Challenges with advanced therapy medicinal products and how to meet them

Cell therapeutic options in liver diseases: cell types, medical devices and regulatory issues

Although significant progress has been made in the field of orthotopic liver transplantation, cell-based therapies seem to be a promising alternative to whole-organ transplantation. The reasons are manifold but organ shortage is the main cause for this approach. However, many problems such as the question which cell type should be used or which application site is best for transplantation have been raised. In addition, some clinicians have had success by cultivating liver cells in bioreactors for temporary life support. Besides answering the question which cell type, which injection site or even which culture form should be used for liver support recent international harmonization of legal requirements is needed to be addressed by clinicians, scientists and companies dealing with cellular therapies. We here briefly summarize the possible cell types used to partially or temporarily correct liver diseases, the most recent development of bioreactor technology and important regulatory issues.

Translating research into clinical scale manufacturing of mesenchymal stromal cells

It sounds simple to obtain sufficient numbers of cells derived from fetal or adult human tissues, isolate and/or expand the stem cells, and then transplant an appropriate number of these cells into the patient at the correct location. However, translating basic research into routine therapies is a complex multistep process which necessitates product regulation. The challenge relates to managing the expected therapeutic benefits with the potential risks and to balance the fast move to clinical trials with time-consuming cautious risk assessment. This paper will focus on the definition of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs), and challenges and achievements in the manufacturing process enabling their use in clinical studies. It will allude to different cellular sources, special capacities of MSCs, but also to current regulations, with a special focus on accessory material of human or animal origin, like media supplements. As cellular integrity and purity, formulation and lot release testing of the final product, validation of all procedures, and quality assurance are of utmost necessity, these topics will be addressed.

The cost utility of autologous chondrocytes implantation using ChondroCelect® in symptomatic knee cartilage lesions in Belgium

BACKGROUND

Knee cartilage lesions increase the risk of developing osteoarthritis (OA), and may eventually result in a total knee replacement (TKR). There is currently no consensus on the optimal treatment of cartilage lesions. ChondroCelect® (CC) is a cell-based therapy approved for use in autologous chondrocytes implantation (ACI) to treat symptomatic cartilage defects of the femoral condyle. Its capacity to safely restore good-quality cartilage was demonstrated in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) versus the surgical procedure microfracture (MFX).

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the cost utility of CC used in ACI compared with MFX to treat symptomatic knee cartilage lesions in Belgium.

METHODS

A decision tree model comparing CC with MFX over a 40-year horizon was developed in TreeAge Pro™. The key timepoints of the model were (i) clinical assessment 5 years after initial intervention (success or no success, with or without re-operation); (ii) development of OA at 15 years (yes/no); (iii) need for TKR at 20 years (yes/no); and (iv) need for prosthesis revision at 35 years (yes/no). Clinical data provided by the RCT of CC versus MFX were the clinical success (response) rate based on the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) at 36 months (82.9% vs 62.0%; p = 0.048) and the proportion of good structural repair/presence of hyaline cartilage based on International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS II) visual item at 12 months (44.9% vs 23.2%; p = 0.023). Utility scores by surgery outcome were derived from the SF-36 questionnaire responses collected in the RCT. Conservative assumptions related to the incidences of OA, TKR and prosthesis revision relied on a literature search. A patient chart review (n = 82) provided follow-up costs by surgery outcome. National tariffs were applied to direct medical resources used (healthcare payer perspective, year 2008 costs). Annual discounting was applied to costs (3%) and effects (1.5%) as recommended by the Belgian pharmacoeconomic guidelines.

RESULTS

The incremental cost per QALY gained for CC compared with MFX was €16,229, with a difference in costs of €20,802 and 1.282 QALYs gained. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the key model drivers were the proportion of patients with hyaline cartilage and the correlation between hyaline cartilage formation and later avoidance of OA. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed robustness of the results, with 80% of the simulations below the usual UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) threshold of €22,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Assuming a good correlation between high-quality cartilage repair and avoidance of OA at a later stage, the benefits of the cell therapy CC over MFX in terms of QALYs gained and OA-related costs avoided appear real. Further research is required to explore long-term effects of cartilage repair and reduce uncertainty on quality of life of patients with OA before and after joint replacement.