Mechanism of action, potency and efficacy: considerations for cell therapies.

One of the most challenging aspects of developing advanced cell therapy products (CTPs) is defining the mechanism of action (MOA), potency and efficacy of the product. This perspective examines these concepts and presents helpful ways to think about them through the lens of metrology. A logical framework for thinking about MOA, potency and efficacy is presented that is consistent with the existing regulatory guidelines, but also accommodates what has been learned from the 27 US FDA-approved CTPs. Available information regarding MOA, potency and efficacy for the 27 FDA-approved CTPs is reviewed to provide background and perspective. Potency process and efficacy process charts are introduced to clarify and illustrate the relationships between six key concepts: MOA, potency, potency test, efficacy, efficacy endpoint and efficacy endpoint test. Careful consideration of the meaning of these terms makes it easier to discuss the challenges of correlating potency test results with clinical outcomes and to understand how the relationships between the concepts can be misunderstood during development and clinical trials. Examples of how a product can be "potent but not efficacious" or "not potent but efficacious" are presented. Two example applications of the framework compare how MOA is assessed in cell cultures, animal models and human clinical trials and reveals the challenge of establishing MOA in humans. Lastly, important considerations for the development of potency tests for a CTP are discussed. These perspectives can help product developers set appropriate expectations for understanding a product's MOA and potency, avoid unrealistic assumptions and improve communication among team members during the development of CTPs.

Recommendations on fit-for-purpose criteria to establish quality management for microphysiological systems and for monitoring their reproducibility.

Cell culture technology has evolved, moving from single-cell and monolayer methods to 3D models like reaggregates, spheroids, and organoids, improved with bioengineering like microfabrication and bioprinting. These advancements, termed microphysiological systems (MPSs), closely replicate tissue environments and human physiology, enhancing research and biomedical uses. However, MPS complexity introduces standardization challenges, impacting reproducibility and trust. We offer guidelines for quality management and control criteria specific to MPSs, facilitating reliable outcomes without stifling innovation. Our fit-for-purpose recommendations provide actionable advice for achieving consistent MPS performance.