Skip to main content

Compliance Requirements for Stem Cell Trials

BayBiotech.NET

Stem Cell Therapy although holds promises for the treatment of many diseases, this is an area not much explored yet and many countries worldwide are drafting the guidelines for conducting safer clinical trials. Therefore, it is accepted widely that prior to conducting clinical trials with stem cells a stronger than usual proof of concept may be required for the safety and efficacy of the therapy.

One of the major concerns is the rapid cell division cycles of such cells that may lead to tumor generation. Thus, it is recommended that the dose of administered cells to humans must be well adjusted to below the minimum number of cells observed to form tumors in animal models.
Due to many unanswered questions regarding the safe use of stem cells a long-term follow-ups and Biovigilance must be planned carefully before starting a trial.

In October, 2009,Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), FDA, has issued a draft guidance to potential sponsors (cord blood banks, or registries, and individual physicians serving as sponsor-investigators) to assist in the submission of an investigational new drug application (IND) for certain unlicensed (not in accordance with 21CFR 601) hematopoietic progenitor cells, cord (HPC-C), that are needed for treatment of a patient with a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and there is no satisfactory alternative treatment.

The draft guidance is available at the following link: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/Blood/UCM187146.pdf

Sponsors are encouraged to send in IND and BLA (Biological License Applications) as soon as possible to allow sufficient time for review, comment, and resubmission as needed to complete all actions by the end of this 2 yr period.

Since the cell/ gene therapies are emerging prime areas, a worldwide effort is ongoing for prospective harmonization and convergence of regulatory approaches. Several countries within European Commission as well as other part of the world are working closely via exchange of guidelines to evolve successful strategies for acceptance and harmonization of such therapies.

A world wide map on stem cell guidelines is available at: http://www.mbbnet.umn.edu/scmap.html.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Good Machine Learning Practices

BayBiotech.NET A joint effort by FDA,  United Kingdom’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and Health Canada have developed guiding principles to help promote utilization of medical devices that are safe and effective and utilize artiificial intelligence and machine learning. To find out more details check out the link here!
Post a Comment
Read more

Amendments for High Risk Device Type Regulatory Pathway

BayBiotech.NET Government Accounting Office (“GAO”) has issued a long-awaited report evaluating the use of the 510(k) process by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA” or the “Agency”) in the January of 2009. Report mainly focused on Preamendment class III devices. Although most high-risk class III medical devices are subject to the demanding premarket approval (“PMA”) process, preamendment class III devices may be cleared through the 510(k) pathway until FDA issues regulations requiring a PMA. Under the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990, FDA was required either to reclassify preamendment class III devices into class I or II, or (2) issue regulations requiring PMA approval for the devices, GAO noted that 20 preamendment class III device types have not yet been addressed by the Agency. GAO has urged FDA to take required steps to address the remaining class III devices that continue to be eligible for 510(k) review. As a result of the report, FDA has committed to address al...
Post a Comment
Read more

Risk Based Clinical Monitoring

BayBiotech.NET FDA's recommendation of Risk Based Monitoring of Clinical Trials , as published in their Draft Guidance in August 2011. For the first time, FDA provided guidance on monitoring of clinical investigations in 1988 which was recently withdrawn, stated that the “most effective way” to monitor an investigation was to “maintain personal contact between the monitor and the investigator throughout the clinical investigation.” At the time the guidance was issued, sponsors had only limited ways to effect meaningful communication with investigators other than through on-site visits.   This guidance recommends an assessment by the sponsor for the need of 100% on-site monitoring. Such an assessment may be based on the complexity of the study protocol and not be generally applicable to all trial types. It explains the importance of remote monitoring facilitated by the use of electronic data capture system (EDC) and also emphasizes the need of the identifying crit...
1 comment
Read more