This work aims to elucidate the biocompatibility, inflammatory reactions, and particle effects on mice injected with a 5 mg dose of polyanhydride nanoparticles via common parenteral routes

(subcutaneous and intramuscular). Independent of polymer chemistry, nanoparticles more effectively disseminated away from the injection site as compared to microparticles, which exhibited a depot effect. Using fluorescent probes, the in vivo distribution of three formulations of nanoparticles, following subcutaneous administration, indicated migration away from the injection site. Less inflammation Bucladesine concentration was observed at the injection sites of mice-administered nanoparticles as compared to Alum and incomplete Freund’s adjuvant. Furthermore, histological evaluation revealed LY2835219 solubility dmso minimal adverse injection site reactions and minimal toxicological effects associated with the administration of nanoparticles at 30 days post-administration. Collectively, these

results demonstrate that polyanhydride nanoparticles do not induce inflammation as a cumulative effect of particle persistence or degradation and are, therefore, a viable candidate for a vaccine delivery platform.”
“Objective In a previous study, we found that patients who were offered the possibility of participation in a clinical trial had unexpressed concerns and fears that prevented them from making free or fully knowledgeable choices about their trial participation. In a selected population of patients who were offered participation in a phase I trial, we prospectively investigated whether a face-to-face discussion about their unexpressed fears might lead to a more conscious decision about whether to accept/refuse participation in the trial. Methods After the presentation of the trial, a questionnaire was administered to assess the presence of specific fears. Before the patients decided whether to participate in the trial, they discussed any fears that they had; finally, the impact of the discussion

on the patients’ choice to participate was evaluated. Results The majority (86%) of the patients thought selleck compound that physicians conduct clinical trials for scientific interest, 13% felt exploited as ‘guinea pigs’ and 20% believed they were offered participation because they had no further hope for improvement. These existing fears were not elicited during the trial interview because the patients were themselves unaware of having them (28%) and because of fear of the doctors (3%). The possibility of discussing these fears was felt as an opportunity and made patients feel more conscious (92%) and freer (97%) when making their choice. Conclusions Recognising and discussing misconceptions and fears, often unexpressed, make patients freer and more aware when facing the choice of whether or not \\to participate in a phase I clinical trial. Copyright (c) 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.