Search

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., (Copyright © 2022 International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2021 International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

There are many differences between Asian regions in terms of the regulatory requirements and operational procedures in conducting international academic clinical trials for the approval of new drugs. The National Cancer Center Hospital in Japan has launched an international investigator-initiated registration-directed trial (IIRDT) in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore, aiming at obtaining pharmaceutical approval in participating regions. Differences in regulatory and operational procedures were identified while coordinating the trial. In Japan, regulatory authority reviews should be performed after approval by institutional review boards for IIRDT, whereas in other regions these can be done in parallel. There were disparities in Good Manufacturing Practice-related documents between regions. Several differences were found regarding investigational product (IP) management, specifically concerning labeling, import/export procedures, and customs clearance costs. On the other hand, safety reporting procedures were relatively well-harmonized in accordance with International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, Clinical Safety Data Management: Definitions and Standards for Expedited Reporting (ICH-E2A). Regions also differed in per-patient costs, due to varying regulations for academic registration-directed trials. In conclusion, the observed differences among Asian regions should be harmonized to facilitate international academic trials in Asia and thus resolve unmet patient needs worldwide. Study Highlights WHAT IS THE CURRENT KNOWLEDGE ON THE TOPIC? International clinical trials have become common because they make it possible to accrue patients faster and obtain new drug approval in wider areas. However, pharmaceutical regulatory differences hinder the efficient conduct of international clinical trials, especially in academia. WHAT QUESTION DID THIS STUDY ADDRESS? We conducted an academic international clinical trial on new drug applications in four Asian countries and clarified pharmaceutical regulatory differences and operational difficulties. WHAT DOES THIS STUDY ADD TO OUR KNOWLEDGE? The study identified differences between countries in terms of regulatory affairs, institutional review board (IRB) review processes, investigational new drug (IND) dossiers, investigational product (IP) management procedures, and clinical trial costs, while safety reporting procedures were relatively harmonized. Japan utilizes investigator-initiated registration-directed trials, an advanced regulatory system for new drug application by academia, but the other countries do not. HOW MIGHT THIS CHANGE CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY OR TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE? Harmonization of pharmaceutical regulations and trial initiation procedures, and regulatory reform of clinical trial costs are important to accelerate academic international clinical trials for new drug applications., (© 2020 The Authors. Clinical and Translational Science published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

The prognostic significance of FLT3-tyrosine kinase domain (TKD) mutations remains unknown. To investigate the prognostic impact of FLT3-TKD, 676 de novo acute myeloid leukemia (AML), we retrospectively analyzed cases and conducted a review of the literature. Of the 676 de novo AML cases, 34 (5.0%) were FLT3-TKD-positive; both FLT3-TKD and FLT3-ITD were noted in only two cases (0.3%). Although no significant differences in relapse-free survival (RFS) were noted, FLT3-TKD-positive cases showed better prognoses than FLT3-ITD-positive cases (FLT3-TKD versus FLT3-ITD, p = 0.152). For overall survival (OS), although FLT3-TKD-positive cases showed prognoses similar to those for FLT3-WT cases, their prognoses were significantly better than those of FLT3-ITD-positive cases (FLT3-TKD versus FLT3-ITD, p = 0.032). Moreover, the 5-year OS for FLT3-TKD-positive cases was 46.1%, indicating that this as an intermediate prognosis group. Although no reports from Asia have indicated a frequency of FLT3-TKD-positive cases > 10%, several reports from Europe and the United States have indicated frequencies > 10%. This suggests the possibility that FLT3-TKD-positive cases are less common in Asia than in Europe and the United States. We anticipate that in the future, the appearance of targeting agents, such as FLT3 inhibitors, will improve the prognosis of FLT3-TKD-positive AML relative to that of FLT3-WT AML.

Purpose: There is some unknown reason Ewing family of tumors (EFTs) is much less common on Asia and Africa than in the Western Caucasian population. This study analyzed the prediction of response and prognostic factors for Ewing family of tumors (EFTs) in an Asian population with a low incidence., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 94 patients with EFTs between 1978 and 2006. Fifteen patients received local therapy only. Statistical analyses were performed for 79 patients, including those who received systemic chemotherapy, to identify factors related to chemotherapy responsiveness, event-free survival, and overall survival., Results: Of the 79 patients whose records were analyzed, the 5-year event-free rate and overall survival (OS) rate were 41 and 54%, respectively. The response rate to first-line chemotherapy was 61% in 70 patients with assessable lesions. A significant predictor of response was existence of a non-pelvic primary tumor (P = 0.04). Significant prognostic factors for OS were age, performance status, and metastases at the time of diagnosis (P < 0.01, respectively). Fifty-four patients had disease progression or recurrence after first-line treatment. The time to progression was 3.4 months after salvage treatment. Progression during first-line treatment was significantly associated with time to progression after salvage treatment (P = 0.01). All patients treated without chemotherapy in first-line treatment were recurred with poor prognosis., Conclusion: A non-pelvic primary tumor was a favorable predictor of responsiveness to chemotherapy. Chemo-resistant patients might less benefit from second line chemotherapy. Chemotherapy in first-line treatment should not be omitted, even if primary tumor was extirpated completely.