Enhancing Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine Product Commercialization: The Role of Science in Regulatory Decision-Making for the TE/RM Product Development.

TERMIS-AM Industry Committee (TERMIS-AM/IC), in collaboration with the TERMIS-Europe (EU)/IC, conducted a symposium involving the European Medicines Agency and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) toward building an understanding of the rational basis for regulatory decision-making and providing a framework for decisions made during the evaluation of safety and efficacy of TE/RM technologies. This symposium was held in August 2012 during the TERMIS-WC in Vienna, Austria. Emerging from this international initiative by the European Union and the United States, representatives from the respective agencies demonstrated that there are ongoing interagency efforts for developing common national practices toward harmonization of regulatory requirements for the TE/RM products. To extend a broad-based understanding of the role of science in regulatory decision-making, TERMIS-AM/IC, in cooperation with the FDA, organized a symposium at the 2014 TERMIS-AM Annual Meeting, which was held in Washington, DC. This event provided insights from leaders in the FDA and TERMIS on the current status of regulatory approaches for the approved TE/RM products, the use of science in making regulatory decisions, and TE/RM technologies that are in the development pipeline to address unmet medical needs. A far-ranging discussion with FDA representatives, industrialists, physicians, regenerative medicine biologists, and tissue engineers considered the gaps in today's scientific and regulatory understanding of TE/RM technologies. The identified gaps represent significant opportunities to advance TE/RM technologies toward commercialization.

Awareness of the role of science in the FDA regulatory submission process: a survey of the TERMIS-Americas membership.

The Industry Committee of the Tissue Engineering Regenerative Medicine International Society, Americas Chapter (TERMIS-AM) administered a survey to its membership in 2013 to assess the awareness of science requirements in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory process. One hundred forty-four members responded to the survey. Their occupational and geographical representation was representative of the TERMIS-AM membership as a whole. The survey elicited basic demographic information, the degree to which members were involved in tissue engineering technology development, and their plans for future involvement in such development. The survey then assessed the awareness of general FDA scientific practices as well as specific science requirements for regulatory submissions to the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), and the Office of Combination Projects (OCP). The FDA-specific questions in the survey were culled from guidance documents posted on the FDA web site ( www.fda.gov ). One of the answer options was an opt-out clause that enabled survey respondents to claim a lack of sufficient awareness of the topic to answer the question. This enabled the stratification of respondents on the basis of confidence in the topic. Results indicate that across all occupational groups (academic, business, and government) that are represented in the TERMIS-AM membership, the awareness of FDA science requirements varies markedly. Those who performed best were for-profit company employees, consultants, and government employees; while students, professors, and respondents from outside the USA performed least well. Confidence in question topics was associated with increased correctness in responses across all groups, though the association between confidence and the ability to answer correctly was poorest among students and professors. Though 80% of respondents claimed involvement in the development of a tissue engineering technology, their responses were no more correct than those who were not. Among those developing tissue engineering technologies, few are taking advantage of existing standards organizations to strengthen their regulatory submissions. The data suggest that early exposure to regulatory experts would be of value for those seeking to bring their technology to the market. For all groups studied but especially for students and professors, formal initial or continuing education in Regulatory Science should be considered to best support translational tissue engineering research and development. In addition, the involvement of standards development organizations during tissue engineering technology development is strongly recommended.

Hurdles in tissue engineering/regenerative medicine product commercialization: a pilot survey of governmental funding agencies and the financial industry.

The Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine International Society of the Americas (TERMIS-AM) Industry Committee conducted a semiquantitative opinion survey in 2010 to delineate potential hurdles to commercialization perceived by the TERMIS constituency groups that participate in the stream of technology commercialization (academia, start-up companies, development-stage companies, and established companies). A significant hurdle identified consistently by each group was access to capital for advancing potential technologies into development pathways leading to commercialization. A follow-on survey was developed by the TERMIS-AM Industry Committee to evaluate the financial industry's perspectives on investing in regenerative medical technologies. The survey, composed of 15 questions, was developed and provided to 37 investment organizations in one of three sectors (governmental, private, and public investors). The survey was anonymous and confidential with sector designation the only identifying feature of each respondent's organization. Approximately 80% of the survey was composed of respondents from the public (n=14) and private (n=15) sectors. Each respondent represents one investment organization with the potential of multiple participants participating to form the organization's response. The remaining organizations represented governmental agencies (n=8). Results from this survey indicate that a high percentage (<60%) of respondents (governmental, private, and public) were willing to invest >$2MM into regenerative medical companies at the different stages of a company's life cycle. Investors recognized major hurdles to this emerging industry, including regulatory pathway, clinical translation, and reimbursement of these new products. Investments in regenerative technologies have been cyclical over the past 10-15 years, but investors recognized a 1-5-year investment period before the exit via Merger and Acquisition (M&A). Investors considered musculoskeletal products and their top technology choice with companies in the clinical stage of development being the most preferred investment targets. All sectors indicated a limited interest in early-stage start-up companies potentially explaining why start-up companies have struggled to access to capital and investors based their investment on the stage of a company's life cycle, reflecting each sector's risk tolerance, exit strategy, time of holding an investment, and investment strategy priorities. Investors highlighted the limited number of regenerative medical companies that have achieved commercial status as a basis for why public investors have been approached by so few companies. Based on respondents to this survey, regenerative medical sponsors seeking capital from the financial industry must keep the explanation of their technology simple, since all sectors considered regenerative medical technology as difficult to evaluate. This survey's results indicate that under the current financial environment, many regenerative medical companies must consider codevelopment or even M&A as nondilutive means of raising capital. The overall summary for this survey highlights the highly varied goals and motivations for the various sectors of the government and financial industries.

Hurdles in tissue engineering/regenerative medicine product commercialization: a survey of North American academia and industry.

The Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine International Society-North America (TERMIS-NA) Industry Committee was formed in February 2009 to address the common roadblocks (i.e., hurdles) in the commercialization of tissue engineering/regenerative medicine products for its members. A semiquantitative online opinion survey instrument that delineated potentially sensitive hurdles to commercialization in each of the TERMIS constituency groups that generally participate in the stream of technology commercialization (academia, startup companies, development-stage companies, and established companies) was developed. The survey was opened to each of the 863 members of TERMIS-NA for a period of 5 weeks from October to November 2009. By its conclusion, 215 members (25%) had responded. Their proportionate numbers were closely representative of TERMIS-NA constituencies. The resulting data delineate what each group considers to be its most difficult and also its easiest hurdles in taking a technology to full product development. In addition, each group ranked its perception of the difficult and easy hurdles for all other groups, enabling an assessment of the degree of understanding between groups. The data depict not only critical hurdles in the path to commercialization at each stage in product development but also a variable understanding of perceptions of hurdles between groups. This assessment has provided the Industry Committee with activity foci needed to assist individual groups in the technology-commercialization stream. Moreover, the analysis suggests that enhanced communication between groups engaged in commercialization will be critical to the successful development of products in the tissue engineering/regenerative medicine sector.