How do I structure logistic processes in preparation for outsourcing of cellular therapy manufacturing?

Expanding the reach of commercial cell therapies requires changes at medical centers

The clinical application of cell therapies is becoming increasingly important for the treatment of cancer, congenital immune deficiencies, and hemoglobinopathies. These therapies have been primarily manufactured and used at academic medical centers. However, cell therapies are now increasingly being produced in centralized manufacturing facilities and shipped to medical centers for administration. Typically, these cell therapies are produced from a patient's own cells, which are the critical starting material. For these therapies to achieve their full potential, more medical centers must develop the infrastructure to collect, label, cryopreserve, test, and ship these cells to the centralized laboratories where these cell therapies are manufactured. Medical centers must also develop systems to receive, store, and infuse the finished cell therapy products. Since most cell therapies are cryopreserved for shipment and storage, medical centers using these therapies will require access to liquid nitrogen product storage tanks and develop procedures to thaw cell therapies. These services could be provided by the hospital pharmacy or transfusion service, but the latter is likely most appropriate. Another barrier to implementing these services is the variability among providers of these cell therapies in the processes related to handling cell therapies. The provision of these services by medical centers would be facilitated by establishing a national coordinating center and a network of apheresis centers to collect and cryopreserve the cells needed to begin the manufacturing process and cell therapy laboratories to store and issue the cells. In addition to organizing cell collections, the coordinating center could establish uniform practices for collecting, labeling, shipping, receiving, thawing, and infusing the cell therapy.

Healthcare center-based cell therapy laboratories supporting off-site manufactured cell therapies: The experiences of a single academic cell therapy laboratory

BACKGROUND

Healthcare center-based cell therapy laboratories (HC CTLs) evolved from solely processing hematopoietic stem cells for transplantation to manufacturing various advanced cellular therapies. With increasing interest in cellular therapy applications, off-site manufactured products are becoming more common. HC CTLs play a critical role in supporting these products by shipping out cellular starting material (CSM) for further manufacturing and/or receiving, storing, and distributing final products. The experiences and challenges encountered by a single academic HC CTL in supporting these products are presented.

METHODS

All off-site manufacturing protocols supported before 2023 were reviewed. Collected data included protocol characteristics (treatment indication, product type), process logistics (shipping, receiving, storage, thawing, distribution, documentation), and product handling volumes (CSM shipping and final product infusions).

RESULTS

Between 2012 and 2022, 15 off-site manufactured cellular therapy early-phase, single- and multicenter clinical trials were supported. Trials were sponsored by academic/research and commercial entities. The number of protocols supported annually increased each year, with few ending. Products included cancer immunotherapies and gene therapies. Autologous CSM was collected and shipped, while autologous and allogeneic final products were received, stored, thawed, and distributed. Process differences among protocols included CSM shipping conditions, laboratory analyses, final product thaw conditions and procedures, number of treatments, and documentation.

DISCUSSION

HC CTLs must contend with several challenges in supporting off-site manufacturing protocols. As demand for cellular therapies increases, stakeholders should collaborate from the early phases of clinical trials to streamline processes and standardize procedures to increase value, improve safety, and reduce the burden on HC CTLs.

A systematic review of clinical trials for gene therapies for β-hemoglobinopathy around the world

BACKGROUND AIMS

Amidst the success of cell therapy for the treatment of onco-hematological diseases, the first recently Food and Drug Administration-approved gene therapy product for patients with transfusion-dependent β-thalassemia (TDT) indicates the feasibility of gene therapy as curative for genetic hematologic disorders. This work analyzed the current-world scenario of clinical trials involving gene therapy for β-hemoglobinopathies.

METHODS

Eighteen trials for patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) and 24 for patients with TDT were analyzed.

