Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Four Food and Drug Administration draft guidance documents and the REGROW Act: A litmus test for future changes in human cell- and tissue-based products regulatory policy in the United States?

Yano K., Speidel AT., Yamato M.

Narrative Review, published in J Tissue Eng Regen Med (2018) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Narrative Review
Journal
J Tissue Eng Regen Med (2018)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
29702746
PMCID
PMC6055862
DOI
10.1002/term.2683
Citations
19

Abstract (original English)

Modern regenerative medicine research has expanded well past the development of traditional drugs and medical devices with many promising new therapies encompassing an increasingly diverse range of substances, notably cell-based therapies. These substantial recent developments and the progress in the health care and therapeutics fields necessitate a new regulatory framework agile enough to accommodate these unique therapies and acknowledge their differences with traditional pharmaceuticals. In the United States, recent proposed changes in the regulatory framework for autologous human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products (HCT/Ps) and their perceived risk-benefit analysis for patients remain controversial in the scientific field. To provide perspective on of the current status of the most recent attempts to redefine and conceptualize these changes in the United States, we will examine 4 draft guidance documents implemented by the Food and Drug Administration in interpreting relevant concepts and terminology pertaining to HCT/Ps: the Bipartisan Policy Center think tank report, "Advancing Regenerative Cellular Therapy: Medical Innovation for Healthier Americans," the proposed REGROW Act for HCT/Ps, and the current 24 Food and Drug Administration-approved HCT/Ps and related products in the United States.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence
HumansBiological ProductsDrug ApprovalUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationUnited StatesCell- and Tissue-Based Therapy

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.