Reducing the costs of blockbuster gene and cell therapies in the Global South

Ben Johnson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-023-02049-3

IF: 46.9

2024-01-12

Nature Biotechnology

Abstract:Researchers in low- and middle-income countries are developing their own IP, scaling up local manufacturing, and looking for biomarkers — all in the hope of bringing costs down and getting therapies to people who need them.

biotechnology & applied microbiology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The translational gap for gene therapies in low- and middle-income countries

Kevin W. Doxzen,Jennifer E. Adair,Yris Maria Fonseca Bazzo,Daima Bukini,Kenneth Cornetta,Varsha Dalal,Renato Luiz Guerino-Cunha,Suradej Hongeng,Geeta Jotwani,Cissy Kityo-Mutuluuza,Krishnamurti Lakshmanan,Johnny Mahlangu,Julie Makani,Vikram Mathews,Margareth C. Ozelo,Savita Rangarajan,Janine Scholefield,João Batista Silva Júnior,Joseph M. McCune

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.adn1902

IF: 17.1

2024-05-10

Science Translational Medicine

Abstract:Gene therapies are designed to address the root cause of disease. As scientific understanding of disease prevention, diagnosis, and treatment improves in tandem with technological innovation, gene therapies have the potential to become safe and effective treatment options for a wide range of genetic and nongenetic diseases. However, as the medical scope of gene therapies expands, consideration must be given to those who will benefit and what proactive steps must be taken to widen development and access potential, particularly in regions carrying a high disease burden.

cell biology,medicine, research & experimental
Expanding access to biotherapeutics in low-income and middle-income countries through public health non-exclusive voluntary intellectual property licensing: considerations, requirements, and opportunities

Sébastien Morin,Giulia Segafredo,Manuele Piccolis,Aditi Das,Meghmala Das,Nicola Loffredi,Amina Larbi,Kim Mwamelo,Elena Villanueva,Sandra Nobre,Esteban Burrone

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(22)00460-0

Abstract:Biotherapeutics, such as recombinant proteins and monoclonal antibodies, have become mainstays of modern medicine as shown by their increasing number in the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines. However, despite frequently offering clinical advantages over standards of care, they remain largely out of reach for populations in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), partly because of high costs. Accordingly, the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines Expert Committee has requested that the Medicines Patent Pool explore intellectual property licensing to address this challenge. We therefore investigated how licensing could successfully improve affordability of and timely access to biotherapeutics in LMICs, by leveraging expert consultations, literature analysis, and internal technical knowledge. The key elements identified as relevant to support access to affordable biosimilars in LMICs through licensing include: prioritising potential biotherapeutic targets according to their potential for public health impact; supporting biosimilar product and clinical development (including through technology transfer to expedite regulatory approval); and facilitating biosimilars' entry and use in LMICs (by meeting procurement, supply chain, and health system requirements).
The economics of biosimilars and challenges to biosimilar adoption in low- and middle-income countries

Matthias Calamia,Ivo Abraham

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14712598.2023.2247972

Abstract:Introduction: Biologics have shown marked success over the past decades in disease areas as cancer, immunology and diabetes. However, elevated costs of innovative biologic medicines have led to an inequity in accessibility across the world. While 85% of the world's population lives in low- and middle- income countries (LMIC), 80% of the sales of monoclonal antibodies are attributed to Western countries, highlighting the pronounced market imbalance. Areas covered: This perspective paper draws some analogies as well as differences between biosimilars and generics, aims to address the unmet need for treatment with biologics in LMICs by reviewing possible causes, economic and social, of low access, displaying the disparity between LMICs and HIC, and suggets countermeasures for this unmet medical need in LMICs. Expert opinion: It is up to all stakeholders to capitalize on the opportunity that biosimilars provide, mostly by committing to transparent collaboration, to make biotherapeutics accessible to all, regardless of region or country of residence.
Unlocking patient access to gene therapy: five key practices

