解决细胞毒性评分不合格来源的医疗器械行业方法。

Q4 Medicine
Helin Räägel, Audrey Turley, Trevor Fish, Jeralyn Franson, Thor Rollins, Sarah Campbell, Matthew R Jorgensen
{"title":"解决细胞毒性评分不合格来源的医疗器械行业方法。","authors":"Helin Räägel,&nbsp;Audrey Turley,&nbsp;Trevor Fish,&nbsp;Jeralyn Franson,&nbsp;Thor Rollins,&nbsp;Sarah Campbell,&nbsp;Matthew R Jorgensen","doi":"10.2345/0899-8205-55.2.69","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To ensure patient safety, medical device manufacturers are required by the Food and Drug Administration and other regulatory bodies to perform biocompatibility evaluations on their devices per standards, such as the AAMI-approved ISO 10993-1:2018 (ANSI/AAMI/ISO 10993-1:2018).However, some of these biological tests (e.g., systemic toxicity studies) have long lead times and are costly, which may hinder the release of new medical devices. In recent years, an alternative method using a risk-based approach for evaluating the toxicity (or biocompatibility) profile of chemicals and materials used in medical devices has become more mainstream. This approach is used as a complement to or substitute for traditional testing methods (e.g., systemic toxicity endpoints). Regardless of the approach, the one test still used routinely in initial screening is the cytotoxicity test, which is based on an in vitro cell culture system to evaluate potential biocompatibility effects of the final finished form of a medical device. However, it is known that this sensitive test is not always compatible with specific materials and can lead to failing cytotoxicity scores and an incorrect assumption of potential biological or toxicological adverse effects. This article discusses the common culprits of in vitro cytotoxicity failures, as well as describes the regulatory-approved methodology for cytotoxicity testing and the approach of using toxicological risk assessment to address clinical relevance of cytotoxicity failures for medical devices. Further, discrepancies among test results from in vitro tests, use of published half-maximal inhibitory concentration data, and the derivation of their relationship to tolerable exposure limits, reference doses, or no observed adverse effect levels are highlighted to demonstrate that although cytotoxicity tests in general are regarded as a useful sensitive screening assays, specific medical device materials are not compatible with these cellular/in vitro systems. For these cases, the results should be analyzed using more clinically relevant approaches (e.g., through chemical analysis or written risk assessment).</p>","PeriodicalId":35656,"journal":{"name":"Biomedical Instrumentation and Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8641414/pdf/i0899-8205-55-2-69.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Medical Device Industry Approaches for Addressing Sources of Failing Cytotoxicity Scores.\",\"authors\":\"Helin Räägel,&nbsp;Audrey Turley,&nbsp;Trevor Fish,&nbsp;Jeralyn Franson,&nbsp;Thor Rollins,&nbsp;Sarah Campbell,&nbsp;Matthew R Jorgensen\",\"doi\":\"10.2345/0899-8205-55.2.69\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>To ensure patient safety, medical device manufacturers are required by the Food and Drug Administration and other regulatory bodies to perform biocompatibility evaluations on their devices per standards, such as the AAMI-approved ISO 10993-1:2018 (ANSI/AAMI/ISO 10993-1:2018).However, some of these biological tests (e.g., systemic toxicity studies) have long lead times and are costly, which may hinder the release of new medical devices. In recent years, an alternative method using a risk-based approach for evaluating the toxicity (or biocompatibility) profile of chemicals and materials used in medical devices has become more mainstream. This approach is used as a complement to or substitute for traditional testing methods (e.g., systemic toxicity endpoints). Regardless of the approach, the one test still used routinely in initial screening is the cytotoxicity test, which is based on an in vitro cell culture system to evaluate potential biocompatibility effects of the final finished form of a medical device. However, it is known that this sensitive test is not always compatible with specific materials and can lead to failing cytotoxicity scores and an incorrect assumption of potential biological or toxicological adverse effects. This article discusses the common culprits of in vitro cytotoxicity failures, as well as describes the regulatory-approved methodology for cytotoxicity testing and the approach of using toxicological risk assessment to address clinical relevance of cytotoxicity failures for medical devices. Further, discrepancies among test results from in vitro tests, use of published half-maximal inhibitory concentration data, and the derivation of their relationship to tolerable exposure limits, reference doses, or no observed adverse effect levels are highlighted to demonstrate that although cytotoxicity tests in general are regarded as a useful sensitive screening assays, specific medical device materials are not compatible with these cellular/in vitro systems. For these cases, the results should be analyzed using more clinically relevant approaches (e.g., through chemical analysis or written risk assessment).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":35656,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biomedical Instrumentation and Technology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8641414/pdf/i0899-8205-55-2-69.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biomedical Instrumentation and Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2345/0899-8205-55.2.69\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biomedical Instrumentation and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2345/0899-8205-55.2.69","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

为了确保患者安全,食品和药物管理局和其他监管机构要求医疗器械制造商按照标准对其设备进行生物相容性评估,例如AAMI批准的ISO 10993-1:2018 (ANSI/AAMI/ISO 10993-1:2018)。然而,其中一些生物试验(例如,全身毒性研究)的准备时间长,费用高,这可能会阻碍新医疗装置的发布。近年来,使用基于风险的方法来评估医疗器械中使用的化学品和材料的毒性(或生物相容性)特征的替代方法已变得更加主流。该方法被用作传统测试方法(例如,系统毒性终点)的补充或替代。无论采用哪种方法,在初始筛选中仍然常规使用的一种测试是细胞毒性测试,该测试基于体外细胞培养系统,以评估医疗器械最终成品的潜在生物相容性效应。然而,众所周知,这种敏感试验并不总是与特定材料兼容,并且可能导致细胞毒性评分失败和对潜在生物学或毒理学不良反应的错误假设。本文讨论了体外细胞毒性失败的常见罪魁祸首,并描述了监管机构批准的细胞毒性测试方法和使用毒理学风险评估来解决医疗器械细胞毒性失败的临床相关性的方法。此外,强调了体外试验结果之间的差异,使用已公布的半最大抑制浓度数据,以及它们与可耐受暴露限值、参考剂量或未观察到的不良反应水平的关系的推导,以证明尽管细胞毒性试验通常被认为是有用的敏感筛选试验,但特定的医疗器械材料与这些细胞/体外系统不兼容。对于这些病例,应使用更多临床相关的方法(例如,通过化学分析或书面风险评估)分析结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Medical Device Industry Approaches for Addressing Sources of Failing Cytotoxicity Scores.

To ensure patient safety, medical device manufacturers are required by the Food and Drug Administration and other regulatory bodies to perform biocompatibility evaluations on their devices per standards, such as the AAMI-approved ISO 10993-1:2018 (ANSI/AAMI/ISO 10993-1:2018).However, some of these biological tests (e.g., systemic toxicity studies) have long lead times and are costly, which may hinder the release of new medical devices. In recent years, an alternative method using a risk-based approach for evaluating the toxicity (or biocompatibility) profile of chemicals and materials used in medical devices has become more mainstream. This approach is used as a complement to or substitute for traditional testing methods (e.g., systemic toxicity endpoints). Regardless of the approach, the one test still used routinely in initial screening is the cytotoxicity test, which is based on an in vitro cell culture system to evaluate potential biocompatibility effects of the final finished form of a medical device. However, it is known that this sensitive test is not always compatible with specific materials and can lead to failing cytotoxicity scores and an incorrect assumption of potential biological or toxicological adverse effects. This article discusses the common culprits of in vitro cytotoxicity failures, as well as describes the regulatory-approved methodology for cytotoxicity testing and the approach of using toxicological risk assessment to address clinical relevance of cytotoxicity failures for medical devices. Further, discrepancies among test results from in vitro tests, use of published half-maximal inhibitory concentration data, and the derivation of their relationship to tolerable exposure limits, reference doses, or no observed adverse effect levels are highlighted to demonstrate that although cytotoxicity tests in general are regarded as a useful sensitive screening assays, specific medical device materials are not compatible with these cellular/in vitro systems. For these cases, the results should be analyzed using more clinically relevant approaches (e.g., through chemical analysis or written risk assessment).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Biomedical Instrumentation and Technology
Biomedical Instrumentation and Technology Computer Science-Computer Networks and Communications
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: AAMI publishes Biomedical Instrumentation & Technology (BI&T) a bi-monthly peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the developers, managers, and users of medical instrumentation and technology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信