Review

Biocomposite-based nanostructured delivery systems for the treatment and control of inflammatory lung diseases

Department of Pharmaceutics, Faculty of Pharmacy, Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, 560054, India

Search for more papers by this author

Shvetank Bhatt

*Author for correspondence:

E-mail Address: shvetankbhatt@gmail.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8696-3462

Amity Institute of Pharmacy, Amity University Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, 474005, India

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:28 Apr 2022https://doi.org/10.2217/nnm-2021-0425

View article

Abstract

Diseases related to the lungs are among the most prevalent medical problems threatening human life. The treatment options and therapeutics available for these diseases are hindered by inadequate drug concentrations at pathological sites, a dearth of cell-specific targeting and different biological barriers in the alveoli or conducting airways. Nanostructured delivery systems for lung drug delivery have been significant in addressing these issues. The strategies used include surface engineering by altering the material structure or incorporation of specific ligands to reach prespecified targets. The unique characteristics of nanoparticles, such as controlled size and distribution, surface functional groups and therapeutic release triggering capabilities, are tailored to specific requirements to overcome the major therapeutic barriers in pulmonary diseases. In the present review, the authors intend to deliver significant up-to-date research in nanostructured therapies in inflammatory lung diseases with an emphasis on biocomposite-based nanoparticles.

Plain language summary

Lung-related disorders such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases and pulmonary fibrosis are the result of inflammatory processes in the human body. The causes of these lung diseases can vary from unknown to specific. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is most commonly caused by smoking, whereas asthma may be caused by allergens, infections, cold air or smoke. Targeting these lung-related diseases with biologically degradable polymeric nanoparticles has recently been proposed as an effective treatment. These nanoparticles can be made by combining different materials to form biocomposite nanoparticles. Different drugs can be loaded into nanoparticles, and the surface of nanoparticles can be modified to change their properties; for example, to make them target diseased parts of the lung. In this article, the authors discuss current trends in nanoparticle treatment of inflammatory lung diseases, including the significance of biologically degradable materials.

Keywords:

