医疗器械生物兼容性测试中的 "三巨头":实施动物实验的替代方法--我们做到了吗?

IF 3.6 Q2 TOXICOLOGY Frontiers in toxicology Pub Date : 2024-01-08 DOI:10.3389/ftox.2023.1337468
H. Kanďárová, P. Pôbiš
{"title":"医疗器械生物兼容性测试中的 \"三巨头\":实施动物实验的替代方法--我们做到了吗?","authors":"H. Kanďárová, P. Pôbiš","doi":"10.3389/ftox.2023.1337468","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Biocompatibility testing ensures the safety of medical devices by assessing their compatibility with biological systems and their potential to cause harm or adverse reactions. Thus, it is a critical part of the overall safety evaluation process for medical devices. Three primary types of biocompatibility tests—cytotoxicity, irritation, and sensitisation assessment—are standard for nearly all medical devices. However, additional biocompatibility tests, such as genotoxicity, systemic toxicity, hemocompatibility, and implantation studies, may also be necessary, depending on the device’s nature and intended use. The testing is partly conducted in vitro, but the industry still heavily relies on animal experiments. Compared to other industrial sectors, implementing alternatives in medical device biocompatibility testing has been notably slower. This delay can be attributed to the absence of specific validation processes tailored to medical devices and the resulting hesitation regarding the predictive capacity of these alternative methods despite their successful applications in other domains. This review focuses on the progress and obstacles to implementing new approach methodologies in the areas of cytotoxicity, irritation and sensitisation testing of medical devices. While challenges persist in adopting these innovative methods, the trend towards embracing alternatives remains robust. This trend is driven by technological advancements, ethical considerations, and growing industrial interest and support, all collectively contributing to advancing safer and more effective medical devices.","PeriodicalId":73111,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in toxicology","volume":"46 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The “Big Three” in biocompatibility testing of medical devices: implementation of alternatives to animal experimentation—are we there yet?\",\"authors\":\"H. Kanďárová, P. Pôbiš\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/ftox.2023.1337468\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Biocompatibility testing ensures the safety of medical devices by assessing their compatibility with biological systems and their potential to cause harm or adverse reactions. Thus, it is a critical part of the overall safety evaluation process for medical devices. Three primary types of biocompatibility tests—cytotoxicity, irritation, and sensitisation assessment—are standard for nearly all medical devices. However, additional biocompatibility tests, such as genotoxicity, systemic toxicity, hemocompatibility, and implantation studies, may also be necessary, depending on the device’s nature and intended use. The testing is partly conducted in vitro, but the industry still heavily relies on animal experiments. Compared to other industrial sectors, implementing alternatives in medical device biocompatibility testing has been notably slower. This delay can be attributed to the absence of specific validation processes tailored to medical devices and the resulting hesitation regarding the predictive capacity of these alternative methods despite their successful applications in other domains. This review focuses on the progress and obstacles to implementing new approach methodologies in the areas of cytotoxicity, irritation and sensitisation testing of medical devices. While challenges persist in adopting these innovative methods, the trend towards embracing alternatives remains robust. This trend is driven by technological advancements, ethical considerations, and growing industrial interest and support, all collectively contributing to advancing safer and more effective medical devices.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73111,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in toxicology\",\"volume\":\"46 7\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in toxicology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/ftox.2023.1337468\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"TOXICOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/ftox.2023.1337468","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"TOXICOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

生物兼容性测试通过评估医疗器械与生物系统的兼容性及其造成伤害或不良反应的可能性,确保医疗器械的安全性。因此,生物相容性测试是医疗器械整体安全评估流程的重要组成部分。生物兼容性测试主要有三种类型--细胞毒性、刺激性和致敏性评估--几乎是所有医疗器械的标准测试。不过,根据设备的性质和预期用途,可能还需要进行其他生物兼容性测试,如遗传毒性、全身毒性、血液兼容性和植入研究。这些测试部分在体外进行,但该行业仍然严重依赖动物实验。与其他工业部门相比,在医疗器械生物相容性测试中使用替代品的速度明显较慢。这种延迟可归因于缺乏专门针对医疗设备的特定验证流程,以及由此导致的对这些替代方法预测能力的犹豫不决,尽管它们在其他领域的应用非常成功。本综述重点关注在医疗器械细胞毒性、刺激性和致敏性测试领域实施新方法的进展和障碍。虽然在采用这些创新方法方面仍存在挑战,但采用替代方法的趋势依然强劲。这一趋势是由技术进步、伦理考虑以及日益增长的行业兴趣和支持所推动的,所有这些共同促进了更安全、更有效的医疗设备的发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The “Big Three” in biocompatibility testing of medical devices: implementation of alternatives to animal experimentation—are we there yet?
Biocompatibility testing ensures the safety of medical devices by assessing their compatibility with biological systems and their potential to cause harm or adverse reactions. Thus, it is a critical part of the overall safety evaluation process for medical devices. Three primary types of biocompatibility tests—cytotoxicity, irritation, and sensitisation assessment—are standard for nearly all medical devices. However, additional biocompatibility tests, such as genotoxicity, systemic toxicity, hemocompatibility, and implantation studies, may also be necessary, depending on the device’s nature and intended use. The testing is partly conducted in vitro, but the industry still heavily relies on animal experiments. Compared to other industrial sectors, implementing alternatives in medical device biocompatibility testing has been notably slower. This delay can be attributed to the absence of specific validation processes tailored to medical devices and the resulting hesitation regarding the predictive capacity of these alternative methods despite their successful applications in other domains. This review focuses on the progress and obstacles to implementing new approach methodologies in the areas of cytotoxicity, irritation and sensitisation testing of medical devices. While challenges persist in adopting these innovative methods, the trend towards embracing alternatives remains robust. This trend is driven by technological advancements, ethical considerations, and growing industrial interest and support, all collectively contributing to advancing safer and more effective medical devices.
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
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
Considering future qualification for regulatory science in the early development of microphysiological systems: a case study of microthrombosis in a Vessel-on-Chip. Protective effects of Pelargonium graveolens (geranium) oil against cefotaxime-induced hepato-renal toxicity in rats. The incorporation of MALDI mass spectrometry imaging in studies to identify markers of toxicity following in utero opioid exposures in mouse fetuses. In vitro toxicological evaluation of pouched portioned oral nicotine products. Heterogenous bioluminescence patterns, cell viability, and biofilm formation of Photobacterium leiognathi strains exposed to ground microplastics.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1