No abstract

Nanomedicine involves the use of nanoparticles for therapeutic and diagnostic purposes. During the past two decades, a growing number of nanomedicines have received regulatory approval and many more show promise for future clinical translation. In this context, it is important to evaluate the safety of nanoparticles in order to achieve biocompatibility and desired activity. However, it is unwarranted to make generalized statements regarding the safety of nanoparticles, since the field of nanomedicine comprises a multitude of different manufactured nanoparticles made from various materials. Indeed, several nanotherapeutics that are currently approved, such as Doxil and Abraxane, exhibit fewer side effects than their small molecule counterparts, while other nanoparticles (e.g. metallic and carbon-based particles) tend to display toxicity. However, the hazardous nature of certain nanomedicines could be exploited for the ablation of diseased tissue, if selective targeting can be achieved. This review discusses the mechanisms for molecular, cellular, organ, and immune system toxicity, which can be observed with a subset of nanoparticles. Strategies for improving the safety of nanoparticles by surface modification and pretreatment with immunomodulators are also discussed. Additionally, important considerations for nanoparticle safety assessment are reviewed. In regards to clinical application, stricter regulations for the approval of nanomedicines might not be required. Rather, safety evaluation assays should be adjusted to be more appropriate for engineered nanoparticles.

Embedding of active substances in supramolecular systems has as the main goal to ensure the controlled release of the active ingredients. Whatever the final architecture or entrapment mechanism, modeling of release is challenging due to the moving boundary conditions and complex initial conditions. Despite huge diversity of formulations, diffusion phenomena are involved in practically all release processes. The approach in this paper starts, therefore, from mathematical methods for solving the diffusion equation in initial and boundary conditions, which are further connected with phenomenological conditions, simplified and idealized in order to lead to problems which can be analytically solved. Consequently, the release models are classified starting from the geometry of diffusion domain, initial conditions, and conditions on frontiers. Taking into account that practically all solutions of the models use the separation of variables method and integral transformation method, two specific applications of these methods are included. This paper suggests that “good modeling practice” of release kinetics consists essentially of identifying the most appropriate mathematical conditions corresponding to implied physicochemical phenomena. However, in most of the cases, models can be written but analytical solutions for these models cannot be obtained. Consequently, empiric models remain the first choice, and they receive an important place in the review.

No abstract

No abstract