The suitability of reconstructed human epidermis models for medical device irritation assessment: A comparison of In Vitro and In Vivo testing results.

The ISO 10993 standards on biocompatibility assessment of medical devices discourage the use of animal tests when reliable and validated in vitro methods are available. A round robin validation study of in vitro reconstructed human epidermis (RhE) assays was performed as potential replacements for rabbit skin irritation testing. The RhE assays were able to accurately identify strong irritants in dilute medical device extracts. However, there was some uncertainty about whether RhE tissues accurately predicted the results of the rabbit skin patch or intracutaneous irritation test. To address that question, this paper presents in vivo data from the round robin and subsequent follow-up studies. The follow-up studies included simultaneous in vitro RhE model and in vivo testing of round robin polymer samples and the results of dual in vitro/in vivo testing of currently marketed medical device components/materials. Our results show for the first time that for both pure chemicals and medical device extracts the intracutaneous rabbit test is more sensitive to detect irritant activity than the rabbit skin patch test. The studies showed that the RhE models produced results that were essentially equivalent to those from the intracutaneous rabbit skin irritation test. Therefore, it is concluded that RhE in vitro models are acceptable replacements for the in vivo rabbit intracutaneous irritation test for evaluating the irritant potential of medical devices.

From in vivo to in vitro: The medical device testing paradigm shift.

Amid growing efforts to advance the replacement, reduction, and refinement of the use of animals in research, there is a growing recognition that in vitro testing of medical devices can be more effective, both in terms of cost and time, and also more reliable than in vivo testing. Although the technological landscape has evolved rapidly in support of these concepts, regulatory acceptance of alternative testing methods has not kept pace. Despite the acceptance by regulators of some in vitro tests (cytotoxicity, gene toxicity, and some hemocompatibility assays), many toxicity tests still rely on animals (irritation, sensitization, acute toxicity, reproductive/developmental toxicity), even where other industrial sectors have already abandoned them. Bringing about change will require a paradigm shift in current approaches to testing - and a concerted effort to generate better data on risks to human health from exposure to leachable chemicals from medical devices, and to boost confidence in the use of alternative methods to test devices. To help advance these ideas, stir debate about best practices, and coalesce around a roadmap forward, the JHU-Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) hosted a symposium believed to be the first gathering dedicated to the topic of in vitro testing of medical devices. Industry representatives, academics, and regulators in attendance presented evidence to support the unique strengths and challenges associated with the approaches currently in use as well as new methods under development, and drew next steps to push the field forward from their presentations and discussion.

No evidence of viral transmission following long-term implantation of agarose encapsulated porcine islets in diabetic dogs.

We have previously described the use of a double coated agarose-agarose porcine islet macrobead for the treatment of type I diabetes mellitus. In the current study, the long-term viral safety of macrobead implantation into pancreatectomized diabetic dogs treated with pravastatin (n = 3) was assessed while 2 dogs served as nonimplanted controls. A more gradual return to preimplant insulin requirements occurred after a 2nd implant procedure (days 148, 189, and >652) when compared to a first macrobead implantation (days 9, 21, and 21) in all macrobead implanted animals. In all three implanted dogs, porcine C-peptide was detected in the blood for at least 10 days following the first implant and for at least 26 days following the second implant. C-peptide was also present in the peritoneal fluid of all three implanted dogs at 6 months after 2nd implant and in 2 of 3 dogs at necropsy. Prescreening results of islet macrobeads and culture media prior to transplantation were negative for 13 viruses. No evidence of PERV or other viral transmission was found throughout the study. This study demonstrates that the long-term (2.4 years) implantation of agarose-agarose encapsulated porcine islets is a safe procedure in a large animal model of type I diabetes mellitus.

Pravastatin improves glucose regulation and biocompatibility of agarose encapsulated porcine islets following transplantation into pancreatectomized dogs.

The encapsulation of porcine islets is an attractive methodology for the treatment of Type I diabetes. In the current study, the use of pravastatin as a mild anti-inflammatory agent was investigated in pancreatectomized diabetic canines transplanted with porcine islets encapsulated in agarose-agarose macrobeads and given 80 mg/day of pravastatin (n = 3) while control animals did not receive pravastatin (n = 3). Control animals reached preimplant insulin requirements on days 18, 19, and 32. Pravastatin-treated animals reached preimplant insulin requirements on days 22, 27, and 50. Two animals from each group received a second macrobead implant: control animals remained insulin-free for 15 and 21 days (AUC = 3003 and 5078 mg/dL/24 hr days 1 to 15) and reached preimplant insulin requirements on days 62 and 131. Pravastatin treated animals remained insulin-free for 21 and 34 days (AUC = 1559 and 1903 mg/dL/24 hr days 1 to 15) and reached preimplant insulin requirements on days 38 and 192. Total incidence (83.3% versus 64.3%) and total severity (22.7 versus 18.3) of inflammation on tissue surfaces were higher in the control group at necropsy. These findings support pravastatin therapy in conjunction with the transplantation of encapsulated xenogeneic islets for the treatment of diabetes mellitus.

Comparison of a new mineral based hemostatic agent to a commercially available granular zeolite agent for hemostasis in a swine model of lethal extremity arterial hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: Gaining hemostatic control of vascular injuries sustained in combat using topical agents remains a challenge. We previously developed a new hemostatic agent consisting of a granular combination of a smectite mineral and a superabsorbent polymer (WoundStattrade mark; WS) which demonstrated the ability to stop high pressure bleeding. We have since modified WS to contain only the smectite mineral and compared the performance of WS to QuikClot'strade mark zeolite granules (QCG) in a lethal vascular injury model. METHODS: Fourteen (seven per group) anesthetized swine (35-44kg) had a lethal femoral artery injury produced by creating a 6mm arteriotomy in the vessel. After 45s of hemorrhage, animals were randomized to be treated with either WS or QCG for 3min. A second application was provided if hemostasis failed. Fluid resuscitation was begun at the time of application to achieve a mean arterial blood pressure of 65mmHg. Animals were observed for 120min or until death. Primary endpoints were survival, survival time, post-treatment blood loss, and resuscitation fluid volume. RESULTS: WS resulted in 100% survival to 120min. No animal in the QCG group survived (p=0.0005). Survival times for WS animals were significantly greater compared to QCG (p=0.0001). Post-treatment blood loss (p=0.0043) and post-resuscitation fluid volume (p=0.0043) was significantly less for animals treated with WS compared to QCG. CONCLUSION: WS consisting of just the smectite mineral was superior to QCG tested in this model. Additional study is warranted to determine its potential for use in combat and civilian trauma.