Nonclinical and quality assessment of cell therapy products: Report on the 4th Asia Partnership Conference of Regenerative Medicine, April 15, 2021.

The 4th Asia Partnership Conference of Regenerative Medicine (APACRM) was held online on April 15, 2021, to promote regulatory harmonization of regenerative medicine products throughout Asia. Recognizing domestic regulatory guidelines within each country and region, and their underpinning rationales, is an important initial step toward a convergence of regulations. The 4th APACRM consisted of an open dialog with regulatory agencies regarding nonclinical and quality settings for cell therapy products (CTPs) through industry presentations and panel discussions with regulatory agencies. The latest updates on regenerative medicine fields in each country and region, and specific regulatory schematics in Japan, were also introduced. The objective of this paper is to summarize the proceedings of the 4th APACRM for public dissemination and to foster further discussion in the future.

Non-clinical assessment of cell therapy products: the perspective from five Asian countries/regions based on regulatory guidelines and the underpinning rationales.

BACKGROUND AIMS: Cell-based regenerative medicine is an innovative field that can potentially alter the overall survival and quality of life of patients with devastating diseases. Several cell therapy products (CTPs) have been approved within the last two decades, and more are under development. The establishment of an effective developmental strategy in accordance with the regulatory bodies of each country/region is crucial for fast delivery of each respective CTP. In particular, facilitating investigational new drug (IND) approval is important for accelerating the transition from non-clinical to clinical research/trial phases. METHODS: Here the authors compared the non-clinical prerequisites for initiating clinical studies in five Asian countries/regions (India, China, Korea, Taiwan and Japan) from an industry viewpoint. The authors first identified the differences and tried to clarify the perspectives/considerations underpinning the different requirements. RESULTS: The authors' findings revealed that differences in regulations and development experiences, especially with CTPs, have led to clear differences in the non-clinical study package and its corresponding study design. CONCLUSIONS: By sharing experiences of the research and development of CTPs among Asian countries/regions and including not only industry but also regulatory authorities, we will be able to expedite cross-border IND approval and eventually contribute to the early delivery of innovative CTPs to many Asian patients.