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

1. Chen L, Deng H, Cui H et al. Inflammatory responses and inflammation-associated diseases in organs. Oncotarget 9(6), 7204–7218 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
2. Subbarao P, Mandhane PJ, Sears MR. Asthma: epidemiology, etiology and risk factors. CMAJ 181(9), e181–e190 (2009).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
3. Hall S, Agrawal DK. Key mediators in the immunopathogenesis of allergic asthma. Int. Immunopharmacol. 23(1), 316–329 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
4. Kudo M, Ishigatsubo Y, Aoki I. Pathology of asthma. Front. Microbiol. 4(263), 1–16 (2013).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
5. Rawat D, Sharma S. Case study: 60-year-old female presenting with shortness of breath. In: StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing LLC, FL, USA (2021).
Google Scholar
6. Hikichi M, Mizumura K, Maruoka S, Gon Y. Pathogenesis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) induced by cigarette smoke. J. Thorac. Dis. 11(Suppl. 17), S2129–S2140 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
7. Brode SK, Ling SC, Chapman KR. Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency: a commonly overlooked cause of lung disease. CMAJ 184(12), 1365–1371 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
8. Buist AS. Similarities and differences between asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: treatment and early outcomes. Eur. Respir. J. Suppl. 39, 30s–35s (2003).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
9. Wilson MS, Wynn TA. Pulmonary fibrosis: pathogenesis, etiology and regulation. Mucosal Immunol. 2(2), 103–121 (2009).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
10. Qiao Q et al. Nanomedicine for acute respiratory distress syndrome: the latest application, targeting strategy, and rational design. Acta Pharm. Sin. B 11(10), 3060–3091 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
11. Han Y et al. Ag NPs on chitosan–alginate-coated magnetite for synthesis of indazolo[2,1-b]phthalazines and human lung protective effects against α-guttiferin. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 164, 2974–2986 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
12. Dharmage SC, Perret JL, Custovic A. Epidemiology of asthma in children and adults. Front. Pediatr. 7, 246 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
13. Matucci A et al. Is IgE or eosinophils the key player in allergic asthma pathogenesis? Are we asking the right question? Respir. Res. 19(1), 113 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
14. Stone KD, Prussin C, Metcalfe DD. IgE, mast cells, basophils, and eosinophils. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 125(2 Suppl. 2), S73–S80 (2010).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
15. Krystel-Whittemore M, Dileepan KN, Wood JG. Mast cell: a multi-functional master cell. Front Immunol. 6(620), 1–12 (2016).
Google Scholar
16. McBrien CN, Menzies-Gow A. The biology of eosinophils and their role in asthma. Front. Med. (Lausanne) 4, 93 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
17. Lamouille S, Xu J, Derynck R. Molecular mechanisms of epithelial-mesenchymal transition. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 15(3), 178–196 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
18. Venge P. The eosinophil and airway remodelling in asthma. Clin. Respir. J. 4(Suppl. 1), 15–19 (2010).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
19. Barnes PJ et al. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers 1, 15076 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
20. Tetley TD. Inflammatory cells and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Curr. Drug Targets Inflamm. Allergy 4(6), 607–618 (2005).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
21. Bajpai J et al. Study of oxidative stress biomarkers in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and their correlation with disease severity in north Indian population cohort. Lung India 34(4), 324–329 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
22. Pandey KC, De S, Mishra PK. Role of proteases in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Front. Pharmacol. 8, 512 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
23. Cukic V et al. Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) – differences and similarities. Mater. Sociomed. 24(2), 100–105 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
24. Bhatt S, Kanoujia J, Nagappa AN. Targeting molecular and cellular mechanisms in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In: Targeting Cellular Signalling Pathways in Lung Diseases. Dua KNagappa ANMalheiros Luzo ÂC (Eds). Springer Singapore, Singapore, Republic of Singapore, 127–146 (2021).
