Joseph M. Caster

Clinical Translation of Nanomedicine.

1. Introduction Nanomedicine, the application of nanotechnology to health and medicine, is a relatively new area of interdisciplinary science. The field involves a wide range of scientific disciplines, including physics, chemistry, engineering, biology, and medical science. The term nanomedicine can be traced back to the late 1990s and first appeared in research publications in the year 2000.1 Despite the wide adoption of the term nanomedicine, its definition varies among experts in this area.2 Some define nanomedicine broadly as any science that involves matters that are nanoscale. For example, the European Science Foundation in 2004 defined nanomedicine as “the science and technology of diagnosing, treating, and preventing disease and traumatic injury, of relieving pain, and of preserving and improving human health, using molecular tools and molecular knowledge of the human body”.2 While such a broad definition is all encompassing, it can be confusing. For example, such a definition would include traditional scientific fields such as molecular biology as part of nanomedicine, because molecules such as nucleic acids and proteins are also nanoscale materials. However, scientists have been studying these molecules decades before the term nanomedicine was even coined, and their research generally does not take advantage of unique properties that only exist for nanomaterials. A narrower definition of nanomedcine is the application of nanoscale material in medicine that takes advantage of the nanomaterials unique properties.1 This Review will adopt this narrower definition in our discussion of the clinical translation of nanomedicine. Nanomedicine has made a rapid and broad impact on healthcare. Despite being only several decades old, research in nanomedicine has already led to the development of a wide range of products including therapeutics, diagnostic imaging agents, in vitro diagnostics, and medical devices. There are more than 200 nanomedicine products that have been either approved or are under clinical investigation.3 On the other hand, successful clinical translation is a challenging process. It requires extensive preclinical research, carefully selected clinical indication, proper design of clinical trials, and the successful completion of these trials. Mistakes in clinical translation can be unforgiving. Unlike preclinical research where there are many if not unlimited chances of generating a successful study, a single failed clinical trial can doom a drugs translation. Hay et al. recently showed that the eventual success rate of approval for therapeutics entering phase I trial is only about 10%.4 Because of this sobering statistic, it is important for translational researchers to fully understand the clinical translation process and to develop a successful translation strategy in the early stages of research. As compared to diagnostics and devices, clinical translation of therapeutics is arguably the most challenging. The typical clinical translation path for a new drug starts with investigators generating robust preclinical data to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the new drug to enable an investigational new drug (IND) application with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).5 Once the FDA has approved the IND, the therapeutic will be evaluated in a first-in-human or a phase I clinical trial. The goal of such a study is to determine the safety profile and pharmacology of the drug. It will result in a dose and schedule for further clinical investigation, or the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). The typical phase I trial design used a “3 + 3” cohort expansion design.6 This design assumes toxicity increases with dose, and it aims to determine the dose level that has less than 1/3 chance of a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT).7 In general, such a trial starts with a low drug dose. If none of the three patients receiving this dose experiences a DLT, another three patients will be treated at the next higher dose level. If one of the three patients experiences a DLT, then three more patients will be treated at the same dose level. Dose escalation continues until two patients among a cohort of three to six patients experience DLT. The RP2D is the dose level just below this level. Dose escalation typically follows a modified Fibonacci sequence where dose increments decrease as the tested dose increases. Other types of phase I designs include the accelerated titration designs, Bayesian models-based designs, and many others.7 Each design has advantages and disadvantages, and investigators have to choose the design that best fits the therapeutic. The goal of a phase II clinical trial is to examine the effectiveness of a drug or treatment. Secondarily, it will acquire more data on the toxicity and tolerability of the therapeutic. Therapeutics will progress to phase III clinical investigation only if they can demonstrate efficacy in phase II. The designs of phase II trials are either single-arm trials or randomized trials.8 Single-arm trials are cheaper, require fewer patients, and are typically easier to accrue. However, the outcome is less reliable as there is no comparison/control arm, and data are more susceptible to bias. Data from randomized phase II trials are more predictive of phase III results. However, it requires more patients and can be more difficult to accrue. Randomized phase II trials do not replace phase III investigations. Although they are randomized, patients are generally stratified on the basis of very few variables, such as age, sex, and disease status in phase II trials to keep the accrual goal low. Randomized phase III trials stratify patients on the basis of a large number of variables, which leads to less bias and more robust data. Because of the stratifications, the sample size required for phase III investigation is much higher than that of randomized phase II trials. The goal of randomized phase III trials is to demonstrate that the investigational treatment is more effective than the “gold standard” treatment. In general, phase III data are required for FDA approval. However, in select cases where there are robust data and unmet clinical needs, conditional approval can be granted on the basis of phase II data or interim phase III data. The FDA has a range of programs to speed up the approval process, including accelerated approvals and the recent “break through therapy” designation.9 There is a “short-cut” to FDA approval for agents that are based on already approved drugs. This pathway is called the 505(b)(2) pathway. The process of timeline for 505(b)(2) is much more abbreviated when compared to a typical approval process. For nanomedicine, this pathway will typically require that the exact nanoparticle platform is already approved with another agent and the drug being delivered by the nanoparticle is also approved. Past examples of this include the approval of liposomal bupivacaine with the DepoFoam liposome platform. The FDA was granted the authority to regulate medical devices in 1976.10 The approval process for medical devices is very different from that of drugs. First, for devices that predate May 28, 1976, these devices can remain on the market without needing approval. For the devices entering the market after that date, they are classified into different classes (I, II, and III) on the basis of their risks (Table 1).10 Class I devices are of low risk and are generally exempt from premarket notification (referred to as 510(k)) and may even be exempt from compliance with the good manufacturing practice requirement. Class II devices typically will require 510(k) submission before marketing. Class III devices are subject to the most stringent regulatory controls. Their approval will require a premarket approval (PMA) application. The 510(k) pathway is for devices that can be compared to existing, legally marketed “predicate” devices. The new device needs to be shown to be at least as safe and as effective as the “predicate” device. For devices that do not have a “predicate” device with which to compare, they are classified as class III and will need PMA. PMA needs to include scientific evidence that the device is safe and effective for its intended use. Unlike therapeutics where approvals generally require large randomized studies, scientific evidence for devices can include randomized controlled trials, single-arm studies, well-documented case series, and reports of significant human experience. For new devices that pose significant potential risks, an investigational device exemption (IDE) application is required prior to clinical investigation. Overall, the approval process is much simpler for devices than for therapeutics. Table 1 Summary of the FDA Device Regulation Processa In this Review, we will examine preclinical evidence, chosen clinical path to translation, and clinical data of clinically approved nanomedicine products. We will also discuss the clinical data on nanomedicines that are under clinical investigation or failed clinical translation. Each of these clinical nanomedicine products has a unique clinical translation story. By examining this body of evidence, we aim to formulate important concepts that are keys to nanomedicines clinical translation and to identify challenges. Such concepts will facilitate the translation of future nanomedicine products.

