Is nanomedicine the next big thing? A growing number of top drug companies seem to think so.
The ability to encapsulate potent drugs in tiny particles measuring billionths of a meter in diameter is opening up new options for super-accurate drug delivery, increasing precision hits at the site of disease with, hopefully, fewer side effects.
Three deals struck this year by privately held Bind Therapeutics, together worth nearly US$1 billion if experiments are successful, highlight a new interest in using such tiny carriers to deliver drug payloads to specific locations in the body.
The US-based Bind is one of several biotechnology firms that are luring large pharmaceutical makers with a range of smart-drug nanotechnologies, notably against cancer.
And nanomedicine is also being put to work in diagnosis, with tiny particles used to improve imaging in scanners, as well as rapidly detecting some serious infections.
In future, researchers hope to combine both treatment and diagnostics in a new approach, dubbed “theranostics,” that would allow doctors to monitor patients via their medicines.
After much hype, but limited clinical success, scientists in the nanotechnology field finally see a turning point.
“We have been hearing about the promise of nanomedicine for a long time, but it is now really starting to move,” said Dan Peer, who runs a nanomedicine laboratory at Tel Aviv University.
“There is a new level of confidence in this approach among the big pharmaceutical companies ... We will see more and more products in clinical testing over the next few years and I think that is very exciting,” he said.
Nanoparticles made of polymers, gold and even graphene — a newly discovered form of carbon — are now in various stages of development.
In cancer alone, 117 drugs are being assessed using nanoparticle formulations, though most have yet to be tried on patients, according to Thomson Reuters Pharma data.
Other potential applications include treatments for inflammatory disorders, heart and brain diseases and pain.
Companies are increasingly focused on better drug targeting to increase efficacy and lessen the collateral damage caused by medicinal “carpet bombing” — a particular problem in cancer, where toxic compounds are needed to kill tumors.
The work on drug-carrying nanoparticles parallels advances in using so-called “armed antibodies” to deliver drugs direct to cancer cells — an approach championed by Roche.
The Swiss group won US approval in February for Kadcyla, its first such antibody-drug conjugate, which treats breast cancer with fewer of the side effects, like hair loss.
“All these developments have prompted companies to look at new avenues because the older ways of using drugs haven’t worked so well,” said Robert Langer, a pioneer of nanomedicine who runs the world’s largest biomedical engineering laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Having worked on drug delivery since the 1970s, Langer has seen plenty of ups and downs.
The world’s first nanomedicine was actually approved back in 1995 when US regulators gave a green light to Doxil for treating Kaposi’s sarcoma, a cancer often associated with AIDS.
Doxil — a hollow fatty ball known as a liposome with a cancer-killing drug inside it — was a breakthrough. Yet few other nanomedicines have followed.
However, recent scientific advances have changed the game. Bind’s nanoparticles, for example, are programmed to reach the right spot using targeting molecules that recognize specific proteins linked to disease on the surface of cells.
They also have a stealth covering that shields them from the immune system, in order to minimize adverse reactions.
Since January, Amgen, Pfizer and AstraZeneca have all signed up to use Bind’s technology, which comes from work originally carried out in Langer’s lab.
And Bind is not the only game in town. Another approach, using tiny particles of gold as drug carriers, is being explored in a deal that AstraZeneca signed in December last year with CytImmune.
“Anything you can do to improve targeting of tumors rather than normal tissue — whether that is through an armed antibody or nanoparticle approach — increases the chance of success,” said Susan Galbraith, who leads AstraZeneca’s oncology research.
The work remains at an early stage and Peer says all the novel carriers will have to be studied closely for potential toxicity.
However, experience with liposomes is good and versions of gold nanoparticles have also been used safely for many years to treat rheumatoid arthritis.
Injecting patients with gold may sound like a pricey option, but with thousands of nanoparticles fitting into the width of a human hair, the amount of metal used is tiny. Gold, unlike some other metals, is not toxic and has been used in various medical treatments for many years without harmful effects.
Bind chief executive Scott Minick also thinks his polymer technology will have cost advantages over expensive antibody drugs.
Further out, Kostas Kostarelos, professor of nanomedicine at University College London, has high hopes for graphene — a one-atom-thick form of carbon. His team is currently working with graphene nanomaterials in pre-clinical experiments.
“We will see parallel development of different materials, each offering something different therapeutically,” he said.
Other venture-backed nanomedicine firms include Cerulean Pharma, whose technology has made a highly potent cancer drug tolerable, but which recently had disappointing results in a clinical study, and two companies looking at new vaccines.
Selecta Biosciences has a deal on food allergy vaccines with Sanofi, while Liquidia Technologies is allied with GlaxoSmithKline on vaccines and inhaled products.
Langer is convinced more Big Pharma companies will think small in future.
“You can be sure others will jump on the bandwagon sooner or later. That doesn’t mean they might not jump off for a little bit too — but they will jump back on. These technologies are here to stay,” Langer said.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS