Global Regulation of Nanotechnologies and Their Products in Medicine

Reference work entry

Abstract

Nanotechnology, an emerging technology, is creating innovative medicinal products for clinical use. The convergence of nanotechnologies with medicine is predicted to transform the health care sector, particularly pharmaceutical development. Jurisdictions, such as the European Union, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand, have witnessed the launch of medical products containing nanomaterials. Many of the nanomedicines on the market, in clinical testing, or under regulatory review, promise to improve existing products and treat diseases more effectively.

The purposes of this chapter are to (a) describe nanotechnology, in particular, its clinical applications; (b) analyze the application of medical products regulation in several jurisdictions (the European Union, United States, Australia, and New Zealand); and (c) assess the adequacy of this law for managing the potential risks posed by nanomedicines. There are gaps in the public health/health science evidence about the risks associated with nanomedicines, and there is concern that the novel properties of some nanomedicines will bring unforeseen human and environmental health and safety risks.

Analysts project that, by 2014, the market for medical products containing nanomaterials will be US$18 billion per year. Given the predicted market for nanomedicines, and the growing evidence of their potential risks, it is important to have adequate regulation of these products to prevent adverse public health outcomes. Regulators and clinicians will need to consider the risks posed by some nanomedicines against the potential benefits to patients who are prescribed these products.

