Cited by 121Probiotics and Fermented FoodsAgricultural safety and regulationsBiomedical Ethics and Regulation

Live Biotherapeutic Products, A Road Map for Safety Assessment

Open access
Rouanet, Alice, Bolca, Selin, Bru, Audrey, Claes, Ingmar, Cvejic, Helene, Girgis, Haymen, Harper, Ashton, Lavergne, Sidonie N. +23 more·2020·Frontiers in Medicine

Abstract

Recent developments in the understanding of the relationship between the microbiota and its host have provided evidence regarding the therapeutic potential of selected microorganisms to prevent or treat disease. According to Directive 2001/83/EC, in the European Union (EU), any product intended to prevent or treat disease is defined as a medicinal product and requires a marketing authorization by competent authorities prior to commercialization. Even if the pharmaceutical regulatory framework is harmonized at the EU level, obtaining marketing authorisations for medicinal products remains very challenging for Live Biotherapeutic Products (LBPs). Compared to other medicinal products currently on the market, safety assessment of LBPs represents a real challenge because of their specific characteristics and mode of action. Indeed, LBPs are not intended to reach the systemic circulation targeting distant organs, tissues, or receptors, but rather exert their effect through direct interactions with the complex native microbiota and/or the modulation of complex host-microbiota relation, indirectly leading to distant biological effects within the host. Hence, developers must rely on a thorough risk analysis, and pharmaceutical guidelines for other biological products should be taken into account in order to design relevant non-clinical and clinical development programmes. Here we aim at providing a roadmap for a risk analysis that takes into account the specificities of LBPs. We describe the different risks associated with these products and their interactions with the patient. Then, from that risk assessment, we propose solutions to design non-clinical programmes and First in Human (FIH) early clinical trials appropriate to assess LBP safety.

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 · 10.3389/fmed.2020.00237

Cites

74 of 74 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?

  • Regulatory requirements for characterization of antimicrobial resistance genes in probiotics and biopharmaceuticals are set out in documents from EFSA, FDA, and FAO/WHO.

    “Regulatory requirements for the characterization of antimicrobial resistance genes (AMR) in probiotics and biopharmaceuticals are set out in regulatory documents from regulatory bodies such as the EFSA, FDA, and FAO/WHO [34,124,125].”

    From Current Concepts in Probiotic Safety and Efficacy (2026) · cites this paper as [125]

    The Antimicrobial Resistance section (page unavailable) describes FDA guidance for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of live biotherapeutic products and recommends methods for identifying resistance genes. It also says the EFSA framework is not the right benchmark for evaluating sensitivity in patients. Our copy does not identify FAO/WHO documents setting requirements for characterizing resistance genes in probiotics or biopharmaceuticals. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The safety standard for dietary supplements requires that they be reasonably expected to be safe under the labeled conditions of use, but they do not need to be established as safe for more vulnerable patient populations.

    “This is important because while the safety standard for dietary supplements requires that they will reasonably expected to be safe under the labeled conditions of use, they do not need to be established as safe for more vulnerable patient populations.9”

    From Emerging issues in probiotic safety: 2023 perspectives (2023) · cites this paper as [9]

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: 1

  1. [38]Hindler JA CLSI Methods for Antimicrobial Dilution and Disk Susceptibility Testing of Infrequently Isolated or Fastidious Bacteria. 3rd ed CLSI supplement M45. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (2016). 17173232

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rouanet, A., Bolca, S., Bru, A., Claes, I., Cvejic, H., Girgis, H., Harper, A., Lavergne, S. N., Mathys, S., Pane, M., Pot, B., Shortt, C., Alkema, W., Bezulowsky, C., Blanquet-Diot, S., Chassard, C., Claus, S. P., Hadida, B., Hemmingsen, C., Jeune, C., Lindman, B., Midzi, G., Mogna, L., Movitz, C., Nasir, N., Oberreither, M., Seegers, J. F. M. L., Sterkman, L., Valo, A., Vieville, F., & Cordaillat-Simmons, M.
Affiliations
  • Lallemand (France) (FR)
  • Protexin (GB)
  • Institut Mérieux (France) (FR)
  • Probiotical (Italy) (IT)
  • Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE)
  • Johnson & Johnson (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Nederlands Instituut Voor Zuivel Oonderzoek (NL)
  • Ipsen (France) (FR)
  • Université Clermont Auvergne (FR)
  • Chr. Hansen (Denmark) (DK)
  • PiLeJe (France) (FR)
Venue
Frontiers in Medicine
Published
2020-06-19
Volume
7
Pages
237-237
ISSN
2296-858X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3036229416
Cited by
120
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 2
FWCI
8.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural safety and regulations
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Biomedical Ethics and Regulation
Keywords
live biotherapeutic products, safety assessment, risk analysis, host-microbiota interactions, microbiota-based therapy, drug approval, regulatory framework

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