Abstract

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).

You do not currently have access to this content.