Select Page ::

Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market Share, Segments by Size, Growth, Market Share, Types, Key Vendors with Development and Scope, Forecast…

Posted on November 5, 2020 by Prof Baldwin

Global Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market report provides a detailed analysis of market overview and trends, key segments, business strategies, developments of key players, the future outlook of the market. This research report gives comprehensive knowledge and valuable insights about the Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) market. The report contains an in-depth analysis of the market size, growth, opportunities, product types, and services. The market is expected to grow at a different CAGR value during the forecast period of 2018-2023.

The report offers an overview of revenue, market share, demand, restraints, and supply of data during the projected year. These factors are becoming increasingly important in the present scenario.

Get a Sample Copy of the Report at https://www.absolutereports.com/enquiry/request-sample/13102426

Top Key Manufactures of Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market:

Market Dynamics :

> Drivers Rising Incidence of Cardiovascular Diseases Increasing Research Funding Rising Awareness of Nanomedicine Application Increasing Applications in Oncology

> Restraints High Costs of Nanotechnology-Based Medical Devices Time-Consuming Product Approval

> Opportunities

> Key Challenges

Regional Analysis:

This Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) report analysis segmented by geography, market share and revenues, market size, technologies, growth rate and forecast period of the following regions are including:

United States, Canada, Mexico, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Rest of Europe, India, China, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Rest of APAC, GCC, South Africa, Rest of MEA, Brazil,Argentina, Rest of South Africa

The Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) market contains industry challenges, business expansion plans, competitive landscape, key development, and accurate country-wise volume analysis and region-wise market size analysis of the global market. This detailed assessment of the market will help the company increase efficiency.

Inquire or Share Your Questions If Any Before the Purchasing This Report https://www.absolutereports.com/enquiry/pre-order-enquiry/13102426

Key Developments in the Market::> Major developments in 2017 covered in the report> And the latest major developments in 2018 covered in the report

Key Reasons to Purchase this Report:

Purchase this Report (Price 4250 USD for a Single-User License) https://www.absolutereports.com/checkout/13102426

Detailed TOC of Global Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market Growth, Trends, Challenges and Forecast (2018 2023)

1 Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market Introduction

1.1 Study Deliverables

1.2 General Study Assumptions

2 Research Methodology

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Analysis Methodology

2.3 Study Phases

2.4 Econometric Modelling

3 Executive Summary

4 Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market Overview and Trends

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market Trends

4.3 Porters Five Force Framework

Continued

For Detailed TOC https://www.absolutereports.com/TOC/13102426#TOC

Name: Ajay More

Phone: US +14242530807/ UK +44 20 3239 8187

Email: [emailprotected]

Our Other Reports:

Global Flex Fuel Engine Market Status and Outlook: 2020 Business Development Plans by Companies, Industry Trends and Restraints, Market Share and Revenue till 2026

Global Smart Parking Sensors Market Status and Outlook: 2020 Business Development Plans by Companies, Industry Trends and Restraints, Market Share and Revenue till 2026

Global Electrical Enclosure Equipments Market Report Insights Forecast to 2020-2025, Market Segmentation, Impact of COVID-19 on Global Industry, Key Distributors/Retailers

Gift Cards Market 2020 Status and Outlook by Regions, Market opportunities, Market Challenges, Risk and Industry Trends, Manufacture Cost Structure

Veterinary Orthopedic Implants Market 2020 by Business Strategy, Development History, Types, Applications and Trends, Growth Factors by Regions, Market Size and Share till 2026

Global Food Packaging Technology and Equipment Market Demand Status 2020 Share, Global Market Trends, Current Industry News, Business Growth, Top Regions Update by Forecast to 2026

Medical & Lab Refrigerators Market Industry Growth and Demand, Product Overview, Company Profiles and Recent Business Development, Forecast to 2020-2026

Continue reading here:
Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market Share, Segments by Size, Growth, Market Share, Types, Key Vendors with Development and Scope, Forecast...

