Cited by 59Biomedical Ethics and RegulationPharmaceutical Economics and PolicyHealthcare Regulation

Mitigating deficiencies in evidence during regulatory assessments of advanced therapies: a comparative study with other biologicals

Open access
Elsallab, Magdi, Bravery, Christopher A., Kurtz, Andreas, Abou-El-Enein, Mohamed·2020·Molecular Therapy - Methods & Clinical Development

Abstract

Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) comprising cell therapy, gene therapy, and tissue-engineered products, offer a multitude of novel therapeutic approaches to a wide range of severe and debilitating diseases. To date, several advanced therapies have received marketing authorization for a variety of indications. However, some products showed disappointing market performance, leading to their withdrawal. The available evidence for quality, safety, and efficacy at product launch can play a crucial rule in their market success. To evaluate the sufficiency of evidence in submissions of advanced therapies for marketing authorization and to benchmark them against more established biological products, we conducted a matched comparison of the regulatory submissions between ATMPs and other biologicals. We applied a quantitative assessment of the regulatory objections and divergence from the expected data requirements as indicators of sufficiency of evidence and regulatory flexibilty, respectively. Our results demonstrated that product manufacturing was challenging regardless of the product type. Advanced therapies displayed critical deficiencies in the submitted clinical data. The submitted non-clinical data packages benefited the most from regulatory flexibility. Additionally, ATMP developers need to comply with more commitments in the post-approval phase, which might add pressure on market performance. Mitigating such observed deficiencies in future product development, may leverage their potential for market success.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.omtm.2020.05.035

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Decentralized manufacturing in multiple small facilities is appealing, but new models of production scaling that rely on this approach remain a challenge to regulate.

    “Decentralized manufacturing in multiple small facilities is appealing, but new models of production scaling that rely on this approach remain a challenge to regulate (137-139).”

    From Scalable Manufacturing of CAR T Cells for Cancer Immunotherapy (2021) · cites this paper as [139]

    The Discussion describes manufacturing and logistics constraints and regulatory objections for advanced therapies, but does not address decentralized production across multiple small facilities or the appeal and regulatory difficulty of scaling that model. Searches for decentralized manufacturing, scale-out, and multiple facilities found no passage making the attributed point; page numbers were unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [32]Institute for Clinical and Economic Review Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy for B-cell cancers: effectiveness and value 2018 https://icer-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/ICER_CAR_T_Final_Evidence_Report_032318.pdf
  2. [41]Jones D.R. McBlane J.W. McNaughton G. Rajakumaraswamy N. Wydenbach K. A regulatory perspective of clinical trial applications for biological products with particular emphasis on advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 76 2013 203 209 23216470 PMC3731595

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Elsallab, M., Bravery, C. A., Kurtz, A., & Abou-El-Enein, M.
Affiliations
Berlin-Brandenburger Centrum für Regenerative Therapien (DE)
Venue
Molecular Therapy - Methods & Clinical Development
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-09
Volume
18
Pages
269-279
ISSN
2329-0501 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3033248840
Cited by
59
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 2
FWCI
4.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Molecular Therapy — Methods & Clinical Development (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust
  • Arab-German Young Academy of Sciences and Humanities
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
  • Northeastern University
  • McGill University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Biomedical Ethics and Regulation
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Regulation
Keywords
advanced therapy medicinal products, regulatory evaluation, drug approval, cell therapy, gene therapy, tissue-engineered products, regulatory flexibility, product withdrawal

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review