Google Scholar
25. Navaratnam V et al. The rising incidence of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in the U.K. Thorax 66(6), 462–467 (2011).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
26. Wuyts WA et al. The pathogenesis of pulmonary fibrosis: a moving target. Eur. Respir. J. 41(5), 1207–1218 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
27. Song Q, Chen P, Liu XM. The role of cigarette smoke-induced pulmonary vascular endothelial cell apoptosis in COPD. Respir. Res. 22(1), 39 (2021). • Describes the effect of smoking on the deeper part of the lungs.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
28. Laniado-Laborín R. Smoking and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Parallel epidemics of the 21 century. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 6(1), 209–224 (2009).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
29. Brannon-Peppas L, Blanchette JO. Nanoparticle and targeted systems for cancer therapy. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 56(11), 1649–1659 (2004).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
30. Nguyen HX. Targeted delivery of surface-modified nanoparticles: modulation of inflammation for acute lung injury. In: Surface Modification of Nanoparticles for Targeted Drug Delivery. Pathak YV (Ed.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, 331–353 (2019).
Google Scholar
31. Saini R, Bajpai AK, Jain E. Advances in bionanocomposites for biomedical applications. Biodegradable and Biocompatible Polymer Composites. 1–21 (2017).
Google Scholar
32. Patra JK et al. Nano based drug delivery systems: recent developments and future prospects. J. Nanobiotechnology 16(1), 71 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
33. Bonner JC. Nanoparticles as a potential cause of pleural and interstitial lung disease. Proc. Am. Thorac. Soc. 7(2), 138–141 (2010). •• Discusses the channelling of nanoparticles into the deeper part of the lungs, which could explain the importance and strategic significance of nanoparticle targeting in the lungs.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
34. Suk JS et al. PEGylation as a strategy for improving nanoparticle-based drug and gene delivery. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 99(Pt A), 28–51 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
35. Mikušová V, Mikuš P. Advances in chitosan-based nanoparticles for drug delivery. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 22(17), 9652 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
36. Labiris NR, Dolovich MB. Pulmonary drug delivery. Part I: physiological factors affecting therapeutic effectiveness of aerosolized medications. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 56(6), 588–599 (2003).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
37. Mangum JB et al. Single-walled carbon nanotube (SWCNT)-induced interstitial fibrosis in the lungs of rats is associated with increased levels of PDGF mRNA and the formation of unique intercellular carbon structures that bridge alveolar macrophages in situ. Part. Fibre Toxicol. 3, 15 (2006).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
38. Pontes JF, Grenha A. Multifunctional nanocarriers for lung drug delivery. Nanomaterials (Basel) 10(2), 1–24 (2020).
Google Scholar
39. Luo MX, Hua S, Shang QY. Application of nanotechnology in drug delivery systems for respiratory diseases (review). Mol. Med. Rep. 23(5), 325 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
40. Qiao H et al. The transport and deposition of nanoparticles in respiratory system by inhalation. J. Nanomaterials 2015, 394507 (2015). •• Details the effect of nanomaterial particle size on the pulmonary system.
Google Scholar
41. Bharadwaz A, Jayasuriya AC. Recent trends in the application of widely used natural and synthetic polymer nanocomposites in bone tissue regeneration. Mater. Sci. Eng. C Mater. Biol. Appl. 110, 110698 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
42. Kaur G et al. Advances in pulmonary delivery of nanoparticles. Artif. Cells Blood Substit. Immobil. Biotechnol. 40(1–2), 75–96 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
43. Samani DA et al. Electrospun polycaprolactone/graphene/baghdadite composite nanofibres with improved mechanical and biological properties. Fibers Polym. 20(5), 982–990 (2019).
CASGoogle Scholar
44. Bagheri M, Mahmoodzadeh A. Polycaprolactone/graphene nanocomposites: synthesis, characterization and mechanical properties of electrospun nanofibers. J. Inorg. Organomet. Polym. Mater. 30(5), 1566–1577 (2020).
CASGoogle Scholar