Tay Salimullah,Burcu Kazazoglu Taylor,Madeleine Zerbato

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41434-024-00509-2

2024-12-08

Gene Therapy

Abstract:Cost-effectiveness models typically assess short-term affordability and long-term value of chronic therapies [11]. One-time therapies like onasemnogene abeparvovec require a different framework for cost-effectiveness analysis that combines various factors: innovative analogues for other lifelong transformative impact (e.g., transplant surgery), comparison with treatment costs over an extended period, cost-effectiveness comparisons with other available disease-targeting treatments, statistical valuation via systematic review and quantitative analysis, and the welfare economics theory application. Because of clinical trial limitations, one-time therapies face evidence challenges that RWE studies can address to reinforce confidence in long-term efficacy and safety. By investing in natural history studies, developing disease registries (e.g., RESTORE for spinal muscular atrophy [12]), and/or partnering with other patient registries, organizations, and healthcare stakeholders, companies can improve disease understanding, support clinical trial design and label discussions, and uncover unmet needs and real-world clinical efficacy profiles. RWE can also expand contracting options (e.g., outcomes-based agreements [OBAs] with endpoints beyond clinical trials) and support policy and practices. In some countries (e.g., Germany), RWE is mandated for certain therapies [13].

genetics & heredity,biochemistry & molecular biology,medicine, research & experimental,biotechnology & applied microbiology
Manufacturing innovation to drive down cell therapy costs

Minsoo Khang,Smruthi Suryaprakash,Megan Kotrappa,Widya Mulyasasmita,Shana Topp,John Wu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2023.04.006

Abstract:Chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CAR-T) have demonstrated their potential to revolutionize cancer treatment. However, manufacturing remains a challenge. Multiple manufacturing innovations [e.g., vector and gene engineering, process improvements, hardware innovation, digital innovation, and point-of-care (POC) manufacturing] have the potential to help realize the full potential of CAR-T therapies.
Challenges in Global Access to CAR-T Cells: an Asian Perspective.

William Yk Hwang,Satoshi Takahashi,Bryan Choi,He Huang,Shin Kawamata,Soo Chin Ng,Pawan Gupta,Amir Ali Hamidieh,Chaiyong Koaykul,Cospiahadi Irawan,Alok Srivastava

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31547/bct-2023-023

2023-01-01

Abstract:The use of cell therapy for clinical applications has seen a dramatic increase in recent years, primarily in oncology, especially with the use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies. However, there are some barriers to the widespread adoption of CAR-T cell therapies globally, primarily because of the high cost of manufacturing these cells and clinical infrastructure considerations. We reviewed the different strategies adopted across Asia to implement CAR-T cell therapy and found that these included patient assistance programs, close engagement with funders, cost-effectiveness studies, on-site manufacturing of CAR-T cells, and joint ventures between local partners and foreign pharmaceutical companies. Although on-site manufacturing can reduce the cost of genetic engineering and expansion, it does not address many other hidden costs and quality considerations. Future growth in large-scale regional manufacturing, facilitated by cutting-edge science and innovation, could reduce costs through economies of scale and facilitate the eagerly needed global access.
CAR-T and cellular gene therapies are too expensive

Boro Dropulić

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-03231-z

IF: 82.9

2024-09-05

Nature Medicine

Abstract:Point-of-care manufacturing and technology transfer can deliver cellular gene therapies at an affordable cost to patients across the world.

biochemistry & molecular biology,cell biology,medicine, research & experimental
Affordable Pricing of CRISPR Treatments is a Pressing Ethical Imperative

Jon Rueda,Íñigo de Miguel Beriain,Lluis Montoliu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/crispr.2024.0042

Abstract:Casgevy, the world's first approved CRISPR-based cell therapy, has been priced at $2.2 million per patient. Although this hefty price tag was widely anticipated, the extremely high cost of this and other cell and gene therapies poses a major ethical issue in terms of equitable access and global health. In this Perspective, we argue that lowering the prices of future CRISPR therapies is an urgent ethical imperative. Although we focus on Casgevy as a case study, much of our analysis can be extrapolated to the controversies over affordable access to other gene and cell therapies. First, we explain why this first-of-its-kind CRISPR therapy might be so expensive. We then analyze the ethical issues of equity and global health of early CRISPR treatments. Next, we discuss potential solutions to lower the prices of CRISPR gene therapies. We conclude that the approval of CRISPR transforms our obligations of justice and compels us to bring future gene therapies to the maximum possible number of patients with serious genetic diseases at affordable prices.
A roadmap for affordable genetic medicines