Nanorobots Market Outlook by Drivers, Forecast and Covid-19 Impact by 2026 | Bruker, Jeol, Thermo Fisher and Others – KYT24

Posted on November 10, 2020 by Prof Baldwin

An innovative research study has been offered by Futuristic Reports, offering a comprehensive analysis of the Global Nanorobots Market where users can get an advantage from the comprehensive market research report with all the essential useful information. This is the newest report, covering the existing COVID-19 impact on the Nanorobots market. It has fetched along with numerous changes in market conditions. This segment also provides the Nanorobots scope of different applications and types that can potentially influence the future market. The comprehensive statistics are based on current trends and historical milestones.

This report also delivers an analysis of production volume about the global Nanorobots market and each type from 2020 to 2026. The Nanorobots report explicitly features the market share, company profiles, regional viewpoint, product portfolio, recent developments, newest strategic analysis, key players in the market, deals, circulation chain, manufacturing, production, and newest market entrants. The existing Nanorobots market players, brand value, popular products, demand and supply, and other significant factors identified with the market help players will better understand the market scenario.

Get Exclusive Sample Copy on Nanorobots Market at: https://www.futuristicreports.com/request-sample/80216

Impact of COVID-19 on Nanorobots Market

The report also contains the effect of the ongoing worldwide pandemic, i.e., COVID-19, on the Nanorobots Market and what the future holds for it. It offers an analysis of the impacts of the epidemic on the international market. The epidemic has immediately interrupted the requirement and supply series. The Nanorobots report also assesses the economic effect on firms and economic demands. Futuristic Reports has accumulated advice from several delegates of this Nanorobots business and has engaged from the secondary and primary research to extend the customers with strategies and data to combat industry struggles throughout and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Some of the key players operating in this market include:

(Bruker, Jeol, Thermo Fisher, Ginkgo Bioworks, Oxford Instruments, Ev Group, Imina Technologies, Toronto Nano Instrumentation, Klocke Nanotechnik, Kleindiek Nanotechnik, Xidex, Synthace, Park Systems, Smaract, Nanonics Imaging, Novascan Technologies, Angstrom Advanced, Hummingbird Scientific, Nt-Mdt Spectrum Instruments, Witec, Nanorobots)

Based on Product Type, Nanorobots market report displays the production, profits, cost, and market segment and growth rate of each type, covers:

Nanomanipulator Bio-Nanorobotics Magnetically Guided Bacteria-Based Nanorobots Industry Vertical

Based on end users/applications, the Nanorobots market report focuses on the status and viewpoint for major applications/end users, sales volume, market share, and growth rate for each application. This can be divided into:

Nanomedicine Biomedical Others

Grab Your Report at an Impressive Discount! Please click here: https://www.futuristicreports.com/check-discount/80216

The report offers a comprehensive assessment of the progression and other Nanorobots market features in significant regions, including South Korea, Taiwan, North America, Europe, Canada, Germany, France, Southeast Asia, Mexico, and Brazil, Pacific, and Latin America. U.S., U.K., Italy, Russia, China, Japan, etc.

Features the following key factors:

Some of the Key Questions Answered in this Report:

Inquire More About This Report @ https://www.futuristicreports.com/send-an-enquiry/80216

Our Other Reports:

Vaginal Pessary Market Growth, Trend, Statistics and Covid-19 Impact by 2026 | Smiths Medical, MedGyn, Kangge Medical and Others

Alizarin Market Outlook by Drivers, Forecast and Covid-19 Impact by 2026 | CDH, RICCA Chemical, Amadis Chemical and Others

Garment Steamer Market Share, Size Status, Forecast Analysis and Covid-19 Impact by 2026 | Midea, HOMETOP, HAAN and Others

WomenS Golf Shoes Market Qualitative, Quantitative Research on Leading Players and Covid-19 Impact by 2026 | ECCO, Dexter, Skechers and Others

Futuristic Reports

Name: Mark RiveraTel: +1-408-520-9037Email: [emailprotected]

See the article here:
Nanorobots Market Outlook by Drivers, Forecast and Covid-19 Impact by 2026 | Bruker, Jeol, Thermo Fisher and Others - KYT24

R&D Activities to Fast-track the Growth of the Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market Between 2015 2021 – The Daily Chronicle

Posted on September 19, 2020 by Prof Baldwin

Persistence Market Research recently published a market study that sheds light on the growth prospects of the global Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) market during the forecast period (20XX-20XX). In addition, the report also includes a detailed analysis of the impact of the novel COVID-19 pandemic on the future prospects of the Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) market. The report provides a thorough evaluation of the latest trends, market drivers, opportunities, and challenges within the global Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) market to assist our clients arrive at beneficial business decisions.

The Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) market study is a well-researched report encompassing a detailed analysis of this industry with respect to certain parameters such as the product capacity as well as the overall market remuneration. The report enumerates details about production and consumption patterns in the business as well, in addition to the current scenario of the Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) market and the trends that will prevail in this industry.

Request Sample Report @ https://www.persistencemarketresearch.co/samples/6370

What pointers are covered in the Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) market research study?

The Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) market report Elucidated with regards to the regional landscape of the industry:

The geographical reach of the Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) market has been meticulously segmented into United States, China, Europe, Japan, Southeast Asia & India, according to the report.

The research enumerates the consumption market share of every region in minute detail, in conjunction with the production market share and revenue.

Also, the report is inclusive of the growth rate that each region is projected to register over the estimated period.

The Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) market report Elucidated with regards to the competitive landscape of the industry:

The competitive expanse of this business has been flawlessly categorized into companies such as

Key players in the global nanomedicine market include: Abbott Laboratories, CombiMatrix Corporation, GE Healthcare, Sigma-Tau Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Mallinckrodt plc, Merck & Company, Inc., Nanosphere, Inc., Pfizer, Inc., Celgene Corporation, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., and UCB (Union chimique belge) S.A.

Key geographies evaluated in this report are:

Key features of this report

Request Report Methodology @ https://www.persistencemarketresearch.co/methodology/6370

Exclusive details pertaining to the contribution that every firm has made to the industry have been outlined in the study. Not to mention, a brief gist of the company description has been provided as well.

Substantial information subject to the production patterns of each firm and the area that is catered to, has been elucidated.

The valuation that each company holds, in tandem with the description as well as substantial specifications of the manufactured products have been enumerated in the study as well.

The Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) market research study conscientiously mentions a separate section that enumerates details with regards to major parameters like the price fads of key raw material and industrial chain analysis, not to mention, details about the suppliers of the raw material. That said, it is pivotal to mention that the Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) market report also expounds an analysis of the industry distribution chain, further advancing on aspects such as important distributors and the customer pool.

The Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) market report enumerates information about the industry in terms of market share, market size, revenue forecasts, and regional outlook. The report further illustrates competitive insights of key players in the business vertical followed by an overview of their diverse portfolios and growth strategies.

For any queries get in touch with Industry Expert @ https://www.persistencemarketresearch.co/ask-an-expert/6370

Some of the Major Highlights of TOC covers:

Excerpt from:
R&D Activities to Fast-track the Growth of the Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market Between 2015 2021 - The Daily Chronicle

Impact Of Covid-19 on Nanomedicine Market 2020 Industry Challenges, Business Overview and Forecast Research Study 2026 – Crypto Daily

Posted on October 6, 2020 by Prof Baldwin

Manhattan, New York, Analytical Research Cognizance: TheNanomedicineMarketreport is based on the basis of product type, application and end-user during the truncated forecast period. The detailed study further offers a broad interpretation on the Nanomedicine market based on a systematic analysis of the market from a variety of reliable sources and thorough data points. Furthermore, the report sheds a light on the Global scale segmenting the market space across various districts, appropriate distribution channels, generated income and a generalized market space.

This intelligence and 2025 forecasts Nanomedicine industry report further exhibits a pattern of analyzing previous data sources gathered from reliable sources and set a precedented growth trajectory for the Nanomedicine market. The report also focuses on a comprehensive market revenue streams along with growth patterns, analytics focused on market trends, and the overall volume of the market.

Request Sample of Global Nanomedicine Market Report @https://www.arcognizance.com/enquiry-sample/923566

Finally, the report provides detailed profile and data information analysis of leading Augmented Reality Company.

This report covers leading companies associated in Nanomedicine Market @GE Healthcare, Johnson & Johnson, Mallinckrodt plc, Merck & Co. Inc., Nanosphere Inc., Pfizer Inc., Sigma-Tau Pharmaceuticals Inc., Smith & Nephew PLC, Stryker Corp, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., UCB (Union chimique belge) S.A

Region Segmentation:North America (U.S., Canada, Mexico)Europe (Germany, U.K., France, Italy, Russia, Spain etc.)Asia-Pacific (China, India, Japan, Southeast Asia etc.)South America (Brazil, Argentina etc.)Middle East & Africa (Saudi Arabia, South Africa etc.)

On the basis of types, the Nanomedicine market is primarily split into:Regenerative Medicine, In-vitro & In-vivo Diagnostics, Vaccines, Drug Delivery

On the basis of applications, the market covers:Clinical Cardiology, Urology, Genetics, Orthopedics, Ophthalmology

Some of the major factors contributing to the growth of the global Nanomedicine market:

Nanomedicine Market Report Structure at a Glance:

Access Global Nanomedicine Market Report @https://www.arcognizance.com/report/global-nanomedicine-market-status-and-future-forecast-2015-2025

Table of Content:

Note:Our report does take into account the impact of corona virus pandemic and dedicates qualitative as well as quantitative sections of information within the report that emphasizes the impact of COVID-19.

As this pandemic is ongoing and leading to dynamic shifts in stocks and businesses worldwide, we take into account the current condition and forecast the market data taking into consideration the micro and macroeconomic factors that will be affected by the pandemic.

About us:Analytical Research Cognizance (ARC) is a trusted hub for research reports that critically renders accurate and statistical data for your business growth. Our extensive database of examined market reports places us amongst the best industry report firms. Our professionally equipped team further strengthens ARCs potential. ARC works with the mission of creating a platform where marketers can have access to informative, latest and well researched reports. To achieve this aim our experts tactically scrutinize every report that comes under their eye.

See the original post:
Impact Of Covid-19 on Nanomedicine Market 2020 Industry Challenges, Business Overview and Forecast Research Study 2026 - Crypto Daily

Nanomedicine Market: Industry Analysis and forecast 2026: By Modality, Diseases, Application and Region – Good Night, Good Hockey

Posted on August 26, 2020 by Prof Baldwin

Nanomedicine Marketwas valued US$ XX Bn in 2018 and is expected to reach US$ XX Bn by 2026, at CAGR of XX% during forecast period of 2019 to 2026.

REQUEST FOR FREE SAMPLE REPORT:https://www.maximizemarketresearch.com/request-sample/39223

Nanomedicine is an application of nanotechnology, which are used in diagnosis, treatment, monitoring, and control of biological systems. Nanomedicine usages nanoscale manipulation of materials to improve medicine delivery. Therefore, nanomedicine has facilitated the treatment against various diseases. The nanomedicine market includes products that are nanoformulations of the existing drugs and new drugs or are nanobiomaterials. The research and development of new devices as well as the diagnostics will become, more effective, enabling faster response and the ability to treat new diseases are likely to boost the market growth.

The nanomedicine markets are driven by factors such as developing new technologies for drug delivery, increase acceptance of nanomedicine across varied applications, rise in government support and funding, the growing need for therapies that have fewer side effects and cost-effective. However, long approval process and risks associated with nanomedicine (environmental impacts) are hampering the market growth at the global level. An increase in the out-licensing of nanodrugs and growth of healthcare facilities in emerging economies are likely to create lucrative opportunities in the nanomedicine market.

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.

Nanomedicine Market Segmentation Analysis:Based on the application, the nanomedicine market has been segmented into cardiovascular, neurology, anti-infective, anti-inflammatory, and oncology. The oncology segment held the dominant market share in 2018 and is projected to maintain its leading position throughout the forecast period owing to the rising availability of patient information and technological advancements. However, the cardiovascular and neurology segment is projected to grow at the highest CAGR of XX% during the forecast period due to presence of opportunities such as demand for specific therapeutic nanovectors, nanostructured stents, and implants for tissue regeneration.

Nanomedicine Market Regional Analysis:Geographically, the Nanomedicine market has been segmented into North America, the Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, and Middle East & Africa. North America held the largest share of the Nanomedicine market in 2018 due to the rising presence of patented nanomedicine products, the availability of advanced healthcare infrastructure and the rapid acceptance of nanomedicine. The market in Asia Pacific is expected to expand at a high CAGR of XX% during the forecast period thanks to rise in number of research grants and increase in demand for prophylaxis of life-threatening diseases. Moreover, the rising investments in research and development activities for the introduction of advanced therapies and drugs are predicted to accelerate the growth of this region in the near future.

Nanomedicine Market Competitive landscapeMajor Key players operating in this market are Abbott Laboratories, CombiMatrix Corporation, General Electric Company, Sigma-Tau Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and Johnson & Johnson. Manufacturers in the nanomedicine are focusing on competitive pricing as the strategy to capture significant market share. Moreover, strategic mergers and acquisitions and technological innovations are also the key focus areas of the manufacturers.

The objective of the report is to present a comprehensive analysis of Nanomedicine Market including all the stakeholders of the industry. The past and current status of the industry with forecasted market size and trends are presented in the report with the analysis of complicated data in simple language. The report covers all aspects of the industry with a dedicated study of key players that includes market leaders, followers and new entrants by region. PORTER, SVOR, PESTEL analysis with the potential impact of micro-economic factors by region on the market are presented in the report. External as well as internal factors that are supposed to affect the business positively or negatively have been analyzed, which will give a clear futuristic view of the industry to the decision-makers. The report also helps in understanding Nanomedicine Market dynamics, structure by analyzing the market segments and project the Nanomedicine Market size. Clear representation of competitive analysis of key players By Type, Price, Financial position, Product portfolio, Growth strategies, and regional presence in the Nanomedicine Market make the report investors guide.Scope of the Nanomedicine Market:

Nanomedicine Market by Modality:

Diagnostics TreatmentsNanomedicine Market by Diseases:

Oncological Diseases Infectious Diseases Cardiovascular Diseases Orthopedic Disorders Neurological Diseases Urological Diseases Ophthalmological Diseases Immunological DiseasesNanomedicine Market by Application:

Neurology Cardiovascular Anti-Inflammatory Anti-Infectives OncologyNanomedicine Market by Region:

Asia Pacific North America Europe Latin America Middle East AfricaNanomedicine Market Major Players:

Abbott Laboratories CombiMatrix Corporation General Electric Company Sigma-Tau Pharmaceuticals, Inc Johnson & Johnson Mallinckrodt plc. Merck & Company, Inc. Nanosphere, Inc. Pfizer, Inc. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Celgene Corporation UCB (Union Chimique Belge) S.A. AMAG Pharmaceuticals Nanospectra Biosciences, Inc. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Leadiant Biosciences, Inc. Epeius Biotechnologies Corporation Cytimmune Sciences, Inc.

Browse Full Report with Facts and Figures Report at:https://www.maximizemarketresearch.com/market-report/nanomedicine-market/39223/

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

Excerpt from:
Nanomedicine Market: Industry Analysis and forecast 2026: By Modality, Diseases, Application and Region - Good Night, Good Hockey

Oral Contrast Agent Market 2020 | Know the Latest COVID19 Impact Analysis And Strategies of Key Players: GE Healthcare (US), Bracco Imaging (Italy),…

Posted on September 3, 2020 by Prof Baldwin

InForGrowth has added Latest Research Report on Oral Contrast Agent Market 2020 Future Growth Opportunities, Development Trends, and Forecast 2026. The Global Oral Contrast Agent Market market report cover an overview of the segments and sub-segmentations including the product types, applications, companies & regions. This report describes overall Oral Contrast Agent Market size by analyzing historical data and future projections.

The report features unique and relevant factors that are likely to have a significant impact on the Oral Contrast Agent market during the forecast period. This report also includes the COVID-19 pandemic impact analysis on the Oral Contrast Agent market. This report includes a detailed and considerable amount of information, which will help new providers in the most comprehensive manner for better understanding. The report elaborates the historical and current trends molding the growth of the Oral Contrast Agent market

Get Exclusive Sample Report on Oral Contrast Agent Market is available at https://inforgrowth.com/sample-request/6544762/oral-contrast-agent-market

Market Segmentation:

The segmentation of the Oral Contrast Agent market has been offered on the basis of product type, application, Major Key Players and region. Every segment has been analyzed in detail, and data pertaining to the growth of each segment has been included in the analysis

Top Players Listed in the Oral Contrast Agent Market Report areGE 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).

Based on type, report split into Barium-based Contrast Media, Iodinated Contrast Media, Gadolinium-based Contrast Media, Microbubble Contrast Media.

Based on Application Oral Contrast Agent market is segmented into Cardiovascular Disorders, Cancer, Gastrointestinal Disorders, Musculoskeletal Disorders, Neurological Disorders, Nephrological Disorders.

Get Chance of 20% Extra Discount, If your Company is Listed in Above Key Players List;https://inforgrowth.com/discount/6544762/oral-contrast-agent-market

Impact of COVID-19: Oral Contrast Agent Market report analyses the impact of Coronavirus (COVID-19) on the Oral Contrast Agent industry. Since the COVID-19 virus outbreak in December 2019, the disease has spread to almost 180+ countries around the globe with the World Health Organization declaring it a public health emergency. The global impacts of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are already starting to be felt, and will significantly affect the Oral Contrast Agent market in 2020

COVID-19 can affect the global economy in 3 main ways: by directly affecting production and demand, by creating supply chain and market disturbance, and by its financial impact on firms and financial markets.

Get the Sample ToC to understand the CORONA Virus/COVID19 impact and be smart in redefining business strategies. https://inforgrowth.com/CovidImpact-Request/6544762/oral-contrast-agent-market

Oral Contrast AgentMarket: Key Questions Answered in Report

The research study on the Oral Contrast Agentmarket offers inclusive insights about the growth of the market in the most comprehensible manner for a better understanding of users. Insights offered in the Oral Contrast Agentmarket report answer some of the most prominent questions that assist the stakeholders in measuring all the emerging possibilities.

FOR ALL YOUR RESEARCH NEEDS, REACH OUT TO US AT:Address: 6400 Village Pkwy suite # 104, Dublin, CA 94568, USAContact Name: Rohan S.Email:[emailprotected]Phone: +1-909-329-2808UK: +44 (203) 743 1898

See the rest here:
Oral Contrast Agent Market 2020 | Know the Latest COVID19 Impact Analysis And Strategies of Key Players: GE Healthcare (US), Bracco Imaging (Italy),...

Nanomedicine Market Top Companies Analysis To growing at CAGR of 12.6% by 2023 – PharmiWeb.com

Posted on September 14, 2020 by Prof Baldwin

Pune, Maharashtra, India, September 14 2020 (Wiredrelease) Allied Analytics :UPDATE AVAILABLE ON-DEMAND

The research report published by Allied Market Report states that the global nanomedicine market is estimated to reach $261,063 million by 2023. The report provides an in-depth analysis of growth factors, opportunities, market trends, key segments, and competitive landscape. Current market conditions and the future scenario of various regions have been analyzed in the report to help market players in devising expansion strategies. Moreover, it includes country-wise analysis of each region. Product portfolio and business segments of leading market players outline the competitive scenario. The report provides insights to help investors, stakeholders, and new entrants to determine potential opportunities and tap on them to gain competitive advantage. The drug delivery segment accounted for nearly two-fifths share of the global market in 2016.

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.

To Get the Sample Copy of Report Visit @ https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/request-sample/2021

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:

Abbott Laboratories CombiMatrix Corporation General Electric Company Sigma-Tau Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Johnson & Johnson Mallinckrodt plc Merck & Company, Inc. Nanosphere, Inc. Pfizer, Inc. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.

The Other Prominent Players Are:

Celgene Corporation UCB (Union Chimique Belge) S.A. AMAG Pharmaceuticals Nanospectra Biosciences, Inc. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Leadiant Biosciences, Inc. Epeius Biotechnologies Corporation Gilead Cytimmune Sciences, Inc.

Key Findings of the Nanomedicine Market:

The regenerative medicine segment is anticipated to grow at the highest CAGR of 13.8% during the forecast period. The U.S. was the major shareholder in the North America nanomedicine market in 2016. The oncological diseases segment accounted for one-third share in the global market in 2016, and is expected to maintain this trend throughout the forecast period. China occupied one-third share of the Asia-Pacific nanomedicine market in 2016, registering a CAGR of 14.3% from 2017 to 2023. The treatment segment dominated the market with about fourth-sevenths of the overall share of the market in 2016.

Simillar Reports:

Contact Lenses Market Global Opportunity Analysis and Industry Forecast, 2020-2027

Healthcare Payer Solution Market Global Opportunity Analysis and Industry Forecast, 2020-2027

Blood Group Typing Market Global Opportunity Analysis and Industry Forecast, 2020-2027

Computed Tomography (CT) Market Global Opportunity Analysis and Industry Forecast, 2020-2027

About Us:

Allied Market Research (AMR) is a full-service market research and business -consulting wing of Allied Analytics LLP based in Portland, Oregon. Allied Market Research provides global enterprises as well as medium and small businesses with unmatched quality of Market Research Reports and Business Intelligence Solutions. AMR has a targeted view to provide business insights and consulting to assist its clients to make strategic business decisions and achieve sustainable growth in their respective market domain.

We are in professional corporate relations with various companies and this helps us in digging out market data that helps us generate accurate research data tables and confirms utmost accuracy in our market forecasting. Each and every data presented in the reports published by us is extracted through primary interviews with top officials from leading companies of domain concerned. Our secondary data procurement methodology includes deep online and offline research and discussion with knowledgeable professionals and analysts in the industry.

Contact:

David Correa5933 NE Win Sivers Drive#205, Portland, OR 97220United StatesToll Free (USA/Canada):+1-800-792-5285, +1-503-894-6022, +1-503-446-1141UK: +44-845-528-1300Hong Kong: +852-301-84916India (Pune): +91-20-66346060Fax: +1-855-550-5975help@alliedmarketresearch.comWeb:https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com

This content has been published by Allied Analytics company. The WiredRelease News Department was not involved in the creation of this content. For press release service enquiry, please reach us at contact@wiredrelease.com.

Follow this link:
Nanomedicine Market Top Companies Analysis To growing at CAGR of 12.6% by 2023 - PharmiWeb.com

Global Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market Worth $475B by 2027 – Therapeutics Will Account for $369B – Benzinga

Posted on August 5, 2020 by Prof Baldwin

Dublin, Aug. 05, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The "Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) - Global Market Trajectory & Analytics" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

The publisher brings years of research experience to this 9th edition of the report. The 190-page report presents concise insights into how the pandemic has impacted production and the buy side for 2020 and 2021. A short-term phased recovery by key geography is also addressed.

