Allogeneic Versus Autologous Stem-Cell Therapy - The author discusses potential manufacturing costs and commercialization challenges of allogeneic and autologous stem-cell therapy. - BioPharm

ADVERTISEMENT

Allogeneic Versus Autologous Stem-Cell Therapy
The author discusses potential manufacturing costs and commercialization challenges of allogeneic and autologous stem-cell therapy.


BioPharm International
Volume 25, Issue 7, pp. 36-40

CONCLUSION

At present, allogeneic stem-cell therapy appears to be the more commercially attractive option for companies to pursue, both in terms of its manufacturing costs and logistics as well as in terms of its business potential because it will in essence be available as an "off-the-shelf" product, meaning it could be used in both acute and chronic disease settings. Yet, for certain medical conditions, autologous therapy is likely to prove the only feasible therapeutic option and still support an acceptable pharmacoeconomic calculation.

In the coming years, greater regulatory guidance is likely to be published on the production of cell-based therapies, which may more clearly define how allogeneic and autologous therapies should be manufactured, thereby allowing a clearer picture to emerge about therapy production costs and logistics. The field of cell therapy manufacturing is also advancing swiftly, meaning that improved large-scale, automated manufacturing technologies can be expected, which should positively affect the cost and logistical difficulties underlying cell-based therapy production.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This paper is based on the author's thesis submitted for a Master's in Bioscience Enterprise degree at the Univ. of Cambridge. The author thanks Dr. Catherine Prescott and Dr. Ruth McKernan for their supervision and support.

Dr. Nafees N. Malik, MB, ChB, MPhil (Camb), CSci, is an external lecturer at the Institute of Biotechnology at the University of Cambridge,
.

REFERENCES

1. M. Körbling and Z. Estrov, N. Engl. J. Med. 349 (6), 570–582 (2003).

2. D. Srivastava and K.N. Ivey, Nature 441 (7097), 1097–1099 (2006).

3. C. Aguayo-Mazzucato and S. Bonner-Weir, Nat. Rev. Endocrinol. 6 (3), 139–148 (2010).

4. O. Lindvall and Z. Kokaia, J. Clin. Invest. 120 (1), 29–40 (2010).

5. R. McKernan, J. McNeish and D. Smith, Cell Stem-Cell 6 (6), 517–520 (2010).

6. C. Mason, Regen. Med. 2 (1), 11–18 (2007).

7. L. Jackson, D.R. Jones, P. Scotting and V. Sottile, J. Postgrad. Med. 53 (2), 121–127 (2007).

8. E. Fossett and W.S. Khan, Stem-Cells Int'l., Article ID 465259, 2012. doi:10.1155/2012/465259.


blog comments powered by Disqus

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

FDA Panel Unanimously Backs Secukinumab for the Treatment of Psoriasis
October 22, 2014
Roche to Expand and Improve its Basel Site
October 22, 2014
Pall ForteBio Releases Bioprocessing Contamination Detection Kit
October 22, 2014
EMA Works to Speed Up Ebola Treatment
October 20, 2014
Amgen Sues Sanofi and Regeneron over Patent for mAb Targeting PCSK9
October 20, 2014
Author Guidelines
Source: BioPharm International,
Click here