The application of nanomedicines is increasing rapidly with the promise of targeted and efficient drug delivery. Nanomedicines address the shortcomings of conventional therapy, as evidenced by several preclinical and clinical investigations indicating site-specific drug delivery, reduced side effects, and better treatment outcome. The development of suitable and biocompatible drug delivery vehicles is a prerequisite that has been successfully achieved by using simple and functionalized liposomes, nanoparticles, hydrogels, micelles, dendrimers, and mesoporous particles. A variety of drug delivery vehicles have been established for the targeted and controlled delivery of therapeutic agents in a wide range of chronic diseases, such as diabetes, cancer, atherosclerosis, myocardial ischemia, asthma, pulmonary tuberculosis, Parkinson’s disease, and Alzheimer’s disease. After successful outcomes in preclinical and clinical trials, many of these drugs have been marketed for human use, such as Abraxane®, Caelyx®, Mepact®, Myocet®, Emend®, and Rapamune®. Apart from drugs/compounds, novel therapeutic agents, such as peptides, nucleic acids (DNA and RNA), and genes have also shown potential to be used as nanomedicines for the treatment of several chronic ailments. However, a large number of extensive clinical trials are still needed to ensure the short-term and long-term effects of nanomedicines in humans. This review discusses the advantages of various drug delivery vehicles for better understanding of their utility in terms of current medical needs. Furthermore, the application of a wide range of nanomedicines is also described in the context of major chronic diseases.

Objective: To assess whether multifocal, high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of motor and prefrontal cortex benefits motor and mood symptoms in patients with Parkinson disease (PD). Methods: Patients with PD and depression were enrolled in this multicenter, double-blind, sham-controlled, parallel-group study of real or realistic (electric) sham rTMS. Patients were randomized to 1 of 4 groups: bilateral M1 ( + sham dorsolateral prefrontal cortex [DLPFC]), DLPFC ( + sham M1), M1 + DLPFC, or double sham. The TMS course consisted of 10 daily sessions of 2,000 stimuli for the left DLPFC and 1,000 stimuli for each M1 (50 × 4-second trains of 40 stimuli at 10 Hz). Patients were evaluated at baseline, at 1 week, and at 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment. Primary endpoints were changes in motor function assessed with the Unified Parkinson9s Disease Rating Scale-III and in mood with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at 1 month. Results: Of the 160 patients planned for recruitment, 85 were screened, 61 were randomized, and 50 completed all study visits. Real M1 rTMS resulted in greater improvement in motor function than sham at the primary endpoint (p < 0.05). There was no improvement in mood in the DLPFC group compared to the double-sham group, as well as no benefit to combining M1 and DLPFC stimulation for either motor or mood symptoms. Conclusions: In patients with PD with depression, M1 rTMS is an effective treatment of motor symptoms, while mood benefit after 2 weeks of DLPFC rTMS is not better than sham. Targeting both M1 and DLPFC in each rTMS session showed no evidence of synergistic effects. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01080794. Classification of evidence: This study provides Class I evidence that in patients with PD with depression, M1 rTMS leads to improvement in motor function while DLPFC rTMS does not lead to improvement in depression compared to sham rTMS.

Gait dysfunction is a common target for pharmacological, behavioral, and surgical interventions in persons with Parkinson disease. However, the responsiveness of gait speed, that is, clinically important difference, is not well described in the literature for this population. The purpose of this study was to determine the magnitude of meaningful difference in gait speed using multiple methods of assessment and utilizing a large sample of participants inclusive of various stages of disease severity. Gait speed was measured using an instrumented walkway in 324 ambulatory persons with idiopathic Parkinson disease. Cross-sectional analysis of the clinically important difference for gait speed was performed using distribution- and anchor-based approaches: disability (Schwab and England Activities of Daily Living Scale), disease stage (Modified Hoehn and Yahr Scale), and severity (Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale). Using distribution-based analyses and effect size metrics, the small important difference in gait speed was 0.06 m/s, moderate was 0.14 m/s, and large was 0.22 m/s. Applying previously established cut-points for small, moderate, and large change in the motor scale score, the associated changes in gait speed that might be expected are 0.02, 0.06, and 0.10 m/s. Our data revealed that the clinically important difference in gait speed among persons with Parkinson disease on medication ranged from 0.05 m/s to 0.22 m/s by distribution-based analysis and ranged from 0.02 m/s to 0.18 m/s per level within the anchor-based metrics. These data will aid in evaluating the effectiveness of interventions to improve gait speed in persons with Parkinson disease.Video Abstract available. See video (Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A77) for more insights from the authors.

