Renske M T Ten Ham1, Julianne C Nievaart2, Jarno Hoekman3, Rachel S Cooper4, Geert W J Frederix5, Hubert G M Leufkens6, Olaf H Klungel7, Hans Ovelgönne8, Marcel H N Hoefnagel8, Marc L Turner4, Joanne C Mountford4. 1. Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: r.m.t.tenham@uu.nl. 2. Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Tissues, Cells and Advanced Therapeutics, Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service, Edinburgh, UK. 3. Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Innovation Studies, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 4. Tissues, Cells and Advanced Therapeutics, Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service, Edinburgh, UK. 5. Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 6. Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Lygature, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 7. Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 8. Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AIMS: Cell-based therapies (CBTs) provide opportunities to treat rare and high-burden diseases. Manufacturing development of these innovative products is said to be complex and costly. However, little research is available providing insight into resource use and cost drivers. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the feasibility of estimating the cost of manufacturing development of two cell-based therapy case studies using a CBT cost framework specifically designed for small-scale cell-based therapies. METHODS: A retrospective costing study was conducted in which the cost of developing an adoptive immunotherapy of Epstein-Barr virus-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) and a pluripotent stem cell (PSC) master cell bank was estimated. Manufacturing development was defined as products advancing from technology readiness level 3 to 6. The study was conducted in a Scottish facility. Development steps were recreated via developer focus groups. Data were collected from facility administrative and financial records and developer interviews. RESULTS: Application of the manufacturing cost framework to retrospectively estimate the manufacturing design cost of two case studies in one Scottish facility appeared feasible. Manufacturing development cost was estimated at £1,201,016 for CTLs and £494,456 for PSCs. Most costs were accrued in the facility domain (56% and 51%), followed by personnel (20% and 32%), materials (19% and 15%) and equipment (4% and 2%). CONCLUSIONS: Based on this study, it seems feasible to retrospectively estimate resources consumed in manufacturing development of cell-based therapies. This fosters inclusion of cost in the formulation and dissemination of best practices to facilitate early and sustainable patient access and inform future cost-conscious manufacturing design decisions.
BACKGROUND AIMS: Cell-based therapies (CBTs) provide opportunities to treat rare and high-burden diseases. Manufacturing development of these innovative products is said to be complex and costly. However, little research is available providing insight into resource use and cost drivers. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the feasibility of estimating the cost of manufacturing development of two cell-based therapy case studies using a CBT cost framework specifically designed for small-scale cell-based therapies. METHODS: A retrospective costing study was conducted in which the cost of developing an adoptive immunotherapy of Epstein-Barr virus-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) and a pluripotent stem cell (PSC) master cell bank was estimated. Manufacturing development was defined as products advancing from technology readiness level 3 to 6. The study was conducted in a Scottish facility. Development steps were recreated via developer focus groups. Data were collected from facility administrative and financial records and developer interviews. RESULTS: Application of the manufacturing cost framework to retrospectively estimate the manufacturing design cost of two case studies in one Scottish facility appeared feasible. Manufacturing development cost was estimated at £1,201,016 for CTLs and £494,456 for PSCs. Most costs were accrued in the facility domain (56% and 51%), followed by personnel (20% and 32%), materials (19% and 15%) and equipment (4% and 2%). CONCLUSIONS: Based on this study, it seems feasible to retrospectively estimate resources consumed in manufacturing development of cell-based therapies. This fosters inclusion of cost in the formulation and dissemination of best practices to facilitate early and sustainable patient access and inform future cost-conscious manufacturing design decisions.