45. Ely L et al. Effervescent dry powder for respiratory drug delivery. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 65(3), 346–353 (2007).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
46. Al-Hallak KMHD et al. Secondary cytotoxicity mediated by alveolar macrophages: a contribution to the total efficacy of nanoparticles in lung cancer therapy. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 76(1), 112–119 (2010).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
47. Loch-Neckel G et al. Orally administered chitosan-coated polycaprolactone nanoparticles containing curcumin attenuate metastatic melanoma in the lungs. J. Pharm. Sci. 104(10), 3524–3534 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
48. Ilyas RA et al. Natural fiber-reinforced polycaprolactone green and hybrid biocomposites for various advanced applications. Polymers 14(1), 182 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
49. Tahriri M et al. Biodegradation properties of PLGA/nano-fluorhydroxyapatite composite microsphere-sintered scaffolds. Dent. Mater. 32, e49–e50 (2016).
Google Scholar
50. Masaeli R et al. Efficacy of the biomaterials 3wt%-nanostrontium-hydroxyapatite-enhanced calcium phosphate cement (nanoSr-CPC) and nanoSr-CPC-incorporated simvastatin-loaded poly(lactic-co-glycolic-acid) microspheres in osteogenesis improvement: an explorative multi-phase experimental in vitro/vivo study. Mater. Sci. Eng. C Mater. Biol. Appl. 69, 171–183 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
51. Wang Y et al. Poly(lactide-co-glycolide)/titania composite microsphere-sintered scaffolds for bone tissue engineering applications. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 93(1), 84–92 (2010).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
52. Eslami H, Solati-Hashjin M, Tahriri M. The comparison of powder characteristics and physicochemical, mechanical and biological properties between nanostructure ceramics of hydroxyapatite and fluoridated hydroxyapatite. Mater. Sci. Eng. C Mater. Biol. Appl. 29(4), 1387–1398 (2009).
CASGoogle Scholar
53. Lv Q, Nair L, Laurencin CT. Fabrication, characterization, and in vitro evaluation of poly(lactic acid glycolic acid)/nano-hydroxyapatite composite microsphere-based scaffolds for bone tissue engineering in rotating bioreactors. J. Biomed Mater Res A. 91A(3), 679–691 (2009).
CASGoogle Scholar
54. Emami F, Mostafavi Yazdi SJ, Na DH. Poly(lactic acid)/poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) particulate carriers for pulmonary drug delivery. J. Pharm. Investig. 49(4), 427–442 (2019).
CASGoogle Scholar
55. Nishimura S, Takami T, Murakami Y. Porous PLGA microparticles formed by ‘one-step’ emulsification for pulmonary drug delivery: the surface morphology and the aerodynamic properties. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 159, 318–326 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
56. Rogueda PG, Traini D. The nanoscale in pulmonary delivery. Part 1: deposition, fate, toxicology and effects. Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 4(6), 595–606 (2007).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
57. Hillaireau H, Couvreur P. Nanocarriers' entry into the cell: relevance to drug delivery. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 66(17), 2873–2896 (2009).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
58. Ungaro F et al. Engineered PLGA nano- and micro-carriers for pulmonary delivery: challenges and promises. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 64(9), 1217–1235 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
59. Harush-Frenkel O et al. A safety and tolerability study of differently charged nanoparticles for local pulmonary drug delivery. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 246(1–2), 83–90 (2010).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
60. Zhao D et al. Poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid)-based composite bone-substitute materials. Bioact. Mater. 6(2), 346–360 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
61. Hak S et al. The effect of nanoparticle polyethylene glycol surface density on ligand-directed tumor targeting studied in vivo by dual modality imaging. ACS Nano 6(6), 5648–5658 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
62. Kamnoore D et al. Hydroxyapatite nanoparticle-enriched thiolated polymer-based biocompatible scaffold can improve skin tissue regeneration. J. Mater. Res. 36(21), 4287–4306 (2021). • Discusses the importance of tissue regeneration in understanding the effect of bio-nanocomposites on pulmonary targeting and healing.
CASGoogle Scholar
63. Zhang CY et al. pH-responsive nanoparticles targeted to lungs for improved therapy of acute lung inflammation/injury. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 11(18), 16380–16390 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
64. Xu G et al. Transferrin and tocopheryl-polyethylene glycol-succinate dual ligands decorated, cisplatin loaded nano-sized system for the treatment of lung cancer. Biomed. Pharmacother. 99, 354–362 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
65. Sikka MP, Midha VK. The role of biopolymers and biodegradable polymeric dressings in managing chronic wounds. In: Advanced Textiles for Wound Care (2nd Edition). Rajendran S (Ed.). Woodhead Publishing, 463–488 (2019).
Google Scholar
66. Lopes MS, Jardini AL, Filho RM. Poly (lactic acid) production for tissue engineering applications. Procedia Eng. 42, 1402–1413 (2012).
Google Scholar
67. Scaffaro R et al. Preparation of three-layered porous PLA/PEG scaffold: relationship between morphology, mechanical behavior and cell permeability. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 54, 8–20 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
68. Salerno A et al. Bio-safe fabrication of PLA scaffolds for bone tissue engineering by combining phase separation, porogen leaching and scCO₂ drying. J. Supercrit. Fluids 97, 238–246 (2015).
CASGoogle Scholar
69. Das SC et al. Nanomedicine in pulmonary delivery. In: Theory and Applications of Nonparenteral Nanomedicines. Kesharwani PTaurin SGreish K (Eds). Academic Press, 319–354 (2021).
Google Scholar
70. Buhecha MD et al. Development and characterization of PLA nanoparticles for pulmonary drug delivery: co-encapsulation of theophylline and budesonide, a hydrophilic and lipophilic drug. J. Drug Deliv. Sci. Technol. 53, 101128 (2019).
CASGoogle Scholar
71. Ganguly P, Breen A, Pillai SC. Toxicity of nanomaterials: exposure, pathways, assessment, and recent advances. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 4(7), 2237–2275 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
72. Shahrousvand M, Sadeghi GMM, Salimi A. Artificial extracellular matrix for biomedical applications: biocompatible and biodegradable poly (tetramethylene ether) glycol/poly (ε-caprolactone diol)-based polyurethanes. J. Biomater. Sci. Polym. Ed. 27(17), 1712–1728 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
73. Paul DR, Robeson LM. Polymer nanotechnology: nanocomposites. Polymer 49(15), 3187–3204 (2008).
CASGoogle Scholar
74. Iyer R et al. Glutathione-responsive biodegradable polyurethane nanoparticles for lung cancer treatment. J. Control. Release 321, 363–371 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
75. Gabriel LP et al. Bio-based polyurethane for tissue engineering applications: how hydroxyapatite nanoparticles influence the structure, thermal and biological behavior of polyurethane composites. Nanomedicine 13(1), 201–208 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
76. da Silva GR et al. Biodegradation of polyurethanes and nanocomposites to non-cytotoxic degradation products. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 95(4), 491–499 (2010).
Google Scholar
77. Bhat SS et al. Thiolated polymer nanocarrier reinforced with glycyrrhetinic acid for targeted delivery of 5-fluorouracil in hepatocellular carcinoma. Drug Deliv. Transl. Res. 11(5), 2252–2269 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
78. Mukherjee D et al. Improvement of bone microarchitecture in methylprednisolone induced rat model of osteoporosis by using thiolated chitosan-based risedronate mucoadhesive film. Drug Dev. Ind. Pharm. 44(11), 1845–1856 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
79. Yi H et al. Biofabrication with chitosan. Biomacromolecules 6(6), 2881–2894 (2005).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
80. Mostafa M et al. Insight into chitosan/zeolite-A nanocomposite as an advanced carrier for levofloxacin and its anti-inflammatory properties; loading, release, and anti-inflammatory studies. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 179, 206–216 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
81. Jatal R et al. Lung targeted electrosprayed chitosan nanocomposite microparticles boost the cytotoxic activity of magnolol. Carbohydr. Polym. Technol. Appl. 2, 100169 (2021).
CASGoogle Scholar
82. Jin H et al. Nasal delivery of hesperidin/chitosan nanoparticles suppresses cytokine storm syndrome in a mouse model of acute lung injury. 11(1786), 592238 (2021).
Google Scholar
83. Rizeq BR et al. Synthesis, bioapplications, and toxicity evaluation of chitosan-based nanoparticles. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 20(22), (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
84. Campbell JJ et al. Development of three-dimensional collagen scaffolds with controlled architecture for cell migration studies using breast cancer cell lines. Biomaterials 114, 34–43 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