A major concern regarding ventralis intermedius nucleus deep brain stimulation for essential tremor has been the loss of surgical efficacy over time in a minority of patients. Some experts have ascribed the worsening tremor to tolerance, while other evidence has suggested that disease progression may play a role. Suboptimal lead placement has also been reported to be a factor in worsening tremor following deep-brain stimulation; however, most authors consider this phenomenon to manifest within a few months of the actual surgery. We aimed to dissect the tolerance versus disease progression issue by analysing preoperative versus long-term post-surgical Fahn–Tolosa–Marin Tremor Rating Scale scores both on and off stimulation among 28 patients who underwent ventralis intermedius nucleus deep brain stimulation and 21 age-matched controls. Of the 28 patients in the treatment arm of the cohort, seven (25%) demonstrated evidence of tremor progression, and had a 34% increase in the tremor score off stimulation at the 36 month follow-up compared with a 32% increase among controls (P = 0.67). In one of the seven patients there was evidence of suboptimal lead placement given the lateral position of the lead, and the motor side effects during threshold testing. This patient demonstrated a loss of stimulation benefit between 24 and 36 months, which may have been more indicative of tolerance. The other six subjects (86%) maintained stimulation benefit throughout the follow-up period, despite worsening tremor off stimulation (at a comparable rate to that of controls), making disease progression the most likely explanation. The data suggest that deep brain stimulation tolerance may be over-reported in the literature, and that a tolerance versus disease progression work-up should include: examining the trend in off stimulation scores, accounting for image based lead locations, and during programming sessions checking for thresholds which may elicit clinical benefits and side effects.

We studied the effects of 1-Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on the excitability of interhemispheric connections in 13 right-handed healthy volunteers. TMS was performed using figure-eight coils, and surface electromyography (EMG) was recorded from both first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscles. A paired-pulse method with a conditioning stimulus (CS) to the motor cortex (M1) followed by a test stimulus to the opposite M1 was used to study the interhemispheric inhibition (ppIHI). Both CS and TS were adjusted to produce motor-evoked potentials of ∼1 mV in the contralateral FDI muscles. After baseline measurement of right-to-left IHI (pre-RIHI) and left-to-right IHI (pre-LIHI), rTMS was applied over left M1 at 1 Hz with 900 stimuli at 115% of resting motor threshold. After rTMS, ppIHI was studied using both the pre-rTMS CS (post-RIHI and post-LIHI) and an adjusted post-rTMS CS set to produce 1-mV motor evoked potentials (MEPs; post-RIHI_adj and post-LIHI_adj). The TS was set to produce 1-mV MEPs. There was a significant reduction in post-LIHI ( P = 0.0049) and post-LIHI_adj ( P = 0.0169) compared with pre-LIHI at both interstimulus intervals of 10 and 40 ms. Post-RIHI was significantly reduced compared with pre-RIHI ( P = 0.0015) but pre-RIHI and post-RIHI_adj were not significantly different. We conclude that 1-Hz rTMS reduces IHI in both directions but is predominantly from the stimulated to the unstimulated hemisphere. Low-frequency rTMS may be used to modulate the excitability of IHI circuits. Treatment protocols using low-frequency rTMS to reduce cortical excitability in neurological and psychiatric conditions need to take into account their effects on IHI.