| Title |
Nanoparticle-mediated drug delivery to treat infections in the female reproductive tract: evaluation of experimental systems and the potential for mathematical modeling
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s160044 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lee B Sims, Hermann B Frieboes, Jill M Steinbach-Rankins |
| Abstract |
A variety of drug-delivery platforms have been employed to deliver therapeutic agents across cervicovaginal mucus (CVM) and the vaginal mucosa, offering the capability to increase the longevity and retention of active agents to treat infections of the female reproductive tract (FRT). Nanoparticles (NPs) have been shown to improve retention, diffusion, and cell-specific targeting via specific surface modifications, relative to other delivery platforms. In particular, polymeric NPs represent a promising option that has shown improved distribution through the CVM. These NPs are typically fabricated from nontoxic, non-inflammatory, US Food and Drug Administration-approved polymers that improve biocompatibility. This review summarizes recent experimental studies that have evaluated NP transport in the FRT, and highlights research areas that more thoroughly and efficiently inform polymeric NP design, including mathematical modeling. An overview of the in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo NP studies conducted to date - whereby transport parameters are determined, extrapolated, and validated - is presented first. The impact of different NP design features on transport through the FRT is summarized, and gaps that exist due to the limitations of iterative experimentation alone are identified. The potential of mathematical modeling to complement the characterization and evaluation of diffusion and transport of delivery vehicles and active agents through the CVM and mucosa is discussed. Lastly, potential advancements combining experimental and mathematical knowledge are suggested to inform next-generation NP designs, such that infections in the FRT may be more effectively treated. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 40% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 21 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 14% |
| Professor | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 9 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 10 | 48% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 May 2018.
All research outputs
#7,717,825
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#901
of 4,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,241
of 339,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#20
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,122 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 339,234 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.