Melinda Kliegman,Manar Zaghlula,Susan Abrahamson,Jonathan H. Esensten,Ross Wilson,Fyodor D. Urnov,Jennifer A. Doudna

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07800-7

IF: 64.8

2024-07-18

Nature

Abstract:Nineteen genetic therapies have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to date, a number that now includes the first CRISPR genome editing therapy for sickle cell disease, CASGEVY (exagamglogene autotemcel). This extraordinary milestone is widely celebrated because of the promise for future genome editing treatments of previously intractable genetic disorders and cancers. At the same time, such genetic therapies are the most expensive drugs on the market, with list prices exceeding $4 million per patient. Although all approved cell and gene therapies trace their origins to academic or government research institutions, reliance on for-profit pharmaceutical companies for subsequent development and commercialization results in prices that prioritize recouping investments, paying for candidate product failures, and meeting investor and shareholder expectations. To increase affordability and access, sustainable discovery-to-market alternatives are needed that address system-wide deficiencies. Here, we present recommendations of a multi-disciplinary task force assembled to chart such a path. We describe a pricing structure that, once implemented, could reduce per-patient cost tenfold and propose a business model that distributes responsibilities while leveraging diverse funding sources. We also outline how academic licensing provisions, manufacturing innovation and supportive regulations can reduce cost and enable broader patient treatment.

multidisciplinary sciences
Introducing biosimilar competition for cell and gene therapy products

Brian Canter,Sabine Sussman,Stephen Colvill,Nitzan Arad,Elizabeth Staton,Arti Rai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsae015

IF: 3.4

2024-07-01

Journal of Law and the Biosciences

Abstract:Abstract This article provides an early analysis of the potential for creating future biosimilar competition for cell and gene therapies (CGTs) to lower prices and improve patient access, building on a unique set of interviews with relevant experts. Our discussion addressed regulatory, manufacturing, intellectual property, and market size challenges. Due to CGTs' complexity, meeting the regulatory requirement of ‘high similarity with no clinically meaningful differences’ will be difficult. Gene therapies are likely better candidates for biosimilar development than cell therapies. Biosimilarity should be met when gene therapy biosimilars contain the same genetic sequence as a reference product, and the variability in the vector meets the high similarity standard. Manufacturing challenges, including the lack of standardized platforms, high production costs, and complexity, pose significant obstacles. It may also be important to demonstrate biosimilarity within the manufacturing process. Intellectual property barriers, specifically patenting, trade secrecy, and regulatory exclusivity, could hinder biosimilars' ability to gain market share, although recent Supreme Court decisions limiting the breadth of patent claims could ease barriers to future CGT competition, including from biosimilars. Finally, inadequate market sizes might create hurdles, especially for curative treatments, as patient pools shrink following treatment by the reference CGT.

ethics,law,medicine, legal,medical ethics
Cell and gene therapy regulatory, pricing, and reimbursement framework: With a focus on South Korea and the EU

SungKyung Lee,Jong Hyuk Lee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1109873

2023-02-24

Abstract:Ever since relevant bioengineering technologies have sufficiently matured to the platformizable commercialization stage, a slew of money has flocked to the cell and gene therapy market over the last few years, resulting in an abundance of clinical studies in the field. Newer modalities have brought up a string of regulatory and legislative tasks, such as developing guidelines and legislative rules to systematically regulate newer pharmaceutical products. Accordingly, another layer of legislation and guidelines tailored for cell and gene therapies has been introduced and is expected to evolve on par with technological progress. Furthermore, authorities have shifted to pricing and reimbursement policies that can share risks for cost and outcome among stakeholders altogether, such as developers and the government, while expanding the accessibility of patients to innovative cell and gene therapies. This review attempts to capture the salient regulatory features of the cell and gene therapy market in the context of South Korea and the European Union and points out where two sovereign entities currently stand on each policy element and how each tackles regulatory challenges. We can observe the converging trend where regulatory, pricing and reimbursement rules of adjoining countries in the supranational union or member countries of a consortium are getting more aligned. Evidently, concerted efforts to share regulatory science knowledge and embrace reference pricing have played their parts. The authors argue that policy priorities should be placed on initiatives to harmonize with other medical authorities to better the rights of patients and clear out the uncertainties of developers, ultimately to share and advance regulatory science and layout forward-looking policies at opportune times.
Switching from Recombinant to Ribosomal Delivery—A Humanitarian Cause

Sarfaraz K. Niazi,Matthias Magoola

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms252312797

IF: 5.6

2024-11-29

International Journal of Molecular Sciences

Abstract:Recombinant therapeutic and vaccine proteins have revolutionized healthcare, but there remain challenges, as many are awaiting development due to their slow development speed and high development cost. Cell-free in vivo ribosomes offer one choice, but they come with similar constraints. The validation of in vivo messenger RNA (mRNA) technology has been accomplished for COVID-19 vaccines. The bioreactors inside the body, the ribosomes, deliver these proteins at a small cost, since these are chemical products and do not require extensive analytical and regulatory exercises. In this study, we test and validate the final product. A smaller fraction of the recombinant protein cost is needed, removing both constraints. Although thousands of in vivo mRNA products are under development, their regulatory classification remains unresolved: do they qualify as chemical drugs, biological drug, or gene therapy items? These questions will soon be resolved. Additionally, how would the copies of approved in vivo mRNA protein products be brought in, and how would they be treated: as new drugs, generic drugs, or new biological drugs? Researchers are currently working to answer these questions. Regardless, these products' cost of goods (COGs) remains much smaller than that of ex vivo mRNA or recombinant products. This is necessary to meet the needs of the approximately 6.5 billion people around the world who do not have access to biological drugs; these products will indeed serve the dire needs of humanity. Given the minor cost of establishing the manufacturing of these products, it will also prove financially attractive to investors.

biochemistry & molecular biology,chemistry, multidisciplinary
Design of experiments as a decision tool for cell therapy manufacturing

Esmond Lee,Devin Shah,Matthew Porteus,J Fraser Wright,Rosa Bacchetta

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcyt.2022.01.009

IF: 6.196

Cytotherapy

Abstract:Background aims: Cell therapies are costlier to manufacture than small molecules and protein therapeutics because they require multiple manipulations and are often produced in an autologous manner. Strategies to lower the cost of goods to produce a cell therapy could make a significant impact on its total cost. Methods: Borrowing from the field of bioprocess development, the authors took a design of experiments (DoE)-based approach to understanding the manufacture of a cell therapy product in pre-clinical development, analyzing main cost factors in the production process. The cells used for these studies were autologous CD4+ T lymphocytes gene-edited using CRISPR/Cas9 and recombinant adeno-associated virus (AAV) to restore normal FOXP3 gene expression as a prospective investigational product for patients with immune dysregulation, polyendocrinopathy, enteropathy, X-linked (IPEX) syndrome. Results: Using gene editing efficiency as the response variable, an initial screen was conducted for other variables that could influence the editing frequency. The multiplicity of infection (MOI) of AAV and amount of single guide RNA (sgRNA) were the significant factors used for the optimization step to generate a response contour plot. Cost analysis was done for multiple points in the design space to find cost drivers that could be reduced. For the range of values tested (50 000-750 000 vg/cell AAV and 0.8-4 μg sgRNA), editing with the highest MOI and sgRNA yielded the best gene editing frequency. However, cost analysis showed the optimal solution was gene editing at 193 000 vg/cell AAV and 1.78 μg sgRNA. Conclusions: The authors used DoE to define key factors affecting the gene editing process for a potential investigational therapeutic, providing a novel and faster data-based approach to understanding factors driving complex biological processes. This approach could be applied in process development and aid in achieving more robust strategies for the manufacture of cellular therapeutics.
Novel approaches to enable equitable access to monoclonal antibodies in low- and middle-income countries

