Microneedles: A New Frontier in Nanomedicine Delivery

This review aims to concisely chart the development of two individual research fields, namely nanomedicines, with specific emphasis on nanoparticles (NP) and microparticles (MP), and microneedle (MN) technologies, which have, in the recent past, been exploited in combinatorial approaches for the efficient delivery of a variety of medicinal agents across the skin. This is an emerging and exciting area of pharmaceutical sciences research within the remit of transdermal drug delivery and as such will undoubtedly continue to grow with the emergence of new formulation and fabrication methodologies for particles and MN. Firstly, the fundamental aspects of skin architecture and structure are outlined, with particular reference to their influence on NP and MP penetration. Following on from this, a variety of different particles are described, as are the diverse range of MN modalities currently under development. The review concludes by highlighting some of the novel delivery systems which have been described in the literature exploiting these two approaches and directs the reader towards emerging uses for nanomedicines in combination with MN.

Markers of vitamin D exposure and oesophageal cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Vitamin D has been associated with reduced risk of many cancers, but evidence for oesophageal cancer is mixed. To clarify the role of Vitamin D, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the association of Vitamin D exposures and oesophageal neoplasia, including adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), Barrett's oesophagus and squamous dysplasia. Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched from inception to September 2015. Fifteen publications in relation to circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (n=3), Vitamin D intake (n=4), UVB exposure (n=1), and genetic factors (n=7) were retrieved. Higher 25-OHD was associated with increased risk of cancer (adenocarcinoma or SCC, OR=1.39;95%CI:1.04-1.74), with the majority of participants coming from China. No association was observed between Vitamin D intake and risk of cancer overall (OR=1.03;0.65-1.42); however, a non-significantly increased risk for adenocarcinoma (OR=1.45;0.65-2.24) and non-significantly decreased risk for SCC (OR=0.80;0.48-1.12) were observed. One study reported a decreased risk of adenocarcinoma with higher UVB exposure. A decreased risk was found for VDR haplotype rs2238135(G)/rs1989969(T) carriers, OR=0.45;0.00-0.91, and a suggestive association was observed for rs2107301. No consistent associations were observed between Vitamin D exposures and occurrence of oesophageal lesions. Further adequately powered, well-designed studies are needed before conclusions can be made.

Digoxin use after diagnosis of colorectal cancer and survival: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND:

Digoxin has been shown to affect a number of pathways that are of relevance to cancer, and its use has been associated with increased risks of breast and uterus cancer and, more recently, a 40% increase in colorectal cancer risk. These findings raise questions about the safety of digoxin use in colorectal cancer patients, and, therefore, we investigated whether digoxin use after colorectal cancer diagnosis increased the risk of colorectal cancer-specific mortality.

METHODS:

A cohort of 10,357 colorectal cancer patients newly diagnosed from 1998 to 2009 was identified from English cancer registries and linked to the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (to provide digoxin and other prescription records) and to the Office of National Statistics mortality data (to identify 2,724 colorectal cancer-specific deaths). Using time-dependent Cox regression models, unadjusted and adjusted HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for the association between postdiagnostic exposure to digoxin and colorectal cancer-specific mortality.

RESULTS:

Overall, 682 (6%) colorectal cancer patients used digoxin after diagnosis. Digoxin use was associated with a small increase in colorectal cancer-specific mortality before adjustment (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.07-1.46), but after adjustment for confounders, the association was attenuated (adjusted HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.91-1.34) and there was no evidence of a dose response.

CONCLUSIONS:

In this large population-based colorectal cancer cohort, there was little evidence of an increase in colorectal cancer-specific mortality with digoxin use after diagnosis.

IMPACT:

These results provide some reassurance that digoxin use is safe in colorectal cancer patients.