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.

Second-line treatment for acute graft-versus-host disease with mesenchymal stromal cells: A decision model.

OBJECTIVE: No standard second-line treatment exists for acute graft-versus-host disease steroid-refractory (SR-aGvHD), and long-term outcomes remain poor. Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) have been evaluated as treatment, but no disease model (DM) exists that integrates and extrapolates currently available evidence. The aim of this study was to develop such a DM to describe the natural history of SR-aGvHD and to predict long-term outcomes. METHOD: The DM was developed in collaboration with experts in haematology-oncology. Subsequently, a model simulation was run. Input parameters for transition and survival estimates were informed by published data of clinical trials on MSC treatment for SR-aGvHD. Parametric distributions were used to estimate long-term survival rates after MSCs. RESULTS: The newly developed DM is a cohort model that consists of eight health states. For the model simulation, we obtained data on 327 patients from 14 published phase II trials. Due to limited evidence, DM structure was simplified and several assumptions had to be made. Median overall survival was 3.2 years for complete response and 0.5 years for no complete response. CONCLUSION: The DM provides a comprehensive overview on the second-line treatment pathway for aGvHD and enables long-term predictions that can be used to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing any treatment for SR-aGvHD.

Reporting transfusion-related acute lung injury by clinical and preclinical disciplines.

BACKGROUND: Disciplines involved in diagnosing transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI) report according to a "one-hit" theory. However, studies showed that patients with an underlying condition are at increased risk of the development of TRALI. We investigated whether accumulating evidence on the "two-hit" theory has changed the practice of reporting TRALI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Departments of haematology, haemovigilance, transfusion medicine, intensive care and anaesthesiology from all Dutch hospitals with at least five beds equipped for mechanical ventilation were invited to participate in an online survey. Using clinical vignettes with conjoint analysis we investigated the effect of patients' age, admission diagnosis, type and number of transfusions and presence of risk factors for acute lung injury on TRALI reporting. A positive ß-coefficient indicated a higher likelihood of reporting TRALI. RESULTS: We received 129 questionnaires (response rate 74%). Respondents were more likely to report TRALI in younger patients, if symptoms developed within 2 hours of transfusion and if patients had received multiple transfusions. Sepsis and the presence of a risk factor for acute lung injury reduced the inclination to report. Transfusion medicine physicians and haemovigilance staff no longer took the age of transfusion products into account in their diagnostic considerations on TRALI. DISCUSSION: We conclude that the multidisciplinary team involved in TRALI reporting, still considers TRALI a "one-hit" event, despite accumulating evidence that supports the "two-hit" theory. These results suggest that the patients most at risk of developing TRALI are not reported to the blood bank.