Nanogels demonstrate significant pH and redox-responsive drug release in cancer models, suggesting improved efficacy and safety.
We engineered redox-responsive cyclodextrin (CD) nanogels for doxorubicin (DOX) and benchmarked them against β-CD inclusion complexes. Nanogels were formed by EDC/NHS coupling of carboxymethyl-β-CD with cystamine, optionally PEGylated and HA-targeted via adamantane–β-CD host–guest; DOX was loaded overnight and formulations characterized (DLS/TEM) and tested by dialysis release (pH 7.4/5.5 ± 10 mM GSH), MTT uptake/viability (MCF-7, MDA-MB-231, HeLa, MCF-7/ADR), MCF-7 xenografts (5 mg/kg i.v., q4d×4), and satellite PK; stats used one-way ANOVA with Tukey (p<0.05). CD-SS nanogels achieved DL 8.2±0.9% and EE 78±6% with 112±14 nm size; solubility rose 165× versus free DOX (β-CD complexes 60–80×) and stability improved (48 h remaining 88±3% vs 52±5% free; t½ 72±6 h vs 29±3 h, p<0.01). Release was minimal at pH 7.4 (38.2±2.7%/48 h) but strongly triggered at pH 5.5+10 mM GSH (97.8±1.4%/48 h; t50 6.2 h). In vivo, tumor volumes fell to 380±90 mm³ (PEG-nanogel; TGI 76%) and 260±75 mm³ (HA-nanogel; TGI 83%) vs 820±140 mm³ (free DOX); ANOVA p<0.001, Tukey p<0.05, with higher intratumoral DOX (7.9–10.4 vs 2.8–3.5 µg/g) and improved safety (CK-MB 182–198 vs 318 U/L; troponin I 0.024–0.028 vs 0.067 ng/mL; 100% survival). Overall, CD-SS nanogels provide pH/redox-responsive release, better PK, greater efficacy, and reduced cardiotoxicity at equal dose.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mansoor et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: