Explore the vast range of titles available.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has the disruptive potential to transform patients’ lives via innovations in pharmaceutical sciences, drug development, clinical trials, and manufacturing. However, it presents significant challenges, ethical concerns, and risks across sectors and societies. AI’s rapid advancement has revealed regulatory gaps as existing public policies struggle to keep pace with the challenges posed by these emerging technologies. The term AI itself has become commonplace to argue that greater “human oversight” for “machine intelligence” is needed to harness the power of this revolutionary technology for both potential and risk management, and hence to call for more practical regulatory guidelines, harmonized frameworks, and effective policies to ensure safety, scalability, data privacy, and governance, transparency, and equitable treatment. In this review paper, we employ a holistic multidisciplinary lens to survey the current regulatory landscape with a synopsis of the FDA workshop perspectives on the use of AI in drug and biological product development. We discuss the promises of responsible data-driven AI, challenges and related practices adopted to overcome limitations, and our practical reflections on regulatory oversight. Finally, the paper outlines a path forward and future opportunities for lawful ethical AI. This review highlights the importance of risk-based regulatory oversight, including diverging regulatory views in the field, in reaching a consensus.

Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) can self-renew indefinitely in culture and differentiate into all specialized cell types including gametes. iPSCs do not exist naturally and are instead generated (“induced” or “reprogrammed”) in culture from somatic cells through ectopic co-expression of defined pluripotency factors. Since they can be generated from any healthy person or patient, iPSCs are considered as a valuable resource for regenerative medicine to replace diseased or damaged tissues. In addition, reprogramming technology has provided a powerful tool to study mechanisms of cell fate decisions and to model human diseases, thereby substantially potentiating the possibility to (i) discover new drugs in screening formats and (ii) treat life-threatening diseases through cell therapy-based strategies. However, various legal and ethical barriers arise when aiming to exploit the full potential of iPSCs to minimize abuse or unauthorized utilization. In this review, we discuss bioethical, legal, and societal concerns associated with research and therapy using iPSCs. Furthermore, we present key questions and suggestions for stem cell scientists, legal authorities, and social activists investigating and working in this field.

Mesenchymal stromal stem cells (MSCs) possess a remarkable potential for numerous clinical applications due to their unique properties including self-renewal, immunomodulation, paracrine actions and multilineage differentiation. However, the translation of MSC-based Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs) into the clinic has frequently met with inconsistent outcomes. One of the suspected reasons for this issue is the inherent and extensive variability that exists among such ATMPs, which makes the interpretation of their clinical efficacy difficult to assess, as well as to compare the results of various studies. This variability stems from numerous reasons including differences in tissue sources, donor attributes, variances in manufacturing protocols, as well as modes of administration. MSCs can be isolated from various tissues including bone marrow, umbilical cord, adipose tissue and others, each with its unique phenotypic and functional characteristics. While MSCs from different sources do share common features, they also exhibit distinct gene expression profiles and functional properites. Donor-specific factors such as age, sex, body mass index, and underlying health conditions can influence MSC phenotype, morphology, differentiation potential and function. Moreover, variations in preparation of MSC products introduces additional heterogeneity as a result of cell culture media composition, presence or absence of added growth factors, use of different serum supplements and culturing techniques. Once MSC products are formulated, storage protocols play a pivotal role in its efficacy. Factors that affect cell viability include cell concentration, delivery solution and importantly, post-thawing protocols where applicable. Ensuing, differences in administration protocols can critically affect the distribution and functionallity of administered cells. As MSC-based therapies continue to advance through numerous clinical trials, implication of strategies to reduce product heterogeneity is imperative. Central to addressing these challenges is the need for precise prediction of clinical responses, which require well-defined MSC populations and harmonized assessment of their specific functions. By addressing these issues by meaningful approaches, such as, e.g., MSC pooling, the field can overcome barriers to advance towards more consistent and effective MSC-based therapies.

