4.7 Review

Oral Delivery of Biologics in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Treatment

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.675194

关键词

inflammatory bowel disease; biologics; oral drug delivery; antibody; therapeutic peptide; oligonucleotides; gene therapy

资金

  1. F.R.S.FNRS [T.0013.19]
  2. Fonds Speciaux de Recherche from the UCLouvain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) poses a global health threat with limited treatment options and poor therapeutic outcomes. Although biologics demonstrate more effective therapeutic mechanisms, their application is restricted due to stability and toxicity issues.
Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has been posed as a great worldwide health threat. Having an onset during early adulthood, IBD is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by remission and relapse. Due to its enigmatic etiology, no cure has been developed at the moment. Conventionally, steroids, 5-aminosalicylic acid, and immunosuppressants have been applied clinically to relieve patients' syndrome which, unfavorably, causes severe adverse drug reactions including diarrhea, anemia, and glaucoma. Insufficient therapeutic effects also loom, and surgical resection is mandatory in half of the patients within 10 years after diagnosis. Biologics demonstrated unique and differentiative therapeutic mechanism which can alleviate the inflammation more effectively. However, their application in IBD has been hindered considering their stability and toxicity. Scientists have brought up with the concept of nanomedicine to achieve the targeted drug delivery of biologics for IBD. Here, we provide an overview of biologics for IBD treatment and we review existing formulation strategies for different biological categories including antibodies, gene therapy, and peptides. This review highlights the current trends in oral delivery of biologics with an emphasis on the important role of nanomedicine in the development of reliable methods for biologic delivery in IBD treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据