ArticleRegenerative therapy2022
Advanced Therapy medicinal products for autologous chondrocytes and comparison of regulatory systems in target countries.
Article in Regenerative therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hydrogel Microspheres for Biomedical Applications.Small science · 2026Review
- A Comprehensive Review of Auto- and Allogeneic Chondrocyte Transplantation in Animals and Humans From 1965 to 2025.Cartilage · 2025Article
- Allogenic Bioengineered Cartilage Achieves Hyaline Cartilage Repair in a Large Animal Model: A Promising Step Forward.The American journal of sports medicine · 2025Article
- Banked Primary Progenitor Cells for Allogeneic Intervertebral Disc (IVD) Therapy: Preclinical Qualification and Functional Optimization within a Cell Spheroid Formulation Process.Pharmaceutics · 2024Article
- Development and characterization of a first-in-class adjustable-dose gene therapy system.Gene · 2024Article
- Latest Advances in Chondrocyte-Based Cartilage Repair.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- Recent advancements in cartilage tissue engineering innovation and translation.Nature reviews. Rheumatology · 2024Review
- Equine Musculoskeletal Pathologies: Clinical Approaches and Therapeutical Perspectives-A Review.Veterinary sciences · 2024Review
- Translation of cell therapies to treat autoimmune disorders.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2024Review
- Autologous and Allogeneic Cytotherapies for Large Knee (Osteo)Chondral Defects: Manufacturing Process Benchmarking and Parallel Functional Qualification.Pharmaceutics · 2023Article
- The Evolving Landscape of Potency Assays.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Autologous chondrocytes (ACs) are Human cell/tissue-based products used for the treatment of joint cartilage defects. Regulatory agencies have established regulations related to ACs to ensure their safety and efficacy. This study investigated the status and characteristics of ACs approved worldwide. Furthermore, the AC-related regulations were compared by country to provide reference materials for the development of product approval procedures. Methods: This study reviewed the current status of global AC products over the past 20 years by referring to the AC approval list provided on the International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy (ISCT) website. Based on the review report provided by the regulatory agencies that approved the products, major nonclinical/clinical data and product characteristics were reviewed; and the classification and definition of ACs and the approval review procedures were compared through the regulatory agencies' websites. The development status of ACs was also analyzed using a clinical trial registration site. Results: Eight ACs were approved during the study period in Europe, the US, Japan, Australia, and Korea. Two products were withdrawn owing to marketability problems. Human cell/tissue-based products in each country are classified and defined distinguished from biopharmaceuticals, but the approval process for both products is the same. The approval period differs by country, with an average of 282.4 days and the shortest being in Korea (115 days). On Clinical Trials.gov, we screened 46 clinical trials related to ACs, which were conducted in Europe (41%), Korea (20%), and the US (17%). The knee accounted for the largest portion of the indication (37/46, 80%), followed by the ankle or hip joints. Measurements of improvements in function and pain were the main endpoints used to evaluate the efficacy of ACs. Observational studies were conducted to confirm the long-term safety of these products. Conclusions: This is the first study comparing the current status and characteristics of globally approved AC products, as well as their classification and definition by country. In the past two decades, clinical trials have been conducted on the application of ACs in tissue engineering to treat joint cartilage defects. ACs are expected to be used for the treatment of cartilage defect diseases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.