Technology evaluation: NV-1020, MediGene
Reinis, M.
Current Opinion in Molecular Therapeutics 7(4): 366-375
2005
ISSN/ISBN: 1464-8431 PMID: 16121703 Document Number: 590908
NV-1020 is a recombinant oncolytic HSV-based virus, in development by MediGene (formerly NeuroVir) for the potential treatment of cancer. The therapy is currently undergoing phase II clinical trials.
Document emailed within 1 workday
Related Documents
Mikhaĭlitsyn, F.S.; Petrov, I.F.; Bol'shakova, A.I.; Lebedeva, M.N.; Lychko, N.D. 1995: The technology for manufacturing antiparasitic preparations. 4. the development of a technology for producing the anthelmintic bromoksan in finely dispersed form and the evaluation of its antifascioliasis activity Meditsinskaia Parazitologiia i Parazitarnye Bolezni 3: 41-42Mikhaĭlitsyn, F.S.; Drusviatskaia, S.K.; Uvarova, N.A.; Taits, S.Z.; Stoianovich, F.M.; Vol'kenshteĭn, I.B.; Lebedeva, M.N.; Krotov, A.I.; Lychko, N.D. 1994: The technology for manufacturing antiparasitic preparations. 3. the development of a technology for producing the anthelmintic embovin (pyrantel embonate) in finely dispersed form and the evaluation of its anthelmintic properties Meditsinskaia Parazitologiia i Parazitarnye Bolezni 2: 24-26
Jørgensen, M.S.; Jørgensen, U. 2009: Green technology foresight of high technology: a social shaping of technology approach to the analysis of hopes and hypes Technology Analysis-Strategic Management 21(3): 363-379
Sakai, F.; Kondo, M.; Ito, H.; Ota, N. 1982: Evaluation of the extent of basic nursing technology knowledge at the end of the program at our school--self-evaluation by the students and a survey of frequencies of clinical training sessions Kango Tenbo. Japanese Journal of Nursing Science 7(3): 218-224
Ding, C.; Jones, G. 2003: Technology evaluation: MRA, Chugai Current Opinion in Molecular Therapeutics 5(1): 64-69
Zhang, Z. 2001: Technology evaluation: MG-98, MethylGene Current Opinion in Molecular Therapeutics 3(6): 599-604
Mukhtar, M.; Parveen, Z.; Pomerantz, R.J. 2000: Technology evaluation: PRO-542, Progenics Pharmaceuticals inc Current Opinion in Molecular Therapeutics 2(6): 697-702
Galanis, E. 2002: Technology evaluation: Allovectin-7, Vical Current Opinion in Molecular Therapeutics 4(1): 80-87
Minev, B.R. 2003: Technology evaluation: HSPPC-96, antigenics Current Opinion in Molecular Therapeutics 5(6): 680-687
Golab, J.; Stoklosa, T. 2005: Technology evaluation: SB-485232, GlaxoSmithKline Current Opinion in Molecular Therapeutics 7(1): 85-93
Doehn, C.; Jocham, D. 2000: Technology evaluation: TG-1031, Transgene SA Current Opinion in Molecular Therapeutics 2(1): 106-111
Errasti, F. 1996: Various sources of medical technology evaluation Revista de Medicina de la Universidad de Navarra 40(4): 4-5
Barnard, D.L. 2000: Technology evaluation: Sch-58500, Canji Current Opinion in Molecular Therapeutics 2(5): 586-592
Gnanakumaran, G.; Babu, K.S. 2003: Technology evaluation: mepolizumab, GlaxoSmithKline Current Opinion in Molecular Therapeutics 5(3): 321-325
Paul, S.ép. 2003: Technology evaluation: CpG-7909, Coley Current Opinion in Molecular Therapeutics 5(5): 553-559
Li, K.; Stewart, D.J.; Ward, H.J. 1999: Technology evaluation: gene therapy (FGF-5), Vical Current Opinion in Molecular Therapeutics 1(2): 260-265
Detre, K. 1993: What can comparative databases contribute to the evaluation of new technology? Journal of Invasive Cardiology 5(2): 53-59
Morse, M. 2005: Technology evaluation: Rexin-G, Epeius Biotechnologies Current Opinion in Molecular Therapeutics 7(2): 164-169
Sun, S. 2000: Technology evaluation: SELEX, Gilead Sciences Inc Current Opinion in Molecular Therapeutics 2(1): 100-105
Vinores, S.A. 2003: Technology evaluation: pegaptanib, Eyetech/Pfizer Current Opinion in Molecular Therapeutics 5(6): 673-679