Matsui Kenji, Israsena Nipan, Kaewkungwal Jaranit, Adams Pornpimon, Wendler David, Lie Reidar K
Division of Bioethics and Healthcare Law, Institute for Cancer Control, National Cancer Center Japan, Tsukiji 5-1-1, Chuo-Ku, Tokyo, 104-0045 Japan.
Center of Excellence for Stem Cell and Cell Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, 8th Floor Bhumisiri Bld ., Rajdamir Rd, Lumpini, Pathumwan, Bangkok, 10330 Thailand.
Asian Bioeth Rev. 2024 Aug 15;17(1):101-115. doi: 10.1007/s41649-024-00301-9. eCollection 2025 Jan.
Advanced new therapies, such as stem cell and gene therapies and xenotransplantation, represent challenges for regulatory and ethical review. Major drug agencies, such as in the U.S., India, and Europe, have asserted regulatory authority and require ethics review by local ethics review committees, using the same strict requirements as those for standard drug approvals. In spite of this, unapproved and undocumented stem cell clinics flourish in all of these places, suggesting that current approaches do not offer patients sufficient protection. Japan has attempted another approach, requiring approvals at local levels for all regenerative medical procedures, and a faster approval of promising new interventions. The Japanese approach has, however, also been criticized as not striking a proper balance between early access and a proper assessment of safety and effectiveness. For smaller and less-resourced countries, such as Thailand, one major challenge is limited expertise to conduct the evaluation of these advanced new therapies. This article provides an overview of the issues facing regulators and proposes that countries should restrict the early adoption of advanced new therapies to specialized clinics with appropriate scientific and ethical expertise for review. Review in these institutions should focus on expert clinical benefit assessments for individual patients being offered such interventions, independently of whether they are offered as research or therapy.
先进的新疗法,如干细胞疗法、基因疗法和异种移植,对监管和伦理审查构成了挑战。美国、印度和欧洲等主要药品监管机构已主张监管权力,并要求当地伦理审查委员会进行伦理审查,采用与标准药品审批相同的严格要求。尽管如此,未经批准和未备案的干细胞诊所仍在所有这些地方蓬勃发展,这表明目前的方法并未为患者提供足够的保护。日本尝试了另一种方法,要求对所有再生医疗程序进行地方层面的审批,并更快地批准有前景的新干预措施。然而,日本的方法也受到批评,认为在早期获取与对安全性和有效性进行适当评估之间没有达成适当的平衡。对于泰国等资源较少的小国来说,一个主要挑战是进行这些先进新疗法评估的专业知识有限。本文概述了监管机构面临的问题,并建议各国应将先进新疗法的早期采用限制在具备适当科学和伦理专业知识进行审查的专业诊所。这些机构的审查应侧重于对接受此类干预措施的个体患者进行专家临床效益评估,而不论这些干预措施是作为研究还是治疗提供的。