Search

New Approach Methodologies (NAMs), broadly understood to include in silico, in chemico, in vitro and ex vivo methods, show great potential in advancing risk assessment albeit their regulatory implementation is lagging. The EFSA Guidance on risk assessment of nanomaterials (EFSA Guidance on Nano‐RA) suggests nano‐specific risk assessment is best achieved through Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment (IATAs) with NAMs as the first choice to generate new information. Integrating NAMs in risk assessment promises several advantages such as a better human focus, more detailed insights into molecular mechanisms and a higher efficacy. However, applying NAMs to NMs also poses considerable challenges such as issues related to dispersion stability, dosimetry, agglomeration, dissolution, transformations or assay interferences. Significant efforts are being undertaken by standardisation organisations and research projects to establish various NAMs for NMs. Here a thorough review is provided covering NAMs that will be potentially useful for risk assessment of NMs in the food and feed sector. It follows the structure of the EFSA Guidance on Nano‐RA and expands it, where needed, to support decision‐making in selection of NAMs for NM risk assessment. The review begins with an overview on nano‐specific NAM‐frameworks, followed by a description of individual NAMs including those relevant to NM physicochemical characterisation, exposure and hazard assessment covering toxicodynamics and toxicokinetics. The focus is on NAMs concerning NM degradation/dissolution, genotoxicity, cytotoxicity, oxidative stress, (pro‐)inflammation, and barrier integrity as those are important endpoints for initial screening according to the EFSA framework. As a result, in total 267 individual nano‐relevant NAMs, mostly "not validated" (with a few notable exceptions), were included in this review. Validation notwithstanding, NAMs could already prove relevant and reliable for risk assessment of NMs, especially in integrated approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Plenty of new approach methodologies (NAMs) for risk assessment have been developed but only some are included in OECD Test Guidelines (TGs) for regulatory implementation. Nevertheless, NAMs are increasingly applied, e.g. for nanomaterial (NM) risk assessments. The EFSA Guidance on NM risk assessment suggests that NAM‐derived data concerning degradation/dissolution (in relevant biofluids), intestinal uptake/crossing, genotoxicity, cytotoxicity, oxidative stress, (pro‐)inflammatory potential and barrier integrity, for many of which no OECD TGs exist, have to be evaluated first. Consequently, NM risk assessments involve data from non‐guideline studies, requiring time‐consuming and challenging case‐by‐case evaluations. Establishing an OECD TG is a formal process aiming for international use according to the Mutual Acceptance of Data (MAD). However, not every promising NAM can be prioritised for OECD TGs. A qualification, based on an expert opinion, may enable an efficient use of adequate NAMs for a specific context‐of‐use. Furthermore, it supports the optimisation of promising NAMs for regulatory applications. Existing qualification systems operate in the context of e.g., drug development tools (FDA) and research and development into pharmaceuticals (EMA). The NAMS4NANO consortium was tasked to propose a generic framework for a qualification system for chemical risk assessment in the food and feed sector to speed up the regulatory use of NAMs. Here we describe our proposal including the process and evaluation criteria. A detailed test method description, preferably as standard operating procedures (SOPs), describing the set‐up of the NAM including its application and evaluation phase is crucial. Furthermore, the scientific validity, i.e. its reliability and relevance for the context‐of‐use, needs to be demonstrated, for which we suggest a less rigorous process compared to OECD TGs. We propose to initially establish a qualification system for NM risk assessment, aligned with the EFSA framework. This document is an interim version to stipulate a broader discussion among experts and stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systematic reviews of the scientific literature can be an important source of information supporting the daily work of the regulators in their decision making, particularly in areas of innovative technologies where the regulatory experience is still limited. Significant research activities in the field of nanotechnology resulted in a huge number of publications in the last decades. However, even if the published data can provide relevant information, scientific articles are often of diverse quality, and it is nearly impossible to manually process and evaluate such amount of data in a systematic manner. In this feasibility study, we investigated to what extent open-access automation tools can support a systematic review of toxic effects of nanomaterials for health applications reported in the scientific literature. In this study, we used a battery of available tools to perform the initial steps of a systematic review such as targeted searches, data curation and abstract screening. This work was complemented with an in-house developed tool that allowed us to extract specific sections of the articles such as the materials and methods part or the results section where we could perform subsequent text analysis. We ranked the articles according to quality criteria based on the reported nanomaterial characterisation and extracted most frequently described toxic effects induced by different types of nanomaterials. Even if further demonstration of the reliability and applicability of automation tools is necessary, this study demonstrated the potential to leverage information from the scientific literature by using automation systems in a tiered strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Appropriate documentary standards and reference materials are crucial building blocks for the development of innovative products. In order to support the emerging sector of nanomedicine, relevant standards must be identified and/or developed before the products will enter into the regulatory approval process. The anticipation of standardization needs requires a good understanding on the regulatory information requirements that can be triggered by the particularities of nanomedicines. However, robust datasets allowing firm conclusions on regulatory demands are not yet available due to a lack of regulatory experience with innovative products. Such a catch‐22 situation can only be advanced in an iterative process by monitoring continuously the scientific evidence and by promoting intensive knowledge exchange between all involved stakeholders. In this study, we have compiled information requirements released by regulatory scientists so far and mapped it against available standards that could be of relevance for nanomedicines. Our gap analysis clearly demonstrated that for some endpoints such as drug release/loading and the interaction of nanomedicines with the immune system no standards are available so far. The emerging nanomedicine sector could benefit from cross‐sector collaboration and review the suitability of standards that have been developed for nanomaterials used for other industrial applications. Only a concerted action of all parties can lead to a smooth translation of nanomedicines to clinical application and to the market. This is in particular important because nanotechnology‐based drug delivery systems are key for the development and implementation of personalized medicine. This article is characterized under: Toxicology and Regulatory Issues in Nanomedicine > Regulatory and Policy Issues in Nanomedicine Identification of regulatory needs for nanomedicines includes clarification of information requirements and evaluation of the availability of the relevant standards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Appropriate documentary standards and reference materials are crucial building blocks for the development of innovative products. In order to support the emerging sector of nanomedicine, relevant standards must be identified and/or developed before the products will enter into the regulatory approval process. The anticipation of standardization needs requires a good understanding on the regulatory information requirements that can be triggered by the particularities of nanomedicines. However, robust datasets allowing firm conclusions on regulatory demands are not yet available due to a lack of regulatory experience with innovative products. Such a catch-22 situation can only be advanced in an iterative process by monitoring continuously the scientific evidence and by promoting intensive knowledge exchange between all involved stakeholders. In this study, we have compiled information requirements released by regulatory scientists so far and mapped it against available standards that could be of relevance for nanomedicines. Our gap analysis clearly demonstrated that for some endpoints such as drug release/loading and the interaction of nanomedicines with the immune system no standards are available so far. The emerging nanomedicine sector could benefit from cross-sector collaboration and review the suitability of standards that have been developed for nanomaterials used for other industrial applications. Only a concerted action of all parties can lead to a smooth translation of nanomedicines to clinical application and to the market. This is in particular important because nanotechnology-based drug delivery systems are key for the development and implementation of personalized medicine. This article is characterized under: Toxicology and Regulatory Issues in Nanomedicine > Regulatory and Policy Issues in Nanomedicine., (© 2018 European Commission-Directorate General Joint Research Centre. WIREs Nanomedicine and Nanobiotechnology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

The present review assesses the current status of in vitro tests based on human pluripotent stem cell-derived toxicologically relevant target cells. The majority of the evaluated test systems are in the phase of test development. In particular the success rates of differentiation protocols and their reproducibility are varying depending on different culture conditions but also on the assessed marker panel and the functional evaluation of the cells. However, the amount of differentiated cells decreases in relation to their maturation status. No harmonization has been achieved yet about the required maturation status of the cellular models to be used for toxicological applications. Even with an established cellular model, the selection of appropriate readouts is challenging. Some areas of toxicity, such as developmental toxicity, suffer from insufficient knowledge on predictive biomarkers which leads to difficulties in the selection of the most appropriate endpoints. In this heterogeneous context the rapidly increasing knowledge about 'omics' technologies, might lead to an improvement of the current situation and allow the establishment of more predictive human in vitro toxicity tests.