Key result
Nanoparticle therapies show preclinical efficacy in myocardial injury, but clinical translation lacks comparative safety data.
Why the study?
Nanoparticle-based interventions have been investigated across heterogeneous models of myocardial injury and heart failure, but the distribution and translational maturity of this evidence remain unclear.
Do nanoparticle-based therapies improve outcomes in preclinical models of myocardial injury and heart failure compared to controls or conventional therapies?
Systematic Review (n=157)
Do nanoparticle-based therapies improve outcomes in preclinical models of myocardial injury and heart failure compared to controls or conventional therapies?
While nanoparticle-based therapies show promising preclinical signals of cardiac protection in myocardial injury models, clinical translation is limited by a lack of direct comparisons with conventional therapies and insufficient long-term safety data.
Nanoparticle therapies remain investigational; extends preclinical mapping but leaves clinical translation open pending comparative trials and safety data.
Background: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, and current therapies rarely repair established myocardial damage. Nanoparticle-based interventions have been investigated across heterogeneous models of myocardial injury, remodeling, cardiomyopathy, and heart failure, but the distribution and translational maturity of this evidence remain unclear. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted from database inception to June 2024. Eligible reports were mapped according to disease model, experimental system, carrier-level nanoparticle platform, payload, route, comparator, outcomes, biodistribution, safety assessment, and translational characteristics. Reports of non-therapeutic nanoparticle exposure were retained in a separate contextual safety/toxicology stratum and were not included in the therapeutic evidence-density map. Risk of bias was evaluated using design-appropriate tools. Results: Of 2640 records screened, 157 independent studies met the criteria: 140 in the main therapeutic/platform evidence map and 17 in a separate contextual safety/toxicology stratum. Within the main corpus, polymeric systems were the largest platform class (n = 50), followed by inorganic/mineral (n = 35), biological/biomimetic (n = 24), lipid-based (n = 23), carbon-based (n = 5), and hybrid/multicomponent systems (n = 3). Evidence was concentrated in acute myocardial injury (n = 76), while direct same-agent comparisons, long-term safety assessment, repeated dosing, quantitative biodistribution, and clinically aligned heart-failure models remained limited. Conclusions: The field demonstrates substantial formulation diversity and biological activity, but translation is constrained by fragmented characterization, sparse comparative evidence, and incomplete assessment of biological fate and safety.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jabeen et al. (2026) conducted a systematic review in Myocardial injury and heart failure (n=157). Nanoparticle-based therapies vs. Untreated/vehicle-treated disease controls or conventional/free therapeutic agents was evaluated on Distribution and translational maturity of preclinical evidence (disease model, nanoparticle platform, outcomes, safety). Nanoparticle-based therapies demonstrate substantial biological activity in preclinical models of myocardial injury, but clinical translation is constrained by sparse comparative evidence and incomplete safety assessments.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: