Reviewing the regulatory barriers for nanomedicine: global questions and challenges

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: •• of considerable interest

References

• 1 Fleming A. The discovery of penicillin. Br. Med. Bull. 2(1), 4–5 (1944).Crossref, Google Scholar
• 2 Drews J. Drug discovery: a historical perspective. Science 287(5460), 1960–1964 (2000).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
• 3 Croft S, Coombs G. Leishmaniasis – current chemotherapy and recent advances in the search for novel drugs. Trends Parasitol. 19(11), 502–508 (2003).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
• 4 Rees J. Complex disease and the new clinical sciences. Science 296(5568), 698–700 (2002).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
• 5 Collins F. The Language of Life: DNA and the Revolution in Personalized Medicine. Profile Books, NY, USA (2010).Google Scholar
• 6 Schweitzer S. Pharmaceutical Economics Policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (2006).Google Scholar
• 7 Friends of the Earth. Nanomaterials, Sunscreens and Cosmetics: Small Ingredients, Big Risks. Friends of the Earth, Melbourne, Australia (2006).Google Scholar
• 8 Chaudhry Q, Scotter M, Blackburn J et al. Applications and implications of nanotechnologies for the food sector. Food Add. Contam. 25(3), 241–258 (2008).Crossref, CAS, Google Scholar
• 9 Chaudhry Q. Nanotechnology for food applications: current status and consumer safety concerns. Presented at: AAAS Annual Meeting. IL, USA, 16 February 2009.Google Scholar
• 10 Bowman DM, Calster GV, Friedrichs S. Nanomaterials and regulation of cosmetics. Nat. Nanotechnol. 5(2), 92 (2010).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
• 11 Lenzer J. FDA is incapable of protecting us against anotherVioxx. BMJ 329(7477), 1253 (2004).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
• 12 Horton R. Vioxx, the implosion of merck, and aftershocks at the FDA. Lancet 364(9450), 1995–1996 (2004).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
• 13 Horton R. Offline: a serious regulatory failure, with urgent implications. Lancet 379(9811), 106 (2012).Crossref, Google Scholar
• 14 European Science Foundation. ESF Forward Look on Nanomedicine. ESF, Brussels, Belgium (2005).•• Provides one of the earliest, and most comprehensive reviews of nanomedicine.Google Scholar
• 15 European Medicines Agency. Reflection Paper on Nanotechnology-Based Medicinal Froducts for Human Use. EMA, Brussels, Belgium (2006).•• Provides insights into how regulatory agencies are thinking about nanomedicines, and the key priorities from a regulatory perspective.Google Scholar
• 16 European Technology Platform. Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology for Health. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium (2006).•• Examines the impact that nanomedicine is likely to have across care processes, disease areas and healthcare needs, as well as the broader societal and ethical issues associated with the field.Google Scholar
• 17 Wagner V, Dullaart A, Bock AK, Zweck A. The emerging nanomedicine landscape. Nat. Biotechnol. 24(10), 1211–1217 (2006).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
• 18 Farokhzad OC, Langer R. Nanomedicine: developing smarter therapeutic and diagnostic modalities. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 58(14), 1456–1459 (2006).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
• 19 Riehemann K, Schneider SW, Luger TA, Godin B, Ferrari M, Fuchs H. Nanomedicine – challenge and perspectives. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 48(5), 872–897 (2009).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
• 20 Barenholz Y. Doxil – the first FDA-approved nano-drug: lessons learned. J. Control. Release 160(2), 117–134 (2012).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
• 21 Etheridge M, Campbell S, Erdman A, Haynes C, Wolf S, Mccullough J. The big picture of nanomedicine: the state of investigational and approved nanomedicine products. Nanomedicine 9(1), 1–14 (2013).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
• 22 Tinkle S, McNeil SE, Mühlebach S et al. Nanomedicines: addressing the scientific and regulatory gap. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1313(1), 35–56 (2014).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
• 23 NanoFUSE® DBM. www.nanotherapeutics.com/nanofuse-dbm2/.Google Scholar
• 24 Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineers. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties (2004).•• Landmark report that examined the potential scientific, societal and regulatory benefits and risks of nanotechnology products and processes across all domains.Google Scholar
• 25 HM Government. Response to the royal society and royal academy of engineering report: ‘nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties’ (2005).Google Scholar
• 26 Ludlow K, Bowman DM, Hodge GA. Review of possible impacts of nanotechnology on Australia's regulatory framework (2007).Google Scholar
• 27 Bowman DM, Hodge GA. A small matter of regulation: an international review of nanotechnology regulation. Columbia Sci. Technol. Law Rev. 8(1), (2007).Google Scholar
• 28 MHRA. How we regulate nanotechnology. (March 9, 2014).Google Scholar
• 29 Committee on Human Medicines. The toxicology of nanoparticles used in healthcare products (2006).Google Scholar
• 30 European Medicines Agency. Reflection paper on nanotechnology-based medicinal products for human use (2006).Google Scholar
• 31 FDA Nanotechnology Task Force. Nanotechnology: a report of the (US) Food and Drug Administration (2007).Google Scholar
• 32 Taylor MR. Regulating the products of nanotechnology: Does the FDA have the tools it needs? (2006).•• Provides an in-depth critique of the US regulatory system for drugs and foods and their applicability to nanotechnologies.Google Scholar
