a Ethics Program, Law School , University of Wisconsin-Madison , Madison , WI, USA.
b Morgridge Institute for Research , Madison , WI, USA.
Gut Microbes. 2019;10(2):105-108. doi: 10.1080/19490976.2018.1502537. Epub 2018 Sep 13.
In 2017 Gut Microbes published "A proposed definition of microbiota transplantation for regulatory purposes," in which the authors suggest that regulators should draw a line between microbiota transplants and biologic drugs composed of microbial communities (or other products derived from the human microbiome). They develop a definition of microbiota transplantation (MT) to help regulators draw such a line, and suggest that MT need not be, and cannot be, regulated as a biologic drug (a live biotherapeutic product). However, an agency's regulatory scrutiny of a medical product should be commensurate with that product's degree of risk to patients. Products for MT, such as stool, are likely to be as or more dangerous than more highly manipulated microbial products that scientists and regulators agree should be regulated as biologic drugs. Therefore, we argue that MT, as defined by the authors, should receive the same regulatory oversight as any other biologic product intended to cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent disease. We also suggest that regulators might not be able to operationalize the proposed definition of MT.
2017 年,《肠道微生物》发表了“监管目的下微生物组移植的定义建议”一文,作者建议监管机构应在微生物组移植和由微生物群落组成的生物药物(或其他源自人类微生物组的产品)之间划清界限。他们提出了微生物组移植(MT)的定义,以帮助监管机构划定这条线,并建议 MT 不必也不能作为生物药物(一种活的生物治疗产品)进行监管。然而,机构对一种医疗产品的监管审查应该与该产品对患者的风险程度相称。MT 产品,如粪便,可能与更具操纵性的微生物产品一样危险,甚至更危险,而科学家和监管机构一致认为这些产品应该作为生物药物进行监管。因此,我们认为,按照作者的定义,MT 应该像任何其他旨在治疗、减轻、治疗或预防疾病的生物产品一样接受同样的监管监督。我们还建议监管机构可能无法实施拟议的 MT 定义。