Human tissue engineered products—drugs or devices?
BMJ 2003; 326 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1159 (Published 29 May 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;326:1159
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Editor- I read your recent editorial on human tissue engineered
products--drugs or devices with great interest.1 As in the past, regulation
always lags behind scientific development. We all welcome the new
guidelines produced by the Medical Devices Agency on the use of human
derived therapeutic products. In ophthalmology, the use of autologous or
allogenic corneal limbal stem cell for ocular surface reconstruction is
now widely established.2,3 Yet no regulation in controlling its use has
been established until now. It is hard to imagine that developing the use
of cell-based therapy is much easier that developing a new medical device
or a new drug. In ex-vivo corneal stem cell expansion, the cells are grown
in media containing various growth factors and co-culture with transformed
mouse fibroblast cell before transplantation onto corneas with stem cell
deficiency.
Clearly, there is a need for accreditation of laboratories
conducting such work. The use of ancillary products must be addressed and
the use of co-culture system must be in consultation with United Kingdom
Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority. Without such stringency,
there will be a risk of cross-animal contamination such as the one we
witness recently in outbreaks of SARS virus.
1. Faulkner A, Geesink I, Kent J, FitzPatrick D. Human tissue
engineered products-grugs or devices? BMJ 2003;326:1159-1160
2. Pellegrini G, et al. Long-term restoration of damaged corneal surfaces
with autologous cultivated corneal epithelium. The Lancet 1997;349:990-3
3. Tsai RJF, Li LM, Chen JK. Reconstruction of damaged corneas by
transplantation of autologous limbal epithelial cells. NEJM 2000;343(2):87
-93
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Tissue-engineered products need improvements in quality
Dear Editor,
We read Faulkner et al (1) article with great interest. As with
development of many forms of high impact technology, tissue-engineering is
facing considerable scepticism and anxiety. The article is misleading as
tissue engineering research is in its infancy and products of sufficient
quality for routine clinical use remain a long way away. We anticipate
that stringent testing of these products will be carried out before they
are considered for human implantation.Furthermore we disagree with the
statement 'Human tissue engineered products may carry greater risks' as
current momentum has shifted towards developing autologous products,
devoid of the complication and drawbacks associated with artificial
implants.
1. Faulkner A, Geesink I, Kent J, FitzPatrick D. Human tissue
engineered products- drugs or device? Tackling the regulatory vacuum. BMJ
2003; 326: 1159-60.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests