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