Biomed Instrum Technol. 2021 May 1;55(2):69-84. doi: 10.2345/0899-8205-55.2.69.
To ensure patient safety, medical device manufacturers are required by the Food and Drug Administration and other regulatory bodies to perform biocompatibility evaluations on their devices per standards, such as the AAMI-approved ISO 10993-1:2018 (ANSI/AAMI/ISO 10993-1:2018).However, some of these biological tests (e.g., systemic toxicity studies) have long lead times and are costly, which may hinder the release of new medical devices. In recent years, an alternative method using a risk-based approach for evaluating the toxicity (or biocompatibility) profile of chemicals and materials used in medical devices has become more mainstream. This approach is used as a complement to or substitute for traditional testing methods (e.g., systemic toxicity endpoints). Regardless of the approach, the one test still used routinely in initial screening is the cytotoxicity test, which is based on an in vitro cell culture system to evaluate potential biocompatibility effects of the final finished form of a medical device. However, it is known that this sensitive test is not always compatible with specific materials and can lead to failing cytotoxicity scores and an incorrect assumption of potential biological or toxicological adverse effects. This article discusses the common culprits of in vitro cytotoxicity failures, as well as describes the regulatory-approved methodology for cytotoxicity testing and the approach of using toxicological risk assessment to address clinical relevance of cytotoxicity failures for medical devices. Further, discrepancies among test results from in vitro tests, use of published half-maximal inhibitory concentration data, and the derivation of their relationship to tolerable exposure limits, reference doses, or no observed adverse effect levels are highlighted to demonstrate that although cytotoxicity tests in general are regarded as a useful sensitive screening assays, specific medical device materials are not compatible with these cellular/in vitro systems. For these cases, the results should be analyzed using more clinically relevant approaches (e.g., through chemical analysis or written risk assessment).
为确保患者安全,食品和药物管理局(FDA)和其他监管机构要求医疗器械制造商按照标准(例如,经 AAMI 批准的 ISO 10993-1:2018(ANSI/AAMI/ISO 10993-1:2018))对其设备进行生物相容性评估。然而,这些生物学测试中的一些(例如,全身毒性研究)具有较长的前置时间且成本高昂,这可能会阻碍新医疗器械的发布。近年来,一种替代方法是使用基于风险的方法来评估医疗器械中使用的化学物质和材料的毒性(或生物相容性)特征,这种方法已变得更加主流。这种方法可作为传统测试方法(例如,全身毒性终点)的补充或替代方法。无论采用哪种方法,在初始筛选中仍常规使用的一种测试方法仍然是细胞毒性测试,该测试基于体外细胞培养系统来评估医疗器械最终成品形式的潜在生物相容性影响。但是,已知这种敏感测试并不总是与特定材料兼容,并且可能导致细胞毒性评分失败以及对潜在生物学或毒理学不良影响的错误假设。本文讨论了体外细胞毒性失败的常见原因,并描述了细胞毒性测试的法规批准方法以及使用毒理学风险评估来解决医疗器械细胞毒性失败的临床相关性的方法。此外,还强调了体外测试结果之间的差异、使用已发表的半最大抑制浓度数据以及推导其与可耐受暴露限值、参考剂量或无观察到不良效应水平的关系,以证明尽管一般来说,细胞毒性测试被认为是一种有用的敏感筛选测定法,但特定的医疗器械材料与这些细胞/体外系统不兼容。对于这些情况,应使用更具临床相关性的方法(例如,通过化学分析或书面风险评估)来分析结果。