Shelly Malhotra,Anne-Isabelle Cameron,Dzintars Gotham,Esteban Burrone,Peter J Gardner,Colleen Loynachan,Sébastien Morin,Cherise P Scott,Carmen Pérez-Casas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0003418

2024-07-01

Abstract:Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are revolutionizing management of non-communicable diseases in high-income countries and are increasingly being advanced for a range of infectious diseases (IDs). However, access to existing mAbs is limited in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and investment in developing fit-for-purpose mAbs for IDs that disproportionately affect LMICs has been limited. Underlying these access barriers are systemic challenges, including a lack of commercial incentives to target LMIC markets and complexity in manufacturing and regulatory processes. Novel strategies are needed to overcome systemic access barriers for mAbs. We outline key areas where new approaches could address these barriers, based on a multistakeholder consultation in March 2023. Three disease-market archetypes are identified to guide thinking about business models tailored to different contexts. New business models are needed to incentivize development and manufacturing of ID mAbs and to ensure mAbs are optimized with a target product profile and cost of goods that enable use in diverse LMIC settings. Lessons can be applied from voluntary licensing strategies and product development partnerships that have shown success in catalysing development and affordable supply for a range of infectious diseases. Technology transfer will be key to expand LMIC research and manufacturing capacity and to enable sustainable and diversified supply. Improved market intelligence, demand aggregation mechanisms, and portfolio-based manufacturing models could be used to de-risk commercial investment and establish a sustainable manufacturing ecosystem for affordable mAbs. Novel regulatory approaches and robust technology transfer may reduce data requirements and timelines for biosimilar approvals. Trailblazer products, with coordinated "end-to-end" support from funders, can demonstrate proof of concept for pathways to accessible mAbs across a broader range of LMICs. Research funders; local, regional, global health agencies; and, private sector partners should commit to implementing innovative partnerships and end-to-end strategies that enable equitable access to mAbs for infectious diseases in LMICs.
Cost of Goods Analysis Facilitates an Integrated Approach to Identifying Alternative Synthesis Methodologies for Lower Cost Manufacturing of the COVID-19 Antiviral Molnupiravir

Christopher Peterson,Sayan Paria,Anita Deshpande,Saeed Ahmad,Andrew Harmon,John Dillon,Trevor Laird

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/gatesopenres.13509.1

2022-02-16

Abstract:Orally delivered drugs offer significant benefits in the fight against viral infections, and cost-effective production is critical to their impact on pandemic response in low- and middle-income countries. One example, molnupiravir, a COVID-19 therapy developed by Emory, Ridgeback, and Merck & Co., had potential to benefit from significant cost of goods (COGs) reductions for its active pharmaceutical ingredient (API), including starting materials. A holistic approach to identifying, developing, and evaluating optimized synthetic routes, which includes detailed COGs modeling, provides a rapid means to increase the availability, uptake and application of molnupiravir and other antivirals in global markets. Identification and development of alternate processes for the synthesis of molnupiravir has been conducted by the Medicines for All Institute at Virginia Commonwealth University (M4ALL) and the Green and Turner Labs at the University of Manchester. Both groups developed innovative processes based on synthetic route design and biocatalysis aimed at lowering costs and improving global access. The authors then performed COGs modeling to assess cost saving opportunities. This included a focus on manufacturing environments and facilities amenable to global public health and the identification of key parameters using sensitivity analyses. While all of the evaluated routes provide efficiency benefits, the best options yielded 3-6 fold API COGs reductions leading to treatment COGs as low as <$3/regimen. Additionally, key starting materials and cost drivers were quantified to evaluate the robustness of the savings. Finally, COGs models can continue to inform the focus of future development efforts on the most promising routes for additional cost savings. While the full price of a treatment course includes other factors, these alternative API synthetic approaches have significant potential to help facilitate broader access in low- and middle-income countries. As other promising therapeutics are developed, a similar process could enable rapid cost reductions while enhancing global access.
What does cell therapy manufacturing cost? A framework and methodology to facilitate academic and other small-scale cell therapy manufacturing costings

Renske M T Ten Ham,Anke M Hövels,Jarno Hoekman,Geert W J Frederix,Hubert G M Leufkens,Olaf H Klungel,Inge Jedema,Sabrina A J Veld,Tatjana Nikolic,Melissa Van Pel,Jaap J Zwaginga,Fong Lin,Anna L de Goede,Gerty Schreibelt,Sandy Budde,I Jolanda M de Vries,Gwen M Wilkie,Harry Dolstra,Hans Ovelgönne,Pauline Meij,Joanne C Mountford,Marc L Turner,Marcel H N Hoefnagel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcyt.2020.03.432

IF: 6.196

Cytotherapy

Abstract: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.
CAR-T cell therapy in India requires a paradigm shift in training, education and health care processes

Akshay Ravindranath,Aparajita Dubey,Surekha Suresh,Guljit Chaudhuri,Narendra Chirmule

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcyt.2021.09.007

IF: 6.196

Cytotherapy

Abstract:Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapy has revolutionized the treatment of some kinds of cancers. Hundreds of companies and academic institutions are collaborating to develop gene-modified cell therapies using novel targets, different cell types, and manufacturing processes of autologous and allogenic cell therapies. The individualized, custom-made autologous CAR-T cell production platform remains a significant limiting factor for its large-scale clinical application. In this respect, the advances in standardization and automation of the process can have considerable impact on cost reduction. Development of off-the-shelf, ready-to-use universal killer cells can enable scaling up. Despite the wide use of this cell therapy in the United States, Europe and China, its development is limited in developing countries in Southeast Asia, Africa and Latin America. In this review, we focus on good manufacturing practices-compliant manufacturing requirements, operational logistics, and regulatory processes that need to be considered for high-quality gene-modified cell therapies from an Indian perspective. We also list the potential strategies to overcome challenges associated with translation to affordability and scalability.
Improving access to gene therapy for rare diseases

Thomas A. Fox,Claire Booth

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1242/dmm.050623

2024-04-19

Disease Models & Mechanisms

Abstract:ABSTRACT Effective gene therapy approaches have been developed for many rare diseases, including inborn errors of immunity and metabolism, haemoglobinopathies and inherited blindness. Despite successful pre-clinical and clinical results, these gene therapies are not widely available, primarily for non-medical reasons. Lack of commercial interest in therapies for ultra-rare diseases, costs of development and complex manufacturing processes required for advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) are some of the main problems that are restricting access. The complexities and costs of navigating the regulatory environments in different jurisdictions for treatments that affect small numbers of patients is a problem unique to ATMPS for rare and ultra-rare diseases. In this Perspective, we outline some of the challenges and potential solutions that, we hope, will improve access to gene therapy for rare diseases.

pathology,cell biology
Allogeneic cell therapy bioprocess economics and optimization: Single‐use cell expansion technologies

Ana S Simaria,Sally Hassan,Hemanthram Varadaraju,Jon Rowley,Kim Warren,Philip Vanek,Suzanne S Farid,Ana S. Simaria,Suzanne S. Farid

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.25008

IF: 3.8

2013-08-16

Biotechnology and Bioengineering

Abstract:For allogeneic cell therapies to reach their therapeutic potential, challenges related to achieving scalable and robust manufacturing processes will need to be addressed. A particular challenge is producing lot-sizes capable of meeting commercial demands of up to 10(9) cells/dose for large patient numbers due to the current limitations of expansion technologies. This article describes the application of a decisional tool to identify the most cost-effective expansion technologies for different scales of production as well as current gaps in the technology capabilities for allogeneic cell therapy manufacture. The tool integrates bioprocess economics with optimization to assess the economic competitiveness of planar and microcarrier-based cell expansion technologies. Visualization methods were used to identify the production scales where planar technologies will cease to be cost-effective and where microcarrier-based bioreactors become the only option. The tool outputs also predict that for the industry to be sustainable for high demand scenarios, significant increases will likely be needed in the performance capabilities of microcarrier-based systems. These data are presented using a technology S-curve as well as windows of operation to identify the combination of cell productivities and scale of single-use bioreactors required to meet future lot sizes. The modeling insights can be used to identify where future R&D investment should be focused to improve the performance of the most promising technologies so that they become a robust and scalable option that enables the cell therapy industry reach commercially relevant lot sizes. The tool outputs can facilitate decision-making very early on in development and be used to predict, and better manage, the risk of process changes needed as products proceed through the development pathway.

biotechnology & applied microbiology
Making gene editing accessible in resource limited environments: recommendations to guide a first-time user

Shivani Goolab,Janine Scholefield

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fgeed.2024.1464531

2024-09-25

Abstract:The designer nuclease, CRISPR-Cas9 system has advanced the field of genome engineering owing to its programmability and ease of use. The application of these molecular scissors for genome engineering earned the developing researchers the Nobel prize in Chemistry in the year 2020. At present, the potential of this technology to improve global challenges continues to grow exponentially. CRISPR-Cas9 shows promise in the recent advances made in the Global North such as the FDA-approved gene therapy for the treatment of sickle cell anaemia and β-thalassemia and the gene editing of porcine kidney for xenotransplantation into humans affected by end-stage kidney failure. Limited resources, low government investment with an allocation of 1% of gross domestic production to research and development including a shortage of skilled professionals and lack of knowledge may preclude the use of this revolutionary technology in the Global South where the countries involved have reduced science and technology budgets. Focusing on the practical application of genome engineering, successful genetic manipulation is not easily accomplishable and is influenced by the chromatin landscape of the target locus, guide RNA selection, the experimental design including the profiling of the gene edited cells, which impacts the overall outcome achieved. Our assessment primarily delves into economical approaches of performing efficient genome engineering to support the first-time user restricted by limited resources with the aim of democratizing the use of the technology across low- and middle-income countries. Here we provide a comprehensive overview on existing experimental techniques, the significance for target locus analysis and current pitfalls such as the underrepresentation of global genetic diversity. Several perspectives of genome engineering approaches are outlined, which can be adopted in a resource limited setting to enable a higher success rate of genome editing-based innovations in low- and middle-income countries.

Reducing the costs of blockbuster gene and cell therapies in the Global South

The translational gap for gene therapies in low- and middle-income countries

Expanding access to biotherapeutics in low-income and middle-income countries through public health non-exclusive voluntary intellectual property licensing: considerations, requirements, and opportunities

The economics of biosimilars and challenges to biosimilar adoption in low- and middle-income countries

Unlocking patient access to gene therapy: five key practices

Manufacturing innovation to drive down cell therapy costs

Challenges in Global Access to CAR-T Cells: an Asian Perspective.

CAR-T and cellular gene therapies are too expensive

Affordable Pricing of CRISPR Treatments is a Pressing Ethical Imperative

A roadmap for affordable genetic medicines

Introducing biosimilar competition for cell and gene therapy products

Cell and gene therapy regulatory, pricing, and reimbursement framework: With a focus on South Korea and the EU

Switching from Recombinant to Ribosomal Delivery—A Humanitarian Cause

Design of experiments as a decision tool for cell therapy manufacturing

Novel approaches to enable equitable access to monoclonal antibodies in low- and middle-income countries

Cost of Goods Analysis Facilitates an Integrated Approach to Identifying Alternative Synthesis Methodologies for Lower Cost Manufacturing of the COVID-19 Antiviral Molnupiravir

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

CAR-T cell therapy in India requires a paradigm shift in training, education and health care processes

Improving access to gene therapy for rare diseases

Allogeneic cell therapy bioprocess economics and optimization: Single‐use cell expansion technologies

Making gene editing accessible in resource limited environments: recommendations to guide a first-time user