Regulation of cellular therapy in Australia.

Use of cellular products for therapeutic purposes has predominantly been unregulated in Australia until recently. Transplant of haemopoietic progenitor cells (HPC) for bone marrow regeneration is now a routine treatment for many disorders with an established mechanism of facility accreditation. However, other cellular therapies do not have any form of accreditation, are not well evaluated and may be associated with significant risks. On 31 May 2011 the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) implemented a long heralded regulatory biologicals framework for cell and tissue based therapies. The framework currently excludes human HPC, organs for direct transplantation and reproductive materials which are already covered by various forms of existing peer review and accreditation. This new framework is a practical approach for applying regulation based on the risk of the product to the recipient with four classes of product. Class 1 is reserved for the least regulated products and currently does not contain any proposed products. Class 2 will be for minimally manipulated products which will only require manufacturing compliance and evaluation against product and other mandatory standards before entry onto the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG). Class 3 and 4 products will be more than minimally manipulated and these cells and tissues may be used in a non-homologous manner. Class 3 and 4 products will represent a spectrum of risk where Class 4 therapies will represent the highest potential risk to the recipient, with the same requirements for Class 2 approvals but with additional requirements for comprehensive evaluation of a dossier for quality, safety and efficacy of the product. The extent of this quality, safety and efficacy data will depend upon the nature of the product and its associated risks, but will be more comprehensive for Class 4 as opposed to Class 3 products. The only truly contentious feature of this framework is the extremely high cost for dossier evaluation and the puzzling absence of an orphan drug scheme for biologicals.