Are adolescents more vulnerable to drug addiction than adults? Evidence from animal models

Background and rationaleEpidemiological evidence suggests that people who begin experimenting with drugs of abuse during early adolescence are more likely to develop substance use disorders (SUDs), but this correlation does not guarantee causation. Animal models, in which age of onset can be tightly controlled, offer a platform for testing causality. Many animal models address drug effects that might promote or discourage drug intake and drug-induced neuroplasticity.MethodsWe have reviewed the preclinical literature to investigate whether adolescent rodents are differentially sensitive to rewarding, reinforcing, aversive, locomotor, and withdrawal-induced effects of drugs of abuse.Results and conclusionsThe rodent model literature consistently suggests that the balance of rewarding and aversive effects of drugs of abuse is tipped toward reward in adolescence. However, increased reward does not consistently lead to increased voluntary intake: age effects on voluntary intake are drug and method specific. On the other hand, adolescents are consistently less sensitive to withdrawal effects, which could protect against compulsive drug seeking. Studies examining neuronal function have revealed several age-related effects but have yet to link these effects to vulnerability to SUDs. Taken together, the findings suggest factors which may promote recreational drug use in adolescents, but evidence relating to pathological drug-seeking behavior is lacking. A call is made for future studies to address this gap using behavioral models of pathological drug seeking and for neurobiologic studies to more directly link age effects to SUD vulnerability.

Enhanced behavioral response to repeated-dose cocaine in adolescent rats

RationaleMost lifelong drug addiction in humans originates during adolescence. Important structural and functional changes in the brain occur during adolescence, but there has been little direct study of how this impacts on drug abuse vulnerability. An emerging literature suggests that adolescents exhibit different behavioral responses to single doses of several addictive drugs, including ethanol, amphetamine, and cocaine. However, few studies have explored behavioral responses to the repeated dosing that is characteristic of human abuse of these substances.ObjectivesWe have investigated age-related behavioral responses to acute “binge” cocaine treatment between adults and adolescents.ResultsAdolescent rats displayed an exaggerated behavioral response to cocaine administered in two different binge patterns. Total locomotion after cocaine administration was the same in adolescents and adults. However, adolescent rats engaged in more intense stereotypic behaviors, including paw treading, head weaving, and focused sniffing than adult rats. These differences were observable following a modest dose of cocaine and became more robust following subsequent doses within a binge. Cocaine blood and brain levels were not significantly different between age groups during any of the exposure sessions.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that equivalent tissue concentrations of cocaine produce a greater behavioral response in young rats, and that adolescent animals display an apparent form of intrabinge sensitization.

Gonadal steroids mediate the opposite changes in cocaine-induced locomotion across adolescence in male and female rats

Evidence from both human studies and animal models indicates that cocaine elicits more behavioral stimulation in females than males. The present study sought to determine whether sex-specific responses to cocaine emerge during adolescence and to determine if gonadal steroid action during puberty affects adult responsiveness to cocaine. We administered cocaine using an escalating dose model in male and female rats at ages postnatal (PN) 28, 42, and 65 days. To assess the effects of pubertal gonadal steroid action, we compared the effects of binge cocaine administration on intact and prepubertally gonadectomized male and female rats in adulthood. Cocaine responses changed in opposite directions in males and females as they progressed through adolescence. At most doses, adolescent males were more responsive than adult males whereas adult females were more responsive than adolescent females. Ambulatory activity was age-dependent in males whereas non-ambulatory activity was age-dependent in females. Prepubertal gonadectomy increased behavioral responsiveness to the highest dose of cocaine in males whereas it decreased behavioral responsiveness to lower doses of cocaine in females. We conclude that sex differences in behavioral responses to cocaine arise during adolescence from a concurrent decrease in male responsiveness and increase in female responsiveness. Our results suggest that gonadal steroids exert lasting and opposing effects on the sensitivity of males and females to psychostimulants during development.

Antigen-capturing nanoparticles improve the abscopal effect and cancer immunotherapy

Immunotherapy holds tremendous promise for improving cancer treatment1. Administering radiotherapy with immunotherapy has been shown to improve immune responses and can elicit an “abscopal effect”2. Unfortunately, response rates for this strategy remain low3. Herein, we report an improved cancer immunotherapy approach that utilizes antigen-capturing nanoparticles (AC-NPs). We engineered several AC-NPs formulations and demonstrated that the set of protein antigens captured by each AC-NP formulation is dependent upon NP surface properties. We showed that AC-NPs deliver tumor specific proteins to antigen-presenting cells and significantly improve the efficacy of αPD-1 treatment using the B16F10 melanoma model, generating up to 20% cure rate as compared to 0% without AC-NPs. Mechanistic studies revealed that AC-NPs induced an expansion of CD8+ cytotoxic T cells and increased both CD4+/Treg and CD8+/Treg ratios. Our work presents a novel strategy for improving cancer immunotherapy with nanotechnology.

The Role of Calcineurin/NFAT in SFRP2 Induced Angiogenesis—A Rationale for Breast Cancer Treatment with the Calcineurin Inhibitor Tacrolimus

Tacrolimus (FK506) is an immunosuppressive drug that binds to the immunophilin FKBPB12. The FK506-FKBP12 complex associates with calcineurin and inhibits its phosphatase activity, resulting in inhibition of nuclear translocation of nuclear factor of activated T-cells (NFAT). There is increasing data supporting a critical role of NFAT in mediating angiogenic responses stimulated by both vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and a novel angiogenesis factor, secreted frizzled-related protein 2 (SFRP2). Since both VEGF and SFRP2 are expressed in breast carcinomas, we hypothesized that tacrolimus would inhibit breast carcinoma growth. Using IHC (IHC) with antibodies to FKBP12 on breast carcinomas we found that FKBP12 localizes to breast tumor vasculature. Treatment of MMTV-neu transgenic mice with tacrolimus (3 mg/kg i.p. daily) (n = 19) resulted in a 73% reduction in the growth rate for tacrolimus treated mice compared to control (n = 15), p = 0.003; which was associated with an 82% reduction in tumor microvascular density (p<0.001) by IHC. Tacrolimus (1 µM) inhibited SFRP2 induced endothelial tube formation by 71% (p = 0.005) and inhibited VEGF induced endothelial tube formation by 67% (p = 0.004). To show that NFATc3 is required for SFRP2 stimulated angiogenesis, NFATc3 was silenced with shRNA in endothelial cells. Sham transfected cells responded to SFRP2 stimulation in a tube formation assay with an increase in the number of branch points (p<0.003), however, cells transfected with shRNA to NFATc3 showed no increase in tube formation in response to SFRP2. This demonstrates that NFATc3 is required for SFRP2 induced tube formation, and tacrolimus inhibits angiogenesis in vitro and breast carcinoma growth in vivo. This provides a rationale for examining the therapeutic potential of tacrolimus at inhibiting breast carcinoma growth in humans.

Dopamine Uptake Inhibitors but Not Dopamine Releasers Induce Greater Increases in Motor Behavior and Extracellular Dopamine in Adolescent Rats Than in Adult Male Rats

Most life-long drug addiction begins during adolescence. Important structural and functional changes in brain occur during adolescence and developmental differences in forebrain dopamine systems could mediate a biologic vulnerability to drug addiction during adolescence. Studies investigating age differences in psychostimulant responses have yielded mixed results, possibly because of different mechanisms for increasing extracellular dopamine. Recent research from our laboratory suggests that adolescent dopamine systems may be most affected by selective dopamine uptake inhibitors. We investigated age-related behavioral responses to acute administration of several dopamine uptake inhibitors [methylphenidate, 1-{2-[bis-(4-fluorophenyl)methoxy]ethyl}-4-(3-phenylpropyl)piperazine (GBR12909), and nomifensine] and releasing agents [amphetamine and methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)] in adolescent and adult male rats. Methylphenidate and amphetamine effects on stimulated dopamine efflux were determined using fast-scan cyclic voltammetry in vivo. Dopamine uptake inhibitors but not dopamine releasing agents induced more locomotion and/or stereotypy in adolescent relative to adult rats. MDMA effects were greater in adults at early time points after dosing. Methylphenidate but not amphetamine induced much greater dopamine efflux in periadolescent relative to adult rats. Periadolescent male rats are particularly sensitive to psychostimulants that are DAT inhibitors but are not internalized and do not release dopamine. Immaturity of DAT and/or DAT associated signaling systems in adolescence specifically enhances behavioral and dopaminergic responses in adolescence.

Investigational nanomedicines in 2016: a review of nanotherapeutics currently undergoing clinical trials

Nanomedicine is a relatively new field that is rapidly evolving. Formulation of drugs on the nanoscale imparts many physical and biological advantages. Such advantages can in turn translate into improved therapeutic efficacy and reduced toxicity. While approximately 50 nanotherapeutics have already entered clinical practice, a greater number of drugs are undergoing clinical investigation for a variety of indications. This review aims to examine all the nanoformulations that are currently undergoing clinical investigation and their outlook for ultimate clinical translation. WIREs Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 2017, 9:e1416. doi: 10.1002/wnan.1416 For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.

