, business development managers, marketing managers, consultants, CEOs, CIOs, COOs, and Directors, governments, agencies, organizations and Ph.D. Students. We have a delivery center in Pune, India and our sales office is in London.

Contact us at: +44-2038074155 or mail us atsales@industrystatsreport.com

Website:https://brandessenceresearch.com/

Article:https://businessstatsnews.com

Blog:http://www.dailyindustrywatch.com

Blog:https://marketsize.biz

Blog:https://technologyindustrynews.com

Blog:https://marketstatsreport.com

The rest is here:
US Virtual 3D Nanorobots Market 2020: Deep Analysis of Current Trends and Future Demand by Top Key Players are Gingko Bioworks, Synthace, Zymergen...

The research report on the Radiocontrast Agent market provides a detailed analysis of the market. A detailed analysis of the market is done by covering all the major aspects, which affects the growth of the market. The report on Radiocontrast Agent market also provides a detailed impact of the current trends, such as the corona virus pandemic (COVID-19).

Inquiry For Buying or Customization of Report: @ https://www.cognitivemarketresearch.com/chemical-%26-materials/radiocontrast-agent-market-report#request_sample

Global Radiocontrast Agent market report offers in-depth insights of the supply chain and the strategies for the growth of the Radiocontrast Agent market. The impact of the corona virus on the supply chain is also covered, which is one of the major attributes which affects the Radiocontrast Agent market. The market report on Radiocontrast Agent market also covers a detailed analysis of the growth and the impact of the products which were introduced before the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. A detailed analysis of the product life cycle is also covered in the Radiocontrast Agent market report. nicolas.shaw@cognitivemarketresearch.com or call us on +1-312-376-8303.

Request a Sample Copy of this report @ https://www.cognitivemarketresearch.com/chemical-%26-materials/radiocontrast-agent-market-report#request_sample

Market Segmentation:Segmentation by Type: Barium-based Radiocontrast Agent, Iodinated Radiocontrast Agent, Gadolinium-based Radiocontrast Agent, Microbubble Radiocontrast Agent, X-ray/Computed Tomography (CT), Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Ultrasound

Segmentation by Application: Radiology, Interventional Radiology, Interventional Cardiology

Segmentation by Key Players:b> GE Healthcare (US), Bracco Imaging (Italy), Bayer HealthCare (Germany), Guerbet (France), Lantheus (US), Daiichi Sankyo (Japan), Unijules Life Sciences (India), J.B. Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals (India), Spago Nanomedicine (Sweden), Taejoon Pharm (South Korea), Jodas (India), Magnus Health (India)

Download and Access Exclusive Free Sample Report Pages {CoronoVirus Impact Analysis Updated Copy} Click Here> Download Sample Report of Radiocontrast Agent Market Report 2020 (Updated Eidtion May 2020)

Market, By Regions:In addition, Radiocontrast Agent market report categorized the information and data according to the major geographical regions which are expected to impact on the industry in forecast period. Following are the regions we covered in this report:North America (the United States, Canada, and Mexico)Europe (Germany, UK, France, Italy, and Russia, etc.)Asia-Pacific (China, Japan, ASEAN, India, and Korea)The Middle East and Africa (UAE, Egypt, South Africa, Saudi Arabia)South America (Brazil, Chile, Peru, and Argentina)

Table of Content : Global Radiocontrast Agent Market Report 2019: Market Size, Status and Forecast Till 2027 Chapter 1. Industry Overview of Global Radiocontrast Agent Chapter 2 Global Radiocontrast Agent Competition Analysis by Players Chapter 3 Company (Top Players) Profiles Chapter 4 Global Radiocontrast Agent Market Size by Type and Application (2014-2019) Chapter 5 Development Status and Outlook Chapter 11 Market Forecast by Regions, Type and Application (2019-2027) Chapter 12 Global Radiocontrast Agent Market Dynamics Chapter 12.1 Global Radiocontrast Agent Industry News 12.2 Global Radiocontrast Agent Industry Development Challenges 12.3 Global Radiocontrast Agent Industry Development Opportunities (2019-2027) Chapter 13 Market Effect Factors Analysis Chapter 14 Global Radiocontrast Agent Market Forecast (2019-2027) Chapter 15 Research Finding/Conclusion Chapter 16 Appendix To check the complete Table of Content click here: @ https://www.cognitivemarketresearch.com/chemical-%26-materials/radiocontrast-agent-market-report#table_of_contents

Thanks for reading this article; Please connect with our sales team, who will ensure that you get a report that suits your needs.

