Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products Challenges and Perspectives in Regenerative Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, the design and development of a modern health policy in the field of regenerative medicine leads to the formation of a new and integrated cognitive field, which requires systematic research and study in order to produce innovative answers and best practices. Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) is a new product category, which is at the heart of concern since it has to deal with diseases in which traditional medicine has proven to be ineffective so far. The aim of this review is to provide evidence for the state of the art ATMPs and their modern applications in the field of regenerative medicine. The ATMPs are characterized by a great heterogeneity and variation in methods of isolation, which cover the entire spectrum from a single intravenous injection to a surgical placement. Clinical development of ATMP encounters specific challenges due to the nature of the product and the limited availability of non-clinical data. The gold standard of a controlled, randomized, clinical trial may not be feasible or ethically justified for all indications, particularly in life-threatening diseases, where there is no satisfactory standard of care. Therefore, the European Commission (EC) took initiatives in order to set standards and operating rules concerning authorization and supervision of ATMPs and on pharmacovigilance in relation to them. The European Union (EU) Regulation 1394/2007 provides the possibility of exceptions. In particular, the “hospital exemption” allows for the administration of an ATMP without a license on certain conditions. Although the Regulation 1394/2007 has led to the commercial exploitation of ATMPs, the reality today, 11 years after its first implementation, is completely different. While the Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) has already registered 285 products as ATMPs, only 10 licenses were granted which only remained six (the rest related to products withdrawn). The key players in the development and delivery of ATMPs still remain the academic/research centers and small and medium-sized enterprises; while the involvement of pharmaceutical companies is focusing on recent developments in the treatment of oncological incidents with in vitro modified cytotoxic T lymphocytes, and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cells. J Clin Med Res. 2020;12(12):780-786 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jocmr3964
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".