Over the last decade, the acceleration in the clinical use of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) has been nothing short of spectacular. Perhaps most surprising is how little we know about the “MSC product.” Although MSCs are being delivered to patients at an alarming rate, the regulatory requirements for MSC therapies (for example in terms of quality assurance and quality control) are nowhere near the expectations of traditional pharmaceuticals. That said, the standards that define a chemical compound or purified recombinant protein cannot be applied with the same stringency to a cell-based therapy. Biological processes are dynamic, adaptive and variable. Heterogeneity will always exist or emerge within even the most rigorously sorted clonal cell populations. With MSCs, perhaps more so than any other therapeutic cell, heterogeneity pervades at multiple levels, from the sample source to the single cell. The research and clinical communities collectively need to recognize and take steps to address this troublesome truth, to ensure that the promise of MSC-based therapies is fulfilled.
Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are in development for many clinical indications, based both on ‘stem’ properties (tissue repair or regeneration) and on signaling repertoire (immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory effects). Potential conflation of MSC properties with those of tissue-derived stromal cells presents difficulties in comparing study outcomes and represents a source of confusion in cell therapy development. Cultured MSCs demonstrate significant heterogeneity in clonogenicity and multi-lineage differentiation potential. However in vivo biology of MSCs includes native functions unrelated to regenerative medicine applications, so do nomenclature and heterogeneity matter? In this perspective we examine some consequences of the nomenclature debate and heterogeneity of MSCs. Regulatory expectations are considered, emphasizing that product development should prioritize detailed characterization of therapeutic cell populations for specific indications.
This paper summarizes the proceedings of a workshop held at Trinity Hall, Cambridge to discuss comparability and includes additional information and references to related information added subsequently to the workshop. Comparability is the need to demonstrate equivalence of product after a process change; a recent publication states that this ‘may be difficult for cell-based medicinal products’. Therefore a well-managed change process is required which needs access to good science and regulatory advice and developers are encouraged to seek help early. The workshop shared current thinking and best practice and allowed the definition of key research questions. The intent of this report is to summarize the key issues and the consensus reached on each of these by the expert delegates.
Background
Mesenchymal stem or stromal cells are the most widely used cell therapy to date. They are heterogeneous, with variations in growth potential, differentiation capacity and protein expression profile depending on tissue source and production process. Nomenclature and defining characteristics have been debated for almost 20 years, yet the generic term ‘MSC’ is used to cover a wide range of cellular phenotypes. Against a documented lack of definition of cellular populations used in clinical trials, our study evaluated the extent of characterisation of the cellular population or study drug.
Methods
A literature search of clinical trials involving mesenchymal stem/stromal cells was refined to 84 papers upon application of pre-defined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Data were extracted covering background trial information including location, phase, indication, tissue source and details of clinical cell population characterisation (expression of surface markers, viability, differentiation assays and potency/functionality assays). Descriptive statistics were applied, and tests of association between groups were explored using Fisher’s exact test for count data with simulated p value.
Results
Twenty-eight studies (33.3%) include no characterisation data. Forty-five (53.6%) reported average values per marker for all cell lots used in the trial, and 11 (13.1%) studies included individual values per cell lot. Viability was reported in 57% of studies. Differentiation was discussed: osteogenesis (29% of papers), adipogenesis (27%), and chondrogenesis (20%) and other functional assays arose in 7 papers (8%). The extent of characterisation was not related to the clinical phase of development. Assessment of functionality was very limited and did not always relate to the likely mechanism of action.
Conclusions
The extent of characterisation was poor and variable. Our findings concur with those in other fields including bone marrow aspirate and platelet-rich plasma therapy. We discuss the potential implications of these findings for the use of mesenchymal stem or stromal cells in regenerative medicine, and the importance of characterisation for transparency and comparability of literature.
Graphical abstract
These low MICs are likely to be exceeded by topical therapy. Evaluation of the mechanisms by which chlorhexidine combinations interact to reduce MICs is warranted, in view of increasing concerns of biocide tolerance in staphylococci.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.