Abstract
Background Medical device manufacturers are obliged to prove the biocompatibility of their products when they come into contact with the human body. The requirements for the biological evaluation of medical devices are specified by the international standard series ISO 10993. Part five of this series describes the performance of in vitro cytotoxicity tests. This test evaluates the effects of medical device use on cell health. The existence of the specific standard suggests that the tests will produce reliable and comparable results. However, the ISO 10993-5 offers wide latitude in the test specifications. In the past, we noticed inconsistencies of the results from different laboratories.
Objective To determine if the specifications of the standard ISO 10993-5 are sufficient for assessing the comparability of test results and, if not, identify potential influencing factors.
Methods An interlaboratory comparison was conducted for the in vitro cytotoxicity test according to ISO 10993-5. Fifty-two international laboratories evaluated the cytotoxicity for two unknown samples. One was polyethylene (PE) tubing, which is expected to be non-cytotoxic and the other was polyvinyl chloride (PVC) tubing, for which a cytotoxic potential was presumed. All laboratories were asked to perform an elution test with predefined extraction specifications. The other test parameters were freely chosen by the laboratories according to the guidelines set by the standard.
Results To our surprise only 58 percent of the participating laboratories identified the cytotoxic potential of both materials as expected. Particularly for PVC a considerable variation of the results between the laboratories was observed (mean = 43 ± 30 (SD), min = 0, max = 100). We showed that ten percent serum supplementation to the extraction medium, as well as longer incubation of the cells with the extract, greatly increased the test sensitivity for PVC.
Conclusion The results clearly show that the specifications set by the ISO 10993-5 are not sufficient to obtain comparable results for an identical medical device. To set requirements that ensure reliable cytotoxicity assessments, further research will be necessary to identify the best test conditions for specific materials and/or devices and the standard needs to be revised accordingly.
Competing Interest Statement
Both authors are employed by the Johner Institute. The Johner Institute consults for medical device and IVD manufacturers as well as other stakeholders and provides training in this area. It does not develop and/or market its own medical devices. In the field of biocompatibility, manufacturers are supported from the choice of materials to the definition of test parameters and toxicological evaluation. The mission of the Johner Institute is to enable the provision of medical devices by, among other things, improving the regulatory system. To support evidence-based regulation, activities in the area of regulatory science are conducted, such as this interlaboratory comparison. The current article is not expected to result in any financial advantages.
Funding Statement
The interlaboratory comparison received no external funding. Participating laboratories were offered to contribute to the cost of the interlaboratory comparison by purchasing a more detailed report.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The participation of the laboratories in the interlaboratory comparison depended on the guarantee that their identity would not be disclosed and that no statements are made about individual performance. For this reason, raw data cannot be shared and test results were aggregated in groups with at least 3 participants.
