Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40316753›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Drug discovery2025

Application of new approach methodologies for nonclinical safety assessment of drug candidates.

Mario Beilmann, Karissa Adkins, Harrie C M Boonen, Philip Hewitt, Wenyue Hu, Robert Mader, Susanne Moore, Payal Rana, Thomas Steger-Hartmann, Remi Villenave and 1 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Drug discovery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Organoids-on-a-Chip: An Integrating New Technology for Drug Development.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Review
  10. Discovery of novel anti-RSC advances · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

11 authors.

Mario BeilmannGlobal Nonclinical Safety & DMPK, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Biberach an der Riss, Germany. mario.beilmann@boehringer-ingelheim.com.ORCID 0000-0001-5484-6405
Karissa AdkinsSanofi US, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Harrie C M BoonenNon-Clinical Safety Research, H. Lundbeck A/S, Valby, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-2713-7106
Philip HewittChemical and Preclinical Safety, Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2741-3409
Wenyue HuVividion Therapeutics, San Diego, CA, USA.ORCID 0009-0000-8063-4190
Robert MaderRoche Pharma Research and Early Development, Roche Innovation Center Basel, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0009-0002-4658-7874
Susanne MooreNonclinical Safety Projects, GSK, Stevenage, UK.
Payal RanaDrug Safety R&D, Pfizer Inc., Groton, CT, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7147-4711
Thomas Steger-HartmannResearch & Development, Pharmaceuticals, Preclinical Development, Bayer AG, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4258-3008
Remi VillenaveRoche Pharma Research and Early Development, Roche Innovation Center Basel, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland.
Terry van VleetPreclinical Safety, AbbVie, Chicago, IL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The development of new approach methodologies (NAMs) and advances with in vitro testing systems have prompted revisions in regulatory guidelines and inspired dedicated in vitro/ex vivo studies for nonclinical safety assessment. This Review by a safety reflection initiative subgroup of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA)/Preclinical Development Expert Group (PDEG) summarizes the current state and potential application of in vitro studies using human-derived material for safety assessment in drug development. It focuses on case studies from recent projects in which animal models alone proved to be limited or inadequate for safety testing. It further highlights four categories of drug candidates for which alternative in vitro approaches are applicable and discusses progress in using in vitro testing solutions for safety assessment in these categories. Finally, the article highlights new risk assessment strategies, initiatives and consortia promoting the advancement of NAMs. This collective work is meant to encourage the use of NAMs for more human-relevant safety assessment, which should ultimately result in reduced animal testing for drug development.

Indexed as

Drug DevelopmentDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsAnimalsDrug Evaluation, PreclinicalDrug IndustryHumansRisk AssessmentToxicity Tests

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.