Manufacturing models permitting roll out/scale out of clinically led autologous cell therapies: regulatory and scientific challenges for comparability

Manufacturing of more-than-minimally manipulated autologous cell therapies presents a number of unique challenges driven by complex supply logistics and the need to scale out production to multiple manufacturing sites or near the patient within hospital settings. The existing regulatory structure in Europe and the United States imposes a requirement to establish and maintain comparability between sites. Under a single market authorization, this is likely to become an unsurmountable burden beyond two or three sites. Unless alternative manufacturing approaches can be found to bridge the regulatory challenge of comparability, realizing a sustainable and investable business model for affordable autologous cell therapy supply is likely to be extremely demanding. Without a proactive approach by the regulators to close this “translational gap,” these products may not progress down the development pipeline, threatening patient accessibility to an increasing number of clinician-led autologous cellular therapies that are already demonstrating patient benefits. We propose three prospective manufacturing models for the scale out/roll out of more-than-minimally manipulated clinically led autologous cell therapy products and test their prospects for addressing the challenge of product comparability with a selected expert reference panel of US and UK thought leaders. This paper presents the perspectives and insights of the panel and identifies where operational, technological and scientific improvements should be prioritized. The main purpose of this report is to solicit feedback and seek input from key stakeholders active in the field of autologous cell therapy in establishing a consensus-based manufacturing approach that may permit the roll out of clinically led autologous cell therapies

Regenerative medicine, resource and regulation: lessons learned from the remedi project

The successful commercialization of regenerative medicine products provides a unique challenge to the manufacturer owing to a lack of suitable investment/business models and a constantly evolving regulatory framework. The resultant slow translation of scientific discovery into safe and clinically efficacious therapies is preventing many potential products from reaching the market. This is despite of the need for new therapies that may reduce the burden on the world’s healthcare systems and address the desperate need for replacement tissues and organs. The collaborative Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)-funded remedi project was devised to take a holistic but manufacturing-led approach to the challenge of translational regenerative medicine in the UK. Through strategic collaborations and discussions with industry and other academic partners, many of the positive and negative issues surrounding business and regulatory success have been documented to provide a remedi-led perspective on the management of risk in business and the elucidation of the regulatory pathways, and how the two are inherently linked. This article represents the findings from these discussions with key stakeholders and the research into best business and regulatory practices

Manufacturing models permitting roll out/scale out of clinically led autologous cell therapies: regulatory and scientific challenges for comparability

Manufacturing of more-than-minimally manipulated autologous cell therapies presents a number of unique challenges driven by complex supply logistics and the need to scale out production to multiple manufacturing sites or near the patient within hospital settings. The existing regulatory structure in Europe and the United States imposes a requirement to establish and maintain comparability between sites. Under a single market authorization, this is likely to become an unsurmountable burden beyond two or three sites. Unless alternative manufacturing approaches can be found to bridge the regulatory challenge of comparability, realizing a sustainable and investable business model for affordable autologous cell therapy supply is likely to be extremely demanding. Without a proactive approach by the regulators to close this “translational gap,” these products may not progress down the development pipeline, threatening patient accessibility to an increasing number of clinician-led autologous cellular therapies that are already demonstrating patient benefits. We propose three prospective manufacturing models for the scale out/roll out of more-than-minimally manipulated clinically led autologous cell therapy products and test their prospects for addressing the challenge of product comparability with a selected expert reference panel of US and UK thought leaders. This paper presents the perspectives and insights of the panel and identifies where operational, technological and scientific improvements should be prioritized. The main purpose of this report is to solicit feedback and seek input from key stakeholders active in the field of autologous cell therapy in establishing a consensus-based manufacturing approach that may permit the roll out of clinically led autologous cell therapies

Qualification of academic facilities for small-scale automated manufacture of autologous cell-based products

Academic centres, hospitals and small companies, as typical development settings for UK regenerative medicine assets, are significant contributors to the development of autologous cell-based therapies. Often lacking the appropriate funding, quality assurance heritage or specialist regulatory expertise, qualifying aseptic cell processing facilities for Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) compliance is a significant challenge. The qualification of a new Cell Therapy Manufacturing Facility (CTMF) with automated processing capability, the first of its kind in a UK academic setting, provides a unique demonstrator for the qualification of small-scale, automated facilities for GMP compliant manufacture of autologous cell-based products in these settings. This paper shares our experiences in qualifying the CTMF, focussing on our approach to streamlining the qualification effort, the challenges, project delays and inefficiencies we encountered and the subsequent lessons learned