Unprecedented developments in stem cell research herald a new era of hope and expectation for novel therapies. However, they also present a major challenge for regulators since safety assessment criteria, designed for conventional agents, are largely inappropriate for cell-based therapies. This article aims to set out the safety issues pertaining to novel stem cell-derived treatments, to identify knowledge gaps that require further research, and to suggest a roadmap for developing safety assessment criteria. It is essential that regulators, pharmaceutical providers, and safety scientists work together to frame new safety guidelines, based on "acceptable risk," so that patients are adequately protected but the safety "bar" is not set so high that exciting new treatments are lost.

Pluripotent stem cells offer the potential for an unlimited source for cell therapy products. However, there is concern regarding the tumorigenicity of these products in humans, mainly due to the possible unintended contamination of undifferentiated cells or transformed cells. Because of the complex nature of these new therapies and the lack of a globally accepted consensus on the strategy for tumorigenicity evaluation, a case-by-case approach is recommended for the risk assessment of each cell therapy product. In general, therapeutic products need to be qualified using available technologies, which ideally should be fully validated. In such circumstances, the developers of cell therapy products may have conducted various tumorigenicity tests and consulted with regulators in respective countries. Here, we critically review currently available in vivo and in vitro testing methods for tumorigenicity evaluation against expectations in international regulatory guidelines. We discuss the value of those approaches, in particular the limitations of in vivo methods, and comment on challenges and future directions. In addition, we note the need for an internationally harmonized procedure for tumorigenicity assessment of cell therapy products from both regulatory and technological perspectives.

It has been widely accepted that 5HT neurones promote anxiety, in humans as well as in animal models. This could be termed the "classic" hypothesis and it has led to a determined search for drugs which reduce 5HT function, especially agents which have selective actions at 5HT receptor subtypes. However, these novel agents tend to have weak and/or variable effects in animal models and more detailed examination of their actions suggests that not all findings are accounted for by the classic hypothesis. There appear to be circumstances in which increased 5HT activity can reduce anxious behaviour. There is increasing evidence for multiple anxiety mechanisms, which may be able to explain differential patterns of drug effects within and between models. Animal models of anxiety may also detect non-anxiety factors: effects on cognition or on impulsivity could be reflected in some models. This could be important in the light of recent evidence that 5HT-selective reuptake inhibitors are effective in impulsivity disorders. The classic hypothesis of 5HT function in anxiety may be only one part of an increasingly complex story. Unravelling the rest of this story is likely to lead to new insights in our understanding of anxiety and related disorders.

No abstract

No abstract

Effects of water deprivation and restraint were compared in the rat elevated X-maze. Water deprivation for 12-48 h increased corticosterone and had a duration-dependent "anxiolytic" effect in the elevated X-maze, increasing the ratio of open/total arm entries (OTR) and the proportion of time spent on the open arms (% time) without affecting total entries. Brain 5HIAA/5HT was increased only after 24 or 48 h deprivation. Restraint for 15 min also increased plasma corticosterone and brain 5HIAA/5HT but had no effect on behaviour in the elevated X-maze when rats were tested immediately afterwards. However, 1 h restraint was "anxiogenic" in the elevated X-maze immediately after release, reducing OTR and % time, but with a less consistent reduction in total entries; reductions in OTR and % time were still present 24 h later. The 5HT1A agonist 8-hydroxy-2-(di-n-propylamino) tetralin (8-OH-DPAT) (0.1-0.2 mg/kg), administered 10 min before testing in the elevated X-maze, had "anxiogenic" actions in non-stressed rats. The effect of 0.1 mg/kg 8-OH-DPAT was not significantly altered by 24 or 48 h water deprivation but was abolished by restraint for 1 h immediately beforehand, despite the "anxiogenic" effect of restraint alone. Similar mutual antagonism of 8-OH-DPAT and restraint occurred when the dose of 8-OH-DPAT was increased to 0.2 mg/kg. Twenty-four hours after restraint, restrained rats which had received 8-OH-DPAT (0.1-0.2 mg/kg) still did not show any significant "anxiogenic effect" compared with non-restrained vehicle treated controls. Restraint-induced deficits in elevated X-maze exploration may prove a useful model with which to study the pharmacology of depression-related anxiety. However, the effects of the stressors examined, and their interaction with 8-OH-DPAT in the elevated X-maze, appear to depend on the nature of the stressor.

No abstract

Biosimilars are biological medicinal products that contain a version of the active substance of an already authorised original biological medicinal product (the innovator or reference product). The first approved biosimilar medicines were small proteins, and more recently biosimilar versions of innovator monoclonal antibody (mAb) drugs have entered development as patents on these more complex proteins expire. In September 2013, the first biosimilar mAb, infliximab, was authorised in Europe. In March 2015, the first biosimilar (Zarxio™, filgrastim-sndz, Sandoz) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration; however, to date no mAb biosimilars have been approved in the US. There are currently major differences between how biosimilars are regulated in different parts of the world, leading to substantial variability in the amount of in vivo nonclinical toxicity testing required to support clinical development and marketing of biosimilars. There are approximately 30 national and international guidelines on biosimilar development and this number is growing. The European Union's guidance describes an approach that enables biosimilars to enter clinical trials based on robust in vitro data alone; in contrast, the World Health Organization's guidance is interpreted globally to mean in vivo toxicity studies are mandatory.We reviewed our own experience working in the global regulatory environment, surveyed current practice, determined drivers for nonclinical in vivo studies with biosimilar mAbs and shared data on practice and study design for 25 marketed and as yet unmarketed biosimilar mAbs that have been in development in the past 5y. These data showed a variety of nonclinical in vivo approaches, and also demonstrated the practical challenges faced in obtaining regulatory approval for clinical trials based on in vitro data alone. The majority of reasons for carrying out nonclinical in vivo studies were not based on scientific rationale, and therefore the authors have made recommendations for a data-driven approach to the toxicological assessment of mAb biosimilars that minimises unnecessary use of animals and can be used across all regions of the world.