CCSI Risk Estimation: An Application of Expert Elicitation

Engel, David W.; Dalton, Angela C.

doi:10.2172/1064598

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Very few studies have reported on the interaction of nanomedicines with non-biotic components of the environment and some (limited) ecotoxicology studies have been done with nanomaterials representative of nanomedicines 25,27 although it is important to note that these studies have not utilised the actual nanomedicine formulations approved or in clinical trials. Expert judgement is the preferred method to evaluate and characterise risks in cases where uncertainties and data gaps exist, 28,29 which is largely the case with nanomaterials. Indeed, many government agencies and national committees with statutory or advisory responsibility for protecting human health and the environment seek views from established scientists or are composed from them; therefore, it was decided to gather the perspectives of applied scientists, social scientists, regulators, policymakers, and representatives of industries along the nanomedicine R&D spectrum on the potential environmental impacts from nanomedicine.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expert perspectives on potential environmental risks from nanomedicines and adequacy of the current guideline on environmental risk assessment

Mahapatra

Clark

Dobson

et al. 2018

Environ. Sci.: Nano

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the next couple of decades, nanotechnology-enabled healthcare applications will significantly influence the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of human diseases. Since pharmaceutical products (PPs) have been detected in various environmental compartments, and low-level chronic exposure to PPs has induced adverse and sometimes unexpected effects on non-target organisms, the question of potential environmental risks from increased usage of nanomedical products arises. The risks and benefits to patients from nanomedicines are the focus of exhaustive evaluation by regulatory agencies; by contrast, risks to the environment from nanomedicines are only briefly considered by regulators and are rarely discussed by nanoscientists. To start to fill this gap, 66 experts from nanomedicine R&D, representatives of research funding agencies and of institutions involved in safeguarding public health and the environment were interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire regarding possible hazards and risks from nanomedicine and on the adequacy of current the environmental risk assessment (ERA) framework for medicines. The interview recordings were transcribed verbatim and analysed via qualitative content analysis. Experts interviewed commented that hazards were possible but risks were unlikely from nanomedicines due to expected minimal exposure. They qualified their statements by comparing risks from nanomedicine with risks from nanomaterials in other industries, conventional pollutants and larger global issues like climate change. Regarding adequacy of the current risk framework for assessment of environmental risks from nanomedicines, perceptions of experts were more varied; some argued that complete overhaul of the ERA framework was required including changes in toxicity endpoints, whereas others suggested that the framework was adequate, though some adjustments were needed.

show abstract