Abstract
Purpose
To provide a systematic map of the nature and extent of preclinical research concerning drug-releasing polymeric implants.
Significance
By summarizing available data, this mapping review can guide the development of new drug-delivery devices.
Methods
In-vitro studies assessing drug-delivery implants were reviewed. A study protocol was registered at Open Science Framework. The association of polymers with prominent drugs, manufacturing processes, geometries, treatments, and anatomical locations was assessed using the VOSviewer software. The release periods were also evaluated.
Results
A total of 423 articles, published between 1975 and 2020, were included and grouped into a framework with nine main categories. More than half of studies were published between 2010 and 2020. Among 201 individual polymers or combinations, the most investigated were PLGA, PCL, PLA, Silicone (SIL), EVA, and PU. Similarly, from 232 individual drugs or combinations, the most prominent were dexamethasone (DEX; anti-inflammatory), paclitaxel (PTX; anticancer), fluoruracil (anticancer), ciprofloxacin (CFX) hydrochloride (antibiotic), and gentamicin (GS; antibiotic). A total of 51 manufacturing processes were encountered, of which the most reported were solvent evaporation, compression molding (CM), extrusion (EX), electrospinning (ELS), and melt molding (MM). Among 38 implant geometries, cylinder (CIL) was the most prominent, followed by disk, square film, circular film (FCIR), and undefined film. Release times varied greatly, although the majority of articles ranged between 5 and 300 d.
Conclusions
Drug-delivery implants were highly heterogeneous due to its applicability for multiple health conditions. Most implants were made of PLGA and most drugs assessed presented anti-inflammatory, antibiotic, or anticancer effects. Solvent evaporation and CIL were the most prominent manufacturing process and geometry, respectively.
Acknowledgments
Arthur Thives Mello is supported with scholarship by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico - Brasil (CNPq) - Grant Number 381694/2019-4; Gilberto Melo is supported with scholarship by the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e Inovação do Estado de Santa Catarina - Brasil (FAPESC) - Grant Number 88887.200723/2018-00; Gustavo Ferrari is supported with scholarship by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico - Brasil (CNPq) - Grant Number 160162/2019-0; Professor Carlos Rodrigo de Mello Roesler is supported with scholarship by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico - Brasil (CNPq); Professor Gean Vitor Salmoria is supported with scholarship by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico - Brasil (CNPq); Izabelle de Mello Gindri is supported with scholarship by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES).
Disclosure statement
In accordance with Taylor & Francis policy and my ethical obligation as a researcher, the authors report that they have no conflict of interest do declare.