Cited by 59Animal testing and alternativesImmunotoxicology and immune responsesBiomedical Ethics and Regulation

An industry perspective on the FDA modernization act 2.0/3.0: potential next steps for sponsors to reduce animal use in drug development

Open access
Carratt, Sarah A, Zuch de Zafra, Christina L, Oziolor, Elias, Rana, Payal, Vansell, Nichole R, Mangipudy, Raja, Vaidya, Vishal S·2025·Toxicological Sciences

Abstract

Pharmaceutical developers are encouraged to adopt the best practices of being purposefully thoughtful about the use of animals, seeking alternatives wherever possible. They should engage with health authorities to increase their familiarity with the methods, study designs, data outputs, and the context of use for new approach methodologies (NAMs). Although current state of technology does not yet provide adequate models to fully replace in vivo studies, many models are sufficiently good for an augmented approach that will enhance our understanding of in vitro to in vivo correlations and advance the long-term goal of reducing animal use through innovative NAMs. The goal of future nonclinical safety packages is to advance the utilization of such enabling technologies toward appropriate human risk characterization. Establishing confidence in NAMs is a critical first step. For example, sponsors may include both “traditional” and NAM-based nonclinical safety data in regulatory submissions to establish confidence with health authorities. In addition, regulators should create a “safe harbor” for hybrid nonclinical data packages to facilitate iterative learning, refinement, and implementation of NAM-based safety assessment strategies. Sponsors are urged to contribute to NAMs evolution through consortia participation, peer-reviewed publications, and documenting animal reduction in studies/programs, accelerating the eventual elimination of animal use in pharmaceutical development, as envisioned in the FDA Modernization Act 3.0.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/toxsci/kfae122

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • This focus aligns with broader regulatory developments, as reflected in the FDA Modernization Act 2.0 and 3.0, which promote the adoption of Organ-On-Chip (OOC) platforms and other New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) as alternatives to traditional animal testing.

    “This focus aligns with broader regulatory developments, as reflected in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Modernization Act 2.0 and 3.0, which promote the adoption of Organ-On-Chip (OOC) platforms and other New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) as alternatives to traditional animal testing (Carratt et al., 2024; Zushin et al., 2023; Ahmed et al., 2023).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Carratt, S. A., Zuch de Zafra, C. L., Oziolor, E., Rana, P., Vansell, N. R., Mangipudy, R., & Vaidya, V. S.
Affiliations
  • Pfizer (United States) (US)
  • Drug Safety Research and Development, Pfizer Research and Development , San Francisco, CA 94080,
Corresponding author
Vaidya, Vishal S
Venue
Toxicological Sciences
Published
2024-09-19
Volume
203
Issue
1
Pages
28-34
ISSN
  • 1096-0929 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-6080
OpenAlex
W4402626359
Cited by
59
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 26
FWCI
32.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Toxicological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immunotoxicology and immune responses
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Biomedical Ethics and Regulation
Keywords
animal use reduction, new approach methodologies, nonclinical safety assessment, in vitro-in vivo correlation, regulatory submissions, alternatives to animal testing, drug development, regulatory science
MeSH terms
Drug Development, Animals, Animal Testing Alternatives, Drug Industry, Humans, United States, United States Food and Drug Administration

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review