Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2024 Dec 4:11:1462307.
doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1462307. eCollection 2024.

The current socioeconomic and regulatory landscape of immune effector cell therapies

Affiliations
Review

The current socioeconomic and regulatory landscape of immune effector cell therapies

Chiranjeevi Sainatham et al. Front Med (Lausanne). .

Abstract

Immune cell effector therapies, including chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cells, T-cell receptor (TCR) T cells, natural killer (NK) cells, and macrophage-based therapies, represent a transformative approach to cancer treatment, harnessing the immune system to target and eradicate malignant cells. CAR-T cell therapy, the most established among these, involves engineering T cells to express CARs specific to cancer cell antigens, showing remarkable efficacy in hematologic malignancies like leukemias, B-cell lymphomas, and multiple myeloma. Similarly, TCR-modified therapies, which reprogram T cells to recognize intracellular tumor antigens presented by major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecules, offer promise for a range of solid tumors. NK-cell therapies leverage NK cells' innate cytotoxicity, providing an allogeneic approach that avoids some of the immune-related complications associated with T-cell-based therapies. Macrophage-based therapies, still in early stages of the development, focus on reprogramming macrophages to stimulate an immune response against cancer cells in the tumor microenvironment. Despite their promise, socioeconomic and regulatory challenges hinder the accessibility and scalability of immune cell effector therapies. These treatments are costly, with CAR-T therapies currently exceeding $400,000 per patient, creating significant disparities in access based on socioeconomic status and geographic location. The high manufacturing costs stem from the personalized, labor-intensive processes of harvesting, modifying, and expanding patients' cells. Moreover, complex logistics for manufacturing and delivering these therapies limit their reach, particularly in low-resource settings. Regulatory pathways further complicate the landscape. In the United States., the Food and Drug Administrations' (FDA) accelerated approval processes for cell-based therapies facilitate innovation but do not address cost-related barriers. In Europe, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) offers adaptive pathways, yet decentralized reimbursement systems create uneven access across member states. Additionally, differing regulatory standards for manufacturing and quality control worldwide pose hurdles for global harmonization and access. To expand the reach of immune effector cell therapies, a multipronged approach is needed-streamlined regulatory frameworks, policies to reduce treatment costs, and international collaborations to standardize manufacturing. Addressing these socioeconomic and regulatory obstacles is essential to make these life-saving therapies accessible to a broader patient population worldwide. We present a literature review on the current landscape of immune effector cell therapies and barriers of access to currently approved standard of care therapy at various levels.

Keywords: CAR T-cell therapy; TILs (tumor infiltrating lymphocytes); bispecific antibodies (BsAbs); immune effector cell therapy; regulatory environment for cellular therapeutics.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

NA on KITE advisory board. FL on advisory board for ADT therapeutics. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin. (2023) 73:17–48. doi: 10.3322/caac.21763 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wei Dai YY. Genomic instability and cancer. J Carcinogenesis Mutagenesis. (2014) 5. doi: 10.4172/2157-2518.1000165, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lei ZN, Tian Q, Teng QX, Wurpel JND, Zeng L, Pan Y, et al. . Understanding and targeting resistance mechanisms in cancer. MedComm. (2023) 4:e265. doi: 10.1002/mco2.265, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Radha G, Lopus M. The spontaneous remission of cancer: current insights and therapeutic significance. Transl Oncol. (2021) 14:101166. doi: 10.1016/j.tranon.2021.101166, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rui R, Zhou L, He S. Cancer immunotherapies: advances and bottlenecks. Front Immunol. (2023) 14:1212476. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1212476, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources