ReviewWiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology2020
Nonclinical regulatory immunotoxicity testing of nanomedicinal products: Proposed strategy and possible pitfalls.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Macrophage immunometabolic reprogramming in inflammatory repair failure in osteonecrosis of the femoral head.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2026Review
- Advances in improving cancer immunotherapy with nanotechnology: from smart nanoparticles to synergistic combination strategies.Molecular cancer · 2026Review
- From Polyphenols to Prodrugs: Bridging the Blood-Brain Barrier with Nanomedicine and Neurotherapeutics.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Metalloprotein-Based Nanomedicines: Design Strategies, Functional Mechanisms, and Biomedical Applications.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Advances in Nanotechnology-Based Immunomodulatory Strategies for the Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
- Nanomedicine in Ovarian Cancer: Advances in Imaging, Targeted Delivery, and Theranostic Therapeutic Platforms.Cancers · 2025Review
- Recent advances and future challenges in nanosystems for ocular drug delivery.The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics · 2025Review
- Cracking the Blood-Brain Barrier Code: Rational Nanomaterial Design for Next-Generation Neurological Therapies.Pharmaceutics · 2025Review
- Unravelling the complexity of CARPA: a review of emerging advancements in therapeutic strategies.Archives of dermatological research · 2025Review
- Safe nanomaterials: from their use, application, and disposal to regulations.Nanoscale advances · 2024Review
- Limitations ofNanomedicine (London, England) · 2024Article
- Bioinspired Hierarchical Carbon Structures as Potential Scaffolds for Wound Healing and Tissue Regeneration Applications.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Regulatory safety evaluation of nanomedical products: key issues to refine.Drug delivery and translational research · 2022Article
- The Hitchhiker's Guide to Human Therapeutic Nanoparticle Development.Pharmaceutics · 2022Review
- Revision of ICH S8 Needed?Frontiers in toxicology · 2022Article
- Methodological needs in the quality and safety characterisation of nanotechnology-based health products: Priorities for method development and standardisation.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2021Review
- Nonclinical regulatory immunotoxicity testing of nanomedicinal products: Proposed strategy and possible pitfalls.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.