Improving Cancer Chemoradiotherapy Treatment by Dual Controlled Release of Wortmannin and Docetaxel in Polymeric Nanoparticles

Combining molecularly targeted agents and chemotherapeutics is an emerging strategy in cancer treatment. We engineered sub-50 nm diameter diblock copolymer nanoparticles (NPs) that can sequentially release wortmannin (Wtmn, a cell signaling inhibitor) and docetaxel (Dtxl, genotoxic anticancer agent) to cancer cells. These NPs were studied in chemoradiotherapy, an important cancer treatment paradigm, in the preclinical setting. We demonstrated that Wtmn enhanced the therapeutic efficacy of Dtxl and increased the efficiency of radiotherapy (XRT) in H460 lung cancer and PC3 prostate cells in culture. Importantly, we showed that NPs containing both Wtmn and Dtxl release the drugs in a desirable sequential fashion to maximize therapeutic efficacy in comparison to administering each drug alone. An in vivo toxicity study in a murine model validated that NPs containing both Dtxl and Wtmn do not have a high toxicity profile. Lastly, we demonstrated that Dtxl/Wtmn-coencapsulated NPs are more efficient than each single-drug-loaded NPs or a combination of both single-drug-loaded NPs in chemoradiotherapy using xenograft models. Histopathological studies and correlative studies support that the improved therapeutic efficacy is through changes in signaling pathways and increased tumor cell apoptosis. Our findings suggest that our nanoparticle system led to a dynamic rewiring of cellular apoptotic pathways and thus improve the therapeutic efficiency.

Risk of Pathologic Upgrading or Locally Advanced Disease in Early Prostate Cancer Patients Based on Biopsy Gleason Score and PSA: A Population-Based Study of Modern Patients

PURPOSE Radiation oncologists rely on available clinical information (biopsy Gleason score and prostate-specific antigen [PSA]) to determine the optimal treatment regimen for each prostate cancer patient. Existing published nomograms correlating clinical to pathologic extent of disease were based on patients treated in the 1980s and 1990s at select academic institutions. We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database to examine pathologic outcomes (Gleason score and cancer stage) in early prostate cancer patients based on biopsy Gleason score and PSA concentration. METHODS AND MATERIALS This analysis included 25,858 patients whose cancer was diagnosed between 2010 and 2011, with biopsy Gleason scores of 6 to 7 and clinical stage T1 to T2 disease, who underwent radical prostatectomy. In subgroups based on biopsy Gleason score and PSA level, we report the proportion of patients with pathologically advanced disease (positive surgical margin or pT3-T4 disease) or whose Gleason score was upgraded. Logistic regression was used to examine factors associated with pathologic outcomes. RESULTS For patients with biopsy Gleason score 6 cancers, 84% of those with PSA <10 ng/mL had surgical T2 disease with negative margins; this decreased to 61% in patients with PSA of 20 to 29.9 ng/mL. Gleason score upgrading was seen in 43% (PSA: <10 ng/mL) to 61% (PSA: 20-29.9 ng/mL) of biopsy Gleason 6 patients. Patients with biopsy Gleason 7 cancers had a one-third (Gleason 3 + 4; PSA: <10 ng/mL) to two-thirds (Gleason 4 + 3; PSA: 20-29.9 ng/mL) probability of having pathologically advanced disease. Gleason score upgrading was seen in 11% to 19% of patients with biopsy Gleason 4 + 3 cancers. Multivariable analysis showed that higher PSA and older age were associated with Gleason score upgrading and pathologically advanced disease. CONCLUSIONS This is the first population-based study to examine pathologic extent of disease and pathologic Gleason score upgrading based on clinically available information in modern patients. These data inform the selection of radiation therapy strategies and an understanding of whether prostatectomy alone is likely to be curative for patients with early prostate cancers.