Keywords

European Union Medical Device Combination Product Therapeutic Product Therapeutic Good Administration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    European Science Foundation (ESF). Nanomedicine: an ESF and European Medical Research Council Forward Look Report. Brussels: ESF; 2005.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR). Risk assessment of products of nanotechnologies. EU: SCENIHR; 2009 Jan.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chowdhury N. Regulation of nanomedicines in the EU: distilling lessons from the pediatric and the advanced therapy medicinal products approaches. Nanomedicine. 2010;5:135–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    European Medicines Agency. Reflection paper on nanotechnology-based medicinal products for human use. London: EMA; 2006.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Drew H, Bawa R. The carbon nanotube patent landscape in nanomedicine: an expert opinion. Expert Opin Ther Pat. 2007;17:1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Maynard A, Bowman D, Hodge G. Introduction. In: Maynard A, Bowman D, Hodge G, editors. International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Cheltenham: EE; 2010.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Freitas Jr R. The Ideal gene delivery vector: chromallocytes, cell repair nanorobots for chromosome replacement therapy. J Evol Technol. 2007;16:1.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kandlikar M, Gurumurthy R, Maynard A. Health risk assessment for nanoparticles: a case for using expert judgment. J Nanopart Res. 2007;9:137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Maynard A. Nanotechnology: the next big thing or much ado about nothing? Ann Occ Hyg. 2007;51:1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maynard A. Safe handling of nanotechnology. Nature. 2006;444:266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Oberdorster E, et al. Nanotoxicology: an emerging discipline evolving from study of ultrafine particles. Environ Health Perspect. 2005;113:813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maynard A, Kuempel ED. Airborne nanostructured particles and occupational health. J Nanopart Res. 2005;7:576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Food and Drug Administration. Nanotechnology – A report of the US food and drug administration nanotechnology task force. Washington DC: FDA; 2007.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA nanotechnology white paper. Washington DC: EPA; 2007.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chaudhry Q et al. Final report: a scoping study to identify gaps in environmental regulation for the products and applications of nanotechnologies. London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; 2006.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    European Commission. Regulatory aspects of nanomaterials: summary of legislation in relation to health, safety and environment aspects of nanomaterials, regulatory research needs and related measures. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities; 2008.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ludlow K, Bowman D, Hodge G. A review of possible impacts of nanotechnology on Australia’s regulatory framework. Melbourne: Monash Centre for Regulatory Studies; 2007.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gavaghan C, Moore J. A review of possible impacts of manufactured nanomaterials on New Zealand’s regulatory system. Dunedin/Wellington: University of Otago; 2011.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kimbrell G. Nanomaterial consumer products and FDA regulation: regulatory challenges and necessary amendments. Nanotech L Bus. 2006;3:329.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Friends of the Earth. Nanomaterials, sunscreens and cosmetics: small ingredients, big risks. Sydney: Friends of the Earth; 2006.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Davies JC. Managing the effects of nanotechnology. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars; 2006.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bhogal N. Regulatory and scientific barriers to the safety evaluation of medical nanotechnologies. Nanomedicine. 2009;4:495.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gaspar RS. Therapeutic products: regulating drugs and medical devices. In: Maynard A, Bowman D, Hodge G, editors. International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Cheltenham: EE; 2010. p. 291.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Taniguchi N. On the basic concept of ‘Nano-Technology’. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Production Engineering Tokyo, Part II. England, Tokyo, Japan: Society of Precision Engineering; 1973.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    ETC. Group. No small matter ii: the case for a global moratorium, size matters! In: Occasional paper series, Vol 7, No 1. Canada: Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration; 2003 Apr.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jahnan-Dechent W, Simon U. Function follows form: shape complementarity and nanoparticle toxicity. Nanomedicine. 2008;3:591.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hoet P, et al. Do nanomedicines require novel safety assessments to ensure their safety for long-term human use? Drug Saf. 2009;32:615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Roco MC. Nanoscale science and engineering: unifying and transforming tools. AIChE J. 2004;50:890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Maynard A, Bowman D, Hodge G. Conclusions, triggers, gaps, risk and trust. In: Maynard A, Bowman D, Hodge G, editors. The international handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Cheltenham: EE; 2010. p. 562.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bowman D, D’Silva J, van Calster G. Defining nanomaterials for the purpose of regulation within the European Union. Eur J Risk Reg. 2010;2:115.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kreyling WG, Semmler-Behnke MK, Chaudhry Q. A complementary definition of nanomaterial. Nano Today. 2010;5:164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sparrow R. Talkin’ ‘bout a (Nanotechnological) revolution. IEEE Technol Soc Mag. 2008;2:37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    EU Cosmetics Directive 2009 75/757/EEC, Article 2(1)(k).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Regulation (EC) 257/97 Concerning Novel Foods and Novel Food Ingredients.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Poland C et al. Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study. Nature Nanotechnology. 2008;3:423.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Knowles EE. Nanotechnology: evolving occupational safety, health and environmental issues. Prof Saf. 2006;51:20.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lam CW, et al. Pulmonary toxicity of single-wall carbon nanotubes in mice 7 and 90 days after intratracheal instillation. Toxicol Sci. 2004;76:126.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Aitken RJ, Creely KS, Tran CL. Nanoparticles: an occupational hygiene review. London: Institute of Occupational Medicine for the Health and Safety Executive; 2004.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Therapeutic Goods Administration. A review of the scientific literature on the safety of nanoparticulate titanium dioxide and zinc oxide in sunscreens. Canberra: Therapeutic Goods Administration; 2006.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Donaldson K, et al. Nanotoxicology. Occup Environ Med. 2004;60:717.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Oberdorster E. Manufactured nanomaterials (fullerenes, c59) induce oxidative stress in the brain of juvenile largemouth bass. Environ Health Persp. 2004;112:1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Powell MC, Kanarek MS. Nanomaterial health effects – part 1: background and current knowledge. Wis Med J. 2006;2:16.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Powell MC, Kamarek MS. Nanomaterial health effects – part 2: uncertainties and recommendations for the future. Wis Med J. 2006;2:18.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    D’Silva J, van Calster G. Taking temperature – a review of European Union regulation in nanomedicine. Eur J Health Law. 2009;16:249.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Maynard A. Nanotechnology: a research strategy for addressing risk. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Project on Emerging Technologies; 2006.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ludlow K. One size fits all? Australian Regulation of Nanoparticle Exposure in the Workplace. JLM. 2007;15:136.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hampton T. Researchers size up nanotechnology risks. JAMA. 2005;294:1880.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wagner V, et al. The emerging nanomedicine landscape. Nat Biotechnol. 2006;24:1211.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Paradise J, et al. Exploring emerging nanobiotechnology drugs and medical devices. Food Drug Law J. 2008;62:407.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    de Jong W, Roszek B and Geertsma R. Nanotechnology in medical applications: possible risks for human health. RIVM Dutch National Institute for Public Health and Environment Report. 2005.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    European Parliament. Report on the proposal for a regulation on novel foods. Brussels: European Parliament; 2009.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Moen MD, et al. Liposomal Amphotericin B: a review of its use as empirical therapy in febrile neutropenia and in the treatment of invasive fungal infections. Drugs. 2009;68:360.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Bawarski WE, et al. Emerging nanopharmaceuticals, nanomedicine. Nanotech Biol Med. 2008;4:272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Pautler M, Brenner S. Nanomedicine: promises and challenges for the future of public health. Int J Nanomedicine. 2010;5:803.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Liebert MA. New developments in medical nanotechnology. Biotechnol. 2008;27:225.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Omidi Y, Barar J. Induction of human alveolar epithelial cell growth factor receptors by dendrimeric nanostructures. Int J Toxicol. 2009;28:113.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hardman R. A toxicologic review of quantum dots: toxicity depends on physio-chemical and environmental factors. Environ Health Perspect. 2006;114:164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Faunce T. Nanosilver and global public health: international regulatory issues. Nanomedicine. 2010;5:607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Wilhelmi B. Nanosilver: a test for nanotech regulation. Food Drug Law. 2008;62:89.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Trop M, et al. Silver-coated dressing acticoat caused raised liver enzymes and argyria-like symptoms in burn patient. J Trauma Inj Infect Crit Care. 2006;59:638.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Rejeski D. FDA regulated products containing nanotechnology materials. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars; 2006:14.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Roe D, et al. Antimicrobial surface functionalization of plastic catheters by silver nanoparticles. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2008;60:858.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    SCENIHR. The appropriateness of existing methodologies to assess the potential risks associated with nanotechnologies. Brussels: European Commission; 2007.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    SCENIHR. Opinion on the appropriateness of the risk assessment methodology in accordance with the technical guidance documents for new and existing substances for assessing the risks of nanomaterials. Brussels: European Commission; 2007.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    van Calster G, Bowman D and D’Silva J. Trust me, I’m a regulator: the inadequacy of EU legislative instruments for three nanotechnologies categories. In: Goodwin, Koops and Leenes, editors. Dimensions of technology regulation. Amsterdam: Wolf Legal Publishers; 2010. p. 205.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Pub L 94–295, 90 Stat 539 (1975).Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Bowman D, Hodge G. A small matter of regulation: an international review of nanotechnology regulation. Columbia Sci Technol Law Rev. 2007;8:1.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    FDA. Draft guidance for industry, considering whether an FDA-regulated product involves the application of nanotechnology. 2011.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Levy D and Watkins T. John key addresses Australian Parliament. [serial online]. 20 Jun 2011. Stuff News NZ.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Moore J. Letter to the journal of law and medicine: Australian and New Zealand Governments agree to proceed with a joint regulatory agency for therapeutic products. JLM. 2011;19(2):272–274.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    TGA Act 1989 (Australia).Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Peart N, McKrimmon F and Dawson J. Clinical trials. In: The law of research. Dunedin: University of Otago Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    New Zealand Ministry of Health. Medicines and medical devices: discussion paper on the review of the medicines legislation. Wellington: Ministry of Health; 1994.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Medicines Act 1980 (NZ).Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Moore J. Is New Zealand’s regulation of nanomedical products adequate? J Law Med. 2011;19/1:112–27.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Martindale S. Medsafe. Email to Jennifer Moore (jennifer.moore@otago.ac.nz) 2010 July 10.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Freitas R, Phoenix C. A personal nanomedical appliance to replace human blood. J Evol Technol. 2002;11:26.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    21 CFR § 3.2(e) 2005.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 1938 (US), s 201(h).Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Paradise J, et al. Evaluating oversight of human drugs and medical devices: a case study of the FDA and implications for nanobiotechnology. J Law Med Ethics. 2009;37:588.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Barlett Foote S, Berlin R. Can regulation be as innovative as science and technology? The FDA’s regulation of combination products. Minn J L Sci Tech. 2005;6:609.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Fender J. The FDA, and nano: big problems with tiny technology. Chic Kent Law Rev. 2008;82:1062.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    International Risk Governance Council. Appropriate risk governance of nanotechnology applications in food and cosmetics. Geneva: IRGC; 2009.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Gaspar R. Regulatory issues surrounding nanomedicines: setting the scene for the next generation of nanopharmaceuticals. Nanomedicine. 2007;2:143.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Auffan M, et al. Towards a definition of inorganic nanoparticles from an environmental, health and safety perspective. Nat Nanotechnol. 2009;4:624–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Further Readings

  1. Aitken R, et al. Regulation of carbon nanotubes and other high aspect ratio nanoparticles: approaching this challenge from the perspective of asbestos. In: Maynard A, Bowman D, Hodge G, editors. International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Cheltenham: EE; 2010.Google Scholar
  2. Bhogal N. Regulatory and scientific barriers to the safety evaluation of medical nanotechnologies. Nanomedicine. 2009;4(5):495–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chemicals Legislation and Nanotechnology.Google Scholar
  4. European Medicines Agency. Reflection paper on nanotechnology-based medicinal products for human use. London: European Medicines Agency; 2006. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu
  5. For a review of some of the different applications of nanomedicine in the health sector, see:Google Scholar
  6. Gavaghan C and Moore J. De minimis curat lex: New Zealand law and the challenge of the very small. European Journal of Law and Technology. 2011;2(3):1–11 Available from: http://ejlt.org/index.
  7. Medicines Legislation and Nanomedicines.Google Scholar
  8. Moore J. An evaluation of whether New Zealand’s occupational health and safety law adequately addresses the risks to workers exposed to nanotechnology and nanoparticles. NZ Journal of Employment Law. 2012;37(1)Special Issue:100–117.Google Scholar
  9. Paradise J, et al. Exploring emerging nanobiotechnology drugs and medical devices. Food Drug Law J. 2008;62:407.Google Scholar
  10. United States Food and Drug Administration. Nanotechnology. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/Nanotechnology/default.htm
  11. Widmer M, Meili C. Approaching the nanoregulation problem in chemicals legislation in the EU and US. In: Maynard A, Bowman D, Hodge G, editors. International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Cheltenham: EE; 2010.Google Scholar
  12. Workers’ Exposure to Nanoparticles and Occupational Health and Safety Legislation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Law and Policy in Emerging Technologies, Faculty of LawUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations