Highly stable PEGylated gold nanoparticles in water: applications in biology and catalysis

Gold nanoparticles (Au NPs) with diameters ranging between 5-60 nm have been synthesised in water, and further stabilized with polyethylene glycol-based thiol polymers (mPEG-SH). Successful PEGylation of the Au NPs was confirmed by Dynamic Light scattering (DLS) and Zeta potential measurements. PEG coating of the Au NPs is the key of their colloidal stabilty, and its successful applications. Catalytic efficiency testing of the PEG-AuNPs were carried out on homocoupling of boronic acid. PEG-Au NPs with AuNps diameter < 30 nm were useful as catalyst in water. Finally, the PEG-Au NPs were also shown to be stable in biological fluid and not cytotoxic on B16.F10 cell line, making them attractive for further studies.

Hydroxylamine-O-sulfonic acid as a new reducing agent for the formation of nearly monodisperse gold nanoparticles in water: synthesis, characterisation and bioconjugation

Gold nanoparticles (Au NPs) with diameters ranging between 15 and 150 nm have been synthesised in water. 15 and 30 nm Au NPs were obtained by the Turkevich and Frens method using sodium citrate as both a reducing and stabilising agent at high temperature (Au NPs-citrate), while 60, 90 and 150 nm Au NPs were formed using hydroxylamine-o-sulfonic acid (HOS) as a reducing agent for HAuCl4 at room temperature. This new method using HOS is an extension of the approaches previously reported for producing Au NPs with mean diameters above 40 nm by direct reduction. Functionalised polyethylene glycol-based thiol polymers were used to stabilise the pre-synthesised Au NPs. The nanoparticles obtained were characterised using uv-visible spectroscopy, dynamic light scattering (DLS) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Further bioconjugation on 15, 30 and 90 nm PEGylated Au NPs were performed by grafting Bovine Serum Albumin, Transferrin and Apolipoprotein E (ApoE).

The knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of patients and their healthcare professionals around oral dosage form modification: a systematic review of the qualitative literature

Objectives: The objective of this systematic review was to synthesize the available qualitative evidence on the knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of adult patients, healthcare professionals and carers about oral dosage form modification. Design: A systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies was undertaken, utilising the thematic synthesis approach. Data sources: The following databases were searched from inception to September 2015: PubMed, Medline (EBSCO), EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, ProQuest Databases, Scopus, Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). Citation tracking and searching the references lists of included studies was also undertaken. Grey literature was searched using the OpenGrey database, internet searching and personal knowledge. An updated search was undertaken in June 2016. Review methods: Studies meeting the following criteria were eligible for inclusion; (i) used qualitative data collection and analysis methods; (ii) full-text was available in English; (iii) included adult patients who require oral dosage forms to be modified to meet their needs or; (iv) carers or healthcare professionals of patients who require oral dosage forms to be modified. Two reviewers independently appraised the quality of the included studies using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklist. A thematic synthesis was conducted and analytical themes were generated. Results: Of 5455 records screened, seven studies were eligible for inclusion; three involved healthcare professionals and the remaining four studies involved patients. Four analytical themes emerged from the thematic synthesis: (i) patient-centred individuality and variability; (ii) communication; (iii) knowledge and uncertainty and; (iv) complexity. The variability of individual patient’s requirements, poor communication practices and lack of knowledge about oral dosage form modification, when combined with the complex and multi-faceted healthcare environment complicate decision making regarding oral dosage form modification and administration. Conclusions: This systematic review has highlighted the key factors influencing the knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of patients and healthcare professionals about oral dosage form modifications. The findings suggest that in order to optimise oral medicine modification practices the needs of individual patients should be routinely and systematically assessed and decision-making should be supported by evidence based recommendations with multidisciplinary input. Further research is needed to optimise oral dosage form modification practices and the factors identified in this review should be considered in the development of future interventions.