Inquiry For Buying or Customization of Report: @ https://www.cognitivemarketresearch.com/chemical-%26-materials/radiocontrast-agent-market-report#request_sample

About us: http://www.cognitivemarketresearch.com/about-usNicolas Shaw,Sales Manager,Global Business Development,Website: http://www.cognitivemarketresearch.comEmail: nicolas.shaw@cognitivemarketresearch.com or call us on +1-312-376-8303.Address: 20 N State Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60602, United States.

**********Download the Entire Report*************************************************

Read the original:
May 2020 Global Radiocontrast Agent Market Report 2020 COVID 19 Impact Analysis on Key Players GE Healthcare (US), Bracco Imaging (Italy), Bayer...

Global Radiocontrast Agent Market: Past, Current, and Future Market Analysis, Trends, and Opportunities, 2016-2026

The new report published by the Market Research Store global Radiocontrast Agent market is slated for a rapid growth in the coming years. The research study projects that the market is expected to grow at a good CAGR of XX% during the forecast period. The valuation for the Radiocontrast Agent market made by our research analysts is around USD XX Million in 2019 and anticipates USD XX Million by the end of 2026.

Request a sample copy of this report@www.marketresearchstore.com/report/global-radiocontrast-agent-market-report-2018-industry-analysis-383589#RequestSample

The competitive landscape evaluation of the Radiocontrast Agent market players include GE Healthcare (US), Bracco Imaging (Italy), Bayer HealthCare (Germany), Guerbet (France), Lantheus (US), Daiichi Sankyo (Japan), Unijules Life Sciences (India), J.B. Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals (India), Spago Nanomedicine (Sweden), Taejoon Pharm (South Korea), Jodas (India), Magnus Health (India). The information that is profiled for each of the market player will include their primary foundation business model as well as their current business strategy, SWOT analysis, their market share, revenue, pricing, gross margin , and the recent developments.

Radiocontrast Agent Market Report Insights

Overview of the Radiocontrast Agent market, its scope, and target audience. In-depth description about the market drivers, restraints, future market opportunities, and challenges. Details about the advanced technologies, including big data & analytics, artificial intelligence, and social media platforms used by the global Radiocontrast Agent Market Primary legislations that will have a great impact on the global platform. Comprehensive analysis about the key players in the global Radiocontrast Agent market. Recent developments, mergers and acquisitions, collaborations, R&D projects are mentioned in the Radiocontrast Agent market report.

Read Full Research Report::www.marketresearchstore.com/report/global-radiocontrast-agent-market-report-2018-industry-analysis-383589

Radiocontrast Agent Market Segmentation

Global Radiocontrast Agent market: By Type Analysis

Barium-based Radiocontrast Agent, Iodinated Radiocontrast Agent, Gadolinium-based Radiocontrast Agent, Microbubble Radiocontrast Agent

Global Radiocontrast Agent market: By Application Analysis

Radiology, Interventional Radiology, Interventional Cardiology

Global Radiocontrast Agent market: By Regional Analysis North America Europe Asia Pacific Latin America Middle East and Africa

If Any Inquiry of Radiocontrast Agent Report:www.marketresearchstore.com/report/global-radiocontrast-agent-market-report-2018-industry-analysis-383589#InquiryForBuying

In the segmentation part of the report a thorough research of each and every segment is done. For in-depth information some of the major segments have been segregated into sub-segments. In the regional segmentation also our research analysts have not only concentrated on the major regions but have also included the country-wise analysis of the Radiocontrast Agent market.

See the original post:
Global Radiocontrast Agent Market 2020 with Coronavirus/COVID-19 After Effects Analysis by Major Key Players | GE Healthcare (US), Bracco Imaging...

The Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market grew in 2019, as compared to 2018, according to our report, Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market is likely to have subdued growth in 2020 due to weak demand on account of reduced industry spending post Covid-19 outbreak. Further, Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market will begin picking up momentum gradually from 2021 onwards and grow at a healthy CAGR between 2021-2025

Deep analysis about market status (2016-2019), competition pattern, advantages and disadvantages of products, industry development trends (2019-2025), regional industrial layout characteristics and macroeconomic policies, industrial policy has also been included. From raw materials to downstream buyers of this industry have been analysed scientifically. This report will help you to establish comprehensive overview of the Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market

Get a Sample Copy of the Report at: https://i2iresearch.com/report/global-healthcare-nanotechnology-(nanomedicine)-market-2020-market-size-share-growth-trends-forecast-2025/#download-sample

The Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market is analysed based on product types, major applications and key players

Key product type:NanomedicineNano Medical DevicesNano DiagnosisOther

Key applications:AnticancerCNS ProductAnti-infectiveOther

Key players or companies covered are:AmgenTeva PharmaceuticalsAbbottUCBRocheCelgeneSanofiMerck & CoBiogenStrykerGilead SciencesPfizer3M CompanyJohnson & JohnsonSmith & NephewLeadiant BiosciencesKyowa Hakko KirinShireIpsenEndo International

The report provides analysis & data at a regional level (North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Middle East & Africa , Rest of the world) & Country level (13 key countries The U.S, Canada, Germany, France, UK, Italy, China, Japan, India, Middle East, Africa, South America)

Inquire or share your questions, if any: https://i2iresearch.com/report/global-healthcare-nanotechnology-(nanomedicine)-market-2020-market-size-share-growth-trends-forecast-2025/

Key questions answered in the report:1. What is the current size of the Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market, at a global, regional & country level?2. How is the market segmented, who are the key end user segments?3. What are the key drivers, challenges & trends that is likely to impact businesses in the Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market?4. What is the likely market forecast & how will be Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market impacted?5. What is the competitive landscape, who are the key players?6. What are some of the recent M&A, PE / VC deals that have happened in the Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market?

The report also analysis the impact of COVID 19 based on a scenario-based modelling. This provides a clear view of how has COVID impacted the growth cycle & when is the likely recovery of the industry is expected to pre-covid levels.

Contact us:i2iResearch info to intelligenceLocational Office: *India, *United States, *GermanyEmail: [emailprotected]Toll-free: +1-800-419-8865 | Phone: +91 98801 53667

Read the original post:
Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market Research Report with Revenue, Gross Margin, Market Share and Future Prospects till 2026 - The Market...

New Jersey, United States,- Latest update on Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market Analysis report published with extensive market research, Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market growth analysis, and forecast by 2026. this report is highly predictive as it holds the overall market analysis of topmost companies into the Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) industry. With the classified Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) market research based on various growing regions, this report provides leading players portfolio along with sales, growth, market share, and so on.

The research report of the Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) market is predicted to accrue a significant remuneration portfolio by the end of the predicted time period. It includes parameters with respect to the Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) market dynamics incorporating varied driving forces affecting the commercialization graph of this business vertical and risks prevailing in the sphere. In addition, it also speaks about the Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market growth opportunities in the industry.

Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market Report covers the manufacturers data, including shipment, price, revenue, gross profit, interview record, business distribution etc., these data help the consumer know about the competitors better. This report also covers all the regions and countries of the world, which shows a regional development status, including Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) market size, volume and value, as well as price data.

Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market competition by top Manufacturers:

Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market Classification by Types:

Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market Size by End-user Application:

Listing a few pointers from the report:

The objective of the Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market Report:

Cataloging the competitive terrain of the Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) market:

Unveiling the geographical penetration of the Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) market:

The report of the Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) market is an in-depth analysis of the business vertical projected to record a commendable annual growth rate over the estimated time period. It also comprises of a precise evaluation of the dynamics related to this marketplace. The purpose of the Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market report is to provide important information related to the industry deliverables such as market size, valuation forecast, sales volume, etc.

