Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medicine 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Debate

Innovative regenerative medicines in the EU: a better future in evidence?

Authors: Mark S. Corbett, Andrew Webster, Robert Hawkins, Nerys Woolacott

Published in: BMC Medicine | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Despite a steady stream of headlines suggesting they will transform the future of healthcare, high-tech regenerative medicines have, to date, been quite inaccessible to patients, with only eight having been granted an EU marketing licence in the last 7 years. Here, we outline some of the historical reasons for this paucity of licensed innovative regenerative medicines. We discuss the challenges to be overcome to expedite the development of this complex and rapidly changing area of medicine, together with possible reasons to be more optimistic for the future.

Discussion

Several factors have contributed to the scarcity of cutting-edge regenerative medicines in clinical practice. These include the great expense and difficulties involved in planning how individual therapies will be developed, manufactured to commercial levels and ultimately successfully delivered to patients. Specific challenges also exist when evaluating the safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of these therapies. Furthermore, many treatments are used without a licence from the European Medicines Agency, under “Hospital Exemption” from the EC legislation. For products which are licensed, alternative financing approaches by healthcare providers may be needed, since many therapies will have significant up-front costs but uncertain benefits and harms in the long-term. However, increasing political interest and more flexible mechanisms for licensing and financing of therapies are now evident; these could be key to the future growth and development of regenerative medicine in clinical practice.

Conclusions

Recent developments in regulatory processes, coupled with increasing political interest, may offer some hope for improvements to the long and often difficult routes from laboratory to marketplace for leading-edge cell or tissue therapies. Collaboration between publicly-funded researchers and the pharmaceutical industry could be key to the future development of regenerative medicine in clinical practice; such collaborations might also offer a possible antidote to the innovation crisis in the pharmaceutical industry.
Literature
3.
go back to reference Maciulaitis R, D’Apote L, Buchanan A, Pioppo L, Schneider CK. Clinical development of advanced therapy medicinal products in Europe: evidence that regulators must be proactive. Mol Ther. 2012;20:479–82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Maciulaitis R, D’Apote L, Buchanan A, Pioppo L, Schneider CK. Clinical development of advanced therapy medicinal products in Europe: evidence that regulators must be proactive. Mol Ther. 2012;20:479–82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
go back to reference Martin I, Ireland H, Baldomero H, Passweg J. The survey on cellular and engineered tissue therapies in Europe in 2012. Tissue Eng Part A. 2015;21:1–13.CrossRefPubMed Martin I, Ireland H, Baldomero H, Passweg J. The survey on cellular and engineered tissue therapies in Europe in 2012. Tissue Eng Part A. 2015;21:1–13.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Gardner J, Faulkner A, Mahalatchimy A, Webster A. Are there specific translational challenges in regenerative medicine? Lessons from other fields. Regen Med. 2015;10:885–95.CrossRefPubMed Gardner J, Faulkner A, Mahalatchimy A, Webster A. Are there specific translational challenges in regenerative medicine? Lessons from other fields. Regen Med. 2015;10:885–95.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Chandran S. What are the prospects of stem cell therapy for neurology? BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2008;337:a1934.CrossRef Chandran S. What are the prospects of stem cell therapy for neurology? BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2008;337:a1934.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference House of Lords Science and Technology Committee. Regenerative medicine report. London: The Stationery Office Limited; 2013. House of Lords Science and Technology Committee. Regenerative medicine report. London: The Stationery Office Limited; 2013.
9.
go back to reference Hettle RCM, Hinde S, Hodgson R, Jones-Diette J, Woolacott N, Palmer S. The assessment and appraisal of regenerative medicines and cell therapy products: an exploration of methods for review, economic evaluation and appraisal. Health Technol Assess. 2017. Ahead of print. Hettle RCM, Hinde S, Hodgson R, Jones-Diette J, Woolacott N, Palmer S. The assessment and appraisal of regenerative medicines and cell therapy products: an exploration of methods for review, economic evaluation and appraisal. Health Technol Assess. 2017. Ahead of print.
10.
go back to reference Porter DL, Levine BL, Kalos M, Bagg A, June CH. Chimeric antigen receptor-modified T cells in chronic lymphoid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:725–33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Porter DL, Levine BL, Kalos M, Bagg A, June CH. Chimeric antigen receptor-modified T cells in chronic lymphoid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:725–33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Gupta S, Faughnan ME, Tomlinson GA, Bayoumi AM. A framework for applying unfamiliar trial designs in studies of rare diseases. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1085–94.CrossRefPubMed Gupta S, Faughnan ME, Tomlinson GA, Bayoumi AM. A framework for applying unfamiliar trial designs in studies of rare diseases. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1085–94.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Elston J, Taylor RS. Use of surrogate outcomes in cost-effectiveness models: a review of United Kingdom health technology assessment reports. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:6–13.CrossRefPubMed Elston J, Taylor RS. Use of surrogate outcomes in cost-effectiveness models: a review of United Kingdom health technology assessment reports. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:6–13.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Unverzagta S, Prondzinsky R, Peinemannc F. Single-center trials tend to provide larger treatment effects than multicenter trials: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:1271–80.CrossRef Unverzagta S, Prondzinsky R, Peinemannc F. Single-center trials tend to provide larger treatment effects than multicenter trials: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:1271–80.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Baird LG, Banken R, Eichler HG, Kristensen FB, Lee DK, Lim JC, et al. Accelerated access to innovative medicines for patients in need. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2014;96:559–71.CrossRefPubMed Baird LG, Banken R, Eichler HG, Kristensen FB, Lee DK, Lim JC, et al. Accelerated access to innovative medicines for patients in need. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2014;96:559–71.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Eichler H-G, Baird LG, Barker R, Bloechl-Daum B, Børlum-Kristensen F, Brown J, et al. From adaptive licensing to adaptive pathways: delivering a flexible life-span approach to bring new drugs to patients. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2015;97:234–46.CrossRefPubMed Eichler H-G, Baird LG, Barker R, Bloechl-Daum B, Børlum-Kristensen F, Brown J, et al. From adaptive licensing to adaptive pathways: delivering a flexible life-span approach to bring new drugs to patients. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2015;97:234–46.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference ADAPTSMART. Accelerated Development of Appropriate Patient Therapies: a sustainable, multi-stakeholder approach from research to treatment-outcomes. [http://adaptsmart.eu/]. Accessed 11 Sept 2015. ADAPTSMART. Accelerated Development of Appropriate Patient Therapies: a sustainable, multi-stakeholder approach from research to treatment-outcomes. [http://​adaptsmart.​eu/​]. Accessed 11 Sept 2015.
20.
go back to reference Pearce KF, Hildebrandt M, Greinix H, Scheding S, Koehl U, Worel N, et al. Regulation of advanced therapy medicinal products in Europe and the role of academia. Cytotherapy. 2014;16:289–97.CrossRefPubMed Pearce KF, Hildebrandt M, Greinix H, Scheding S, Koehl U, Worel N, et al. Regulation of advanced therapy medicinal products in Europe and the role of academia. Cytotherapy. 2014;16:289–97.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Bailey AM, Mendicino M, Au P. An FDA perspective on preclinical development of cell-based regenerative medicine products. Nat Biotechnol. 2014;32:721–3.CrossRefPubMed Bailey AM, Mendicino M, Au P. An FDA perspective on preclinical development of cell-based regenerative medicine products. Nat Biotechnol. 2014;32:721–3.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Mason C, Dunnill P. Assessing the value of autologous and allogeneic cells for regenerative medicine. Regen Med. 2009;4:835–53.CrossRefPubMed Mason C, Dunnill P. Assessing the value of autologous and allogeneic cells for regenerative medicine. Regen Med. 2009;4:835–53.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Regnstrom J, Koenig F, Aronsson B, Reimer T, Svendsen K, Tsigkos S, et al. Factors associated with success of market authorisation applications for pharmaceutical drugs submitted to the European Medicines Agency. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2010;66:39–48.CrossRefPubMed Regnstrom J, Koenig F, Aronsson B, Reimer T, Svendsen K, Tsigkos S, et al. Factors associated with success of market authorisation applications for pharmaceutical drugs submitted to the European Medicines Agency. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2010;66:39–48.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Garrison Jr LP, Towse A, Briggs A, de Pouvourville G, Grueger J, Mohr PE, et al. Performance-based risk-sharing arrangements-good practices for design, implementation, and evaluation: report of the ISPOR good practices for performance-based risk-sharing arrangements task force. Value Health. 2013;16:703–19.CrossRefPubMed Garrison Jr LP, Towse A, Briggs A, de Pouvourville G, Grueger J, Mohr PE, et al. Performance-based risk-sharing arrangements-good practices for design, implementation, and evaluation: report of the ISPOR good practices for performance-based risk-sharing arrangements task force. Value Health. 2013;16:703–19.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Davis C, Lexchin J, Jefferson T, Gotzsche P, McKee M. “Adaptive pathways” to drug authorisation: adapting to industry? BMJ. 2016;354:i4437.CrossRefPubMed Davis C, Lexchin J, Jefferson T, Gotzsche P, McKee M. “Adaptive pathways” to drug authorisation: adapting to industry? BMJ. 2016;354:i4437.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Banzi R, Gerardi C, Bertele V, Garattini S. Approvals of drugs with uncertain benefit-risk profiles in Europe. Eur J Intern Med. 2015;26:572–84.CrossRefPubMed Banzi R, Gerardi C, Bertele V, Garattini S. Approvals of drugs with uncertain benefit-risk profiles in Europe. Eur J Intern Med. 2015;26:572–84.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Hoekman J, Klamer TT, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Leufkens HGM, De Bruin ML. Characteristics and follow-up of postmarketing studies of conditionally authorized medicines in the EU. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2016;82:213–26.CrossRefPubMed Hoekman J, Klamer TT, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Leufkens HGM, De Bruin ML. Characteristics and follow-up of postmarketing studies of conditionally authorized medicines in the EU. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2016;82:213–26.CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Thomas R, Heathman A, Nienow W, McCall MJ, Coopman K, Bo Kara B, et al. The translation of cell-based therapies: clinical landscape and manufacturing challenges. Regen Med. 2015;10:49–64.CrossRef Thomas R, Heathman A, Nienow W, McCall MJ, Coopman K, Bo Kara B, et al. The translation of cell-based therapies: clinical landscape and manufacturing challenges. Regen Med. 2015;10:49–64.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Levine BL, June CH. Perspective: Assembly line immunotherapy. Nature (London) 2013;498:S17. Levine BL, June CH. Perspective: Assembly line immunotherapy. Nature (London) 2013;498:S17.
33.
go back to reference Kaiser AD, Assenmacher M, Schroder B, Meyer M, Orentas R, Bethke U, et al. Towards a commercial process for the manufacture of genetically modified T cells for therapy. Cancer Gene Ther. 2015;22:72–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kaiser AD, Assenmacher M, Schroder B, Meyer M, Orentas R, Bethke U, et al. Towards a commercial process for the manufacture of genetically modified T cells for therapy. Cancer Gene Ther. 2015;22:72–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
go back to reference Naci H, Carter AW, Mossialos E. Why the drug development pipeline is not delivering better medicines. BMJ. 2015;351:h5542.CrossRefPubMed Naci H, Carter AW, Mossialos E. Why the drug development pipeline is not delivering better medicines. BMJ. 2015;351:h5542.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Innovative regenerative medicines in the EU: a better future in evidence?
Authors
Mark S. Corbett
Andrew Webster
Robert Hawkins
Nerys Woolacott
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medicine / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1741-7015
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0818-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Medicine 1/2017 Go to the issue