Global Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market to Reach $475.2 Billion by 2027

Amid the COVID-19 crisis, the global market for Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) estimated at US$183.9 Billion in the year 2020, is projected to reach a revised size of US$475.2 Billion by 2027, growing at a CAGR of 14.5% over the analysis period 2020-2027.

Therapeutics, one of the segments analyzed in the report, is projected to record a 14.1% CAGR and reach US$369.5 Billion by the end of the analysis period. After an early analysis of the business implications of the pandemic and its induced economic crisis, growth in the Regenerative medicine segment is readjusted to a revised 15.7% CAGR for the next 7-year period.

The U.S. Market is Estimated at $54.3 Billion, While China is Forecast to Grow at 14% CAGR

The Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) market in the U.S. is estimated at US$54.3 Billion in the year 2020. China, the world's second largest economy, is forecast to reach a projected market size of US$82.8 Billion by the year 2027 trailing a CAGR of 14% over the analysis period 2020 to 2027.

Among the other noteworthy geographic markets are Japan and Canada, each forecast to grow at 12.8% and 12.5% respectively over the 2020-2027 period. Within Europe, Germany is forecast to grow at approximately 10.7% CAGR.

In-vitro diagnostics Segment to Record 16.3% CAGR

In the global In-vitro diagnostics segment, USA, Canada, Japan, China and Europe will drive the 16.1% CAGR estimated for this segment. These regional markets accounting for a combined market size of US$5.7 Billion in the year 2020 will reach a projected size of US$16.2 Billion by the close of the analysis period.

China will remain among the fastest growing in this cluster of regional markets. Led by countries such as Australia, India, and South Korea, the market in Asia-Pacific is forecast to reach US$56.9 Billion by the year 2027.

Competitors identified in this market include, among others:

Total Companies Profiled: 46

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/moa2yk

Research and Markets also offers Custom Research services providing focused, comprehensive and tailored research.

Read the rest here:
Global Healthcare Nanotechnology (Nanomedicine) Market Worth $475B by 2027 - Therapeutics Will Account for $369B - Benzinga

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

Posted on August 5, 2020 by Prof Baldwin

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

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...

COVID-19 Impact on Nanomedicine Market Overview With Detailed Analysis, Competitive Landscape, Forecast To 2026 | Abbott Laboratories, CombiMatrix…

Posted on July 23, 2020 by Prof Baldwin

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

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...

Nanomedicine Market Provides in-depth analysis of the Nanomedicine Industry, with current trends and future estimations to elucidate the investment…

Posted on July 31, 2020 by Prof Baldwin

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...

CLR 131 Leads a New Generation of Lipid-Based Cancer Drug Delivery Systems – OncLive

Posted on July 19, 2020 by Prof Baldwin

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

How research groups are tackling the problem of biologic drug delivery – Pharmaceutical Technology

Posted on July 21, 2020 by Prof Baldwin

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

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.

A reanalysis of nanoparticle tumor delivery using classical pharmacokinetic metrics – Science Advances

Posted on July 15, 2020 by Prof Baldwin

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

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

Posted on July 17, 2020 by Prof Baldwin

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

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

Posted on July 10, 2020 by Prof Baldwin

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...

Nanomedicine Market Size By Product Analysis, Application, End-Users, Regional Outlook, Competitive Strategies And Forecast Up To 2026 – 3rd Watch…

Posted on July 13, 2020 by Prof Baldwin

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.

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 Global Industry Brief Analysis by Top Countries Data with Market Size, Growth Drivers, Investment Opportunity…

Posted on July 15, 2020 by Prof Baldwin

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...

Most engineered nanoparticles enter tumours through cells not between them, U of T researchers find – News@UofT

Posted on January 17, 2020 by Prof Baldwin

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

Healthcare Nanotechnology Nanomedicine Market : Outlook Continues to Remain Positive by 2015 2021 – The Trusted Chronicle

Posted on January 27, 2020 by Prof Baldwin

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

Select Page ::