As recombinant DNA technologies and genetically modified biological agents become increasingly integrated into clinical research, the need for robust hazard communication protocols is more critical than ever.
These investigational products (IPs)-often complex, unfamiliar, and biologically active-pose risks that traditional safety protocols for handling antineoplastic agents or infectious materials do not fully address. Without tailored biosafety guidelines, clinical personnel may face unnecessary exposure and compliance risks.
This article highlights the rationale for institutional biosafety SOPs, their essential components, and how Institutional Biosafety Committees (IBCs) play a vital role in hazard communication for trials involving gene therapy, mRNA therapeutics, and oncolytic viruses.
Why Do You Need an SOP for Genetically Engineered IPs?
When clinical staff are tasked with administering unfamiliar biologics, they typically ask:
- What are the risks associated with this IP?
- How can I protect myself from exposure?
- What should I do if I’m exposed?
Gene therapies and other recombinant biological products often require additional protective measures due to the potential for viral vector shedding, inadvertent transmission, and immunogenicity. These risks are not typically addressed by protocols for conventional pharmaceuticals.
A well-structured SOP, developed with IBC input, provides guidance on these issues, supporting both compliance with biosafety regulations and protection of staff and participants.
Tailored Hazard Communication: A Necessity, Not a Luxury
The risk profile of a genetically modified IP depends on its biological characteristics, such as:
- Replication capability
- Mode of administration
- Environmental stability
- Host specificity
To streamline safety processes, sites may adopt a bundled SOP approach. For example, clinics participating in multiple mRNA-based clinical trials can apply a general SOP across protocols, provided the risk profile and administration route remain consistent.
This eliminates the need for repetitive SOP review and re-signature with each new protocol submission—reducing operational burden while ensuring biosafety.
Replication-Incompetent Agents: Lower Risk, Still Not Risk-Free
Many clinical trials use replication-incompetent viral vectors such as adeno-associated viruses (AAVs) or synthetic mRNA therapeutics, which are classified as self-limiting. These agents cannot reproduce within the host, and the risk of secondary transmission is minimal.
Nevertheless, side effects-usually mild and localized-may occur upon occupational exposure. For healthy personnel, these are typically limited to minor injection-site reactions. However, staff with autoimmune diseases, allergies, or pre-existing immunological conditions may face heightened risks, including systemic allergic responses.
Therefore, it’s essential that biosafety SOPs include:
- Potential symptoms of exposure
- Risk differentiation for healthy vs. vulnerable personnel
- Post-exposure response protocols
Replication-Competent Agents: Oncolytic Viruses and Elevated Risk
Some experimental therapies involve replication-competent viral vectors, such as oncolytic viruses designed to selectively target tumor cells. While engineered to limit replication to tumor tissues, these viruses inherently carry greater risk.
SOPs for such IPs must:
- Detail replication and transmission risks
- Describe symptoms that mimic the parent virus
- Identify exclusion criteria for immunocompromised, pregnant, or immunosuppressed staff
- Recommend prophylactic measures, including vaccination status if relevant
Such SOPs are typically product-specific, accounting for the nuances of vector biology and therapeutic design.
The IBC’s Role in Risk Assessment and SOP Development
An IBC is responsible for conducting a comprehensive risk assessment that informs all hazard communication strategies. This includes:
- Evaluating IP-specific properties (e.g., replication, host range, vector shedding)
- Assessing clinical protocol elements, including dose, preparation, and administration route
- Reviewing facility readiness and the training level of clinical personnel
- Recommending additional training or mitigation measures
The resulting biosafety SOP and communication plan can be applied across protocols involving the same class of IPs or tailored to high-risk scenarios.
When Bundling SOPs Makes Sense-and When It Doesn’t
Bundled SOPs are suitable for low-risk IPs delivered via intramuscular or intravenous injection. However, if the protocol uses more complex delivery methods-such as nebulization into the lungs-the aerosolization risk introduces additional safety concerns.
In such cases, the SOP must specify:
- Use of respiratory protective equipment (PPE)
- Restricted personnel access
- Decontamination procedures for the administration area
This ensures that protocol-specific hazards are addressed, even when using bundled templates.
Bridging the Hazard Communication Gap
While clinical trial participants are informed of IP risks via the Informed Consent Form (ICF), clinical personnel often lack the same level of structured communication or formal training.
This is a major compliance gap. The NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules (NIH Guidelines) require that IBC-approved hazard communications be in place to protect all potentially exposed individual-not just study subjects.
For institutions without an in-house IBC, partnering with an externally administered IBC is not just advisable-it’s essential for regulatory compliance and workforce safety-
Conclusion
As gene therapies, mRNA-based drugs, and oncolytic viruses continue to reshape the future of medicine, clinical sites must ensure that biosafety protocols evolve in parallel.
A robust hazard communication strategy, built on IBC risk assessments and implemented through SOPs, provides the foundation for a safe, compliant, and ethically responsible research environment.
Keywords: hazard communication, gene therapy, mRNA therapeutics, biosafety SOP, institutional biosafety committee (IBC), oncolytic viruses, replication-incompetent vectors, replication-competent vectors, viral shedding, clinical trial safety, occupational exposure, risk mitigation, NIH Guidelines, biologic IPs, clinical research compliance
References
- National Institutes of Health (NIH). NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules. (Revised April 2019). https://osp.od.nih.gov
- EMA. Guideline on quality, non-clinical and clinical aspects of gene therapy medicinal products. EMA/CAT/80183/2014.
- FDA. Guidance for Industry: Considerations for the Design of Early-Phase Clinical Trials of Cellular and Gene Therapy Products. June 2015.
- Raper SE, Chirmule N, Lee FS, Wivel NA, Bagg A, Gao G-P, et al. Fatal systemic inflammatory response syndrome in a ornithine transcarbamylase-deficient patient following adenoviral gene transfer. Mol Genet Metab. 2003;80(1-2):148-58.
- High KA, Roncarolo MG. Gene Therapy. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:455-64.
- Calcedo R, Wilson JM. AAV vector immunogenicity in humans: a long journey to successful gene transfer. Mol Ther. 2013;21(4):745-7.
- Wold WS, Toth K. Adenovirus vectors for gene therapy, vaccination and cancer gene therapy. Curr Gene Ther. 2013;13(6):421-33.
Get in Touch Today
Are you conducting clinical trials involving gene therapies or genetically engineered products? Don’t leave your clinical personnel unprotected or your site at risk of non-compliance.
At Lex Clinical, we support clinical research sites and sponsors by developing custom biosafety SOPs, facilitating IBC partnerships, and offering regulatory guidance for trials involving advanced biologics. Let us help you close the communication gap and build operational excellence in your clinical research programs.
Contact Lex Clinical to develop or review your hazard communication SOPs, set up an external IBC, or get expert training for your staff.
Let’s make biosafety a priority-together.