Search

Background aims: Cell-based therapies (CBTs) provide opportunities to treat rare and high-burden diseases. Manufacturing development of these innovative products is said to be complex and costly. However, little research is available providing insight into resource use and cost drivers. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the feasibility of estimating the cost of manufacturing development of two cell-based therapy case studies using a CBT cost framework specifically designed for small-scale cell-based therapies. Methods: A retrospective costing study was conducted in which the cost of developing an adoptive immunotherapy of Epstein-Barr virus-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) and a pluripotent stem cell (PSC) master cell bank was estimated. Manufacturing development was defined as products advancing from technology readiness level 3 to 6. The study was conducted in a Scottish facility. Development steps were recreated via developer focus groups. Data were collected from facility administrative and financial records and developer interviews. Results: Application of the manufacturing cost framework to retrospectively estimate the manufacturing design cost of two case studies in one Scottish facility appeared feasible. Manufacturing development cost was estimated at £1,201,016 for CTLs and £494,456 for PSCs. Most costs were accrued in the facility domain (56% and 51%), followed by personnel (20% and 32%), materials (19% and 15%) and equipment (4% and 2%). Conclusions: Based on this study, it seems feasible to retrospectively estimate resources consumed in manufacturing development of cell-based therapies. This fosters inclusion of cost in the formulation and dissemination of best practices to facilitate early and sustainable patient access and inform future cost-conscious manufacturing design decisions.

Background aims Cell-based therapies (CBTs) provide opportunities to treat rare and high-burden diseases. Manufacturing development of these innovative products is said to be complex and costly. However, little research is available providing insight into resource use and cost drivers. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the feasibility of estimating the cost of manufacturing development of two cell-based therapy case studies using a CBT cost framework specifically designed for small-scale cell-based therapies. Methods A retrospective costing study was conducted in which the cost of developing an adoptive immunotherapy of Epstein-Barr virus-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) and a pluripotent stem cell (PSC) master cell bank was estimated. Manufacturing development was defined as products advancing from technology readiness level 3 to 6. The study was conducted in a Scottish facility. Development steps were recreated via developer focus groups. Data were collected from facility administrative and financial records and developer interviews. Results Application of the manufacturing cost framework to retrospectively estimate the manufacturing design cost of two case studies in one Scottish facility appeared feasible. Manufacturing development cost was estimated at £1,201,016 for CTLs and £494,456 for PSCs. Most costs were accrued in the facility domain (56% and 51%), followed by personnel (20% and 32%), materials (19% and 15%) and equipment (4% and 2%). Conclusions Based on this study, it seems feasible to retrospectively estimate resources consumed in manufacturing development of cell-based therapies. This fosters inclusion of cost in the formulation and dissemination of best practices to facilitate early and sustainable patient access and inform future cost-conscious manufacturing design decisions.

Background: An element of health technology assessment constitutes assessing the clinical effectiveness of drugs, generally called relative effectiveness assessment. Little real-world evidence is available directly after market access, therefore randomized controlled trials are used to obtain information for relative effectiveness assessment. However, there is growing interest in using real-world data for relative effectiveness assessment. Social media may provide a source of real-world data. Objective: We assessed the extent to which social media-generated health data has provided insights for relative effectiveness assessment. Methods: An explorative literature review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify examples in oncology where health data were collected using social media. Scientific and grey literature published between January 2010 and June 2016 was identified by four reviewers, who independently screened studies for eligibility and extracted data. A descriptive qualitative analysis was performed. Results: Of 1032 articles identified, eight were included: Four articles identified adverse events in response to cancer treatment, three articles disseminated quality of life surveys, and one study assessed the occurrence of disease-specific symptoms. Several strengths of social media-generated health data were highlighted in the articles, such as efficient collection of patient experiences and recruiting patients with rare diseases. Conversely, limitations included validation of authenticity and presence of information and selection bias. Conclusions: Social media may provide a potential source of real-world data for relative effectiveness assessment, particularly on aspects such as adverse events, symptom occurrence, quality of life, and adherence behavior. This potential has not yet been fully realized and the degree of usefulness for relative effectiveness assessment should be further explored.