TL;DR
A pharmaceutical company reportedly turned to TissUse after the FDA declined a clinical-trial application supported by animal data and asked for organ-on-a-chip data or a comparable alternative. The example points to growing interest in nonanimal methods, but broad adoption depends on validation, standards and changes in policy and research practice.
A pharmaceutical company recently approached German biotech firm TissUse after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration reportedly declined to let it proceed with a clinical-trial application based on animal data, asking for organ-on-a-chip data or a comparable alternative, according to TissUse executive Ilka Maschmeyer in an IEEE Spectrum report. The account suggests that nonanimal testing methods are beginning to enter regulatory and drug-development decisions, though their use remains uncommon and their wider acceptance is not settled.
TissUse develops organ-on-a-chip systems, which use microfluidic devices and living human cells to model features of organs and interactions between tissues. The company’s systems are used by pharmaceutical firms for research. Maschmeyer told IEEE Spectrum that the company was contacted after the FDA decision, but the report does not identify the drug, the company that sought approval or the specific data the regulator requested.
These approaches fall under the broad term new approach methodologies, or NAMs. The category includes different technologies intended to study human biology or predict how substances affect people without relying on animal experiments. The IEEE Spectrum report says some early studies indicate potential, while many methods have not yet been rigorously tested. Their performance and regulatory use therefore cannot be treated as established across all drugs or research questions.
One of the best-known examples is a lung-on-a-chip developed by cell biologist Donald Ingber and colleagues at Harvard’s Wyss Institute. Described in a 2010 Science paper, the device used a small polymer structure with channels lined by cells resembling those in the air sacs and blood vessels of the lung. Air pressure made the system expand and contract, reproducing a movement that static cell cultures do not capture. The study reported responses to inflammatory proteins, bacteria and silica nanoparticles, and showed that movement affected how tissues absorbed particles.
Regulators May Ask for Human-Model Data
The reported FDA request matters because it suggests a possible change in how evidence is assessed when a drug developer seeks permission to begin a clinical trial. Animal studies have long been a standard part of biomedical research, but the TissUse account indicates that, in at least one case, animal results did not satisfy the regulator’s request for preclinical evidence. One company’s experience does not establish a new FDA-wide rule, but it illustrates how alternatives may become relevant in practical decisions, not only in laboratory research.
For drug developers, NAMs could offer ways to study human cells and tissue behavior that animal models may not reproduce. That possibility is relevant because many drugs entering U.S. clinical trials do not reach the market. The report cites an estimate that 92 percent of drugs entering U.S. clinical trials fail, for reasons that include business decisions and safety or effectiveness problems. That figure alone does not show that animal testing caused the failures; study design and the complexity of disease also matter.
Any shift would affect more than equipment. Researchers and regulators need methods that can be compared, reproduced and interpreted consistently. As toxicologist Thomas Hartung told IEEE Spectrum, moving to new methods involves change management as well as technology. Training, policy and accepted research practices will shape whether promising devices become routine tools.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
From Lung Chip to Drug Development
The lung-on-a-chip story shows both the promise of these systems and the hurdles they face. When Ingber’s team submitted its work to Science, editors asked the researchers to compare the new model with mouse experiments. The team carried out the additional tests and published the paper in 2010. The report says the study has since been cited by nearly 5,400 papers, a measure of scholarly attention rather than proof that the technology has replaced animal testing.
Since then, researchers have developed more sophisticated systems than static cell cultures, including devices that model tissue behavior and interactions among organs. TissUse’s Humimic systems, for example, use microfluidic chips to culture human tissues. Still, a promising result in a particular model does not automatically establish that a method can predict outcomes across diseases, drugs or patient populations.
The report describes validation and standardization as major practical challenges. This includes setting consistent procedures and comparing results with those from animal experiments. Such comparisons can help researchers understand where a method is reliable, but they also require time and agreement about what counts as adequate evidence. The history of the lung-on-a-chip paper illustrates why animal comparisons have often been requested, even when the new system is designed to provide a different kind of information.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Scope of the FDA Request Is Unknown
The reported FDA decision is described through Maschmeyer’s account; the report does not name the pharmaceutical company, identify the drug, provide the regulator’s written reasoning or specify what alternative evidence would have been accepted. It is also unclear whether the company ultimately supplied the requested data or whether its trial application was later approved.
The report does not establish that the FDA has adopted a general policy requiring organs-on-chips in place of animal studies. Nor does it show that NAMs can replace animal experiments across drug development. Many methods still need rigorous testing, consistent standards and comparisons that clarify what each can reliably predict. The breadth and pace of any shift remain uncertain.
human tissue chip for drug testing
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Validation Will Shape Wider Use
The next steps are likely to center on testing and standardizing NAMs, alongside decisions by regulators and drug developers about when their results are suitable evidence. Researchers will need to establish repeatable procedures and clarify how findings from a chip or other model relate to human outcomes. Pharmaceutical companies will also have to decide how to incorporate the methods into research workflows and regulatory submissions.
The specific TissUse case may provide a clearer indication of the current regulatory position if the company or drug developer shares further details about the request and its outcome. For now, the reported interaction is an example of growing interest, not proof of a wholesale replacement of animal testing. Whether that interest becomes routine practice will depend on the evidence produced by NAMs and on how institutions adapt to using it.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
What are nonanimal testing methods?
New approach methodologies (NAMs) are a broad group of techniques intended to study biology or assess substances without relying on animal experiments. Organ-on-a-chip systems are one example; they use microfluidic devices and living human cells to model features of organs.
Did the FDA ban animal testing in the reported case?
No such ban is described. According to TissUse executive Ilka Maschmeyer, a pharmaceutical company approached the firm after the FDA declined a clinical-trial application supported by animal data and asked for organ-on-a-chip data or a comparable alternative. The report does not provide the FDA’s written decision or establish a general policy.
Can organs-on-chips replace animal studies now?
The report does not establish that they can replace animal studies across the board. Many NAMs still need rigorous testing, validation and consistent standards, and their suitability may vary by drug and research question.
Why do researchers want alternatives to animal testing?
Researchers are developing alternatives that may model aspects of human biology more directly. Animal studies can fail to predict some human outcomes, but drug failures also have other causes, including study design, business decisions and disease complexity. The evidence does not show that animal testing alone accounts for the high rate of clinical-trial failures.
Source: hn
