Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41231273›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of toxicology

FDA/CDER/OND Experience With New Approach Methodologies (NAMs).

Jia Yao, Jackye Peretz, Ilona Bebenek, Amy Avila, Tessie Alapatt, Bo Lee, Dakshesh Patel, Paul Brown, Karen Davis-Bruno

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of toxicology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Detecting drug-induced nephrotoxicity using simultaneous label-free autofluorescence multiharmonic microscopy.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

9 authors.

Jia YaoCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA.
Jackye PeretzCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA.ORCID 0009-0009-8822-4386
Ilona BebenekCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA.
Amy AvilaCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA.
Tessie AlapattCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA.
Bo LeeCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA.
Dakshesh PatelCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA.
Paul BrownCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2295-4345
Karen Davis-BrunoCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA.

Funding

Intramural FDA HHS FD999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), and Office of New Drugs (OND) has continuously encouraged the submission of nonclinical tests utilizing new approach methodologies (NAMs) and sponsor engagement with regulators to optimize NAM utility in supporting the safety and efficacy of new drugs. Previously, we published an FDA/CDER perspective on nonclinical testing strategies, discussed the opportunities and challenges of using NAMs to replace, reduce, and refine animal testing in drug development, and reported gaps and challenges underserved by existing nonclinical testing approaches that CDER Pharmacology/Toxicology reviewers face. Here, we demonstrate how FDA/CDER has historically incorporated NAMs into standard nonclinical assessments, describing how specific tests became validated and internationally accepted alternatives to animal testing for regulatory decision-making. We also provide a CDER/OND Pharmacology/Toxicology reviewer perspective on NAMs submitted to support new drug development, in an effort to provide insight into our experience with NAMs submitted for CDER-regulated products. Furthermore, we provide a CDER/OND Pharmacology/Toxicology reviewer perspective on the future of NAM incorporation into nonclinical development programs for new drugs as scientific technology continues to evolve. Ultimately, we hope that by sharing the FDA/CDER/OND experience with NAMs thus far and providing considerations for refining NAM submissions, we will (1) illustrate our scientific approach to evaluating NAM submissions, (2) reiterate FDA/CDER's steadfast commitment to the 3Rs, and (3) foster confidence in our continued efforts to encourage nonclinical test NAM submissions for regulatory decision-making, while maintaining our mission to protect public health and patients from unintended harm.

Indexed as

Animal Testing AlternativesDrug DevelopmentToxicity TestsAnimalsDrug ApprovalDrug Evaluation, PreclinicalHumansUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationFDA/CDER/ONDinnovative drug developmentin vivo nonhuman testnew approach methodologies (NAMs)nonclinical testpharmacology/toxicology

Identifiers

PMID41231273
PMCPMC12666506

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.