First update of the International Xenotransplantation Association consensus statement on conditions for undertaking clinical trials of porcine islet products in type 1 diabetes – Chapter 1: update on national regulatory frameworks pertinent to clinical islet xenotransplantation

Islet xenotransplantation represents an attractive solution to overcome the shortage of human islets for use in type 1 diabetes. The wide‐scale application of clinical islet xenotransplantation, however, requires that such a procedure takes place in a specifically and tightly regulated environment. With a view to promoting the safe application of clinical islet xenotransplantation, a few years ago the International Xenotransplantation Association (IXA) published a Consensus Statement that outlined the key ethical and regulatory requirements to be satisfied before the initiation of xenotransplantation studies in diabetic patients. This earlier IXA Statement also documented a disparate regulatory landscape among different geographical areas. This situation clearly fell short of the 2004 World Health Assembly Resolution WHA57.18 that urged Member States “to cooperate in the formulation of recommendations and guidelines to harmonize global practices” to ensure the highest ethical and regulatory standards on a global scale. In this new IXA report, IXA members who are active in xenotransplantation research in their respective geographic areas herewith briefly describe changes in the regulatory frameworks that have taken place in the intervening period in the various geographic areas or countries. The key reassuring take‐home message of the present report is that many countries have embraced the encouragement of the WHO to harmonize the procedures in a more global scale. Indeed, important regulatory changes have taken place or are in progress in several geographic areas that include Europe, Korea, Japan, and China. Such significant regulatory changes encompass the most diverse facets of the clinical application of xenotransplantation and comprise ethical aspects, source animals and product specifications, study supervision, sample archiving, patient follow‐up and even insurance coverage in some legislations. All these measures are expected to provide a better care and protection of recipients of xenotransplants but also a higher safety profile to xenotransplantation procedures with an ultimate net gain in terms of international public health.     

Executive summary

Abstract:  The International Xenotransplantation Association islet xenotransplantation consensus statement describes the conditions for undertaking clinical trials of porcine islet products in type 1 diabetes. Chapter 1 reviews the key ethical requirements and progress toward the definition of an international regulatory framework for clinical trials of xenotransplantation. Chapters 2 to 7 provide in depth and agreed-upon recommendations on source pigs, pig islet product manufacturing and release testing, preclinical efficacy and complication data required to justify a clinical trial, strategies to prevent transmission of porcine endogenous retrovirus, patient selection for clinical trials, and informed consent. It is planned to update this initial consensus statement in a year's time in light of progress in research, changes in the regulatory framework, and comments submitted after publication.     

The International Xenotransplantation Association consensus statement on conditions for undertaking clinical trials of xenocorneal transplantation

To develop an international consensus regarding the appropriate conditions for undertaking clinical trials in xenocorneal transplantation, here we review specific ethical, logistical, scientific, and regulatory issues regarding xenocorneal transplantation, and propose guidelines for conduct of clinical xenocorneal transplantation trials. These proposed guidelines are modeled on the published consensus statement of the International Xenotransplantation Association regarding recommended guidelines for conduct of clinical islet xenotransplantation. It is expected that this initial consensus statement will be revised over time in response to scientific advances in the field, and changes in the regulatory framework based on accumulating clinical experience.     

Justifying clinical trials for porcine islet xenotransplantation

The development of the Edmonton Protocol encouraged a great deal of optimism that a cell‐based cure for type I diabetes could be achieved. However, donor organ shortages prevent islet transplantation from being a widespread solution as the supply cannot possibly equal the demand. Porcine islet xenotransplantation has the potential to address these shortages, and recent preclinical and clinical trials show promising scientific support. Consequently, it is important to consider whether the current science meets the ethical requirements for moving toward clinical trials. Despite the potential risks and the scientific unknowns that remain to be investigated, there is optimism regarding the xenotransplantation of some types of tissue, and enough evidence has been gathered to ethically justify clinical trials for the most safe and advanced area of research, porcine islet transplantation. Researchers must make a concerted effort to maintain a positive image for xenotransplantation, as a few well‐publicized failed trials could irrevocably damage public perception of xenotransplantation. Because all of society carries the burden of risk, it is important that the public be involved in the decision to proceed. As new information from preclinical and clinical trials develops, policy decisions should be frequently updated. If at any point evidence shows that islet xenotransplantation is unsafe, then clinical trials will no longer be justified and they should be halted. However, as of now, the expected benefit of an unlimited supply of islets, combined with adequate informed consent, justifies clinical trials for islet xenotransplantation.     

Islet Xenotransplantation: Are We Really Ready for Clinical Trials?

Four clinical trials of porcine islet transplantation have been reported, and there are verbal reports that clinical trials on much larger scales are continuing in centers in China and Russia. The four reported trials are briefly reviewed and, in the light of the present status of experimental islet xenotransplantation, consideration is given to whether such trials are currently justified. The Ethics Committee of the International Xenotransplantation Association has (1) emphasized the need for encouraging studies in non-human primates before clinical trials should be undertaken, (2) mandatory monitoring for the transfer of porcine microorganisms, and (3) careful regulation and oversight by recognized bodies. Other aspects of the topic, such as the need for informed consent, are briefly discussed. We conclude that, at the present time, more data documenting convincing efficacy, focused on clinically applicable immunosuppressive regimens, are needed to justify the initiation of closely monitored clinical trials. A clinical trial may then be justified even though the potential risk to the patients, and possibly for society, will not be zero.     

Islet cell xenotransplantation: a serious look toward the clinic

Type I diabetes remains a significant clinical problem in need of a reliable, generally applicable solution. Both whole organ pancreas and islet allotransplantation have been shown to grant patients insulin independence, but organ availability has restricted these procedures to an exceptionally small subset of the diabetic population. Porcine islet xenotransplantation has been pursued as a potential means of overcoming the limits of allotransplantation, and several preclinical studies have achieved near‐physiologic function and year‐long survival in clinically relevant pig‐to‐primate model systems. These proof‐of‐concept studies have suggested that xenogeneic islets may be poised for use in clinical trials. In this review, we examine recent progress in islet xenotransplantation, with a critical eye toward the gaps between the current state of the art and the state required for appropriate clinical investigation.     

Islet transplantation

Recently, significant advances have been made in the number and purity of islets that can be retrieved from the human pancreas, thus enabling several centers to initiate or resume clinical trials of islet transplantation in type I diabetic patients. Although the success rate of islet transplantation is lower than that of pancreas transplantation in terms of achievement of insulin-independence, islet transplantation has significant potential advantages over vascularized pancreas transplantation: it is a simple and safe procedure; it has the potential to be performed on an outpatient basis; it offers access to cell banking after cryopreservation; it offers the potential advantages of pre-transplant reduction of im-munogenecity; and it even offers the future feasibility of xenotransplantation. In this article, the current status of clinical trials and future perspectives of islet transplantation, including immunomodulation, immunotolerance, immunoisolation, and xenotransplantation, are reviewed. Received for publication on Feb. 24, 1999; accepted on March 28, 1999     

First update of the International Xenotransplantation Association consensus statement on conditions for undertaking clinical trials of porcine islet products in type 1 diabetes—Executive summary

The International Xenotransplantation Association has updated its original “Consensus Statement on Conditions for Undertaking Clinical Trials of Porcine Islet Products in Type 1 Diabetes,” which was published in Xenotransplantation in 2009. This update is timely and important in light of scientific progress and changes in the regulatory framework pertinent to islet xenotransplantation. Except for the chapter on “informed consent,” which has remained relevant in its 2009 version, all other chapters included in the initial consensus statement have been revised for inclusion in this update. These chapters will not provide complete revisions of the original chapters; rather, they restate the key points made in 2009, emphasize new and under‐appreciated topics not fully addressed in 2009, suggest relevant revisions, and communicate opinions that complement the consensus opinion. Chapter 1 provides an update on national regulatory frameworks addressing xenotransplantation. Chapter 2 a, previously Chapter 2, suggests several important revisions regarding the generation of suitable source pigs from the perspective of the prevention of xenozoonoses. The newly added Chapter 2b discusses conditions for the use of genetically modified source pigs in clinical islet xenotransplantation. Chapter 3 reviews porcine islet product manufacturing and release testing. Chapter 4 revisits the critically important topic of preclinical efficacy and safety data required to justify a clinical trial. The main achievements in the field of transmission of all porcine microorganisms, the rationale for more proportionate recipient monitoring, and response plans are reviewed in Chapter 5. Patient selection criteria and circumstances where trials of islet xenotransplantation would be both medically and ethically justified are examined in Chapter 6 in the context of recent advances in available and emerging alternative therapies for serious and potentially life‐threatening complications of diabetes. It is hoped that this first update of the International Xenotransplantation Association porcine islet transplant consensus statement will assist the islet xenotransplant scientific community, sponsors, regulators, and other stakeholders actively involved in the clinical translation of islet xenotransplantation.     

First update of the International Xenotransplantation Association consensus statement on conditions for undertaking clinical trials of porcine islet products in type 1 diabetes – Chapter 3: Porcine islet product manufacturing and release testing criteria

In the 2009 IXA consensus, the requirements for the quality and control of manufacturing of porcine islet products were based on the U.S. regulatory framework where the porcine islet products fall within the definition of somatic cell therapy under the statutory authority of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In addition, porcine islet products require pre‐market approval as a biologic product under the Public Health Services Act and they meet the definition of a drug under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). Thus, they are subject to applicable provisions of the law and as such, control of manufacturing as well as reproducibility and consistency of porcine islet products, safety of porcine islet products, and characterization of porcine islet products must be met before proceeding to clinical trials. In terms of control of manufacturing as well as reproducibility and consistency of porcine islet products, the manufacturing facility must be in compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) guidelines appropriate for the initiation of Phase 1/2 clinical trials. Sponsors intending to conduct a Phase 1/2 trial of islet xenotransplantation products must be able to demonstrate the safety of the product through the establishment of particular quality assurance and quality control procedures. All materials (including animal source and pancreas) used in the manufacturing process of the porcine islet products must be free of adventitious agents. The final porcine islet product must undergo tests for the presence of these adventitious agents including sterility, mycoplasma (if they are cultured), and endotoxin. Assessments of the final product must include the safety specifications mentioned above even if the results are not available until after release as these data would be useful for patient diagnosis and treatment if necessary. In addition, a plan of action must be in place for patient notification and treatment in case the sterility culture results are positive. In terms of the characterization of porcine islet products and product release criteria, the information on the porcine islet products should be acquired from a sample of the final product to be used for transplantation and must include the morphology of the islets, specific identity, purity, viability, and potency of the product. In addition, information on the quantity of the islet products should also be provided in a standardized fashion and this should be in terms of islet equivalents and/or cell numbers. The current consensus was created to provide guidelines that manufacturing facilities may find helpful in the manufacture of and the release criteria for porcine islet products including encapsulated islets and combined islet products. Our intent with the above recommendations is to provide a framework for individual porcine islet manufacturing facilities to ensure a high level of safety for the initiation of Phase 1/2 clinical trials on porcine islet xenotransplantation.     

Xenotransplantation: A historical–ethical account of viewpoints

Formal clinical trials of pig-to-human organ transplant—known asxenotransplantation—may begin this decade, with the first trials likely to consist of either adult renal transplants or pediatric cardiac transplant patients. Xenotransplantation as a systematic scientific study only reaches back to the latter half of the 20th century, with episodic xenotransplantation events occurring prior to that. As the science of xenotransplantation has progressed in the 20th and 21st centuries, the public's knowledge of the potential therapy has also increased. With this, there have been shifting ethical stances toward xenotransplantation in key areas, such as religious and public viewpoints towards xenotransplantation, animal rights, and public health concerns. This review provides a historical–ethical account of xenotransplantation and details if or how viewpoints have shifted over time.     

Pig islet for xenotransplantation in human: structural and physiological compatibility for human clinical application

Allogeneic islet transplantation has proven difficult because organ shortages are recurrent, several pancreas donors are often needed to treat one diabetic recipient, and the intrahepatic site of islet implantation may not be the most appropriate site. Thus, another source of insulin-producing cells would be beneficial; and pigs represent a possible and viable source for obtaining such cells. Although the use of pig islet grafts appears to be difficult because of the species barrier, recent reports demonstrated that pig islet xenotransplantation can overcome the immunological barrier following strong immunosuppression and function successfully in primates for at least 6 months. Before becoming clinically applicable, however, pig islet xenotransplantation must still overcome the structural and physiological incompatibility between pig donor and human recipient. Researchers agree that it is necessary to produce more preclinical data in the pig-to-primate model before any pig-to-human transplantation of islets can be considered. Therefore, in this review, we provide a summary of the present state of knowledge about pig and human islet compatibility.     

Xenotransplantation-associated infectious risk: a WHO consultation

Xenotransplantation carries the potential risk of the transmission of infection with the cells or tissues of the graft. The degree of risk is unknown in the absence of clinical trials. The clinical application of xenotransplantation has important implications for infectious disease surveillance, both at the national and international levels. Preclinical data indicate that infectious disease events associated with clinical xenotransplantation from swine, should they occur, will be rare; data in human trials are limited but have demonstrated no transmission of porcine microorganisms including porcine endogenous retrovirus. Xenotransplantation will necessitate the development of surveillance programs to detect known infectious agents and, potentially, previously unknown or unexpected pathogens. The development of surveillance and safety programs for clinical trials in xenotransplantation is guided by a "Precautionary Principle," with the deployment of appropriate screening procedures and assays for source animals and xenograft recipients even in the absence of data suggesting infectious risk. All assays require training, standardization and validation, and sharing of laboratory methods and expertise to optimize the quality of the surveillance and diagnostic testing. Investigation of suspected xenogeneic infection events (xenosis, xenozoonosis) should be performed in collaboration with an expert data safety review panel and the appropriate public health and competent authorities. It should be considered an obligation of performance of xenotransplantation trials to report outcomes, including any infectious disease transmissions, in the scientific literature. Repositories of samples from source animals and from recipients prior to, and following xenograft transplantation are essential to the investigation of possible infectious disease events. Concerns over any potential hazards associated with xenotransplantation may overshadow potential benefits. Careful microbiological screening of source animals used as xenotransplant donors may enhance the safety of transplantation beyond that of allotransplant procedures. Xenogeneic tissues may be relatively resistant to infection by some human pathogens. Moreover, xenotransplantation may be made available at the time when patients require organ replacement on a clinical basis. Insights gained in studies of the microbiology and immunology of xenotransplantation will benefit transplant recipients in the future. This document summarizes approaches to disease surveillance in individual recipients of nonhuman tissues.     

First update of the International Xenotransplantation Association consensus statement on conditions for undertaking clinical trials of porcine islet products in type 1 diabetes—Chapter 6: patient selection for pilot clinical trials of islet xenotransplantation

Patients in whom type 1 diabetes is complicated by impaired awareness of hypoglycemia and recurrent episodes of severe hypoglycemia are candidates for islet or pancreas transplantation if severe hypoglycemia persists after completion of a structured stepped care approach or a formalized medical optimization run‐in period that provides access to hypoglycemia‐specific education including behavioral therapies, insulin analogs, and diabetes technologies under the close supervision of a specialist hypoglycemia service. Patients with type 1 diabetes and end‐stage renal failure who cannot meet clinically appropriate glycemic goals or continue to experience severe hypoglycemia after completion of a formalized medical optimization program under the guidance of an expert diabetes care team are candidates for islet or pancreas transplantation either simultaneously with or after a previous kidney transplant. Similarly, patients with type 2 diabetes and problematic hypoglycemia or renal failure who meet these criteria are considered candidates for islet replacement. Likewise, patients with pancreatectomy‐induced diabetes in whom an islet autograft was not available or deemed inappropriate are candidates for islet or pancreas transplantation if extreme glycemic lability persists despite best medical therapy. To justify participation of these transplant candidates in early‐phase trials of porcine islet cell products, lack of timely access to islet or pancreas allotransplantation due to allosensitization, high islet dose requirements, or other factors, or alternatively, a more favorable benefit–risk determination associated with the xenoislet than the alloislet or allopancreas transplant must be demonstrated. Additionally, in non‐uremic xenoislet recipients, the risks associated with diabetes must be perceived to be more serious than the risks associated with the xenoislet product and the rejection prophylaxis, and in xenoislet recipients with renal failure, the xenoislet product and immunosuppression must not impact negatively on renal transplant outcomes. The most appropriate patient group for islet xenotransplantation trials will be defined by the specific characteristics of each investigational xenoislet product and related technologies applied for preventing rejection. Selecting recipients who are more likely to experience prolonged benefits associated with the islet xenograft will help these patients comply with lifelong monitoring and other public health measures.     

Reluctance of French patients with type 1 diabetes to undergo pig pancreatic islet xenotransplantation

INTRODUCTION: Type 1 diabetes could possibly be treated by transplantation of pig pancreatic islets. In addition to medical difficulties and ethical problems, social hurdles may need to be overcome. We have evaluated the attitude of patients with type 1 diabetes to the xenotransplantation of pig pancreatic islets and to the potential risks associated with such treatment. METHODS: A survey of 214 patients with type 1 diabetes was carried out in France based on a multiple-choice questionnaire. RESULTS: At first, 52.0% of these patients indicated that they would agree to receive pig islet xenografts. The main sources of reluctance were the 'risk of disease transmission' (55.5%) and 'risks not yet identified' (48.7%). After they were told of the risk of cancer or infection associated with immunosuppression, 74.9% of the respondents chose to refuse the transplant, compared with 48.0% before they heard of such risks. A 68.1% would refuse the xenotransplant if it would not exempt them completely from being treated by insulin injections. Discontinuing insulin injections was the most important priority for diabetic patients (73.5%), rather than limitation of diabetes-related complications (52.5%) or increase in life expectancy (44.0%). After they were informed of all of the risks associated with the procedure, 70.5% of the respondents decided they would rather not take any risks, and said they would refuse pig islet transplantation. CONCLUSION: When diabetic patients learned about potential infectious risks and other risks associated with immunosuppression, reluctance to undergo xenotransplantation gained in significance or even led to refusal of the procedure.     

How the COVID-19 pandemic may impact public support for clinical xenotransplantation in the United States?

Many patients who would undergo organ transplantation cannot proceed due to the inability of human organ donation to satisfy medical needs. Xenotransplantation has the potential to offer unlimited availability of pig organs for transplantation, and pig-to-non-human primate models have demonstrated outcomes that may soon justify clinical trials. However, one of the unique ethical challenges faced by xenotransplantation is that the risk of introducing potential zoonotic disease into the community must be weighed along with the benefit to the patient. While most experts believe that zoonosis is manageable, apprehension over disease transmission from animal donors to human recipients remains a frequent concern of many who are undecided or opposed to clinical xenotransplantation. The COVID-19 pandemic represents a scenario (rapid worldwide spread of a highly contagious novel zoonotic disease with no natural defense in humans) that would seem to justify apprehension, especially in the United States, which has largely avoided previous pandemic outbreaks. However, there are many differences between zoonosis found in the wild or after xenotransplantation that favor the safety of the latter. Still, these differences, as well as the benefits of xenotransplantation, are not widely understood outside of the field. We must therefore ask what impact the COVID-19 pandemic will have on attitudes toward xenotransplantation.     

First update of the International Xenotransplantation Association consensus statement on conditions for undertaking clinical trials of porcine islet products in type 1 diabetes—Chapter 2a: source pigs—preventing xenozoonoses

Chapter 2 of the original consensus statement published in 2009 by IXA represents an excellent basis for the production of safe donor pigs and pig‐derived materials for porcine islet xenotransplantation. It was intended that the consensus statement was to be reviewed at interval to remain relevant. Indeed, many of the original salient points remain relevant today, especially when porcine islet xenotransplantation is performed in conjunction with immunosuppressants. However, progress in the field including demonstrated safe clinical porcine xenograft studies, increased understanding of risks including those posed by PERV, and advancement of diagnostic capabilities now allow for further consideration. Agents of known and unknown pathogenic significance continue to be identified and should be considered on a geographic, risk‐based, dynamic, and product‐specific basis, where appropriate using validated, advanced diagnostic techniques. PERV risk can be sufficiently reduced via multicomponent profiling including subtype expression levels in combination with infectivity assays. Barrier facilities built and operated against the AAALAC Ag Guide or suitable alternative criteria should be considered for source animal production as long as cGMPs and SOPs are followed. Bovine material‐free feed for source animals should be considered appropriate instead of mammalian free materials to sufficiently reduce TSE risks. Finally, the sponsor retention period for archival samples of donor materials was deemed sufficient until the death of the recipient if conclusively determined to be of unrelated and non‐infectious cause or for a reasonable period, that is, five to 10 yrs. In summary, the safe and economical production of suitable pigs and porcine islet xenograft materials, under appropriate guidance and regulatory control, is believed to be a viable means of addressing the unmet need for clinical islet replacement materials.     

Islet cell xenotransplantation: update on recent progress and future perspectives

Allogeneic islet transplantation faces difficulties because (i)organ shortage is recurrent; (ii) several pancreas donors are often needed to treat one diabetic recipient; and (iii) the intrahepatic site of islet implantation may not be the most appropriate site. Another source of insulin‐producing cells, therefore, would be of major interest, and pigs represent a possible and serious source for obtaining such cells. Pig islet grafts may appear difficult because of the species barrier, but recent reports demonstrate that pig islets may function in primates for at least 6 months. Pig islet xenotransplantation, however, must still overcome several hurdles prior to becoming clinically applicable. The actual consensus is to produce more preclinical data in the pig‐to‐primate model as a necessary requirement to envisage any pig‐to‐human transplantation of islets; therefore, a summary of the actual acquired knowledge of pig islet transplantation in primates seemed useful.     

Pig islet xenotransplantation into non-human primate model

Allogeneic islet transplantation faces difficulties because (1) organ shortage is recurrent; (2) several pancreas donors are often needed to treat one diabetic recipient; and (3) the intrahepatic site of islet implantation may not be the most appropriate site. Another source of insulin-producing cells, therefore, would be of major interest, and pigs represent a possible and serious source for obtaining such cells. Pig islet grafts may seem difficult because of the species barrier, but recent reports demonstrate that pig islets may function in primates for at least 6 months. Pig islet xenotransplantation, however, must still overcome several hurdles before becoming clinically applicable. The actual consensus is to produce more preclinical data in the pig-to-primate model as a necessary requirement to envisage any pig-to-human transplantation of islets; therefore, a summary of the actual acquired knowledge of pig islet transplantation in primates seemed useful and is summarized in this overview.