Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38698408›Full record

ReviewJournal of translational medicine2024

Mechanism of action, potency and efficacy: considerations for cell therapies.

Carl G Simon, Erich H Bozenhardt, Christina M Celluzzi, David Dobnik, Melanie L Grant, Uma Lakshmipathy, Thiana Nebel, Linda Peltier, Anthony Ratcliffe, James L Sherley and 4 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Stem cell therapies for diabetes.Nature medicine · 2025
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

14 authors.

Carl G SimonBiosystems and Biomaterials Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Gaithersburg, MD, USA. carl.simon@nist.gov.ORCID 0000-0001-5209-3577
Erich H BozenhardtUnited Therapeutics Corporation, Regenerative Medicine Operations, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Christina M CelluzziAssociation for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB), Bethesda, MD, USA.
David DobnikNiba Labs, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Melanie L GrantDepartment of Pediatrics, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Marcus Center for Cellular and Gene Therapies, Correlative Studies Laboratory, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Uma LakshmipathyPharma Services, Science and Technology, Thermo Fisher Scientific, San Diego, CA, USA.
Thiana NebelMedical Education, Sports Medicine and Orthobiologics, Medical Sales Institute, San Diego, CA, USA.
Linda PeltierCellular Therapy Lab, Research Institute of McGill University Health Center, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Anthony RatcliffeSynthasome, Inc, San Diego, CA, USA.
James L SherleyAsymmetrex, LLC, Boston, MA, USA.
Glyn N StaceyInternational Stem Cell Banking Initiative, Barley, Herts, UK.
Rouzbeh R TaghizadehKendall Innovations, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Eddie H P TanCell and Gene Therapy Facility, Health Sciences Authority, Singapore, Singapore.
Sandrine VessillierScience, Research and Innovation Group, Biotherapeutics and Advanced Therapies Division, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, South Mimms, Hertfordshire, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Cell- and Tissue-Based TherapyAnimalsClinical Trials as TopicHumansTreatment OutcomeUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationCell therapy productEfficacyEfficacy endpointEfficacy endpoint testMechanism of actionPotencyPotency test

Identifiers

PMID38698408
PMCPMC11067168

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.