• 33 Centre for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Guidance for industry: safety of nanomaterials in cosmetic products – draft guidance (2012).Google Scholar
• 34 Centre for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Guidance for industry: assessing the effects of significant manufacturing process changes, including emerging technologies, on the safety and regulatory status of food ingredients and food contact substances, including food ingredients that are colour additives – draft guidance (2012).Google Scholar
• 35 Faunce T, Murray K, Nasu H, Bowman D. Sunscreen safety: the precautionary principle, the australian therapeutic goods administration and nanoparticles in sunscreens. Nanoethics 2(3), 231–240 (2008).Crossref, Google Scholar
• 36 Therapeutic GoodsAdmnistration. Safety of sunscreens containing nanoparticles of zinc oxide or titanium dioxide. Department Health Ageing (2006).Google Scholar
• 37 Therapeutic GoodsAdmnistration. Literature review on the safety of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide on nanoparticles in sunscreens. Department Health Ageing (2013).Google Scholar
• 38 European Commission. Accompanying document to the communication from the commission to the parliament, the council and the european economic and social committee-regulatory aspects of nanomaterials. In-depth review of the effectiviness of the EU's regulatory regimes for addressing nanotechnologies (2008).Google Scholar
• 39 European Commission. Communication on regulation aspects of nanomaterials. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium (2008).Google Scholar
• 40 European Commission. Second regulatory review on nanomaterials. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium (2012).Google Scholar
• 41 European Medicines Agency. Non-clinical studies for generic nanoparticle iron medicinal products applications (2011).Google Scholar
• 42 European Medicines Agency. Data requirements for intravenous liposomal products developed with reference to an innovator liposomal product (2013).Google Scholar
• 43 European Medicines Agency. Surface coatings: general issues for consideration regarding parental administration of coated nanomedicine products (2013).Google Scholar
• 44 European Medicines Agency. Data requirements for intravenous iron-based nano-colloidal products developed with reference to an innovator medicinal product (2013).Google Scholar
• 45 European Medicines Agency. Development of block-copoloymer-micelle medicinal products (2014).Google Scholar
• 46 Ehmann F, Sakai-Kato K, Duncan R et al. Next-generation nanomedicines and nanosimilars: Eu regulators’ initiatives relating to the development and evaluation of nanomedicines. Nanomedicine 8(5), 849–856 (2013).Link, CAS, Google Scholar
• 47 Bind Therapeutics. http://bindtherapeutics.com/technology/accurins.html.Google Scholar
• 48 Kalarx. http://kalarx.com/about-us/overview/.Google Scholar
• 49 Linkov I, Satterstrom K, Corey L. Nanotoxicology and nanomedicine: making hard decisions. Nanomedicine 4, 167–171 (2008).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
• 50 Fadel TF, Steevens JA, Thomas TA, Linkov I. Managing nanotechnology risk management. Nano Today (2015) (Epub ahead of print).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
• 51 Oberdörster G. Safety assessment for nanotechnology and nanomedicine: concepts of nanotoxicology. J. Intern. Med. 267, 89–105 (2009).Crossref, Google Scholar
• 52 Nanomarkets. The impact of nanotechnology in drug delivery: global developments, market analysis and future prospects. Market Res. Reports Nanomarkets. www.pharmamanufacturing.com/whitepapers/2007/044/.Google Scholar
• 53 Miller J. Beyond biotechnology: FDA regulation of nanomedicine. Columbia Sci. Technol. Law Rev. IV, (2003).Google Scholar
• 54 Jain K, Kesharwani P, Gupta U, Jain NK. Dendrimer toxicity: let's meet the challenge. Int. J. Pharmaceut. 394(1), 122–142 (2010).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
• 55 Nijihara R, Balakrishnan K. Bringing nanomedicines to market: regulatory challenges, opportunities, and uncertainties. Nanomedicine 2, 127–136 (2006).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
• 56 Mehta MD. The future of nanomedicine looks promising, but only if we learn from the past. Health Law Rev. 13(1), 16–18 (2004).Medline, Google Scholar
• 57 Cormick C. Why do we need to know what the public thinks about nanotechnology? Nano Ethics 3(2), 167–173 (2009).Google Scholar
• 58 Gupta N, Fischer ARH, Frewer LJ. Ethics, risk and benefits associated with different applications of nanotechnology: a comparison of expert and consumer perceptions of drivers of societal acceptance. Nano Ethics 9(2), 1–16 (2015).Google Scholar
• 59 Gaspar RS. Therapeutic products: regulating drugs and medical devices. In: International Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, 291–320 (2010).•• One of the most comprehensive reviews of how current regulatory regimes for therapeutics will address the challenges posed by nanomedicine.Crossref, Google Scholar
• 60 Ohno Y. Ich guidelines – implementation of the 3Rs (refinement, reduction, and replacement): incorporating best scientific practices into the regulatory process. ILAR J. 43(Suppl. 1), S95–S98 (2002).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
• 61 Branch SK. Guidelines from the international conference on harmonisation (ich). J. Pharmaceut. Biomed. Anal. 38(5), 798–805 (2005).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
• 62 OECD. Six years of OECD work on the safety of manufactured nanomaterials: achievements and future opportunities (2012).Google Scholar
• 63 Sylvester D, Bowman DM. Navigating the patent landscapes for nanotechnology: English gardens or tangled grounds? Methods Mol. Biol. 726, 359–78 (2011).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
• 64 Bawa R, Bawa SR, Maebius S, Flynn T, Wei C. Protecting new ideas and inventions in nanomedicine with patents. Nanomedicine 1, 150–158 (2005).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar