Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32637456›Full record

ArticleMolecular therapy. Methods & clinical development2020

Mitigating Deficiencies in Evidence during Regulatory Assessments of Advanced Therapies: A Comparative Study with Other Biologicals.

Magdi Elsallab, Christopher A Bravery, Andreas Kurtz, Mohamed Abou-El-Enein

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular therapy. Methods & clinical development, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Expanding Patient Access to Advanced Therapies.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Adoptive T-cell therapies in the clinic.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2026
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Redefining quality in cell and gene therapies: Lessons from implementing electronic QMS in academic cGMP facility.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products: Availability, Access and Expenditure in Italy.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Applying a clinical lens to animal models of CAR-T cell therapies.Molecular therapy. Methods & clinical development · 2022
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Current landscape of clinical development and approval of advanced therapies.Molecular therapy. Methods & clinical development · 2021
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Magdi ElsallabBIH Center for Regenerative Therapies (BCRT), Charité-Universitatsmedizin Berlin, 13353 Berlin, Germany.
Christopher A BraveryConsulting on Advanced Biologicals (Advbiols) Ltd, London, UK.
Andreas KurtzBIH Center for Regenerative Therapies (BCRT), Charité-Universitatsmedizin Berlin, 13353 Berlin, Germany.
Mohamed Abou-El-EneinBIH Center for Regenerative Therapies (BCRT), Charité-Universitatsmedizin Berlin, 13353 Berlin, Germany.
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) comprising cell therapy, gene therapy, and tissue-engineered products, offer a multitude of novel therapeutic approaches to a wide range of severe and debilitating diseases. To date, several advanced therapies have received marketing authorization for a variety of indications. However, some products showed disappointing market performance, leading to their withdrawal. The available evidence for quality, safety, and efficacy at product launch can play a crucial rule in their market success. To evaluate the sufficiency of evidence in submissions of advanced therapies for marketing authorization and to benchmark them against more established biological products, we conducted a matched comparison of the regulatory submissions between ATMPs and other biologicals. We applied a quantitative assessment of the regulatory objections and divergence from the expected data requirements as indicators of sufficiency of evidence and regulatory flexibilty, respectively. Our results demonstrated that product manufacturing was challenging regardless of the product type. Advanced therapies displayed critical deficiencies in the submitted clinical data. The submitted non-clinical data packages benefited the most from regulatory flexibility. Additionally, ATMP developers need to comply with more commitments in the post-approval phase, which might add pressure on market performance. Mitigating such observed deficiencies in future product development, may leverage their potential for market success.

Indexed as

ATMPscell and gene therapiesmarketing authorizationobjectionsregulationregulatory approvalregulatory flexibilityregulatory submissionsscientific evidence

Identifiers

PMID32637456
PMCPMC7327881
OpenAlexW3033248840

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.