Cited by 25Nanoparticle-Based Drug DeliveryNanotechnology research and applicationsDrug Solubulity and Delivery Systems

Summary report of PQRI workshop on nanomaterial in drug products: current experience and management of potential risks

Open access
Bartlett, Jeremy A., Brewster, Marcus, Brown, Paul, Cabral-Lilly, Donna, Cruz, Celia N., David, Raymond, Eickhoff, W. Mark, Haubenreisser, Sabine +14 more·2015·The AAPS Journal

Abstract

At the Product Quality Research Institute (PQRI) Workshop held last January 14-15, 2014, participants from academia, industry, and governmental agencies involved in the development and regulation of nanomedicines discussed the current state of characterization, formulation development, manufacturing, and nonclinical safety evaluation of nanomaterial-containing drug products for human use. The workshop discussions identified areas where additional understanding of material attributes, absorption, biodistribution, cellular and tissue uptake, and disposition of nanosized particles would continue to inform their safe use in drug products. Analytical techniques and methods used for in vitro characterization and stability testing of formulations containing nanomaterials were discussed, along with their advantages and limitations. Areas where additional regulatory guidance and material characterization standards would help in the development and approval of nanomedicines were explored. Representatives from the US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA), Health Canada, and European Medicines Agency (EMA) presented information about the diversity of nanomaterials in approved and newly developed drug products. USFDA, Health Canada, and EMA regulators discussed the applicability of current regulatory policies in presentations and open discussion. Information contained in several of the recent EMA reflection papers was discussed in detail, along with their scope and intent to enhance scientific understanding about disposition, efficacy, and safety of nanomaterials introduced in vivo and regulatory requirements for testing and market authorization. Opportunities for interaction with regulatory agencies during the lifecycle of nanomedicines were also addressed at the meeting. This is a summary of the workshop presentations and discussions, including considerations for future regulatory guidance on drug products containing nanomaterials.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1208/s12248-014-9701-9

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The high complexity of nanoscale drugs can make complete physicochemical characterization a significant challenge, especially for follow-on or generic formulations.

    “This high degree of complexity can make complete physicochemical characterization a significant challenge, especially for follow-on or generic formulations, which has also been addressed at different levels both by the NCL (USA) and European Pharmacopoeia [293, 299]”

    From Polymeric micelles for the delivery of poorly soluble drugs: From nanoformulation to clinical approval. (2020) · cites this paper as [299]

    The Session II characterization discussion says that nanodrug diversity makes characterization complex and that there is debate about how to characterize nanomaterials fully. The discussion of follow-on “nanosimilars” says they require stepwise comparability studies, but does not say that complete physicochemical characterization is especially challenging for them. The supplied passages have no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A nanosimilar formulation must show comparable character at each step and cannot rely on in vitro or preclinical animal model data alone, making some level of clinical evaluation necessary.

    “The nanosimilar formulation must show comparable character at each step of the process and cannot rely on in vitro or preclinical animal model data alone, making a case for having some level of clinical evaluation to be necessary for nanosimilars.”

    From Polymeric micelles for the delivery of poorly soluble drugs: From nanoformulation to clinical approval. (2020) · cites this paper as [299]

    The section on the EMA’s evaluation of nanosimilars says that demonstrating similarity in quality, safety, and efficacy requires stepwise comparability studies. It does not say that in vitro and preclinical animal data are necessarily insufficient or that clinical evaluation is required for nanosimilars. The “Versus Development Timeline” section describes exploratory human trials in some cases, but not as a requirement for nanosimilars; page numbers were unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The EMA has developed a stepwise nanosimilar approval route including in vitro quality assessments, preclinical biodistribution, clinical PK, and therapeutic equivalence.

    “For the approval of nanosimilars, the EMA follows a stepwise approach [293, 299] which includes in vitro quality assessments, pre-clinical biodistribution, clinical PK, and then therapeutic equivalence.”

    From Polymeric micelles for the delivery of poorly soluble drugs: From nanoformulation to clinical approval. (2020) · cites this paper as [299]

    The section on EMA regulation of nanosimilars (page unavailable) says that demonstrating similarity in quality, safety, and efficacy requires stepwise comparability studies. It does not specify the claimed sequence of in vitro quality assessment, preclinical biodistribution, clinical PK, and therapeutic equivalence, or describe it as a developed approval route. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [1]1. PQRI Workshop: Nanomaterial in Drug Products Current Experience and Risk Management. January 14-15, 2014, USP Meeting Center, Rockville, MD. Final Program Agenda at: http://www.pqri.org/work- shops/Nanomaterials2013/Final.Program.Agenda.pdf. Accessed 21 Aug 2014.
  2. [64]64. Zamboni WC, Yoshino K. Formulation and physiologic factors affecting the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of lipo- somal agents. Drug Deliv Syst. 2010;25(1):58-70.
  3. [65]65. Caron WP, Song G, Kumar P, Rawal S, Zamboni WC. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic disposition of carrier- mediated agents. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012;91(5):802-12.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bartlett, J. A., Brewster, M., Brown, P., Cabral-Lilly, D., Cruz, C. N., David, R., Eickhoff, W. M., Haubenreisser, S., Jacobs, A., Malinoski, F., Morefield, E., Nalubola, R., Prud’homme, R. K., Sadrieh, N., Sayes, C. M., Shahbazian, H., Subbarao, N., Tamarkin, L., Tyner, K., Uppoor, R., Whittaker-Caulk, M., & Zamboni, W.
Affiliations
  • Pfizer (United States) (US)
  • Janssen (Belgium) (BE)
  • United States Food and Drug Administration (US)
  • BASF (United States) (US)
  • Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (United States) (US)
  • European Medicines Agency (NL)
  • Vertex Pharmaceuticals (United States) (US)
  • Princeton University (US)
  • Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (US)
  • RTI International (US)
  • Health Canada (CA)
  • CytImmune (United States) (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Cruz, Celia N.
Venue
The AAPS Journal
Published
2014-11-25
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
44-64
ISSN
1550-7416 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2041870189
Cited by
25
References
65
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1
FWCI
1.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • The AAPS Journal (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
  • University of Pennsylvania
  • U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Biomaterials › Nanoparticle-Based Drug Delivery
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Nanotechnology research and applications
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmaceutical Science › Drug Solubulity and Delivery Systems
Keywords
nanomedicine, nanomedicine regulation, nonclinical safety evaluation, nanomaterial characterization, regulatory guidelines, Health Canada, European Medicines Agency, nanomaterial manufacturing
MeSH terms
Animals, Chemistry, Pharmaceutical, Drug and Narcotic Control, Pharmaceutical Preparations, Humans, Tissue Distribution, Drug Design, Drug Approval, Nanostructures, Nanoparticles

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