Research Appraisalother

New Frontiers of Drug Development Through the Use of New Approach Methodologies

The AAPS journalMartinez, M N, Mochel, J P, Allenspach, K et al.29 May 2026DOI

Clinical Snapshot

45CEBM
Evidence: Weakother

PICO Framework

P — PopulationDrug development researchers, regulatory scientists, pharmaceutical industry professionals
I — InterventionNew Approach Methodologies (NAMs) including microphysiological systems, 3D organoids, and in silico tools
C — ComparatorTraditional drug development and safety assessment methods
O — OutcomesUtility, feasibility, and implementation considerations for NAMs in drug development contexts

Bottom Line

This meeting report summarises expert perspectives on New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) in drug development, including microphysiological systems, 3D organoids, and computational tools. While NAMs offer potential advantages in speed, cost, and ethical considerations over traditional animal testing, the report lacks systematic evaluation of evidence quality or implementation challenges. The content suggests growing regulatory acceptance of NAMs for specific contexts of use, but clinicians should note this represents expert opinion rather than rigorous evidence synthesis. Australian practitioners should monitor TGA guidance on NAMs acceptance for regulatory submissions. The report provides useful background for understanding emerging drug development paradigms but should not be considered definitive evidence for clinical decision-making.

Evidence: Weak

Key Findings

  • Effect Size: Not applicable - qualitative meeting report

  • Primary Outcome: Summary of expert consensus on NAMs implementation in drug development

  • Nnt Or Sensitivity: Not applicable - no quantitative outcomes assessed

Clinical Application

Implementation depends on regulatory acceptance, technical expertise, and validation requirements Relevant to TGA regulatory pathways; aligns with international harmonisation efforts through ICH guidelines Pharmaceutical researchers, regulatory scientists, drug development professionals

Abstract

On November 2025, AAPS PharmSci 360 convened a symposium that included experts in the application of various types of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs). They shared their experiences and insights on topics that included microphysiological systems (MPS), the use of 3D organoids, and in silico tools. MPS systems were explored from the perspective of their testing and qualification through an academia-industry-government tissue chip testing consortium whose mission is to perform context-of-use-based testing of MPS and conduct comparative evaluations to support the use of MPS systems in safety assessments. 3D organoids were described and insights shared on how and when they may provide an appropriate tool for evaluating drug safety and effectiveness, and their use in supporting personalized medicine. Regarding in silico tools, examples were provided to describe their growing utility in predicting drug toxicity, population variability, and its potential benefits over traditional evidence-based toxicology. These tools include in silico models (e.g., physiologically based pharmacokinetic models), Artificial Intelligence (AI), and Machine Learning (ML) which, unlike other aspects of model informed drug development, reduce reliance on predefined models and allows for the integration of diverse sources of data. Computationally, these tools can generate predictions in hours where it would otherwise have taken weeks or months (and extensive experimentation). Within this meeting report, we highlight the key issues discussed during that symposium and share additional aspects to consider when developing a NAMs-based roadmap for specific contexts of use.

References

  1. 1.Martinez, M. N., Mochel, J. P., Allenspach, K., Zdyrski, C., Krishna, S., & Rusyn, I. (2026). New Frontiers of Drug Development Through the Use of New Approach Methodologies. The AAPS Journal. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2023.1083175
Share:XLinkedIn

This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service