RESULTS

Most are phase 1 and 2 trials, funded by the industry and are currently recruiting volunteers. Treatment strategies for both diseases are fetal hemoglobin induction (52.4%); addition of wild-type or therapeutic β-globin gene (38.1%) and correction of mutations (9,5%). Gene editing (52.4%) and gene addition (40.5%) are the two most used techniques. The United States and France are the countries with the greatest number of clinical trials centers for SCD, with 83.1% and 4.2%, respectively. The United States (41.1%), China (26%) and Italy (6.8%) lead TDT trials centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Geographic trial concentration indicates the high costs of this technology, logistical issues and social challenges that need to be overcome for gene therapy to reach low- and middle-income countries where SCD and TDT are prevalent and where they most impact the patient's health.

Comparative analysis of rule elements for transportation of cell therapy products among regulations and standards

Aim: This study aimed to identify the elements involved in the transportation of cell therapy products by conducting a comparative analysis of four related international standards for temperature-controlled delivery and good distribution practice (GDP). Methods: An analytical framework was constructed to cover the entire transportation process. The descriptions of each element in the Pharmaceutical Inspection Convention and Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme (PIC/S) GDP, International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 21973, Foundation for the Accreditation of Cellular Therapy Common Standards for Cellular Therapies and ISO 23412 were compared. Results: The study identified some elements that were present in the PIC/S GDP and other standards but were absent in ISO 21973, and vice versa. These elements are crucial in view of the increasing opportunities to transport allogeneic cells in the future. Conclusion: The study identified the necessary elements that should be included in the development of transport regulations for cell therapy products.

The need for uniform and coordinated practices involving centrally manufactured cell therapies

Cellular therapies have become an important part of clinical care. The treatment of patients with cell therapies often involves the collection of autologous cells at the medical center treating the patient, the shipment of these cells to a centralized manufacturing site, and the return of the cryopreserved clinical cell therapy to the medical center treating the patient for storage until infusion. As this activity grows, cell processing laboratories at many academic medical centers are involved with many different autologous products manufactured by several different centralized laboratories. The handling of these products by medical center-based cell therapy laboratories is complicated and resource-intensive since each centralized manufacturing laboratory has unique methods for labeling, storing, shipping, receiving, thawing, and infusing the cells. The field would benefit from the development of more uniform practices. The development of a coordinating center similar to those established to facilitate the collection, shipping, and transplantation of hematopoietic stem cells from unrelated donors would also be beneficial. In summary, the wide range of practices involved with labeling, shipping, freezing, thawing, and infusing centrally manufactured autologous cellular therapies lack efficiency and consistency and puts patients at risk. More uniform practices are needed.

A bioinspired and chemically defined alternative to dimethyl sulfoxide for the cryopreservation of human hematopoietic stem cells

The cryopreservation of hematopoietic cells using dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) and serum is a common procedure used in transplantation. However, DMSO has clinical and biological side effects due to its toxicity, and serum introduces variation and safety risks. Inspired by natural antifreeze proteins, a novel class of ice-interactive cryoprotectants was developed. The corresponding DMSO-, protein-, and serum-free cryopreservation media candidates were screened through a series of biological assays using human cell lines, peripheral blood cells, and bone marrow cells. XT-Thrive-A and XT-Thrive-B were identified as lead candidates to rival cryopreservation with 10% DMSO in serum based on post-thaw cell survival and short-term proliferation assays. The effectiveness of the novel cryopreservation media in freezing hematopoietic stem cells from human whole bone marrow was assessed by extreme limiting dilution analysis in immunodeficient mice. Stem cell frequencies were measured 12 weeks after transplant based on bone marrow engraftment of erythroid, myeloid, B-lymphoid, and CD34+ progenitors measured by flow cytometry. The recovered numbers of cryopreserved stem cells were similar among XT-Thrive A, XT-Thrive B, and DMSO with serum groups. These findings show that cryoprotectants developed through biomimicry of natural antifreeze proteins offers a substitute for DMSO-based media for the cryopreservation of hematopoietic stem cells.