85. Sarker B et al. Collagen/silica nanocomposites and hybrids for bone tissue engineering. Nanotechnol. Rev. 2(4), 427–447 (2013).
CASGoogle Scholar
86. Li S et al. Preparation and biocompatibility studies of collagen/hyaluronic acid/oligomeric proanthocyanidins composites. Mater. Chem. Phys. 272, 124959 (2021).
CASGoogle Scholar
87. Azarpira N, Kaviani M, Sarvestani FS. Incorporation of VEGF-and bFGF-loaded alginate oxide particles in acellular collagen-alginate composite hydrogel to promote angiogenesis. Tissue Cell 72, 101539 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
88. Wolinsky JB et al. Prevention of in vivo lung tumor growth by prolonged local delivery of hydroxycamptothecin using poly(ester-carbonate)–collagen composites. J. Control. Release 144(3), 280–287 (2010).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
89. Shalaby M et al. Collagen polymer and magnetic collagen nanocomposite recycled from waste to reduce polluted water toxicity. Polym. Polym. Compos. 29(9), 1515–1527 (2020).
Google Scholar
90. Johari N, Hosseini HRM, Samadikuchaksaraei A. Novel fluoridated silk fibroin/TiO₂ nanocomposite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Mater. Sci. Eng. C Mater. Biol. Appl. 82, 265–276 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
91. Kapoor S, Kundu SC. Silk protein-based hydrogels: promising advanced materials for biomedical applications. Acta Biomater. 31, 17–32 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
92. Datta A, Ghosh AK, Kundu SC. Purification and characterization of fibroin from the tropical saturniid silkworm, Antheraea mylitta. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 31(10), 1013–1018 (2001).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
93. Patra C et al. Silk protein fibroin from Antheraea mylitta for cardiac tissue engineering. Biomaterials 33(9), 2673–2680 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
94. Zuluaga-Vélez A et al. Silk fibroin nanocomposites as tissue engineering scaffolds – a systematic review. Biomed. Pharmacother. 141, 111924 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
95. Ma X et al. Chitosan/polydopamine layer by layer self-assembled silk fibroin nanofibers for biomedical applications. Carbohydr. Polym. 251, 117058 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
96. Passi M, Kumar V, Packirisamy G. Theranostic nanozyme: silk fibroin based multifunctional nanocomposites to combat oxidative stress. Mater. Sci. Eng. C Mater. Biol. Appl. 107, 110255 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
97. Beladi F, Saber-Samandari S, Saber-Samandari S. Cellular compatibility of nanocomposite scaffolds based on hydroxyapatite entrapped in cellulose network for bone repair. Mater. Sci. Eng. C Mater. Biol. Appl. 75, 385–392 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
98. Saber-Samandari S et al. Synthesis, characterization and application of cellulose-based nano-biocomposite hydrogels. J. Macromol. Sci. A 50(11), 1133–1141 (2013).
CASGoogle Scholar
99. Kalia S et al. Cellulose-based bio- and nanocomposites: a review. Int. J. Polym. Sci. 2011, 837875 (2011).
Google Scholar
100. Patil TV et al. Nanocellulose, a versatile platform: from the delivery of active molecules to tissue engineering applications. Bioact. Mater. 9, 566–589 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
101. Hamouda RA et al. Characterization and anticancer activity of biosynthesized Au/cellulose nanocomposite from Chlorella vulgaris. Polymers (Basel) 13(19), 3340 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
102. Joseph B et al. Cellulose nanocomposites: fabrication and biomedical applications. J. Bioresour. Bioprod. 5(4), 223–237 (2020).
CASGoogle Scholar
103. He L et al. Alginate-based platforms for cancer-targeted drug delivery. Biomed Res. Int. 2020, 1487259 (2020). • Demonstrates the efficacy of alginates for drug delivery of anticancer drugs in lung cancer.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
104. Abasalizadeh F et al. Alginate-based hydrogels as drug delivery vehicles in cancer treatment and their applications in wound dressing and 3D bioprinting. J. Biol. Eng. 14(1), 8 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
105. Hill M et al. Alginate/chitosan particle-based drug delivery systems for pulmonary applications. Pharmaceutics 11(8), 379 (2019).
CASGoogle Scholar
106. Kloster GA et al. Alginate-based nanocomposites with magnetic properties. Compos. A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 135, 105936 (2020).
CASGoogle Scholar
107. Gaber M et al. Protein–lipid nanohybrids as emerging platforms for drug and gene delivery: challenges and outcomes. J. Control. Release 254, 75–91 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
