Cited by 73Pharmaceutical Economics and PolicyCAR-T cell therapy researchBiomedical Ethics and Regulation

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

Open access
ten Ham, Renske M.T., Hövels, Anke M., Hoekman, Jarno, Frederix, Geert W.J., Leufkens, Hubert G.M., Klungel, Olaf H., Jedema, Inge, Veld, Sabrina A.J. +15 more·2020·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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jcyt.2020.03.432

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Centralized manufacturing remains the dominant approach for allogeneic therapies due to economies of scale and well-established GMP infrastructure.

    “Centralized manufacturing remains the dominant approach for such therapies due to its economies of scale and well-established GMP infrastructure (ten Ham et al., 2020).”

    From Isolator-based point-of-care manufacturing: a practical solution for GMP-compliant cell and extracellular vesicles therapy production (2025) · cites this paper as ten Ham et al., 2020

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says higher production volume may reduce facility costs and that sharing GMP facilities can spread costs and risks. It does not establish that centralized manufacturing is the dominant approach for allogeneic therapies, or that established GMP infrastructure explains such dominance. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. Burt RK, Balabanov R, Burman J, Sharrack B, Snowden JA, Oliveira MC, et al. Effect of nonmyeloablative hematopoietic stem cell transplantation vs continued dis- ease-modifying therapy on disease progression in patients with relapsing-remit- ting multiple sclerosis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2019;321:165-74.
  2. Han W, She Q. CRISPR history: discovery, characterization, and prosperity. Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci 2017;152:1-21.
  3. Wirth T, Parker N, Yl€ a-Herttuala S. History of gene therapy. Gene 2013;525(2):162-9.
  4. Soofiyani SR, Baradaran B, Lotfipour F, Kazemi T, Mohammadnejad L. Gene ther- apy, early promises, subsequent problems, and recent breakthroughs. Adv Pharm Bull 2013;3:249-55.
  5. Hanna E, Toumi M, Dussart C, Borissov B, Dabbous O, Badora K, et al. Funding breakthrough therapies: a systematic review and recommendation. Health Policy (New York) 2018;122:217-29.
  6. Abou-El-Enein M, Elsanhoury A, Reinke P. Overcoming challenges facing advanced therapies in the EU market. Cell Stem Cell 2016;19:293-7.
  7. European Medicines Agency. Guidelines on Good Manufacturing Practice specific to advanced therapy medicinal products. 2017;4(November 2017). https://doi. org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199546282.013.0024. [Accessed 1 July 2019]. · DOI
  8. Ten Ham RMT, Hoekman J, H€ ovels AM, Broekmans AW, Leufkens HGM, Klungel OH. Challenges in advanced therapy medicinal products development: a survey amongst companies in Europe. Mol Ther Methods Clin Dev 2018;14:121-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omtm.2018.10.003. · DOI
  9. de Wilde S, Guchelaar H-J, Zandvliet ML, Meij P. Clinical development of gene- and cell-based therapies: overview of the European landscape. Mol Ther Methods Clin Dev 2016;3:16073.
  10. Abou-El-Enein M, R€ omhild A, Kaiser D, Beier C, Bauer G, Volk HD, et al. Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) manufacturing of advanced therapy medicinal products: a novel tailored model for optimizing performance and estimating costs. Cytotherapy 2013;15:362-83.
  11. Gardner J, Webster A, Barry J. Anticipating the clinical adoption of regenerative medicine: building institutional readiness in the UK. Regen Med 2018;13:29-39. https://doi.org/10.2217/rme-2017-0121. · DOI
  12. Boeke A, Doumas P, Reeves L, McClurg K, Bischof D, Sego L, et al. Vector produc- tion in an academic environment: a tool to assess production costs. Hum Gene Ther Methods 2013;24:49-57.
  13. Nagpal A, Milte R, Kim SW, Hillier S, Hamilton-Bruce MA, Ratcliffe J, et al. Eco- nomic evaluation of stem cell therapies in neurological diseases: a systematic review. Value Health 2019;22:254-62.
  14. Ret el VP, Steuten LMG, Geukes Foppen MH, Mewes JC, Lindenberg MA, Haanen JBAG, et al. Early cost-effectiveness of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) for sec- ond line treatment in advanced melanoma: a model-based economic evaluation. BMC Cancer 2018;18:1-11.
  15. Zimmermann M, Lubinga SJ, Banken R, Rind D, Cramer G, Synnott PG, et al. Cost util- ity of voretigene neparvovec for biallelic RPE65-mediated inherited retinal disease. Value Health 2019;22:161-7.
  16. Uyl-De Groot CA, L€ owenberg B. Sustainability and affordability of cancer drugs: a novel pricing model. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2018;15:405-6.
  17. Tan SS, Rutten FFH, Van Ineveld BM, Redekop WK, Hakkaart-Van Roijen L. Com- paring methodologies for the cost estimation of hospital services. Eur J Heal Econ 2009;10:39-45.
  18. Lennerts K, Diez K. A processÀoriented analysis of facility management services in hospitals as a basis for strategic planning. J Facil Manag 2009;7(1):52-60.
  19. Roberts RR, Gussow LM, Kampe LM, Straus HE, Rydman RJ, Frutos PW, et al. Distri- bution of variable vs fixed costs of hospital care. JAMA 1999;281:644-9.
  20. Acemoglu D, Laibson D. In: List John, ed. Economics, global edition, 2nd ed. USA: Pearson Education Limited; 2015.
  21. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien, Stoddart BJ, Torrance GL. 3rd ed. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes, 3. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2005.
  22. Arjmand EM, Hillegeist SA, Mallory Caldwell HA, Shah SR, Reece E, Hollier LH. Cost allocation can be as simple as A-B-C. Physician Leader 2018;5(4):34.
  23. Misono AS, Oklu R, Prabhakar AM. Time-driven activity-based costing trumps tra- ditional cost accounting for radiologists. Am J Roentgenol 2015;204(2):W217.
  24. Kanters TA, Bouwmans CAM, van der Linden N, Tan SS, Hakkaart-Van Roijen L. Update of the Dutch manual for costing in economic evaluations. PLoS ONE 2017;12(11):11 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5679627/pdf/pone.0187477.pdf.
  25. Van Nimwegen KJM, Van Soest RA, Veltman JA, Nelen MR, Van Der Wilt GJ, Viss- ers LELM, et al. Is the 1000 genome as near as we think? A cost analysis of next- generation sequencing. Clin Chem. 2016;62(11):1458-64.
  26. Samson D, Slaper-Cortenbach I, Pamphilon D, McGrath E, McDonald F, Urbano Ispizua A. Current status of JACIE accreditation in Europe: a special report from the Joint Accreditation Committee of the ISCT and the EBMT (JACIE). Bone Mar- row Transplant 2007;39(3):133-41.
  27. H€ ummer C, Poppe C, Bunos M, Stock B, Wingenfeld E, Huppert V, et al. Automa- tion of cellular therapy product manufacturing: Results of a split validation com- paring CD34 selection of peripheral blood stem cell apheresis product with a semi-manual vs. an automatic procedure. J Transl Med. 2016;14:1-7.
  28. de Wilde S, Guchelaar HJ, Herberts C, Lowdell M, Hildebrandt M, Zandvliet M, et al. Development of cell therapy medicinal products by academic institutes. Drug Discov Today 2016;21:1206-12.
  29. Moutsatsou P, Ochs J, Schmitt RH, Hewitt CJ, Hanga MP. Automation in cell and gene therapy manufacturing: from past to future. Biotechnol Lett 2019;41: 1245-53.
  30. Gardner J, Faulkner A, Mahalatchimy A, Webster A. Are there specific translational challenges in regenerative medicine? Lessons from other fields. Regen Med 2015;10:885-95.
  31. Vigan o M, Giordano R, Lazzari L. Challenges of running a GMP facility for regener- ative medicine in a public hospital. Regen Med 2017;12:803-13. https://doi.org/ 10.2217/rme-2017-0051. · DOI
  32. Ermisch M, Bucsics A, Bonanno PV, Arickx F, Bybau A, Bochenek T, et al. Payers' views of the changes arising through the possible adoption of adaptive path- ways. Front Pharmacol 2016;7:1-9.
  33. Jørgensen J, Kefalas P. Annuity payments can increase patient access to innovative cell and gene therapies under England's net budget impact test. J Mark Access Heal Policy 2017;5:1355203.
  34. Belardelli F, Rizza P, Moretti F, Carella C, Galli MC, Migliaccio G. Translational research on advanced therapies. Ann Ist Super Sanita 2011;47:72-8.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
ten Ham, R. M. T., Hövels, A. M., Hoekman, J., Frederix, G. W. J., Leufkens, H. G. M., Klungel, O. H., Jedema, I., Veld, S. A. J., Nikolic, T., Van Pel, M., Zwaginga, J. J., Lin, F., de Goede, A. L., Schreibelt, G., Budde, S., de Vries, I. J. M., Wilkie, G. M., Dolstra, H., Ovelgönne, H., Meij, P., Mountford, J. C., Turner, M. L., & Hoefnagel, M. H. N.
Affiliations
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • Leiden University Medical Center (NL)
  • Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
  • Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service (GB)
  • Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
  • Medicines Evaluation Board (NL)
Venue
Cytotherapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-07
Volume
22
Issue
7
Pages
388-397
ISSN
1465-3249 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3024228614
Cited by
73
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 1
FWCI
6.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cytotherapy (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › CAR-T cell therapy research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Biomedical Ethics and Regulation
Keywords
cell therapy manufacturing, cost estimation, small-scale manufacturing, cost drivers, hidden costs, cell therapy
MeSH terms
Academies and Institutes, Commerce, Costs and Cost Analysis, Europe, Health Facilities, Humans, Cell- and Tissue-Based Therapy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review