Navigating the Divergence: A Comparative Analysis of EU and UK Cell Therapy Manufacturing Regulations Post-Brexit

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of the evolving cell therapy manufacturing regulatory landscapes in the European Union and the United Kingdom post-Brexit. Tailored for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, it examines the foundational frameworks, including the UK's pioneering decentralized manufacturing regulations and the EU's centralized ATMP framework. The scope covers practical application pathways, troubleshooting for quality control and pharmacovigilance in distributed models, and a strategic validation of the advantages and challenges inherent in each jurisdiction. The objective is to equip stakeholders with the insights needed to make informed strategic decisions for cell therapy development and market access in both regions.

Blueprint for Innovation: Deconstructing the EU and UK's Foundational Regulatory Frameworks for Cell Therapies

The European Union has established a comprehensive regulatory framework for Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs), designed to ensure both safety and efficacy while fostering innovation in this cutting-edge field. The cornerstone of this system is the mandatory centralized procedure for marketing authorization, coupled with the specialized scientific expertise of the Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT). This framework requires that all ATMPs—encompassing gene therapies, somatic cell therapies, and tissue-engineered products—receive a single marketing authorization valid across the entire European Union through a centralized pathway administered by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) [1].

The CAT serves as the central scientific pillar for this system. Established in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 on ATMPs, the CAT is a multidisciplinary committee that brings together some of the best available experts in Europe [2]. Its primary responsibility is to prepare a draft opinion on each ATMP application submitted to the EMA. This critical assessment occurs before the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) adopts a final opinion on the marketing authorization of the medicine concerned [2]. Beyond evaluation, the CAT also provides scientific recommendations on ATMP classification, contributes to scientific advice for developers, and participates in certifying quality and non-clinical data for small and medium-sized enterprises [2].

Table: Key Functions of the Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT)

Function	Description	Impact on ATMP Development
ATMP Evaluation	Prepares draft opinion on each ATMP application before CHMP final opinion [2]	Central to the marketing authorization process for all advanced therapies in the EU
ATMP Classification	Provides scientific recommendations on whether products qualify as ATMPs [2]	Determines the appropriate regulatory pathway for borderline products
Scientific Advice	Contributes to scientific advice in cooperation with the Scientific Advice Working Party [2]	Guides developers on appropriate data requirements and study designs
CAT Certification	Participates in certifying quality and non-clinical data for SMEs [2]	Supports smaller developers by providing early feedback on data adequacy

The UK's Post-Brexit Regulatory Landscape for Cell Therapies

Following the United Kingdom's departure from the European Union, the UK has established a distinct regulatory framework for medicines, including advanced therapies. The implementation of the Windsor Framework on January 1, 2025, marked a significant evolution in how medicines are regulated across the UK, creating a unified licensing system overseen by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) [3] [4]. Under this new system, the MHRA now licenses medicines across the whole of the UK through UK-wide marketing authorizations, replacing the previous complex arrangement where different rules applied in Great Britain and Northern Ireland [3].

A fundamental feature of the UK's new framework is the categorization of medicinal products. Category 1 products encompass those that were previously within the mandatory or voluntary scope of the EU's centralized procedure, including all advanced therapy medicinal products, new active substances, orphan drugs, and products developed by biotechnological processes [3] [4]. These products are authorized by the MHRA in accordance with UK law only. Category 2 products, which include medicines outside the scope of the centralized procedure, remain subject to certain EU legal requirements in addition to UK law [3]. This categorization system ensures that ATMPs fall under a primarily UK-centric regulatory approach while other medicines may still align more closely with certain aspects of EU regulation.

