Cargando…

Innovative regenerative medicines in the EU: a better future in evidence?

BACKGROUND: Despite a steady stream of headlines suggesting they will transform the future of healthcare, high-tech regenerative medicines have, to date, been quite inaccessible to patients, with only eight having been granted an EU marketing licence in the last 7 years. Here, we outline some of the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Corbett, Mark S., Webster, Andrew, Hawkins, Robert, Woolacott, Nerys
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5341436/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28270209
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0818-4
_version_ 1782512989899849728
author Corbett, Mark S.
Webster, Andrew
Hawkins, Robert
Woolacott, Nerys
author_facet Corbett, Mark S.
Webster, Andrew
Hawkins, Robert
Woolacott, Nerys
author_sort Corbett, Mark S.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Despite a steady stream of headlines suggesting they will transform the future of healthcare, high-tech regenerative medicines have, to date, been quite inaccessible to patients, with only eight having been granted an EU marketing licence in the last 7 years. Here, we outline some of the historical reasons for this paucity of licensed innovative regenerative medicines. We discuss the challenges to be overcome to expedite the development of this complex and rapidly changing area of medicine, together with possible reasons to be more optimistic for the future. DISCUSSION: Several factors have contributed to the scarcity of cutting-edge regenerative medicines in clinical practice. These include the great expense and difficulties involved in planning how individual therapies will be developed, manufactured to commercial levels and ultimately successfully delivered to patients. Specific challenges also exist when evaluating the safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of these therapies. Furthermore, many treatments are used without a licence from the European Medicines Agency, under “Hospital Exemption” from the EC legislation. For products which are licensed, alternative financing approaches by healthcare providers may be needed, since many therapies will have significant up-front costs but uncertain benefits and harms in the long-term. However, increasing political interest and more flexible mechanisms for licensing and financing of therapies are now evident; these could be key to the future growth and development of regenerative medicine in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Recent developments in regulatory processes, coupled with increasing political interest, may offer some hope for improvements to the long and often difficult routes from laboratory to marketplace for leading-edge cell or tissue therapies. Collaboration between publicly-funded researchers and the pharmaceutical industry could be key to the future development of regenerative medicine in clinical practice; such collaborations might also offer a possible antidote to the innovation crisis in the pharmaceutical industry.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5341436
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53414362017-03-10 Innovative regenerative medicines in the EU: a better future in evidence? Corbett, Mark S. Webster, Andrew Hawkins, Robert Woolacott, Nerys BMC Med Debate BACKGROUND: Despite a steady stream of headlines suggesting they will transform the future of healthcare, high-tech regenerative medicines have, to date, been quite inaccessible to patients, with only eight having been granted an EU marketing licence in the last 7 years. Here, we outline some of the historical reasons for this paucity of licensed innovative regenerative medicines. We discuss the challenges to be overcome to expedite the development of this complex and rapidly changing area of medicine, together with possible reasons to be more optimistic for the future. DISCUSSION: Several factors have contributed to the scarcity of cutting-edge regenerative medicines in clinical practice. These include the great expense and difficulties involved in planning how individual therapies will be developed, manufactured to commercial levels and ultimately successfully delivered to patients. Specific challenges also exist when evaluating the safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of these therapies. Furthermore, many treatments are used without a licence from the European Medicines Agency, under “Hospital Exemption” from the EC legislation. For products which are licensed, alternative financing approaches by healthcare providers may be needed, since many therapies will have significant up-front costs but uncertain benefits and harms in the long-term. However, increasing political interest and more flexible mechanisms for licensing and financing of therapies are now evident; these could be key to the future growth and development of regenerative medicine in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Recent developments in regulatory processes, coupled with increasing political interest, may offer some hope for improvements to the long and often difficult routes from laboratory to marketplace for leading-edge cell or tissue therapies. Collaboration between publicly-funded researchers and the pharmaceutical industry could be key to the future development of regenerative medicine in clinical practice; such collaborations might also offer a possible antidote to the innovation crisis in the pharmaceutical industry. BioMed Central 2017-03-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5341436/ /pubmed/28270209 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0818-4 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Debate
Corbett, Mark S.
Webster, Andrew
Hawkins, Robert
Woolacott, Nerys
Innovative regenerative medicines in the EU: a better future in evidence?
title Innovative regenerative medicines in the EU: a better future in evidence?
title_full Innovative regenerative medicines in the EU: a better future in evidence?
title_fullStr Innovative regenerative medicines in the EU: a better future in evidence?
title_full_unstemmed Innovative regenerative medicines in the EU: a better future in evidence?
title_short Innovative regenerative medicines in the EU: a better future in evidence?
title_sort innovative regenerative medicines in the eu: a better future in evidence?
topic Debate
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5341436/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28270209
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0818-4
work_keys_str_mv AT corbettmarks innovativeregenerativemedicinesintheeuabetterfutureinevidence
AT websterandrew innovativeregenerativemedicinesintheeuabetterfutureinevidence
AT hawkinsrobert innovativeregenerativemedicinesintheeuabetterfutureinevidence
AT woolacottnerys innovativeregenerativemedicinesintheeuabetterfutureinevidence