From in vivo to in vitro

The medical device testing paradigm shift

Dayna Kerecman Myers, Alan Goldberg, Albrecht Poth, Michael F. Wolf, Joseph Carraway, James McKim, Kelly P. Coleman, Richard Hutchinson, Ronald Brown, Harald F. Krug, Anthony Bahinski, Thomas Hartung

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Amid growing efforts to advance the replacement, reduction, and refinement of the use of animals in research, there is a growing recognition that in vitro testing of medical devices can be more effective, both in terms of cost and time, and also more reliable than in vivo testing. Although the technological landscape has evolved rapidly in support of these concepts, regulatory acceptance of alternative testing methods has not kept pace. Despite the acceptance by regulators of some in vitro tests (cytotoxicity, gene toxicity, and some hemocompatibility assays), many toxicity tests still rely on animals (irritation, sensitization, acute toxicity, reproductive/developmental toxicity), even where other industrial sectors have already abandoned them. Bringing about change will require a paradigm shift in current approaches to testing - and a concerted effort to generate better data on risks to human health from exposure to leachable chemicals from medical devices, and to boost confidence in the use of alternative methods to test devices. To help advance these ideas, stir debate about best practices, and coalesce around a roadmap forward, the JHU-Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) hosted a symposium believed to be the first gathering dedicated to the topic of in vitro testing of medical devices. Industry representatives, academics, and regulators in attendance presented evidence to support the unique strengths and challenges associated with the approaches currently in use as well as new methods under development, and drew next steps to push the field forward from their presentations and discussion.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)479-500
Number of pages22
JournalAltex
Volume34
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2017

Fingerprint

Equipment and Supplies
Animal Testing Alternatives
Toxicity Tests
Practice Guidelines
Industry
Costs and Cost Analysis
In Vitro Techniques
Health
Genes

Keywords

  • In vitro testing
  • Nanotoxicology
  • Refinement
  • Skin sensitization
  • Threshold of toxicological concern (TTC)

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology
  • Medical Laboratory Technology

Cite this

From in vivo to in vitro : The medical device testing paradigm shift. / Myers, Dayna Kerecman; Goldberg, Alan; Poth, Albrecht; Wolf, Michael F.; Carraway, Joseph; McKim, James; Coleman, Kelly P.; Hutchinson, Richard; Brown, Ronald; Krug, Harald F.; Bahinski, Anthony; Hartung, Thomas.

In: Altex, Vol. 34, No. 4, 01.01.2017, p. 479-500.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Myers, DK, Goldberg, A, Poth, A, Wolf, MF, Carraway, J, McKim, J, Coleman, KP, Hutchinson, R, Brown, R, Krug, HF, Bahinski, A & Hartung, T 2017, 'From in vivo to in vitro: The medical device testing paradigm shift', Altex, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 479-500. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.1608081
Myers DK, Goldberg A, Poth A, Wolf MF, Carraway J, McKim J et al. From in vivo to in vitro: The medical device testing paradigm shift. Altex. 2017 Jan 1;34(4):479-500. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.1608081
Myers, Dayna Kerecman ; Goldberg, Alan ; Poth, Albrecht ; Wolf, Michael F. ; Carraway, Joseph ; McKim, James ; Coleman, Kelly P. ; Hutchinson, Richard ; Brown, Ronald ; Krug, Harald F. ; Bahinski, Anthony ; Hartung, Thomas. / From in vivo to in vitro : The medical device testing paradigm shift. In: Altex. 2017 ; Vol. 34, No. 4. pp. 479-500.
@article{c28040d414a44205aa2733f678e8a2ef,
title = "From in vivo to in vitro: The medical device testing paradigm shift",
abstract = "Amid growing efforts to advance the replacement, reduction, and refinement of the use of animals in research, there is a growing recognition that in vitro testing of medical devices can be more effective, both in terms of cost and time, and also more reliable than in vivo testing. Although the technological landscape has evolved rapidly in support of these concepts, regulatory acceptance of alternative testing methods has not kept pace. Despite the acceptance by regulators of some in vitro tests (cytotoxicity, gene toxicity, and some hemocompatibility assays), many toxicity tests still rely on animals (irritation, sensitization, acute toxicity, reproductive/developmental toxicity), even where other industrial sectors have already abandoned them. Bringing about change will require a paradigm shift in current approaches to testing - and a concerted effort to generate better data on risks to human health from exposure to leachable chemicals from medical devices, and to boost confidence in the use of alternative methods to test devices. To help advance these ideas, stir debate about best practices, and coalesce around a roadmap forward, the JHU-Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) hosted a symposium believed to be the first gathering dedicated to the topic of in vitro testing of medical devices. Industry representatives, academics, and regulators in attendance presented evidence to support the unique strengths and challenges associated with the approaches currently in use as well as new methods under development, and drew next steps to push the field forward from their presentations and discussion.",
keywords = "In vitro testing, Nanotoxicology, Refinement, Skin sensitization, Threshold of toxicological concern (TTC)",
author = "Myers, {Dayna Kerecman} and Alan Goldberg and Albrecht Poth and Wolf, {Michael F.} and Joseph Carraway and James McKim and Coleman, {Kelly P.} and Richard Hutchinson and Ronald Brown and Krug, {Harald F.} and Anthony Bahinski and Thomas Hartung",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.14573/altex.1608081",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "34",
pages = "479--500",
journal = "ALTEX : Alternativen zu Tierexperimenten",
issn = "1868-596X",
publisher = "Elsevier GmbH",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - From in vivo to in vitro

