Blanca Reyes1, Maria Isabel Coca1, Margarita Codinach1, María Dolores López-Lucas2, Anna Del Mazo-Barbara1, Marta Caminal1, Irene Oliver-Vila1, Valentín Cabañas2, Silvia Lope-Piedrafita3, Joan García-López4, José M Moraleda2, Cesar G Fontecha5, Joaquim Vives6. 1. Servei de Teràpia Cellular, Banc de Sang i Teixits, Barcelona, Spain. 2. Unidad de Terapia Celular y Trasplante Hematopoyético, Hospital Clínico Universitario Virgen de la Arrixaca, Universidad de Murcia, IMIB, Murcia, Spain. 3. Servei de Ressonància Magnètica Nuclear, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain; Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red-Bioingeniería, Biomateriales y Nanomedicina (CIBER-BBN), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain. 4. Servei de Teràpia Cellular, Banc de Sang i Teixits, Barcelona, Spain; Chair of Transfusion Medicine and Cellular and Tissue Therapies, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain. 5. Reconstructive Surgery of the Locomotor System, Vall d'Hebron Institut de Recerca (VHIR), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 6. Servei de Teràpia Cellular, Banc de Sang i Teixits, Barcelona, Spain; Departament de Medicina, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain; Tissue Engineering Group, Vall d'Hebron Research Institute (VHIR), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. Electronic address: jvives@bst.cat.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AIMS: Biodistribution of candidate cell-based therapeutics is a critical safety concern that must be addressed in the preclinical development program. We aimed to design a decision tree based on a series of studies included in actual dossiers approved by competent regulatory authorities, noting that the design, execution and interpretation of pharmacokinetics studies using this type of therapy is not straightforward and presents a challenge for both developers and regulators. METHODS: Eight studies were evaluated for the definition of a decision tree, in which mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) were administered to mouse, rat and sheep models using diverse routes (local or systemic), cell labeling (chemical or genetic) and detection methodologies (polymerase chain reaction [PCR], immunohistochemistry [IHC], fluorescence bioimaging, and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]). Moreover, labeling and detection methodologies were compared in terms of cost, throughput, speed, sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: A decision tree was defined based on the model chosen: (i) small immunodeficient animals receiving heterologous MSC products for assessing biodistribution and other safety aspects and (ii) large animals receiving homologous labeled products; this contributed to gathering data not only on biodistribution but also on pharmacodynamics. PCR emerged as the most convenient technique despite the loss of spatial information on cell distribution that can be further assessed by IHC. DISCUSSION: This work contributes to the standardization in the design of biodistribution studies by improving methods for accurate assessment of safety. The evaluation of different animal models and screening of target organs through a combination of techniques is a cost-effective and timely strategy.
BACKGROUND AIMS: Biodistribution of candidate cell-based therapeutics is a critical safety concern that must be addressed in the preclinical development program. We aimed to design a decision tree based on a series of studies included in actual dossiers approved by competent regulatory authorities, noting that the design, execution and interpretation of pharmacokinetics studies using this type of therapy is not straightforward and presents a challenge for both developers and regulators. METHODS: Eight studies were evaluated for the definition of a decision tree, in which mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) were administered to mouse, rat and sheep models using diverse routes (local or systemic), cell labeling (chemical or genetic) and detection methodologies (polymerase chain reaction [PCR], immunohistochemistry [IHC], fluorescence bioimaging, and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]). Moreover, labeling and detection methodologies were compared in terms of cost, throughput, speed, sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: A decision tree was defined based on the model chosen: (i) small immunodeficient animals receiving heterologous MSC products for assessing biodistribution and other safety aspects and (ii) large animals receiving homologous labeled products; this contributed to gathering data not only on biodistribution but also on pharmacodynamics. PCR emerged as the most convenient technique despite the loss of spatial information on cell distribution that can be further assessed by IHC. DISCUSSION: This work contributes to the standardization in the design of biodistribution studies by improving methods for accurate assessment of safety. The evaluation of different animal models and screening of target organs through a combination of techniques is a cost-effective and timely strategy.
Authors: Marta Rojas-Torres; Ismael Sánchez-Gomar; Antonio Rosal-Vela; Lucía Beltrán-Camacho; Sara Eslava-Alcón; José Ángel Alonso-Piñeiro; Javier Martín-Ramírez; Rafael Moreno-Luna; Mª Carmen Durán-Ruiz Journal: Stem Cell Res Ther Date: 2022-06-21 Impact factor: 8.079
Authors: Mari Paz Quesada; David García-Bernal; Diego Pastor; Alicia Estirado; Miguel Blanquer; Ana Mª García-Hernández; José M Moraleda; Salvador Martínez Journal: Tissue Eng Regen Med Date: 2019-07-26 Impact factor: 4.169
Authors: Mar Gonzálvez-García; Carlos M Martinez; Victor Villanueva; Ana García-Hernández; Miguel Blanquer; Luis Meseguer-Olmo; Ricardo E Oñate Sánchez; José M Moraleda; Francisco Javier Rodríguez-Lozano Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2018-08-03 Impact factor: 3.623