Cited by 699Nanoparticle-Based Drug DeliveryDrug Solubulity and Delivery SystemsAdvanced Drug Delivery Systems

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 342 of the 353 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 217 of the 502 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Polymeric micelles for the delivery of poorly soluble drugs: From nanoformulation to clinical approval.

Open access
Hwang, Duhyeong, Ramsey, Jacob D., Kabanov, Alexander V.·2020·Advanced drug delivery reviews

Abstract

Over the last three decades, polymeric micelles have emerged as a highly promising drug delivery platform for therapeutic compounds. Particularly, poorly soluble small molecules with high potency and significant toxicity were encapsulated in polymeric micelles. Polymeric micelles have shown improved pharmacokinetic profiles in preclinical animal models and enhanced efficacy with a superior safety profile for therapeutic drugs. Several polymeric micelle formulations have reached the clinical stage and are either in clinical trials or are approved for human use. This furthers interest in this field and underscores the need for additional learning of how to best design and apply these micellar carriers to improve the clinical outcomes of many drugs. In this review, we provide detailed information on polymeric micelles for the solubilization of poorly soluble small molecules in topics such as the design of block copolymers, experimental and theoretical analysis of drug encapsulation in polymeric micelles, pharmacokinetics of drugs in polymeric micelles, regulatory approval pathways of nanomedicines, and current outcomes from micelle formulations in clinical trials. We aim to describe the latest information on advanced analytical approaches for elucidating molecular interactions within the core of polymeric micelles for effective solubilization as well as for analyzing nanomedicine's pharmacokinetic profiles. Taking into account the considerations described within, academic and industrial scientists are expected to develop novel polymer materials and optimal micelle formulations for clinical applications of poorly soluble small molecules.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This review synthesizes three decades of work on polymeric micelles for poorly soluble small-molecule drugs, spanning polymer design, drug-polymer interaction analysis, pharmacokinetics, manufacturing, regulation, and clinical translation. It concludes that micelles can improve drug loading, pharmacokinetics, and safety, but clinical success remains limited and their dynamic behavior complicates characterization and approval.

Key findings

  • Polymeric micelles can achieve high drug loading and reduce excipient-related toxicity. POx micelles solubilized paclitaxel up to 40 mg/mL and about 50% loading; the mouse maximum tolerated dose was 150 mg/kg versus 20 mg/kg for Taxol. POx combination micelles reached roughly 48.7% loading for paclitaxel:17-AAG:etoposide and 48.4% for paclitaxel:17-AAG:bortezomib.
  • Clinical translation is mixed. Genexol® PM and Nanoxel® M were approved in South Korea. Genexol® PM had a phase I maximum tolerated dose of 390 mg/m², higher than Taxol® (200 mg/m²) and Abraxane® (300 mg/m²); phase II metastatic breast cancer overall response was 58.5%, and with cisplatin in NSCLC it was 37.7% with median survival 21.7 months. NK105 completed phase III but did not meet non-inferiority for progression-free survival (8.4 vs 8.5 months; overall survival 31.2 vs 36.2 months; response rates 31.6% vs 39.0%), although peripheral sensory neuropathy was lower. NC-6004 completed a phase III trial with no reported results; SP1049C showed 47% response in evaluable patients and 43% in intent-to-treat, with median overall survival 10 months and progression-free survival 6.6 months.
  • Drug-polymer interactions are more complex than simple hydrophobic partitioning; hydrophilic shell blocks can also participate. Advanced methods include solid-state NMR, small-angle neutron scattering, fluorescence, molecular dynamics, and QSPR. QSPR predicted aqueous solubility with up to 75% accuracy, and the SITUA assay can quantify encapsulated, protein-bound, and unbound drug fractions, though its assumptions may not hold for dynamic micelles.
  • No polymeric micelle formulation was approved in the United States at the time of the review. Regulatory routes discussed include US 505(b)(1), 505(b)(2), and 505(j), plus the EU “nanosimilar” stepwise approach; robust control of size, morphology, release, and pharmacokinetics is emphasized.

Methods

  • Narrative review, not a systematic review or meta-analysis. It synthesizes published literature on block copolymer chemistry, drug loading, drug-polymer interactions, pharmacokinetics, manufacturing, regulatory pathways, and clinical trials.
  • Evidence comes from cited preclinical and clinical studies, tables of polymers and formulations, and selected trial examples; no new experiments or primary data collection are reported.
  • The main analysis is qualitative and conceptual, organizing the field into polymer design, interaction characterization, pharmacokinetics/distribution, and clinical/regulatory translation.

Limitations

  • Stated by the paper: polymeric micelles are dynamic, making pharmacokinetic analysis difficult; methods to measure encapsulated, protein-bound, and unbound drug fractions in tissues are lacking; SITUA may misclassify micelle-bound drug if exchange is rapid; crosslinked micelle translation is limited by crosslinking consistency; only PEG has been widely used as a clinical shell material; POx safety in humans needs further study; and no US-approved polymeric micelle exists.
  • Evident from the text: as a narrative review, it lacks a systematic search strategy or formal quality appraisal; many conclusions rely on preclinical animal models; several clinical trials had unreported results; and the 2020 publication date means later clinical and regulatory developments are not captured.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.addr.2020.09.009

Cites

342 of 342 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

217 of 502 cited sources checked · 115 supported · 6 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

Show all 317 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 216
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 99
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 4
  • Borderline: one of the tests for a substantial claim is unclear. 1
285 of 285
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The anti-fouling performance of hydrophilic polymers observed in preclinical models predicts their ability to avoid clearance and improve circulation in humans.

    “Overall, hydrophilic POx polymers, and especially PMeOx, have emerged as highly attractive anti-fouling stealth polymers which have the potential to replace PEG in these applications.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Pharmacokinetic improvements observed in preclinical animal models for polymeric micelle drugs will translate to improved clinical outcomes in humans.

    “Polymeric micelles have shown improved pharmacokinetic profiles in preclinical animal models and enhanced efficacy with a superior safety profile for therapeutic drugs.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The performance of polymeric micelles depends on micelle stability, drug loading, release kinetics, circulation time, and biodistribution.

    “The performance of polymeric micelles is intimately related to micelle stability, drug loading, release kinetics, circulation time, and biodistribution.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Polymeric micelles are significantly diluted upon administration into the body.

    “Since polymeric micelles are significantly diluted upon administration into the body, classical amphiphilic block copolymers may disassemble after injection, which results in the loss of micelle functionalities.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The safety profile of amphiphilic block copolymers containing various hydrophobic POx or POzi blocks other than PMeOx-b-PBuOx-b-PMeOx has not been analyzed in humans.

    “Although extensive body of work in preclinical models is available about the safety profile of PMeOx-b-PBuOx-b-PMeOx (see for example [22]), the safety profile analysis of other amphiphilic block copolymers containing various hydrophobic POx or POzi blocks in humans has not been conducted.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The typical free energy of transfer of a methylene group from water to a water-immiscible organic solvent is −3.1 kJ/mol.

    “Typically, the free energy of transfer from aqueous to a water-immiscible organic solvent of a methylene group is −3.1 kJ/mol.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The tumor microenvironment is relatively acidic compared to circulating blood.

    “For example, the tumor microenvironment is relatively acidic compared to that of circulating blood.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Excipient-derived toxicity has often occurred in patients and has been a dose-limiting factor in clinical treatments.

    “Excipient derived toxicity has often occurred in patients and was a dose limiting factor in clinical treatments.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The complex interactions between solid tumor physiology and nano-sized drugs are not fully understood.

    “Despite a significant body of literature on the use of various nanoparticles for cancer drug delivery, the complex interactions between solid tumor physiology and nano-sized drugs are not fully understood.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most studies have measured only total drug, not the released drug that is pharmacodynamically active.

    “Another important issue is that most studies have only measured total drug (i.e., encapsulated plus released), and not the released drug which is pharmacodynamically active.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Traditional pharmacokinetic analysis treats drug as protein bound or free unbound; unbound drug is pharmacodynamically active; protein bound drug is not pharmacologically active and not available for metabolism.

    “The PK analysis of traditional, excipient-based formulations usually treats the drug in two forms: that which is protein bound and that which is free and unbound. The unbound drug is the fraction which is considered pharmacodynamically active form. The protein bound drug is not pharmacologically active, and not available for metabolism.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No methods exist at this time to measure encapsulated, protein bound, and unbound drug fractions in tissue.

    “However, to the best of our knowledge there are no methods at this time to measure encapsulated/protein bound/unbound drug fractions in tissue and this is an important area of research.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The Cmax of the unbound drug form achieved in the tumor is strongly correlated with pharmacodynamic activity.

    “However, as general case both drug subpopulations should be accounted for as the Cmax of the unbound form achieved in the tumor is strongly correlated to pharmacodynamic activity.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The size distribution of nano-sized particles may affect their biodistribution, resulting in either extended systemic circulation or faster clearance.

    “It is well-established that the size distribution of nano-sized particles may affect their biodistribution when administered, resulting in either extended systemic circulation or faster clearance from the body.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    SITUA assumes that a tracer amount of isotopically labeled drug in plasma behaves identically to drug released from the nanomedicine with regard to protein binding.

    “The SITUA concept is based on an assumption that a tracer amount of isotopically labeled drug in plasma will behave identically to drug that is released from the nanomedicine with regard to protein binding.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    SITUA assumes that the isotopically labeled drug only equilibrates with plasma protein bound drug and not with nanomedicine bound drug during the timescale of the assay.

    “The SITUA assay assumes the isotopically labeled drug, D*, only equilibrates with the plasma protein bound drug and not with the nanomedicine bound drug (polymeric micelle encapsulated in our case) during the timescale of this assay.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    SITUA assumes that polymeric micelles are not behaving dynamically under the timespan of the assay, meaning there is no exchange between free labeled drug and drug encapsulated in the polymeric micelles.

    “Thus, the assay assumes that the polymeric micelles are not behaving dynamically under the timespan of the assay: that is, there is no exchange between free D* and drug which is encapsulated in the polymeric micelles.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The Wan et al. model assumes that all drug delivered to the tumor will be pharmacologically active.

    “The Wan et al. study did not discriminate between the micelle bound and released drug within the tumor assuming that all drug will be pharmacologically active if delivered to the tumor, which may be a fair assumption for the micelles used in the study.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The Wan et al. model assumes, based on experimental evidence, that clearance of plasma bound drug is higher than that of micelle bound drug.

    “This is because for both scenarios the clearance of plasma bound drug is assumed, based on experimental evidence, to be higher than that of micelle bound drug.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Preclinical pharmacokinetic and anti-tumor results in animal models are predictive of clinical outcomes in humans.

    “Superior anti-tumor activity of combination therapy was confirmed in ovarian and breast cancer preclinical models.”
    “This study indicates to us that co-loading of drugs in a single micelle would be beneficial for the delivery of the combination therapy.”
20 of 20

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.

Cited works that were retracted

Works this paper cites that were later retracted, from the retraction notices publishers deposit. Major when the notice came out before this paper was published.

  • Cites a retracted work: 10.1021/bm070226v

    Info

    The cited work was retracted on 2024-12-09 (notice 10.1021/acs.biomac.4c01583), not before this paper was published (2020).

    Cited work 10.1021/bm070226v · retracted 2024-12-09 · notice 10.1021/acs.biomac.4c01583 · this paper published 2020

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 353 references

11 of the 353 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Schulz, 2012, Poly (2-oxazoline) s as high-capacity multi-drug delivery systems, Polymer Prepr., 53, 305
  2. Lee, 2005, Methoxy poly (ethylene glycol)-block-poly (δ-valerolactone) copolymer micelles for formulation of hydrophobic drugs, Biomacromolecules, 6, 3119, 10.1021/bm050451h · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 686

Metadata

Authors
Hwang, D., Ramsey, J. D., & Kabanov, A. V.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Kabanov, Alexander V.
Venue
Advanced drug delivery reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020
Volume
156
Pages
80-118
ISSN
0169-409X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3088981963
Cited by
699
References
353
Citations by year
2026: 113 · 2025: 167 · 2024: 154 · 2023: 126 · 2022: 97 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 2
FWCI
4.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (R01NS102627, U01CA198910, U54CA198999)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Biomaterials › Nanoparticle-Based Drug Delivery
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmaceutical Science › Drug Solubulity and Delivery Systems
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmaceutical Science › Advanced Drug Delivery Systems
Keywords
polymeric micelles, poorly water-soluble drugs, drug solubilization, drug encapsulation, pharmacokinetics, clinical trials, systemic drug delivery, nanocarriers
MeSH terms
Animals, Drug Compounding, Drug Interactions, Pharmaceutical Preparations, Humans, Micelles, Polymers, Solubility, Drug Delivery Systems, Nanoparticles

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review