Bacteriophage therapy is a promising approach to treating bacterial infections. Research and development of bacteriophage therapy is intensifying due to the increase in antibiotic resistance and the faltering development of new antibiotics. Bacteriophage therapy uses bacteriophages (phages), i.e., prokaryotic viruses, to specifically target and kill pathogenic bacteria. The legal handling of this type of therapy raises several questions. These include whether phage therapeutics belong to a specially regulated class of medicinal products, and which legal framework should be followed with regard to the various technical ways in which phage therapeutics can be manufactured and administered. The article shows to which class of medicinal products phage therapeutics from wild type phages and from genetically modified (designer) phages do or do not belong. Furthermore, the article explains which legal framework is relevant for the manufacture and administration of phage therapeutics, which are manufactured in advance in a uniform, patient-independent manner, and for tailor-made patient-specific phage therapeutics. For the systematically coherent, successful translation of phage therapy, the article considers pharmaceutical law and related legal areas, such as genetic engineering law. Finally, the article shows how the planned legislative revisions of Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 may affect the legal future of phage therapy.

This review is an outlook on CAR-T development up to the beginning of 2023, with a special focus on the European landscape and its regulatory field, highlighting the main features and limitations affecting this innovative therapy in cancer treatment. We analysed the current state of the art in the EU and set out a showcase of the field’s potential advancements in the coming years. For this analysis, the data used came from the available scientific literature as well as from the European Medicines Agency and from clinical trial databases. The latter were investigated to query the studies on CAR-Ts that are active and/or relevant to the review process. As of this writing, CAR-Ts have started to move past the “ceiling” of third-line treatment with positive results in comparison trials with the Standard of Care (SoC). One such example is the trial Zuma-7 (NCT03391466), which resulted in approval of CAR-T products (Yescarta™) for second-line treatment, a crucial achievement for the field which can increase the use of this type of therapy. Despite exciting results in clinical trials, limitations are still many: they regard access, production, duration of response, resistance, safety, overall efficacy, and cost mitigation strategies. Nonetheless, CAR-T constructs are becoming more diverse, and the technology is starting to produce some remarkable results in treating diseases other than cancer.

CAR-T cell therapy is a promising treatment for acute leukemia and lymphoma. CAR-T cell therapies take a pioneering role in autologous gene therapy with three EMA-approved products. However, the chance of clinical success remains relatively low as the applicability of CAR-T cell therapy suffers from long, labor-intensive manufacturing and a lack of comprehensive insight into the bioprocess. This leads to high manufacturing costs and limited clinical success, preventing the widespread use of CAR-T cell therapies. New manufacturing approaches are needed to lower costs to improve manufacturing capacity and shorten provision times. Semi-automated devices such as the Miltenyi Prodigy ® were developed to reduce hands-on production time. However, these devices are not equipped with the process analytical technology necessary to fully characterize and control the process. An automated AI-driven CAR-T cell manufacturing platform in smart manufacturing hospitals (SMH) is being developed to address these challenges. Automation will increase the cost-effectiveness and robustness of manufacturing. Using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to interpret the data collected on the platform will provide valuable process insights and drive decisions for process optimization. The smart integration of automated CAR-T cell manufacturing platforms into hospitals enables the independent manufacture of autologous CAR-T cell products. In this perspective, we will be discussing current challenges and opportunities of the patient-specific but highly automated, AI-enabled CAR-T cell manufacturing. A first automation concept will be shown, including a system architecture based on current Industry 4.0 approaches for AI integration.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has achieved notable success in treating hematological cancers but faces significant challenges in solid-tumor treatment and overall efficacy. Key limitations include T-cell exhaustion, tumor relapse, immunosuppressive tumor microenvironments (TME), immunogenicity, and antigen heterogeneity. To address these issues, various genetic engineering strategies have been proposed. Approaches such as overexpression of transcription factors or metabolic armoring and dynamic CAR regulation are being explored to improve CAR T-cell function and safety. Other efforts to improve CAR T-cell efficacy in solid tumors include targeting novel antigens or developing alternative strategies to address antigen diversity. Despite the promising preclinical results of these solutions, challenges remain in translating CAR T-cell therapies to the clinic to enable economically viable access to these transformative medicines. The efficiency and scalability of autologous CAR T-cell therapy production are hindered by traditional, manual processes which are costly, time-consuming, and prone to variability and contamination. These high-cost, time-intensive processes have complex quality-control requirements. Recent advancements suggest that smaller, decentralized solutions such as microbioreactors and automated point-of-care systems could improve production efficiency, reduce costs, and shorten manufacturing timelines, especially when coupled with innovative manufacturing methods such as transposons and lipid nanoparticles. Future advancements may include harmonized consumables and AI-enabled technologies, which promise to streamline manufacturing, reduce costs, and enhance production quality.

MSCs products as well as their derived extracellular vesicles, are currently being explored as advanced biologics in cell-based therapies with high expectations for their clinical use in the next few years. In recent years, various strategies designed for improving the therapeutic potential of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs), including pre-conditioning for enhanced cytokine production, improved cell homing and strengthening of immunomodulatory properties, have been developed but the manufacture and handling of these cells for their use as advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) remains insufficiently studied, and available data are mainly related to non-industrial processes. In the present article, we will review this topic, analyzing current information on the specific regulations, the selection of living donors as well as MSCs from different sources (bone marrow, adipose tissue, umbilical cord, etc.), in-process quality controls for ensuring cell efficiency and safety during all stages of the manual and automatic (bioreactors) manufacturing process, including cryopreservation, the use of cell banks, handling medicines, transport systems of ATMPs, among other related aspects, according to European and US legislation. Our aim is to provide a guide for a better, homogeneous manufacturing of therapeutic cellular products with special reference to MSCs.

After decades of disregard in the Western world, phage therapy is witnessing a return of interest. However, the pharmaceutical legislation that has since been implemented is basically designed for regulating industrially-made pharmaceuticals, devoid of any patient customization and intended for large-scale distribution. Accordingly, the resulting regulatory framework is hardly reconcilable with the concept of sustainable phage therapy, involving tailor-made medicinal products in the global perspective of both evolutionary and personalized medicine. The repeated appeal for a dedicated regulatory framework has not been heard by the European legislature, which, in this matter, features a strong resistance to change despite the precedent of the unhindered implementation of advanced therapy medicinal product (ATMPs) regulation. It is acknowledged that in many aspects, phage therapy medicinal products are quite unconventional pharmaceuticals and likely this lack of conformity to the canonical model hampered the development of a suitable regulatory pathway. However, the regulatory approaches of countries where phage therapy traditions and practice have never been abandoned are now being revisited by some Western countries, opening new avenues for phage therapy regulation. As a next step, supranational and international organizations are urged to take over the initiatives originally launched by national regulatory authorities.

Although encouraging results of adipose-derived stem cell (ADSC) use in wound healing are available, the mechanism of action has been studied mainly in vitro and in animals. This work aimed to examine the safety and efficacy of allogenic ADSCs in human diabetic foot ulcer treatment, in combination with the analyses of the wound. Equal groups of 23 participants each received fibrin gel with ADSCs or fibrin gel alone. The clinical effects were assessed at four time points: days 7, 14, 21 and 49. Material collected during debridement from a subset of each group was analyzed for the presence of ADSC donor DNA and proteomic changes. The reduction in wound size was greater at all subsequent visits, significantly on day 21 and 49, and the time to 50% reduction in the wound size was significantly shorter in patients who received ADSCs. Complete healing was achieved at the end of the study in seven patients treated with ADSCs vs. one treated without ADSCs. One week after ADSC application, 34 proteins significantly differentiated the material from both groups, seven of which, i.e., GAPDH, CAT, ACTN1, KRT1, KRT9, SCL4A1, and TPI, positively correlated with the healing rate. We detected ADSC donor DNA up to 21 days after administration. We confirmed ADSC-related improvement in wound healing that correlated with the molecular background, which provides insights into the role of ADSCs in wound healing—a step toward the development of cell-based therapies.