T2 - The medical device testing paradigm shift

AU - Myers, Dayna Kerecman

AU - Goldberg, Alan

AU - Poth, Albrecht

AU - Wolf, Michael F.

AU - Carraway, Joseph

AU - McKim, James

AU - Coleman, Kelly P.

AU - Hutchinson, Richard

AU - Brown, Ronald

AU - Krug, Harald F.

AU - Bahinski, Anthony

AU - Hartung, Thomas

PY - 2017/1/1

Y1 - 2017/1/1

N2 - Amid growing efforts to advance the replacement, reduction, and refinement of the use of animals in research, there is a growing recognition that in vitro testing of medical devices can be more effective, both in terms of cost and time, and also more reliable than in vivo testing. Although the technological landscape has evolved rapidly in support of these concepts, regulatory acceptance of alternative testing methods has not kept pace. Despite the acceptance by regulators of some in vitro tests (cytotoxicity, gene toxicity, and some hemocompatibility assays), many toxicity tests still rely on animals (irritation, sensitization, acute toxicity, reproductive/developmental toxicity), even where other industrial sectors have already abandoned them. Bringing about change will require a paradigm shift in current approaches to testing - and a concerted effort to generate better data on risks to human health from exposure to leachable chemicals from medical devices, and to boost confidence in the use of alternative methods to test devices. To help advance these ideas, stir debate about best practices, and coalesce around a roadmap forward, the JHU-Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) hosted a symposium believed to be the first gathering dedicated to the topic of in vitro testing of medical devices. Industry representatives, academics, and regulators in attendance presented evidence to support the unique strengths and challenges associated with the approaches currently in use as well as new methods under development, and drew next steps to push the field forward from their presentations and discussion.

AB - Amid growing efforts to advance the replacement, reduction, and refinement of the use of animals in research, there is a growing recognition that in vitro testing of medical devices can be more effective, both in terms of cost and time, and also more reliable than in vivo testing. Although the technological landscape has evolved rapidly in support of these concepts, regulatory acceptance of alternative testing methods has not kept pace. Despite the acceptance by regulators of some in vitro tests (cytotoxicity, gene toxicity, and some hemocompatibility assays), many toxicity tests still rely on animals (irritation, sensitization, acute toxicity, reproductive/developmental toxicity), even where other industrial sectors have already abandoned them. Bringing about change will require a paradigm shift in current approaches to testing - and a concerted effort to generate better data on risks to human health from exposure to leachable chemicals from medical devices, and to boost confidence in the use of alternative methods to test devices. To help advance these ideas, stir debate about best practices, and coalesce around a roadmap forward, the JHU-Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) hosted a symposium believed to be the first gathering dedicated to the topic of in vitro testing of medical devices. Industry representatives, academics, and regulators in attendance presented evidence to support the unique strengths and challenges associated with the approaches currently in use as well as new methods under development, and drew next steps to push the field forward from their presentations and discussion.

KW - In vitro testing

KW - Nanotoxicology

KW - Refinement

KW - Skin sensitization

KW - Threshold of toxicological concern (TTC)

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85035754439&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85035754439&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.14573/altex.1608081

DO - 10.14573/altex.1608081

M3 - Article

VL - 34

SP - 479

EP - 500

JO - ALTEX : Alternativen zu Tierexperimenten

JF - ALTEX : Alternativen zu Tierexperimenten

SN - 1868-596X

IS - 4

ER -