Comparison of two guidelines on immunotoxicity testing of medicinal products

Ivana Hanzl Dujmović1

  • 1Belupo Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics, Koprivnica, Croatia. ivana.hanzl-dujmovic@belupo.hr

Despite the lack of formal immunotoxicity testing guidelines, the assessment of immune function has been a routine component of toxicity testing for over twenty years. The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) and The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have recently adopted new guidelines for immunotoxicity testing of new medicinal products. These two guidelines are compared in this article.

Related Concept Videos

Toxicity Testing in Animals01:23

Toxicity Testing in Animals

Toxicity tests in animals are grounded on two main assumptions: first, the effects observed in laboratory animals can be extrapolated to humans, especially when adjusted for body surface area; second, high-dose exposure in animals is essential to identify potential human hazards from lower doses. This is based on the quantal dose-response concept, which faces the challenge of extrapolating results from relatively few test animals to much larger human populations. For example, a 0.01% incidence...
Bioequivalence studies: Biowaivers01:13

Bioequivalence studies: Biowaivers

In certain scenarios, in vitro dissolution tests can replace in vivo bioequivalence studies. This is particularly true when a drug product, though available in varying strengths, maintains proportional similarity in its active and inactive ingredients. In such cases, the need for in vivo bioequivalence studies for lower strength variants may be waived, provided dissolution tests and in vivo studies on the highest strength yield satisfactory results.Bioequivalence can be indicated through...
Mutagenicity and Carcinogenicity01:25

Mutagenicity and Carcinogenicity

Mutagenicity and carcinogenicity refer to the ability of drugs to cause genetic defects and induce cancer, respectively. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies agents into four groups based on their carcinogenic potential. Group 1 agents are known human carcinogens; group 2A agents are probably carcinogenic to humans; group 3 agents lack data to support their role in carcinogenesis; and group 4 includes agents for which data support that they are not likely to be...