Non-clinical assessment of cell therapy products: the perspective from five Asian countries/regions based on regulatory guidelines and the underpinning rationales

• Published in: Cytotherapy (Oxford, England) Vol. 23; no. 10; pp. 874 - 885
• Main Authors: Yoneda, Tomohiro, Choi, Byung H., Gupta, Pawan K., Ho, Chih-Yuan, Tsui, Yat P., Wang, Ling-Mei, Fujiwara, Yukari, Karasawa, Hiroshi, Moriya, Yuu, Bando, Kiyoko, Kamiyama, Yoshiteru, Kanki, Masayuki, Omura, Kou, Watanabe, Takeshi, Bae, Yohan, Chou, Feng-Cheng, Ham, Dong-sik, Lee, Joo Y., Liu, Guangyang, Liu, Yongjun, Ooi, James, Tsurumaki, Yoshie
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier Inc 01.10.2021
• Subjects: APACRM; Asia; cell therapy product; non-clinical assessment; regulatory guideline; non-clinical assessment; regulatory guideline; APACRM; Asia; cell therapy product
• ISSN: 1465-3249; 1477-2566
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jcyt.2021.04.007

•We conducted a questionnaire on the regulatory guidelines for CTPs.•Respondents from India, China, Korea, Taiwan, and Japan participated.•Differences in answers result from different experiences and regulatory guidelines.•Continuous knowledge sharing and discussion will result in faster CTP approval.•We make suggestions for regulatory harmonization and optimization in Asia. Cell-based regenerative medicine is an innovative field that can potentially alter the overall survival and quality of life of patients with devastating diseases. Several cell therapy products (CTPs) have been approved within the last two decades, and more are under development. The establishment of an effective developmental strategy in accordance with the regulatory bodies of each country/region is crucial for fast delivery of each respective CTP. In particular, facilitating investigational new drug (IND) approval is important for accelerating the transition from non-clinical to clinical research/trial phases. Here the authors compared the non-clinical prerequisites for initiating clinical studies in five Asian countries/regions (India, China, Korea, Taiwan and Japan) from an industry viewpoint. The authors first identified the differences and tried to clarify the perspectives/considerations underpinning the different requirements. The authors’ findings revealed that differences in regulations and development experiences, especially with CTPs, have led to clear differences in the non-clinical study package and its corresponding study design. By sharing experiences of the research and development of CTPs among Asian countries/regions and including not only industry but also regulatory authorities, we will be able to expedite cross-border IND approval and eventually contribute to the early delivery of innovative CTPs to many Asian patients.