Australian regulation of autologous human cell and tissue products: implications for commercial stem cell clinics

Research progress of implantation materials and its biological evaluation

With the development of modern material science, life science and medical science, implantation materials are widely employed in clinical fields. In recent years, these materials have also evolved from inert supports or functional substitutes to bioactive materials able to trigger or promote the regenerative potential of tissues. Reasonable biological evaluation of implantation materials is the premise to make sure their safe application in clinical practice. With the continual development of implantation materials and the emergence of new implantation materials, new challenges to biological evaluation have been presented. In this paper, the research progress of implantation materials, the progress of biological evaluation methods, and also the characteristics of biocompatibility evaluation for novel implantation materials, like animal-derived implantation materials, nerve contact implantation materials, nanomaterials and tissue-engineered medical products were reviewed in order to provide references for the rational biological evaluation of implantable materials.

The regulatory challenge of 3D bioprinting

New developments in additive manufacturing and regenerative medicine have the potential to radically disrupt the traditional pipelines of therapy development and medical device manufacture. These technologies present a challenge for regulators because traditional regulatory frameworks are designed for mass manufactured therapies, rather than bespoke solutions. 3D bioprinting technologies present another dimension of complexity through the inclusion of living cells in the fabrication process. Herein we overview the challenge of regulating 3D bioprinting in comparison to existing cell therapy products as well as custom-made 3D printed medical devices. We consider a range of specific challenges pertaining to 3D bioprinting in regenerative medicine, including classification, risk, standardization and quality control, as well as technical issues related to the manufacturing process and the incorporated materials and cells.

Critical considerations for public engagement in stem cell-related research

Public engagement is increasingly recognized as being integral to basic and translational research. Public engagement involves effective communication about research along with the mutual exchange of views and opinions among a wide variety of members in society. As such, public engagement can help to identify issues that must be addressed in order for research to be ethically sound and trustworthy. It is especially critical in research that potentially raises ethical concerns, for example research involving embryos, germline genome editing, stigmatized conditions, and marginalized communities. Therefore, it is not surprising that there have been prominent recent calls for public engagement in the emerging sciences. However, given that there is arguably little agreement about how this should be done and the best ways of doing so, those involved with planning and implementing public engagement can benefit from understanding a broad range of prior experiences on related issues.

From the Integrity of Potency Assays to Safe Clinical Intervention: Legal Perspectives

Potency assays associated with the efficacy of investigational pharmaceutical products are one of the critical quality attributes that need to be carefully monitored during advanced therapy medicinal product (ATMP) development projects. Ensuring integrity of relevant potency assays for stem cell-based ATMPs is of paramount importance for safety and efficacy of clinical interventions. Yet, due to the complex and heterogeneous nature of stem cell-based ATMPs, creation of an appropriate set of potency assays is associated with a number of specific challenges ranging from intrinsic and operational to legal and regulatory ones. This chapter provides an overview of the EU regulatory landscape for advanced therapies, highlighting important aspects that need to be taken into consideration when preparing a strategic plan to meet the EU regulatory requirements.

Regulating autologous stem cell interventions in Australia: updated review of the direct-to-consumer advertising restrictions

Objective This paper provides an update and overview of the law governing direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising of autologous stem cell interventions (ASCIs) in Australia. It follows significant changes to the advertising regulations made in 2018. Methods The paper reviews the three primary sources or 'centres' of law regulating ASCIs in Australia, together with the relevant guidance documents that supplement these sources. It provides analysis of how the post-2018 advertising regulations, contained in the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cwlth), apply to all 'biologicals', including ASCIs. It demonstrates how these three sources of law interact with one another and outlines the new tiered offence regime that applies to contraventions of these prohibitions. Results The analysis demonstrates that DTC advertising of ASCIs in Australia is strictly controlled, with primary legislation prohibiting the advertising of biologicals altogether. Conclusions The polycentric legal regime regulating biologicals in Australia clearly makes DTC advertising of ASCIs unlawful. Health practitioners who promote ASCIs, either online, in print or in other media forms, may be penalised in different ways and by different authorities. What is known about the topic? Although several analyses have examined the regulation of ASCIs in Australia, no analysis has studied the reforms made in 2018 relating to the advertising of biologicals. As such, this analysis contributes a fresh examination of these relatively recent reforms. What does this paper add? This analysis clarifies the effects of these new advertising regulations, providing clear guidance on the relevant legal provisions for the benefit of health practitioners and health professionals more generally. What are the implications for practitioners? Health practitioners, especially those who offer ASCIs, should be aware that civil and criminal penalties are likely to be imposed on individuals who promote biologicals in Australia by any means.