2005 Donor Eligibility Requirements: Unintended Consequences for Stem Cell Development.

Abstract

Several human embryonic stem cell (hESC)-derived cell therapeutics have entered clinical testing and more are in various stages of preclinical development. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates these products under existing regulations and has stated that these products do not constitute a new class of biologic. However, as human tissue, hESCs are subject to regulations that were developed before hESCs were first described. The regulations have not been revised since 2005, well before the first hESC-derived product entered clinical studies. The current regulations require donors of hESCs to be tested in the same manner as donors of tissues intended for transplantation. However, because hESC-derived cell products are more than minimally manipulated, they are also subject to the same end-of-production release testing as most other biologic agents. In effect, this makes hESC products subject to redundant testing. No other biologic is subject to a similar testing requirement. Furthermore, the regulations that require donor testing are specifically applicable to hESC cells harvested from donors after a date in 2005. It is unclear which regulations cover hESCs harvested before 2005. Ambiguity in the guidelines and redundant testing requirements have unintentionally created a burdensome regulatory paradigm for these products and reluctance on the part of developers to invest in these promising therapeutics. We propose a simple solution that would address FDA safety concerns, eliminate regulatory uncertainty and risk, and provide flexibility for the FDA in the regulation of hESC-derived cell therapies. Regulatory ambiguity concerning donor eligibility screening and testing requirements for human embryonic stem cell lines, in particular those lines created before 2005, are causing significant concern for drug developers. Technically, most of these lines fail to meet eligibility under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules for product licensure, and many developers are unaware that FDA approval to begin trials under an exemption is not an assurance that the FDA will grant licensure of the product. This Perspective outlines the ambiguity and the problem it has caused and proposes a workable solution. The intent is to generate stakeholder and FDA discussion on this issue.