Search

Cellular therapies have moved to the forefront based upon promising results from clinical trials using both chimeric antigen receptor T lymphocytes to treat leukemia and other cell types to restore structure and function to tissues that have been damaged by disease or physical injury. The pace at which these treatments have evolved has posed a regulatory challenge to agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This chapter describes how a specific regulatory strategy was developed and how it has evolved in response to the demand for these new therapies.

Background: Cellular therapy studies are often conducted at multiple clinical sites to accrue larger patient numbers. In many cases this necessitates use of localized good manufacturing practices facilities to supply the cells. To assure consistent quality, oversight by a quality assurance group is advisable. In this study we report the findings of such a group established as part of the Cardiovascular Cell Therapy Research Network (CCTRN) studies involving use of autologous bone marrow mononuclear cells (ABMMCs) to treat myocardial infarction and heart failure., Study Design and Methods: Factors affecting cell manufacturing time were studied in 269 patients enrolled on three CCTRN protocols using automated cell processing system (Sepax, Biosafe SA)-separated ABMMCs. The cells were prepared at five good manufacturing practices cell processing facilities and delivered to local treatment sites or more distant satellite centers., Results: Although the Sepax procedure takes only 90 minutes, the total time for processing was approximately 7 hours. Contributing to this were incoming testing and device preparation, release testing, patient randomization, and product delivery. The mean out-of-body time (OBT), which was to be less than 12 hours, averaged 9 hours. A detailed analysis of practices at each center revealed a variety of factors that contributed to this OBT., Conclusion: We conclude that rapid cell enrichment procedures may give a false impression of the time actually required to prepare a cellular therapy product for release and administration. Institutional procedures also differ and can contribute to delays; however, in aggregate it is possible to achieve an overall manufacturing and testing time that is similar at multiple facilities., (© 2012 American Association of Blood Banks.)

Background Aims: This study was initiated to determine whether CD34(+) cell selection of small-volume bone marrow (BM) samples could be performed effectively on the Isolex(R) 300i Magnetic Cell Selection System device and whether the results obtained from these samples were comparable with results from large standard-volume samples. The impact on CD34(+) recovery using a full versus half vial of Isolex(R) CD34 reagent and the effects of shipping a post-selection product were evaluated., Methods: A protocol to evaluate CD34(+) cell selection with two ranges of smaller volume BM samples (c. 50 mL and c. 100 mL) was developed and instituted at three Production Assistance for Cellular Therapies (PACT) facilities. The study was performed in two phases., Results: In phase I, the mean post-selection CD34(+) recoveries from the two sizes of samples were 104.1% and 103.3% (smallest and largest volumes, respectively), and mean CD34(+) recoveries were 115.6% and 88.7%, with full and half vials of reagent, respectively. Mean CD34(+) recoveries for post-shipment smaller volume samples were 106.8% and for larger volume samples 116.4%; mean CD34(+) recoveries were 99.9% and 127.4% for post-shipment samples processed with full and half vials of reagent, respectively. In phase II, mean CD34(+) recovery was 76.8% for post-selection samples and 74.0% for post-shipment samples., Conclusions: The results suggest that smaller volume BM sample processing on the Isolex(R) system is as efficient or more efficient compared with standard-volume sample processing. Post-processing mean CD34(+) recovery results obtained using a full or half vial of CD34 reagent were not significantly different.

BackgroundAnthracycline-induced cardiomyopathy (AIC) is a significant source of morbidity and mortality in cancer survivors. The role of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) in treating AIC was evaluated in the SENECA trial, a Phase 1 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-sponsored study, but the mechanisms underpinning efficacy in human tissue need clarification.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to perform an in vitro clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and putative mechanisms of SENECA trial-specific MSCs in treating doxorubicin (DOX) injury, using patient-specific induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes (iCMs) generated from SENECA patients.MethodsPatient-specific iCMs were injured with 1 μmol/L DOX for 24 hours, treated with extracellular vesicles (EVs) from MSCs by either coculture or direct incubation and then assessed for viability and markers of improved cellular physiology. MSC-derived EVs were separated into large extracellular vesicles (L-EVs) (>200 nm) and small EVs (

Background aims. Multicenter cellular therapy clinical trials require the establishment and implementation of standardized cell-processing protocols and associated quality control (QC) mechanisms. The aims here were to develop such an infrastructure in support of the Cardiovascular Cell Therapy Research Network (CCTRN) and to report on the results of processing for the first 60 patients. Methods. Standardized cell preparations, consisting of autologous bone marrow (BM) mononuclear cells, prepared using a Sepax device, were manufactured at each of the five processing facilities that supported the clinical treatment centers. Processing staff underwent centralized training that included proficiency evaluation. Quality was subsequently monitored by a central QC program that included product evaluation by the CCTRN biorepositories. Results. Data from the first 60 procedures demonstrated that uniform products, that met all release criteria, could be manufactured at all five sites within 7 h of receipt of BM. Uniformity was facilitated by use of automated systems (the Sepax for processing and the Endosafe device for endotoxin testing), standardized procedures and centralized QC. Conclusions. Complex multicenter cell therapy and regenerative medicine protocols can, where necessary, successfully utilize local processing facilities once an effective infrastructure is in place to provide training and QC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background aims. This study was initiated to determine whether CD34+ cell selection of small-volume bone marrow (BM) samples could be performed effectively on the Isolex® 300i Magnetic Cell Selection System® device and whether the results obtained from these samples were comparable with results from large standard-volume samples. The impact on CD34+ recovery using a full versus half vial of Isolex® CD34 reagent and the effects of shipping a post-selection product were evaluated. Methods. A protocol to evaluate CD34+ cell selection with two ranges of smaller volume BM samples (c. 50 mL and c. 100 mL) was developed and instituted at three Production Assistance for Cellular Therapies (PACT) facilities. The study was performed in two phases. Results. In phase I, the mean post-selection CD34+ recoveries from the two sizes of samples were 104.1% and 103.3% (smallest and largest volumes, respectively), and mean CD34+ recoveries were 115.6% and 88.7%, with full and half vials of reagent, respectively. Mean CD34+ recoveries for post-shipment smaller volume samples were 106.8% and for larger volume samples 116.4%; mean CD34+ recoveries were 99.9% and 127.4% for post-shipment samples processed with full and half vials of reagent, respectively. In phase II, mean CD34+ recovery was 76.8% for post-selection samples and 74.0% for post-shipment samples. Conclusions. The results suggest that smaller volume BM sample processing on the Isolex® system is as efficient or more efficient compared with standard-volume sample processing. Post-processing mean CD34+ recovery results obtained using a full or half vial of CD34 reagent were not significantly different. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]