Literature DB >> 21291376

Regulating nanomedicine - can the FDA handle it?

Raj Bawa1.   

Abstract

There is enormous excitement and expectation surrounding the multidisciplinary field of nanomedicine - the application of nanotechnology to healthcare - which is already influencing the pharmaceutical industry. This is especially true in the design, formulation and delivery of therapeutics. Currently, nanomedicine is poised at a critical stage. However, regulatory guidance in this area is generally lacking and critically needed to provide clarity and legal certainty to manufacturers, policymakers, healthcare providers as well as public. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of nanoproducts on the market for human use but little is known of their health risks, safety data and toxicity profiles. Less is known of nanoproducts that are released into the environment and that come in contact with humans. These nanoproducts, whether they are a drug, device, biologic or combination of any of these, are creating challenges for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as regulators struggle to accumulate data and formulate testing criteria to ensure development of safe and efficacious nanoproducts (products incorporating nanoscale technologies). Evidence continues to mount that many nanoproducts inherently posses novel size-based properties and toxicity profiles. Yet, this scientific fact has been generally ignored by the FDA and the agency continues to adopt a precautionary approach to the issue in hopes of countering future potential negative public opinion. As a result, the FDA has simply maintained the status quo with regard to its regulatory policies pertaining to nanomedicine. Therefore, there are no specific laws or mechanisms in place for oversight of nanomedicine and the FDA continues to treat nanoproducts as substantially equivalent ("bioequivalent") to their bulk counterparts. So, for now nanoproducts submitted for FDA review will continue to be subjected to an uncertain regulatory pathway. Such regulatory uncertainty could negatively impact venture funding, stifle nanomedicine research and development (R&D) and erode public acceptance of nanoproducts. The end-result of this could be a delay or loss of commercialized nanoproducts. Whether the FDA eventually creates new regulations, tweaks existing ones or establishes a new regulatory center to handle nanoproducts, for the time being it should at least look at nanoproducts on a case-by-case basis. The FDA should not attempt regulation of nanomedicine by applying existing statutes alone, especially where scientific evidence suggests otherwise. Incorporating nanomedicine regulation into the current regulatory scheme is a poor idea. Regulation of nanomedicine must balance innovation and R&D with the principle of ensuring maximum public health protection and safety.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21291376     DOI: 10.2174/156720111795256156

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Drug Deliv        ISSN: 1567-2018            Impact factor:   2.565


  26 in total

Review 1.  Nanomedicines for chronic non-infectious arthritis: the clinician's perspective.

Authors:  Israel Rubinstein; Guy L Weinberg
Journal:  Nanomedicine       Date:  2012-05-26       Impact factor: 5.307

2.  Rethinking risk assessment for emerging technology first-in-human trials.

Authors:  Anna Genske; Sabrina Engel-Glatter
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2016-03

3.  The nanomedicine revolution: part 3: regulatory and safety challenges.

Authors:  C Lee Ventola
Journal:  P T       Date:  2012-11

4.  The nanomedicine revolution: part 2: current and future clinical applications.

Authors:  C Lee Ventola
Journal:  P T       Date:  2012-10

5.  The nanomedicine revolution: part 1: emerging concepts.

Authors:  C Lee Ventola
Journal:  P T       Date:  2012-09

6.  Neuroprotective Effect of New Nanochelating-Based Nano Complex, ALZc3, Against Aβ (1-42)-Induced Toxicity in Rat: a Comparison with Memantine.

Authors:  Ramin Karimi-Sales; Mehrafarin Ashiri; Maryam Hafizi; Somayeh Kalanaky; Amir Hossein Maghsoudi; Saideh Fakharzadeh; Nader Maghsoudi; Mohammad Hassan Nazaran
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2020-02-04       Impact factor: 4.200

Review 7.  Assessing the barriers to image-guided drug delivery.

Authors:  Gregory M Lanza; Chrit Moonen; James R Baker; Esther Chang; Zheng Cheng; Piotr Grodzinski; Katherine Ferrara; Kullervo Hynynen; Gary Kelloff; Yong-Eun Koo Lee; Anil K Patri; David Sept; Jan E Schnitzer; Bradford J Wood; Miqin Zhang; Gang Zheng; Keyvan Farahani
Journal:  Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol       Date:  2013-10-31

8.  Fucosylated multiwalled carbon nanotubes for Kupffer cells targeting for the treatment of cytokine-induced liver damage.

Authors:  Richa Gupta; Neelesh Kumar Mehra; Narendra Kumar Jain
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2013-09-17       Impact factor: 4.200

9.  Designing Oversight for Nanomedicine Research in Human Subjects: Systematic Analysis of Exceptional Oversight for Emerging Technologies.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf; Cortney Jones
Journal:  J Nanopart Res       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 2.253

10.  The implantable and biodegradable PHBHHx 3D scaffolds loaded with protein-phospholipid complex for sustained delivery of proteins.

Authors:  Qiang Peng; Yong-Jie Yang; Ting Zhang; Cheng-Yu Wu; Qin Yang; Xun Sun; Tao Gong; Ling Zhang; Zhi-Rong Zhang
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2012-12-07       Impact factor: 4.200

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.