Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32266791›Full record

ReviewWiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology2020

Nonclinical regulatory immunotoxicity testing of nanomedicinal products: Proposed strategy and possible pitfalls.

Christina Giannakou, Margriet V D Z Park, Irene E M Bosselaers, Wim H de Jong, Jan Willem van der Laan, Henk van Loveren, Rob J Vandebriel, Robert E Geertsma

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Recent advances and future challenges in nanosystems for ocular drug delivery.The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics · 2025
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Limitations ofNanomedicine (London, England) · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Revision of ICH S8 Needed?Frontiers in toxicology · 2022
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Christina GiannakouTriskelion B.V., Zeist, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5204-795X
Margriet V D Z ParkRIVM, Bilthoven, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6158-8026
Irene E M BosselaersCBG-MEB, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7598-0208
Wim H de JongRIVM, Bilthoven, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4956-3141
Jan Willem van der LaanCBG-MEB, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2963-6136
Henk van LoverenDepartment of Toxicogenomics, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1805-6198
Rob J VandebrielRIVM, Bilthoven, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9140-952X
Robert E GeertsmaRIVM, Bilthoven, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Various nanomedicinal products (NMPs) have been reported to induce an adverse immune response, which may be related to their tendency to accumulate in or target cells of the immune system. Therefore, before their market authorization, NMPs should be thoroughly evaluated for their immunotoxic potential. Nonclinical regulatory immunotoxicity testing of nonbiological medicinal products, including NMPs, is currently performed by following the guideline S8 "Immunotoxicity Studies for Human Pharmaceuticals" of the International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). However, this guideline does not cover all the immunotoxicity endpoints reported for NMPs in the literature, such as complement activation related pseudo allergy, hypersensitivity and immunosuppression. In addition, ICH-S8 does not provide any nanospecific testing considerations, which is important given their tendency to interfere with many commonly used toxicity assays. We therefore propose a nonclinical regulatory immunotoxicity assessment strategy, which considers the immunotoxicity endpoints currently missing in the ICH-S8. We also list the known pitfalls related to the testing of NMPs and how to tackle them. Next to defining the relevant physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties of the NMP and its intended use, the proposed strategy includes an in vitro assay battery addressing various relevant immunotoxicity endpoints. A weight of evidence evaluation of this information can be used to shape the type and design of further in vivo investigations. The final outcome of the immunotoxicity assessment can be included in the overall risk assessment of the NMP and provide alerts for relevant endpoints to address during clinical investigation. This article is categorized under: Toxicology and Regulatory Issues in Nanomedicine > Regulatory and Policy Issues in Nanomedicine Toxicology and Regulatory Issues in Nanomedicine > Toxicology of Nanomaterials.

Indexed as

Immune SystemNanomedicineNanostructuresHumansRisk AssessmentToxicity TestsToxicologyICH-S8immunotoxicityin vitronanomedicinal productregulatory

Identifiers

PMID32266791
PMCPMC7507198

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.