108. Elhissi A. Liposomes for pulmonary drug delivery: the role of formulation and inhalation device design. Curr. Pharm. Des. 23(3), 362–372 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
109. Abdelaziz HM et al. Inhalable particulate drug delivery systems for lung cancer therapy: nanoparticles, microparticles, nanocomposites and nanoaggregates. J. Control. Release 269, 374–392 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
110. Rudokas M et al. Liposome delivery systems for inhalation: a critical review highlighting formulation issues and anticancer applications. Med. Princ. Pract. 25(Suppl. 2), 60–72 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
111. Romøren K et al. Transfection efficiency and cytotoxicity of cationic liposomes in salmonid cell lines of hepatocyte and macrophage origin. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1663(1–2), 127–134 (2004).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
112. Inglut CT et al. Immunological and toxicological considerations for the design of liposomes. Nanomaterials (Basel) 10(2), 190 (2020).
CASGoogle Scholar
113. Bochicchio S, Lamberti G, Barba AA. Polymer–lipid pharmaceutical nanocarriers: innovations by new formulations and production technologies. Pharmaceutics 13(2), 198 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
114. Polack FP, SJ Thomas, N Kitchin et al. Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. N. Engl. J. Med. 383(27), 2603–2615 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
115. Walsh EE et al. Safety and immunogenicity of two RNA-based COVID-19 vaccine candidates. N. Engl. J. Med. 383(25), 2439–2450 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
116. Persano F, Gigli G, Leporatti S. Lipid–polymer hybrid nanoparticles in cancer therapy: current overview and future directions. Nano Express 2(1), 012006 (2021).
Google Scholar
117. Roy I, Vij N. Nanodelivery in airway diseases: challenges and therapeutic applications. Nanomedicine 6(2), 237–244 (2010).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
118. Patil JS, Sarasija S. Pulmonary drug delivery strategies: a concise, systematic review. Lung India 29(1), 44–49 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
119. Yıldız-Peköz A, Ehrhardt C. Advances in pulmonary drug delivery. Pharmaceutics 12(10), 911 (2020).
Google Scholar
120. Yao H, de Boer WI, Rahman I. Targeting lung inflammation: novel therapies for the treatment of COPD. Curr. Respir. Med. Rev. 4(1), 57–68 (2008).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
121. Han S et al. Efficient delivery of antitumor drug to the nuclei of tumor cells by amphiphilic biodegradable poly(L-aspartic acid-co-lactic acid)/DPPE co-polymer nanoparticles. Small 8(10), 1596–1606 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
122. Kenyon NJ et al. Self-assembling nanoparticles containing dexamethasone as a novel therapy in allergic airways inflammation. PLOS ONE 8(10), e77730 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
123. Kumar M et al. Chitosan IFN-gamma-pDNA nanoparticle (CIN) therapy for allergic asthma. Genet. Vaccines Ther. 1(1), 3 (2003).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
124. Pandey R et al. Poly (DL-lactide-co-glycolide) nanoparticle-based inhalable sustained drug delivery system for experimental tuberculosis. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 52(6), 981–986 (2003).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
125. Roa WH et al. Inhalable nanoparticles, a non-invasive approach to treat lung cancer in a mouse model. J. Control. Release 150(1), 49–55 (2011).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
126. Kamat CD et al. Poly(β-amino ester) nanoparticle delivery of TP53 has activity against small cell lung cancer in vitro and in vivo. Mol. Cancer Ther. 12(4), 405–415 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
127. Chen Y et al. Nanoparticles modified with tumor-targeting scFv deliver siRNA and miRNA for cancer therapy. Mol. Ther. 18(9), 1650–1656 (2010).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar

Vol. 17, No. 12

Metrics

Downloaded 137 times

History

Received 14 November 2021

Accepted 1 April 2022

Published online 28 April 2022

Published in print May 2022

Information

Keywords

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful for the support and motivation provided by Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences. The authors would also like to thank VT Banala and D Nayak for extending their support in image editing.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending or royalties.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

PDF download