Article

Regenerative medicine: basic concepts, current status, and future applications.

Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston Salem, NC 27157, USA.
Journal of Investigative Medicine (Impact Factor: 1.5). 10/2010; 58(7):849-58.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A recent report demonstrated that a laboratory-grown neobladder tissue could be successfully used for cystoplasty in young patients with myelomeningocele who were otherwise healthy. This remarkable achievement portends well for the application of tissue engineering/regenerative medicine technologies to the treatment of end-organ failure due to a variety of causes (ie, congenital, acquired, age or disease related). Nonetheless, the broader clinical use of these groundbreaking technologies awaits improved understanding of endogenous regenerative mechanisms, more detailed knowledge of the boundary conditions that define the current limits for tissue repair and replacement in vivo, and the parallel development of critical enabling technologies (ie, improved cell source, biomaterials, bioreactors). This brief report will review a number of the most salient features and recent developments in this rapidly advancing area of medical research and detail some of our own experience with bladder and skeletal muscle regeneration and replacement as examples that highlight both the promise and challenges facing regenerative medicine/tissue engineering.

1 Follower
 · 
77 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Regenerative medicine therapies are showing great clinical promise in providing cures to life-threatening diseases such as cancer and diabetes. However, little emphasis has been placed on the industrialisation of these therapies for commercial purposes. The inability to scale production up and out to meet pending demand is of increasing concern to both regulators and funding agencies. Using an open innovation theoretic lens, this paper explores the importance of involving commercial partners within the lengthy research and development phases. We adopt a case study method to show that laboratory processes that incorporate innovative manufacturing techniques produce significant reduction in cost of quality (errors) and improved scalability, while satisfying regulatory requirements. We demonstrate that this approach enables faster industrialisation, and improves the funding efficiency of clinical trial outcomes in terms of quality, cost and commercial success of therapies.
    International Journal of Production Research 11/2014; 52(21). DOI:10.1080/00207543.2014.962115 · 1.32 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The pharmaceutical, biotechnology and life sciences industry was worth approximately US$1 trillion in 2010, of which 73.2% was attributed to pharmaceuticals, 25% to biotechnology and the remainder to life sciences. Regenerative medicines, which use live cells to cure previously incurable diseases, are a small, but growing sector of the life sciences industry. Product development here is long, the industry highly regulated and scaling up from lab to volume oriented dispersed production has many challenges. In contrast to most manufacturing environments, it is not possible to change manufacturing processes or supply chains ad hoc, as the entire supply process is specified as part of regulatory approval. It is therefore prudent to plan for the integration of production processes and supply chains during development, as the cost ramifications will seal the success or failure of a therapy at start up. This paper presents a taxonomy, which decomposes regenerative medicine into exemplar cellular therapies that then enables the characterization of their supply chain strategies and structures. Using a case study methodology, we explore the supply chains of five cellular therapies to provide insight into how regenerative medicine supply chains could be configured and managed to get cell therapies to more markets faster, and within an acceptable cost regime.
    International Journal of Production Economics 03/2014; 149:211–225. DOI:10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.06.006 · 2.08 Impact Factor