Abstract:Many scientific discussions, especially in the past 8 yr, have focused on definition of criteria for the optimal assessment of the preclinical toxicity of pharmaceuticals. With the current overlap of responsibility among centers within the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), uniformity of testing standards, when appropriate, would be desirable. These discussions have extended beyond the boundaries of the FDA and have culminated in the acceptance of formalized, internationally recognized guidances. The work of the International Committee on Harmonisation (ICH) and the initiatives developed by the FDA are important because they (a) represent a consensus scientific opinion, (b) promote consistency, (c) improve the quality of the studies performed, (d) assist the public sector in determining what may be generally acceptable to prepare product development plans, and (e) provide guidance for the sponsors in the design of preclinical toxicity studies. Disadvantages associated with such initiatives include (a) the establishment of a historical database that is difficult to relinquish, (b) the promotion of a check-the-box approach, i.e., a tendancy to perform only the minimum evaluation required by the guidelines, (c) the creation of a disincentive for industry to develop and validate new models, and (d) the creation of state-of-the-art guidances that may not allow for appropriate evaluation of novel therapies. The introduction of biotechnology-derived pharmaceuticals for clinical use has often required the application of unique approaches to assessing their safety in preclinical studies. There is much diversity among these products, which include the gene and cellular therapies, monoclonal antibodies, human-derived recombinant regulatory proteins, blood products, and vaccines. For many of the biological therapies, there will be unique product issues that may require specific modifications to protocol design and may raise additional safety concerns (e.g., immunogenicity). Guidances concerning the design of preclinical studies for such therapies are generally based on the clinical indication. Risk versus benefit decisions are made with an understanding of the nature of the patient population, the severity of disease, and the availability of alternative therapies. Key components of protocol design for preclinical studies addressing the risks of these agents include (a) a safe starting dose in humans, (b) identification of potential target organs, (c) identification of clinical parameters that should be monitored in humans, and (d) identification of at-risk populations. One of the distinct aspects of the safety evaluation of biotechnology-derived pharmaceuticals is the use of relevant and often nontraditional species and the use of animal models of disease in preclinical safety evaluation. Extensive contributions were made by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research to the ICH document on the safety of biotherapeutics, which is intended to provide worldwide guidance for a framework approach to the design and review of preclinical programs. Rational, scientifically sound study design and early identification of the potential safety concerns that may be anticipated in the clinical trial can result in preclinical data that facilitate use of these novel therapies for use in humans without duplication of effort or the unnecessary use of animals.

Report of the AAPS Guidance Forum on the FDA Draft Guidance for Industry: “Drug Products, Including Biological Products, that Contain Nanomaterials”

Current state of nanomedicine drug products: An industry perspective

Launching stakeholder discussions on identified regulatory needs for nanotechnology-enabled health products

Meeting Report: N-Nitrosamine Impurity Control Strategies in the Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology Industries

Guidance on risk assessment of nanomaterials to be applied in the food and feed chain: human and animal health

Guidance on technical requirements for regulated food and feed product applications to establish the presence of small particles including nanoparticles

Regulatory insights into nanomedicine and gene vaccine innovation: Safety assessment, challenges, and regulatory perspectives

Regulatory assessment of nano-enabled health products in public health interest. Position of the scientific advisory board of the French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products

Nanomedicines: current status and future perspectives in aspect of drug delivery and pharmacokinetics

Nanomedicines and nanocarriers in clinical trials: surfing through regulatory requirements and physico-chemical critical quality attributes

Analytical and toxicological aspects of nanomaterials in different product groups: Challenges and opportunities

Beyond biotechnology: FDA regulation of nanomedicine

Feeding Next-Generation Nanomedicines to Europe: Regulatory and Quality Challenges

Implications of analytical nanoscience in pharmaceutical and biomedical fields: a critical view

Mechanisms and Barriers in Nanomedicine: Progress in the Field and Future Directions

Nanomaterials: certain aspects of application, risk assessment and risk communication

White paper: Understanding, informing and defining the regulatory science of microneedle-based dosage forms that are applied to the skin

Approaches to Develop Alternative Testing Strategies to Inform Human Health Risk Assessment of Nanomaterials

Regulation of engineered nanomaterials: current challenges, insights and future directions

Potential of Nanomaterial Applications in Dietary Supplements and Foods for Special Medical Purposes

Safety Assessment of Biotechnology-Derived Pharmaceuticals: ICH and Beyond