Establishment of a cell processing laboratory to support hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapy

Cell processing laboratories are an important part of cancer treatment centers. Cell processing laboratories began by supporting hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) transplantation programs. These laboratories adapted closed bag systems, centrifuges, sterile connecting devices and other equipment used in transfusion services/blood banks to remove red blood cells and plasma from marrow and peripheral blood stem cells products. The success of cellular cancer immunotherapies such as Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T-cells has increased the importance of cell processing laboratories. Since many of the diseases successfully treated by CAR T-cell therapy are also treated by HSC transplantation and since HSC transplantation teams are well suited to manage patients treated with CAR T-cells, many cell processing laboratories have begun to produce CAR T-cells. The methods that have been used to process HSCs have been modified for T-cell enrichment, culture, stimulation, transduction and expansion for CAR T-cell production. While processing laboratories are well suited to manufacture CAR T-cells and other cellular therapies, producing these therapies is challenging. The manufacture of cellular therapies requires specialized facilities which are costly to build and maintain. The supplies and reagents, especially vectors, can also be expensive. Finally, highly skilled staff are required. The use of automated equipment for cell production may reduce labor requirements and the cost of facilities. The steps used to produce CAR T-cells are reviewed, as well as various strategies for establishing a laboratory to manufacture these cells.

Processing laboratory considerations for multi-center cellular therapy clinical trials: a report from the Consortium for Pediatric Cellular Immunotherapy

``Cellular therapies first emerged as specialized therapies only available at a few "boutique" centers worldwide. To ensure broad access to these investigational therapies-regardless of geography, demographics and other factors-more and more academic clinical trials are becoming multi-center. Such trials are typically performed with a centralized manufacturing facility receiving the starting material and shipping the final product, either fresh or cryopreserved, to the patient's institution for infusion. As these academic multi-center trials increase in number, it is critical to have procedures and training programs in place to allow these sites that are remote from the production facility to successfully participate in these trials and satisfy regulatory compliance and patient safety best practices. Based on the collective experience of the Consortium for Pediatric Cellular Immunotherapy, the authors summarize the challenges encountered by institutions in shipping and receiving the starting material and final product as well as preparing the final product for infusion. The authors also discuss best practices implemented by each of the consortia institutions to overcome these challenges.

Variations in novel cellular therapy products manufacturing

BACKGROUND AIMS

At the frontier of transfusion medicine and transplantation, the field of cellular therapy is emerging. Most novel cellular therapy products are produced under investigational protocols with no clear standardization across cell processing centers. Thus, the purpose of this study was to uncover any variations in manufacturing practices for similar cellular therapy products across different cell processing laboratories worldwide.

METHODS

An exploratory survey that was designed to identify variations in manufacturing practices in novel cellular therapy products was sent to cell processing laboratory directors worldwide. The questionnaire focused on the manufacturing life cycle of different cell therapies (i.e., collection, purification, in vitro expansion, freezing and storage, and thawing and washing), as well as the level of regulations followed to process each product type.

RESULTS

The majority of the centers processed hematopoietic progenitor cells (HPCs) from peripheral blood (n = 18), bone marrow (n = 16) or cord blood (n = 19), making HPCs the most commonly processed cells. The next most commonly produced cellular therapies were lymphocytes (n = 19) followed by mesenchymal stromal cells (n = 14), dendritic cells (n = 9) and natural killer (NK) cells (n = 9). A minority of centers (<5) processed pancreatic islet cells (n = 4), neural cells (n = 3) and induced-pluripotent stem cells (n = 3). Thirty-two laboratories processed products under an investigational status, for either phase I/II (n = 27) or phase III (n = 17) clinical trials. If purification methods were used, these varied for the type of product processed and by institution. Environmental monitoring methods also varied by product type and institution.

CONCLUSION

This exploratory survey shows a wide variation in cellular therapy manufacturing practices across different cell processing laboratories. A better understanding of the effect of these variations on the quality of these cell-based therapies will be important to assess for further process evaluation and development.