Development of a cell line-based in vitro assay for assessment of Diphtheria, Tetanus and acellular Pertussis (DTaP)-induced inflammasome activation.

Safety and potency assessment for batch release testing of established vaccines still relies partly on animal tests. An important avenue to move to batch release without animal testing is the consistency approach. This approach is based on thorough characterization of the vaccine to identify critical quality attributes that inform the use of a comprehensive set of non-animal tests to release the vaccine, together with the principle that the quality of subsequent batches follows from their consistent production. Many vaccine antigens are by themselves not able to induce a protective immune response. The antigens are therefore administered together with adjuvant, most often by adsorption to aluminium salts. Adjuvant function is an important component of vaccine potency, and an important quality attribute of the final product. Aluminium adjuvants are capable of inducing NLRP3 inflammasome activation. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate an in vitro assay for NLRP3 inflammasome activation by aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines. We evaluated the effects of Diphtheria-Tetanus-acellular Pertussis combination vaccines from two manufacturers and their respective adjuvants, aluminium phosphate (AP) and aluminium hydroxide (AH), in an in vitro assay for NLRP3 inflammasome activation. All vaccines and adjuvants tested showed a dose-dependent increase in IL-1ß production and a concomitant decrease in cell viability, suggesting NLRP3 inflammasome activation. The results were analysed by benchmark dose modelling, showing a similar 50% effective dose (ED50) for the two vaccine batches and corresponding adjuvant of manufacturer A (AP), and a similar ED50 for the two vaccine batches and corresponding adjuvant of manufacturer B (AH). This suggests that NLRP3 inflammasome activation is determined by the adjuvant only. Repeated freeze-thaw cycles reduced the adjuvant biological activity of AH, but not AP. Inflammasome activation may be used to measure adjuvant biological activity as an important quality attribute for control or characterization of the adjuvant.

Estimation of manufacturing development costs of cell-based therapies: a feasibility study.

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.

What does cell therapy manufacturing cost? A framework and methodology to facilitate academic and other small-scale cell therapy manufacturing costings.

BACKGROUND AIMS: Recent technical and clinical advances with cell-based therapies (CBTs) hold great promise in the treatment of patients with rare diseases and those with high unmet medical need. Currently the majority of CBTs are developed and manufactured in specialized academic facilities. Due to small scale, unique characteristics and specific supply chain, CBT manufacturing is considered costly compared to more conventional medicinal products. As a result, biomedical researchers and clinicians are increasingly faced with cost considerations in CBT development. The objective of this research was to develop a costing framework and methodology for academic and other small-scale facilities that manufacture cell-based therapies. METHODS: We conducted an international multi-center costing study in four facilities in Europe using eight CBTs as case studies. This study includes costs from cell or tissue procurement to release of final product for clinical use. First, via interviews with research scientists, clinicians, biomedical scientists, pharmacists and technicians, we designed a high-level costing framework. Next, we developed a more detailed uniform methodology to allocate cost items. Costs were divided into steps (tissue procurement, manufacturing and fill-finish). The steps were each subdivided into cost categories (materials, equipment, personnel and facility), and each category was broken down into facility running (fixed) costs and operational (variable) costs. The methodology was tested via the case studies and validated in developer interviews. Costs are expressed in 2018 euros (€). RESULTS: The framework and methodology were applicable across facilities and proved sensitive to differences in product and facility characteristics. Case study cost estimates ranged between €23 033 and €190 799 Euros per batch, with batch yield varying between 1 and 88 doses. The cost estimations revealed hidden costs to developers and provided insights into cost drivers to help design manufacturing best practices. CONCLUSIONS: This framework and methodology provide step-by-step guidance to estimate manufacturing costs specifically for cell-based therapies manufactured in academic and other small-scale enterprises. The framework and methodology can be used to inform and plan cost-conscious strategies for CBTs.

Pragmatic rules for comparability of biological medicinal products.

Comparability is a key concept in the evaluation of both manufacturing changes and biosimilars. It constitutes a pragmatic and flexible approach which recognises that biologicals are inherently variable and that minor variations in quality attributes are often clinically irrelevant. In this discussion paper, we argue that comparability exercises rely on a number of pragmatic criteria. These criteria have been remarkably robust for 20 years of comparability exercises; however, the increased scrutiny of biosimilar applications provides an impetus for both codification and improvement of criteria for establishing comparability. Such a more rigorous, methodologically sound, approach towards comparability seems both feasible and beneficial.