ReviewJournal of translational medicine2024
Mechanism of action, potency and efficacy: considerations for cell therapies.
Review in Journal of translational medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Allogeneic islet products for type 1 diabetes: Navigating nonclinical and manufacturing regulatory expectations.Stem cell reports · 2026Review
- Development of Potency Assays for Therapeutic EVs: The Art of Congruence.Journal of extracellular vesicles · 2026Article
- Limitations in the clinical translation of mesenchymal stromal cells: standardisation, heterogeneity and the recipient.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
- Current challenges and future directions of ATMPs in regenerative medicine.Regenerative therapy · 2025Review
- Stem cell therapies for diabetes.Nature medicine · 2025Review
- Analysis of the measurements used as potency tests for the 31 US FDA-approved cell therapy products.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Review
- A Quantitative Approach to Potency Testing for Chimeric Antigen Receptor-Encoding Lentiviral Vectors and Autologous CAR-T Cell Products, Using Flow Cytometry.Pharmaceutics · 2025Article
- Bioengineering breakthroughs: The impact of stem cell models on advanced therapy medicinal product development.World journal of stem cells · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One of the most challenging aspects of developing advanced cell therapy products (CTPs) is defining the mechanism of action (MOA), potency and efficacy of the product. This perspective examines these concepts and presents helpful ways to think about them through the lens of metrology. A logical framework for thinking about MOA, potency and efficacy is presented that is consistent with the existing regulatory guidelines, but also accommodates what has been learned from the 27 US FDA-approved CTPs. Available information regarding MOA, potency and efficacy for the 27 FDA-approved CTPs is reviewed to provide background and perspective. Potency process and efficacy process charts are introduced to clarify and illustrate the relationships between six key concepts: MOA, potency, potency test, efficacy, efficacy endpoint and efficacy endpoint test. Careful consideration of the meaning of these terms makes it easier to discuss the challenges of correlating potency test results with clinical outcomes and to understand how the relationships between the concepts can be misunderstood during development and clinical trials. Examples of how a product can be "potent but not efficacious" or "not potent but efficacious" are presented. Two example applications of the framework compare how MOA is assessed in cell cultures, animal models and human clinical trials and reveals the challenge of establishing MOA in humans. Lastly, important considerations for the development of potency tests for a CTP are discussed. These perspectives can help product developers set appropriate expectations for understanding a product's MOA and potency, avoid unrealistic assumptions and improve communication among team members during the development of CTPs.
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.