Major Highlights from Table of contents are listed below for quick lookup into Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market report

About Us:

Market Research Intellect provides syndicated and customized research reports to clients from various industries and organizations with the aim of delivering functional expertise. We provide reports for all industries including Energy, Technology, Manufacturing and Construction, Chemicals and Materials, Food and Beverage, and more. These reports deliver an in-depth study of the market with industry analysis, the market value for regions and countries, and trends that are pertinent to the industry.

Contact Us:

Mr. Steven Fernandes

Market Research Intellect

New Jersey ( USA )

Tel: +1-650-781-4080

Original post:
Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market Size By Product Analysis, Application, End-Users, Regional Outlook, Competitive Strategies And...

Sola Ojo, Kaduna

The leadership of Arewa Youth Assembly on Sunday appealed to the leadership of the 9th National Assembly to give speedy passage of the bill to establish a National Innovation Agency (NiNNOVA Establishment Bill 2020) which has already scaled through the first reading early July.

The bill, sponsored by the lawmaker representing Nnewi North/South/Ekwusigo Federal Constituency, Chris Emeka Azubogu, is expected to play a leading role in the development of Nigerias innovation ecosystem by coordinating, networking, fostering, and partnering different organizations from various fields such as academia, technology, industry, finance and investment.

The group in a statement through its Speaker, Mohammed salihu Danlami noted that, the main focus of the agency if established, would be on utilizing knowledge management to achieve innovation, which could be employed as the principal tool in improving quality of life and as a driving tool for an increasingly competitive economy.

According to Mohammed, NiNNOVA would undertake a broad-based and systematic approach in facilitating innovation development in Nigeria, both in terms of making improvements and pioneering new initiatives.

More precisely, NiNNOVA will focus on fostering strategic innovation and industry innovation, which will enhance national productivity, encourage economic restructuring and social development as well as promote national competitiveness by focusing on coordinating industrial clusters both at the policy and operational levels, promoting innovation culture and building up innovation systems, with a broader aim to transform Nigeria into an innovation-driven economy.

The National innovation Agency, if enacted, will coordinate innovation activities as well as administer funding to grow and support the innovation ecosystem and entrepreneurship in Nigeria. It shall exist to promote the development of efficient and innovative Nigerian systems within thematic areas such as technology, ICT, nanomedicine, nanotechnology, agriculture, agribusiness, biotechnology, health, education etc, he added..He continued, this is what Nigeria lacks but so desperately needs at the moment so that we can have a knowledge-based economy, commodity-based economy such as the one we currently operate does not get any country anywhere in terms of national development.

To buttress his point of view on the bill Mohammed sited example of South Korea, which developed an innovation-based economy and is not up to the size of a state in the Soviet Union, has about the economic size of the Soviet Union. China, Japan and India which are global economic giants do not have a drop of oil. India for instance rakes in a whopping 140 billion USD annually from ICT-based solutions and services.

This is just an inkling of what can be achieved through innovation. The Swedish Innovation Agency champions and coordinates innovation-based activities in Sweden for national development. The Thailand Innovation Agency plays a similar role in Thailand. The list is endless; virtually every country in the world has an Agency whose mandate is the coordination of innovation for national development.

In view of the crucial and critical role the National Innovation Agency will play in re-tooling our national economy for national development, we therefore urge the Honourable Speaker of the House of Representatives Rt. Hon Femi Gbajabiamila to please call for the second reading of this Bill and to expedite action for its eventual passage as such an agency will add huge value to Nigeria in terms of wealth creation and overall national competitiveness and development, the group added.

";n.innerHTML="window._taboola = window._taboola || [];_taboola.push({mode:'thumbnails-c', container:'taboola-below-article', placement:'below-article', target_type: 'mix'});window._taboola = window._taboola || [];_taboola.push({mode:'thumbnails-d', container:'taboola-below-article-second', placement:'below-article-2nd', target_type: 'mix'});";insertAfter(t,e);insertAfter(n,t)}injectWidgetByMarker('tbmarker');

Follow this link:
Northern youth group seeks speedy passage of Bill to establish National Innovation agency - Daily Sun