Advanced therapy medicinal product manufacturing under the hospital exemption and other exemption pathways in seven European Union countries

被引:20
作者
Coppens, Delphi G. M. [1 ]
Hoekman, Jarno [1 ,2 ]
De Bruin, Marie L. [1 ,3 ]
Slaper-Cortenbach, Ineke C. M. [4 ]
Leufkens, Hubert G. M. [1 ]
Meij, Pauline [5 ]
Gardarsdottir, Helga [1 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Univ Utrecht, Utrecht Inst Pharmaceut Sci, Div Pharmacoepidemiol & Clin Pharmacol, Univ Weg 99, NL-3584 CG Utrecht, Netherlands
[2] Univ Utrecht, Fac Geosci, Innovat Studies Grp, Utrecht, Netherlands
[3] Univ Copenhagen, Copenhagen Ctr Regulatory Sci, Copenhagen, Denmark
[4] Biomed Consultancy, Slaper Cortenbach, The Bilt, Netherlands
[5] Leiden Univ, Dept Clin Pharm & Toxicol, Med Ctr, Leiden, Netherlands
[6] Univ Med Ctr Utrecht, Dept Clin Pharm, Div Labs Pharm & Biomed Genet, Utrecht, Netherlands
关键词
Advanced therapy medicinal product; Compassionate use; Drug regulatory science; Hospital exemption; Manufacturing; Named patient use; REGENERATIVE MEDICINES; CHALLENGES; EU; FUTURE; CELL;
D O I
10.1016/j.jcyt.2020.04.092
中图分类号
Q813 [细胞工程];
学科分类号
摘要
Background aims: As part of the advanced therapy medicinal product (ATMP) regulation, the hospital exemption (HE) was enacted to accommodate manufacturing of custom-made ATMPs for treatment purposes in the European Union (EU). However, how the HE pathway has been used in practice is largely unknown. Methods: Using a survey and interviews, we provide the product characteristics, scale and motivation for ATMP manufacturing under HE and other, non-ATMP-specific exemption pathways in seven European countries. Results: Results show that ATMPs were manufactured under HE by public facilities located in Finland, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands, which enabled availability of a modest number of ATMPs (n = 12) between 2009 and 2017. These ATMPs were shown to have close proximity to clinical practice, and manufacturing was primarily motivated by clinical needs and clinical experience. Public facilities used HE when patients could not obtain treatment in ongoing or future trials. Regulatory aspects motivated (Finland, Italy, the Netherlands) or limited (Belgium, Germany) HE utilization, whereas financial resources generally limited HE utilization by public facilities. Public facilities manufactured other ATMPs (n = 11) under named patient use (NPU) between 2015 and 2017 and used NPU in a similar fashion as HE. The scale of manufacturing under HE over 9 years was shown to be rather limited in comparison to manufacturing under NPU over 3 years. In Germany, ATMPs were mainly manufactured by facilities of private companies under HE. Conclusions: The HE enables availability of ATMPs with close proximity to clinical practice. Yet in some countries, HE provisions limit utilization, whereas commercial developments could be undermined by private HE licenses in Germany. Transparency through a public EU-wide registry and guidance for distinguishing between ATMPs that are or are not commercially viable as well as public-private engagements are needed to optimize the use of the HE pathway and regulatory pathways for commercial development in a complementary fashion. (C) 2020 International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy. Published by Elsevier Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:592 / 600
页数:9
相关论文
共 39 条
  • [1] Overcoming Challenges Facing Advanced Therapies in the EU Market
    Abou-El-Enein, Mohamed
    Elsanhoury, Ahmed
    Reinke, Petra
    [J]. CELL STEM CELL, 2016, 19 (03) : 293 - 297
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2013, REGEN MED, V8, P121
  • [3] An overview of Compassionate Use Programs in the European Union member states
    Balasubramanian, Gayathri
    Morampudi, Suman
    Chhabra, Pankdeep
    Gowda, Arun
    Zomorodi, Behsad
    [J]. INTRACTABLE & RARE DISEASES RESEARCH, 2016, 5 (04) : 244 - 254
  • [4] Clinical Development and Commercialization of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products in the European Union: How Are the Product Pipeline and Regulatory Framework Evolving?
    Boran, Tomas
    Menezes-Ferreira, Margarida
    Reischl, Ilona
    Celis, Patrick
    Ferry, Nicolas
    Gaensbacher, Bernd
    Krafft, Hartmut
    di Paola, Michele Lipucci
    Sladowski, Dariusz
    Salmikangas, Paula
    [J]. HUMAN GENE THERAPY CLINICAL DEVELOPMENT, 2017, 28 (03) : 126 - 135
  • [5] Bringing regenerative medicines to the clinic: the future for regulation and reimbursement
    Bubela, Tania
    McCabe, Christopher
    Archibald, Peter
    Atkins, Harold
    Bradshaw, Steven E.
    Kefalas, Panos
    Mujoomdar, Michelle
    Packer, Claire
    Piret, James
    Raxworthy, Mike
    Soares, Marta
    Viswanathan, Sowmya
    [J]. REGENERATIVE MEDICINE, 2015, 10 (07) : 897 - 911
  • [6] A decade of marketing approval of gene and cell-based therapies in the United States, European Union and Japan: An evaluation of regulatory decision-making
    Coppens, D. G. M.
    de Wilde, S.
    Guchelaar, H. J.
    De Bruin, M. L.
    Leufkens, H. G. M.
    Meij, P.
    Hoekman, J.
    [J]. CYTOTHERAPY, 2018, 20 (06) : 769 - 778
  • [7] Coppens DGM, 2020, REGULATING GENE CELL, P57
  • [8] Innovative regenerative medicines in the EU: a better future in evidence?
    Corbett, Mark S.
    Webster, Andrew
    Hawkins, Robert
    Woolacott, Nerys
    [J]. BMC MEDICINE, 2017, 15
  • [9] The puzzling situation of hospital exemption for advanced therapy medicinal products in Europe and stakeholders' concerns
    Cuende, Natividad
    Boniface, Christelle
    Bravery, Christopher
    Forte, Miguel
    Giordano, Rosaria
    Hildebrandt, Martin
    Izeta, Ander
    Dominici, Massimo
    [J]. CYTOTHERAPY, 2014, 16 (12) : 1597 - 1600
  • [10] The future of drug development: the paradigm shift towards systems therapeutics
    Danhof, Meindert
    Klein, Kevin
    Stolk, Pieter
    Aitken, Murray
    Leufkens, Hubert
    [J]. DRUG DISCOVERY TODAY, 2018, 23 (12) : 1990 - 1995