Nanomedicine is yielding new and improved treatments and diagnostics for a range of diseases and disorders. Nanomedicine applications incorporate materials and components with nanoscale dimensions where novel physiochemical properties emerge as a result of size-dependent phenomena and high surface-to-mass ratio. Nanotherapeutics and in vivo nanodiagnostics are a subset of nanomedicine products that enter the human body. These include drugs, biological products, implantable medical devices, and combination products that are designed to function in the body in ways unachievable at larger scales. (...) Nanotherapeutics andin vivonanodiagnostics incorporate materials that are engineered at the nanoscale to express novel properties that are medicinally useful. These nanomedicine applications can also contain nanomaterials that are biologically active, producing interactions that depend on biological triggers. Examples include nanoscale formulations of insoluble drugs to improve bioavailability and pharmacokinetics, drugs encapsulated in hollow nanoparticles with the ability to target and cross cellular and tissue membranes and to release their payload at a specific time or location, imaging agents that demonstrate novel optical properties to aid in locating micrometastases, and antimicrobial and drug-eluting components or coatings of implantable medical devices such as stents. (shrink)

The legal requirements and justifications for collecting patient-identifiable data without patient consent were examined. The impetus for this arose from legal and ethical issues raised during the development of a population-based disease register. Numerous commentaries and case studies have been discussing the impact of the Data Protection Act 1998 and Caldicott principles of good practice on the uses of personal data. But uncertainty still remains about the legal requirements for processing patient-identifiable data without patient consent for research purposes. This is (...) largely owing to ignorance, or misunderstandings of the implications of the common law duty of confidentiality and section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001. The common law duty of confidentiality states that patient-identifiable data should not be provided to third parties, regardless of compliance with the DPA1998. It is an obligation derived from case law, and is open to interpretation. Compliance with section 60 ensures that collection of patient-identifiable data without patient consent is lawful despite the duty of confidentiality. Fears regarding the duty of confidentiality have resulted in a common misconception that section 60 must be complied with. Although this is not the case, section 60 support does provide the most secure basis in law for collecting such data. Using our own experience in developing a disease register as a backdrop, this article will clarify the procedures, risks and potential costs of applying for section 60 support. (shrink)

Plans Not Needed if You Have High and Stable Self-Efficacy: Planning Intervention and Snack Intake in the Context of Self-Efficacy Trajectories Forming action plans is expected to move people from intention to action. We hypothesized that the effects of planning interventions may depend on changes in self-efficacy beliefs. Participants were assigned to the control or the planning intervention groups and reported their self-efficacy, sweet and salty snack intake at the baseline and four months later. The results suggest that an increase (...) of efficacy beliefs over time augmented the effects of the planning intervention and resulted in the lowest snack intake. Planning intervention also prompted lower unhealthy snacking if efficacy beliefs were decreasing. Those who have stable-high self-efficacy were able to achieve low snack intake regardless of the group assignment. (shrink)

Nanomaterials have the promise of revolutionizing current treatment and diagnosis of diseases, which has led to 33 nanotherapeutics drugs currently on the market and many more in various stages of clinical trials. With an increasing number of products available and in development, along with the unique, emergent properties of the nanoparticle therapeutics themselves, regulatory agencies are now faced with decisions regarding the regulation of such novel technologies. Regulatory guidance, particularly in pre-clinical stages, has the potential to facilitate quick and safe (...) development of these novel materials, but new regulation beyond what is currently in place must be justified in a clear and distinctive toxic response. Herein, we examine literature that compares and correlates in vivo and in vitro nanotoxicity studies to gain a deeper understanding of the modes of nanoparticle toxicity. Additionally, this comparison aims to identify clear and unique toxicity responses caused by nanoparticles, which informs our perspective on pre-clinical nanotherapeutic oversight. (shrink)

Much of the focus of the published 2011 symposium that inspired this work focused on the question, “When have you reduced risk enough to move from bench/animal studies to ‘first in-human’ studies?” Building applied research ethics related to nanotherapeutics requires bench and clinical scientists to have a clear vision about how to test nanotherapeutic safety, and it is clear that there is still much to be considered at the steps before “in-human” assessment. Herein, the perspective of the bench scientist is (...) brought to bear on using in vivo and in vitro models to assess the safety of nanotherapeutics. Much of this work falls under the purview of the field of nanotoxicology that aims to understand the toxicological impact of engineered nanoscale materials. Engineered nanomaterials include a wide variety of materials that are manipulated and controlled on the nanoscale level where, typically, the nanoparticle or nanomaterial has some dimension that is less than 100 nm. (shrink)