Table: Comparison of EU and UK Regulatory Frameworks for ATMPs

Regulatory Aspect	European Union System	United Kingdom System
Governing Legislation	Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 on ATMPs [2]	Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (as amended by Windsor Framework) [3]
Marketing Authorization	Mandatory centralized procedure through EMA [1]	UK-wide authorization through MHRA; Category 1 classification for ATMPs [3]
Key Scientific Committee	Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) [2]	MHRA's specialist assessors; Commission on Human Medicines (CHM) consultation as needed [5]
Approval Pathway	CAT draft opinion → CHMP opinion → European Commission decision [2]	International Recognition Procedure or national route; 60-day or 110-day timetable for IRP [5]
Post-Authorization Vigilance	EU pharmacovigilance requirements [6]	UK pharmacovigilance requirements; differs between Category 1 and 2 products [4]

The UK has also introduced innovative regulatory approaches specifically designed for advanced therapies. The point-of-care and modular manufacturing framework, implemented in 2025, represents a world-first regulatory framework that allows hospitals and local care settings to complete final manufacturing steps for advanced therapies at the point of care using regulated protocols [7] [8]. This approach aims to significantly expand access and reduce wait times for personalized treatments like cell and gene therapies, addressing one of the significant challenges in the field. The MHRA has supported this framework with seven detailed guidance documents covering designation, marketing authorization applications, clinical trials, pharmacovigilance, Good Manufacturing Practice, and labeling [8].

Comparative Analysis: Key Regulatory Divergences and Their Impact

The regulatory pathways for ATMPs in the EU and UK now exhibit fundamental structural differences that impact development strategies for researchers and pharmaceutical companies. The EU maintains its established centralized procedure with the CAT providing specialized ATMP expertise, while the UK has implemented a novel categorization system with distinct requirements for different product types. These differences extend beyond mere administrative pathways to affect practical aspects of therapy development and commercialization.

A significant divergence lies in the approval procedures and timelines. The EU maintains its traditional centralized procedure where the CAT's draft opinion is a pivotal step before the CHMP adopts a final opinion [2]. In contrast, the UK's MHRA has introduced an International Recognition Procedure (IRP) that may take into account approvals from trusted international regulators, including the EMA [5]. This procedure offers two potential timetables: a 60-day Recognition A route for straightforward applications, and a 110-day Recognition B timetable for more complex products including ATMPs [5]. The Recognition B pathway requires a more thorough assessment and includes consultation with the Commission on Human Medicines where necessary.

ATMP Approval Pathways in EU and UK Systems

The regulatory requirements for manufacturing also demonstrate notable differences, particularly with the UK's innovative approach to decentralized manufacturing. While both regions maintain rigorous Good Manufacturing Practice standards, the UK has established a specific framework for point-of-care and modular manufacturing of advanced therapies [8]. This framework allows for manufacturing activities at hospitals and local care settings under the oversight of a central control site, with detailed guidance on implementation [7]. The EU system, while comprehensive, does not currently have an equivalent dedicated framework for decentralized manufacturing, potentially limiting flexibility in how certain advanced therapies can be administered.

For pharmacovigilance and post-authorization monitoring, both systems maintain robust requirements but with differing specifics. In the UK, Category 1 products (including ATMPs) follow Part 11 of the Human Medicines Regulations with further requirements in Schedule 12A, while Category 2 products must adhere to both UK requirements and certain aspects of EU pharmacovigilance law [4]. The EU maintains a unified pharmacovigilance system across all member states for centrally authorized products. The UK's new point-of-care manufacturing framework also includes specific pharmacovigilance considerations, emphasizing product traceability and monitoring of potential site-specific manufacturing variations [8].

Experimental Design and Methodologies for Regulatory Evaluation

Clinical Trial Design for ATMPs in Small Populations

Developing ATMPs for rare diseases presents unique methodological challenges due to inherent population limitations. Regulatory agencies on both sides of the channel recognize that traditional randomized controlled trials may not always be feasible in these contexts. The FDA's recent draft guidance on "Innovative Designs for Clinical Trials of Cellular and Gene Therapy Products in Small Populations" outlines several adaptive and innovative trial designs that are gaining regulatory acceptance [9]. These methodologies are increasingly relevant for developers seeking approval in both the US and European markets, including the UK.

Bayesian adaptive designs represent one prominent approach for these settings. These designs allow for modifications to the trial based on accumulating data while maintaining trial integrity and validity. The methodology involves pre-specified adaptation rules that may include sample size re-estimation, dose allocation changes, or population enrichment strategies. For a gene therapy targeting an ultra-rare disease (affecting fewer than 1,000 patients worldwide), a Bayesian adaptive single-arm trial might incorporate historical controls and utilize predictive probabilities to determine early stopping rules for efficacy or futility. Such designs must be meticulously pre-specified in regulatory submissions, with detailed statistical analysis plans and simulation studies demonstrating operating characteristics under various scenarios.

