Optimization of the Nonclinical Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices Using Toxicologic Pathology Best Practices
Funk KA., Schuh JCL., Bolon B., Thomas VS., Everitt JI., Nyska A.
Narrative Review, published in Adv Healthc Mater (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Narrative Review
- Journal
- Adv Healthc Mater (2026)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 41273038
- PMCID
- PMC12817106
- DOI
- 10.1002/adhm.202501690
- Citations
- 3
Abstract (original English)
Innovation in the medical device industry is challenging due to the increasing physicochemical, structural, and engineering complexity of devices; proliferation of combination products; advent of long-term implants; and variable approaches to assessing tissue reactions. Nonclinical evaluation of biological responses to implanted devices requires careful study design and implementation of pathology practices to obtain the best data for translating device-related tissue reactions ("toxicity") and associated procedure-induced effects to predict possible outcomes in human patients. This paper outlines optimal pathology practices and related regulatory considerations that frame the nonclinical interpretation of biological responses induced by medical devices and combination products. These pathology practices have been developed by expert pathologists with extensive experience in medical device evaluation to address current guidance found in existing ISO Series standards, regulatory documents, and globally accepted "best practice" recommendations for toxicologic pathology assessment of therapeutic entities. Accordingly, the practices in this paper provide an optimized framework for biological evaluation of tissue responses to medical devices and combination products (both degradable and permanent devices) that should improve the relevance and utility of animal safety data provided t
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.