Centralised versus decentralised manufacturing and the delivery of healthcare products: A United Kingdom exemplar.

BACKGROUND: The cell and gene therapy (CGT) field is at a critical juncture. Clinical successes have underpinned the requirement for developing manufacturing capacity suited to patient-specific therapies that can satisfy the eventual demand post-launch. Decentralised or 'redistributed' manufacturing divides manufacturing capacity across geographic regions, promising local, responsive manufacturing, customised to the end user, and is an attractive solution to overcome challenges facing the CGT manufacturing chain. METHODS: A study was undertaken building on previous, so far unpublished, semi-structured interviews with key opinion leaders in advanced therapy research, manufacturing and clinical practice. The qualitative findings were applied to construct a cost of goods model that permitted the cost impact of regional siting to be combined with variable and fixed costs of manufacture of a mesenchymal stromal cell product. RESULTS: Using the United Kingdom as an exemplar, cost disparities between regions were examined. Per patient dose costs of ~£1,800 per 75,000,000 cells were observed. Financial savings from situating the facility outside of London allow 25-41 additional staff or 24-35 extra manufacturing vessels to be employed. Decentralised quality control to mitigate site-to-site variation was examined. Partial decentralisation of quality control was observed to be financially possible and an attractive option for facilitating release 'at risk'. DISCUSSION: There are important challenges that obstruct the easy adoption of decentralised manufacturing that have the potential to undermine the market success of otherwise promising products. By using the United Kingdom as an exemplar, the modelled data provide a framework to inform similar regional policy considerations across other global territories.

Should we adopt an automated de-centralized model of chimeric antigen receptor- T cells manufacturing for low-and middle-income countries? A real world perspective.

Autologous chimeric antigen receptor-T (CAR-T) cell therapy has proven itself as an effective therapeutic modality for cancers, especially hematological malignancies and is emerging as a potential candidate for solid organ cancers as well. However, the accessibility to treatment has been limited due to complexities and costs associated with manufacturing a genetically modified autologous product. The centralized model of CAR-T manufacturing which has emerged as the dominant model in developed nations does not seem well-suited to the needs and realities of the developing economies. In this context, we explore the relative advantages and disadvantages of the two models from a developing nation's perspective.

Decentralised manufacturing of cell and gene therapy products: Learning from other healthcare sectors.

Decentralised or 'redistributed' manufacturing represents an attractive choice for production of some cell and gene therapies (CGTs), in particular personalised therapies. Decentralised manufacturing splits production into various locations or regions and in doing so, imposes organisational changes on the structure of a company. This confers a significant advantage by democratising supply, creating jobs without geographical restriction to the central hub and allowing a more flexible response to external pressures and demands. This comes with challenges that need to be addressed including, a reduction in oversight, decision making and control by central management which can be critical in maintaining quality in healthcare product manufacturing. The unwitting adoption of poor business strategies at an early stage in development has the potential to undermine the market success of otherwise promising products. To maximise the probability of realising the benefits that decentralised manufacturing of CGTs has to offer, it is important to examine alternative operational paradigms to learn from their successes and to avoid their failures. Whilst no other situation is quite the same as CGTs, some illustrative examples of established manufacturing paradigms are described. Each of these shares a unique attribute with CGTs which aids understanding of how decentralised manufacturing might be implemented for CGTs in a similar manner. In this paper we present a collection of paradigms that can be drawn on in formulating a roadmap to success for decentralised production of CGTs.