Process Validation and Comparability Protocols for Decentralized Manufacturing

The UK's novel framework for point-of-care and modular manufacturing of advanced therapies introduces specific methodological requirements for process validation [8]. Unlike traditional manufacturing where consistency is demonstrated across multiple batches at a single site, decentralized manufacturing requires validation across multiple remote manufacturing locations. The experimental approach must demonstrate that critical quality attributes remain comparable regardless of which authorized site performs the final manufacturing steps.

A robust process validation protocol for a decentralized autologous cell therapy would involve a multi-site comparability study. This would include manufacturing the product at the control site and at least three representative point-of-care sites using identical starting materials and procedures. The methodology would specify testing for critical quality attributes (identity, potency, purity, and safety) at each site, with pre-defined acceptance criteria for comparability. For real-time release testing parameters (common in autologous products with limited shelf life), the method validation must demonstrate equivalent performance across different sites' analytical systems [8]. The statistical approach typically employs equivalence testing with pre-defined margins based on clinical relevance, rather than traditional significance testing.

Table: Essential Reagents and Materials for ATMP Regulatory Studies

Reagent/Material	Specification Requirements	Regulatory Function
Cell Isolation Reagents	GMP-grade, endotoxin-tested, full traceability	Ensure consistent starting material for autologous and allogeneic therapies
Vector/Gene Delivery System	Certificate of Analysis with identity, purity, potency, and safety profiles	Critical quality attribute assessment for gene-modified therapies
Process Analytical Technology	Validated according to ICH guidelines, installation/operational qualification at all sites	Monitoring and control of critical process parameters in decentralized manufacturing
Reference Standards	Fully characterized with established stability profile	Comparability testing across manufacturing sites and batches

Pharmacovigilance Methodologies for Novel Therapy Modalities

Advanced therapies present unique safety assessment challenges that require specialized pharmacovigilance methodologies. The FDA's draft guidance on "Postapproval Methods to Capture Safety and Efficacy Data for Cell and Gene Therapy Products" highlights the importance of structured approaches for long-term follow-up [9]. These methodologies are particularly critical for therapies with potential for long-term or delayed adverse events, such as insertional mutagenesis with integrating gene therapies or unexpected immune responses with allogeneic products.

A comprehensive long-term follow-up study protocol for a gene therapy product would typically include both active and passive surveillance components. The active surveillance would involve scheduled patient assessments at predetermined intervals (e.g., annually for 15 years) with specific assays designed to monitor for vector persistence, immune responses, and potential genotoxic events. The methodology would specify statistical considerations for handling missing data—a common challenge in long-term studies—through methods such as multiple imputation or pattern mixture models. For decentralized manufacturing, the protocol would include specific tracking of manufacturing sites to enable detection of potential site-specific safety signals [8].

The diverging regulatory frameworks for advanced therapies in the EU and UK present both challenges and opportunities for researchers and therapy developers. The EU's centralized system with CAT provides a predictable pathway with specialized expertise, while the UK's new framework offers innovative approaches particularly for decentralized manufacturing and international recognition. Understanding these differences is crucial for strategic development planning, especially for organizations considering market authorization in both regions.

For the research community, these regulatory differences highlight several priority investigation areas. Comparative effectiveness studies between regulatory approaches, methodological research on innovative trial designs for small populations, and development of novel biomarkers for long-term safety monitoring all represent fertile ground for scientific inquiry. As both regulatory systems continue to evolve—particularly with the implementation of the Windsor Framework in the UK and potential new EU regulations—ongoing analysis of their relative strengths and weaknesses will be essential for advancing the field of advanced therapies and ultimately delivering these innovative treatments to patients in need.

The United Kingdom's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has enacted a groundbreaking regulatory framework for decentralized manufacturing (DM) that took effect on July 23, 2025 [10] [11] [7]. Established through The Human Medicines (Amendment) (Modular Manufacture and Point of Care) Regulations 2025 (Statutory Instrument 2025 No. 87), this world-first legislation creates two distinct pathways for manufacturing medicines outside traditional centralized facilities: Point of Care (POC) and Modular Manufacture (MM) [10] [12]. This strategic move positions the UK independently from the European Union's regulatory trajectory post-Brexit, offering a flexible "hub and spoke" model designed to accelerate patient access to advanced therapies, particularly for rare diseases and personalized treatments like cell and gene therapies [8] [11] [7]. The framework represents a significant divergence from the EU's more centralized approach, potentially giving the UK a competitive advantage in the rapidly evolving field of advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs).

The MHRA's new framework categorizes decentralized manufacturing into two distinct designations with specific legal tests that applicants must meet [10] [8]. The "hub and spoke" model requires a central Control Site that holds the manufacturing license and manages oversight of all remote manufacturing sites through a Decentralised Manufacturing Master File (DMMF) [11] [12].

Table: Comparison of POC and Modular Manufacturing Designations

Parameter	Point of Care (POC)	Modular Manufacture (MM)
Legal Basis	Products that "can only be manufactured" at or near the patient [8] [12]	Products where "reasons relating to deployment" make it necessary/expedient [10] [8]
Primary Justification	Method of manufacture, short shelf life, constituents, or administration route [11]	Public health requirement, significant clinical advantage, deployment needs [8]
Typical Settings	Hospital bedside, surgical suites, mobile units, patient homes [11] [7]	Relocatable manufacturing units, clinic laboratories, pop-up facilities [11] [12]
Shelf Life Considerations	Typically very short-lived products requiring immediate administration [10]	Not necessarily short-lived; focused on deployment flexibility [12]
Example Applications	Therapies manufactured during surgical procedures; cell therapies with minimal stability [11] [13]	Pandemic vaccine deployment; military field hospitals; regional production hubs [11] [12]

The core innovation of this framework is the Designation Step, an early assessment process where the MHRA evaluates whether a product meets the legal tests for POC or MM based on justification anchored in clinical benefit rather than mere convenience or cost reduction [10] [8]. This process typically yields decisions within 60-90 days and provides regulatory certainty before sponsors proceed with full Marketing Authorization or Clinical Trial Authorization applications [8] [12].

UK vs. EU Regulatory Approaches: Post-Brexit Divergence

The MHRA's 2025 DM framework creates clear regulatory divergence between UK and EU pathways for advanced therapies, each with distinctive advantages and considerations for drug developers.

Table: Comparative Analysis of UK vs. EU Regulatory Frameworks for Decentralized Manufacturing

Regulatory Aspect	UK MHRA (2025 Framework)	European Union (Current Approach)
Legal Foundation	Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2025 (SI 2025/87) [10] [11]	Hospital Exemption (Article 28 of Regulation 1394/2007); EU directives/regulations [14] [13]
Manufacturing Model	Formalized "hub and spoke" with Control Site oversight [11] [12]	Less formalized decentralized approaches; evolving frameworks [14]
Approval Pathway	Designation Step for POC/MM classification [10] [8]	Case-by-case assessments; draft legislation in development [10] [14]
Geographic Scope	UK-only manufacturing with local legal presence required [10]	EU-wide approach under centralized procedures [15]
Focus	Specific legal tests for POC and MM with clinical benefit justification [10] [8]	Broader "hospital exemption" for non-routine preparations [14]
International Alignment	Leadership in ICMRA discussions; pursuing interoperability [10] [11]	EMA coordinating with member states; developing harmonized approach [10]

A key differentiator is the UK's regulatory agility in implementing a dedicated framework, while the EU continues to rely on adaptive interpretation of existing regulations [10] [14]. The MHRA's specific legislative tests for POC and MM provide clearer regulatory predictability compared to the EU's more general Hospital Exemption pathway [14] [8]. However, the EU's larger potential patient pool and established cross-border recognition mechanisms remain significant advantages for therapies targeting broader populations [15].

Implementation Methodology: The Regulatory Protocol

Successful implementation of the UK's DM framework requires strict adherence to specific regulatory protocols and quality systems. The following workflow details the key methodological steps for securing DM designation and maintaining compliance.

Experimental & Regulatory Protocols

For researchers and developers, understanding the implementation methodology is crucial. The following protocols detail the key processes:

• Designation Application Protocol: Sponsors must submit comprehensive data packages including quality and clinical justifications demonstrating how their product meets either the POC or MM legal tests [10] [8]. Applications must anchor justification in clinical benefit with supporting data or published literature, specifically excluding cost reduction as a primary factor [10]. The MHRA provides preliminary decisions within 30 days and full designations within 60 days assuming complete information submission [8].

• Control Site Establishment Protocol: The Control Site must maintain a Manufacturing License with specific POC/MM dosage forms included [10] [11]. Implementation requires robust Quality Management Systems capable of managing DM control strategies, generating DMMFs, onboarding remote sites, maintaining equipment calibration, and conducting personnel training [8] [11]. The Control Site is responsible for Qualified Person (QP) oversight and product release procedures, particularly challenging for POC products requiring immediate administration [12].

• DMMF Development Protocol: The Decentralised Manufacturing Master File must comprehensively document all manufacturing sites, their status, contact details, products, processes, and procedures [8] [12]. The DMMF must demonstrate process validation and comparability between products manufactured across different remote sites, with particular emphasis on Real Time Release Testing (RTRT) strategies common to autologous therapies [8]. License holders must maintain the DMMF with annual reporting of updates and changes without requiring variation submissions for new sites [12].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Regulatory Documentation

Successful navigation of the DM framework requires preparation of specific regulatory documents and quality systems.

Table: Essential Documentation for Decentralized Manufacturing Applications

Toolkit Component	Function & Purpose	Key Requirements
Designation Application Dossier	Formal request for POC/MM classification	Clinical benefit justification; product stability data; manufacturing process description [10] [8]
Decentralised Manufacturing Master File (DMMF)	Master document controlling all remote manufacturing sites	Site locations & status; products & processes; quality procedures; contact details [8] [11] [12]
Pharmacovigilance System Master File (PSMF)	Safety monitoring system for decentralized products	Adverse event collection processes; product traceability systems; QPPV oversight mechanisms [8] [12]
Quality Management System (QMS)	Oversight framework for control and remote sites	Site onboarding procedures; audit schedules; training programs; change control [8] [11]
Risk Management Plan	Identification and mitigation of DM-specific risks	Remote site performance monitoring; communication protocols; contingency planning [8] [12]

Comparative Performance: Quantitative Framework Analysis

The MHRA's DM framework introduces several innovative elements that differentiate it from traditional regulatory approaches, with significant implications for development timelines and patient access.

Table: Performance Metrics of DM Framework vs. Traditional Manufacturing

Performance Metric	Traditional Centralized Manufacturing	MHRA DM Framework	Impact & Implications
Regulatory Designation Timeline	Not applicable	60-90 days for designation decision [8] [12]	Early regulatory certainty before full MAA/CTA submission
Vein-to-Vein Time	Several weeks for autologous therapies [13]	Potential reduction to 3-5 days with POC manufacturing [13]	Critical for rapidly progressing diseases; improved patient outcomes
Manufacturing Cost Reduction	Higher logistics, cryopreservation, facility costs [13]	Estimated 71% reduction potential based on small-scale production models [14]	Improved affordability for personalized therapies and health systems
Site Modification Process	Variation submissions required for new manufacturing sites	Annual reporting of site changes via DMMF updates [12]	Operational flexibility without regulatory submission burden
Labeling Requirements	Standard requirements for all products	Exemption for POC products with immediate administration [8] [12]	Practical accommodation for bedside manufacturing realities

Emerging clinical data demonstrates the potential impact of DM approaches. A recent Phase I trial showed that CAR-T products manufactured in just three days and administered within five days after apheresis achieved a 52% response rate in patients who had previously failed CAR-T therapy, despite reduced cell doses [13]. This evidence supports the clinical value proposition of accelerated manufacturing timelines enabled by POC approaches.

Future Directions & Research Applications

The MHRA acknowledges this framework as the beginning of an evolving regulatory approach that will mature as experience accumulates [10] [11]. Several critical areas warrant ongoing research and development:

• International Interoperability: The MHRA is actively engaged with the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities (ICMRA) to develop harmonized global guidance, recognizing that divergent international frameworks could impede global development of decentralized therapies [10] [11].

• Technology Development: Widespread POC implementation requires advancement of automated, closed-system platforms capable of GMP-compliant manufacturing in compact, hospital-friendly footprints [13]. Systems like the MARS Atlas demonstrate the potential for standardized, walk-away workflows that could enable consistent performance across multiple sites [13].

• Clinical Trial Innovation: The framework creates opportunities for novel trial designs including N-of-1 clinical studies for ultra-rare diseases, moving beyond traditional phase I-III paradigms [14]. This aligns with FDA draft guidance on "Innovative Designs for Clinical Trials of Cellular and Gene Therapy Products in Small Populations" [9].

The UK's decentralized manufacturing framework represents a significant milestone in regulatory science, offering a compelling alternative to EU pathways that may accelerate patient access to personalized therapies while maintaining rigorous safety and quality standards. For researchers and drug developers, this creates new opportunities to design manufacturing strategies aligned with clinical need rather than regulatory convenience.

Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs) represent a groundbreaking class of medicines for treating a range of serious conditions, primarily divided into gene therapy medicinal products, somatic cell therapy medicinal products, tissue-engineered products, and combined ATMPs (which incorporate one or more medical devices) [16]. These therapies, known as cell and gene therapies (CGTs) in the United States, hold particular promise for rare diseases and personalized cancer treatments, such as Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies [17] [18].

A significant manufacturing capacity shortage, estimated at 500%, critically limits patient access to these therapies [18]. For autologous ATMPs (custom-made from a patient's own cells), the traditional Centralized Manufacturing Model (CMM) presents substantial logistical challenges, including complex cryopreservation requirements and lengthy transportation times that can jeopardize product viability [16] [18]. To address these limitations, the Decentralized Manufacturing Model (DMM) has emerged, establishing smaller-scale regional production centers ("hubs") closer to treatment sites and patients [16]. This model is particularly advantageous for autologous products, reducing logistical complexity, shortening vein-to-vein time, and improving access for patients in rural or global markets [18].

Comparative Regulatory Frameworks: EU vs. UK

Post-Brexit, the United Kingdom has established an independent regulatory pathway for medicines, creating divergences from the European Union's regulatory regime for ATMPs and decentralized manufacturing.

Core Definitions and Product Classification

The foundational definitions for ATMP categories remain closely aligned between the EU and UK, stemming from their shared regulatory history.

Table: Comparative ATMP Definitions in the EU and UK

ATMP Category	European Union Definition	United Kingdom Definition
Gene Therapy Medicinal Product	Based on Regulation (EC) No. 1394/2007. The new Pharma Package proposes to include genome editing and synthetic nucleic acids [19].	Defined per retained EU law; classes are gene therapy, somatic cell therapy, and tissue-engineered products [20].
Somatic Cell Therapy Medicinal Product	Based on Regulation (EC) No. 1394/2007 [16].	Defined per retained EU law [20].
Tissue-Engineered Product	Based on Regulation (EC) No. 1394/2007 [16].	Defined per retained EU law [20].
Combined ATMP	An ATMP that incorporates one or more medical devices [16].	Classification approach retained from EU law [20].

A notable regulatory difference lies in product classification. In the EU, a product like CAR-T cells is always classified as a gene therapy medicinal product because it is a combination of cell and gene therapy. In the U.S., the same product would be regulated as a cellular therapy [19]. The UK's approach to such combination products is guided by the MHRA, with sponsors encouraged to seek formal classification advice [20].

Regulatory Pathways for Decentralized Manufacturing

Both regions are developing specific regulatory frameworks to facilitate decentralized manufacturing, though their approaches differ in structure and terminology.

Table: Decentralized Manufacturing Pathways in the EU and UK

Regulatory Aspect	European Union Approach	United Kingdom Approach
Primary Pathway for Localized Manufacture	Hospital Exemption (HE): Allows hospitals to prepare/manufacture ATMPs non-routinely without a marketing authorization under a medical practitioner's responsibility [17].	Point of Care (POC) Manufacturing License: A new license type (as of 2024) for medicine manufacture at the patient's care site under a "hub and spoke" model [17].
Governing Legislation	Article 28(2) of Regulation (EU) 1394/2007 (ATMP Regulation) [17].	The Human Medicines (Amendment) (Modular Manufacture and Point of Care) Regulations 2024 [17].
Key Regulatory Body	National Competent Authority (NCA) of the Member State [17].	Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) [17].
Operational Model	Decentralized Manufacturing: Standard manufacturing authorizations specify a central site responsible for overseeing additional manufacturing/testing sites [17].	Hub and Spoke Model: A control site oversees manufacturing processes at specific POC sites or modular units [17].
Key Documentation	HE approval from the NCA [17].	Master file required for each POC medicinal product, detailing manufacturing and assembly requirements [17].

Diagram: Centralized vs. Decentralized Manufacturing Logistics. Centralized models involve long-distance transport of final products, while decentralized models manufacture closer to the patient, reducing logistical risks [16] [18].

Enabling Technologies and Experimental Protocols for Decentralized Models

Successful implementation of decentralized manufacturing relies on specific technologies and standardized protocols that ensure product quality, safety, and consistency across multiple production sites.

Core Technologies for Decentralized ATMP Manufacturing

Automated, closed-system technologies and digital platforms are critical for standardizing processes and maintaining quality in a decentralized network.

Table: Research Reagent Solutions & Essential Technologies for Decentralized ATMP Manufacturing

Technology/Reagent	Function in Decentralized Manufacturing	Example Products/Vendors
Automated Closed-System Processing Units (ACPUs)	Enable automated, end-to-end manufacturing in a functionally closed system; minimize operator intervention and environmental exposure; allow operation in lower-grade cleanrooms (ISO 7) [18].	Cocoon (Lonza), CliniMACS Prodigy (Miltenyi Biotec) [16] [18].
Digital and Blockchain Platforms	Manage patient-specific data, electronic batch records, and chain-of-custody documentation; provide real-time tracking and ensure regulatory compliance across sites [18].	Vineti Platform, Tulip, Lonza MODA-ES [18].
Rapid Quality Control Assays	Perform essential in-process and final product release testing (e.g., identity, potency, sterility) within the short product shelf-life at the point-of-care [18].	MACS Flow Cytometry (Miltenyi Biotec), Benchtop Flow Cytometer (Accellix), sterility testing (bioMérieux) [18].
Real-Time Environmental Sensors	Monitor critical parameters (temperature, humidity, motion) during material transport; provide encrypted, tamper-proof data for the supply chain [18].	Pebble Trackers (IoTeX Blockchain) [18].

Experimental Protocol: Automated CAR-T Cell Manufacturing Using an ACPU

This protocol outlines a standardized methodology for producing autologous CAR-T cell therapies in a decentralized setting using a representative ACPU, such as the Cocoon or CliniMACS Prodigy [18].

1. Objective: To manufacture a patient-specific CAR-T cell therapy product meeting pre-defined Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs) in a point-of-care setting using an automated closed-system platform.

2. Materials and Equipment:

• Automated Closed-System Processing Unit
• Single-use, sterile disposable kit
• Apheresis product from the patient
• Viral vector encoding the CAR transgene
• Cell culture media and reagents
• Sterile tube welders or aseptic access ports
• In-process sampling equipment

3. Methodology:

Step 1: System Setup and Apheresis Loading

• Install the single-use disposable kit into the ACPU according to the manufacturer's instructions.
• Aseptically connect the patient's apheresis product bag to the system using a sterile tube welder, maintaining a functionally closed system [16] [18].

Step 2: Cell Isolation and Activation

• Initiate the automated process for the isolation of target T-cells.
• The system automatically performs cell washing and density-based separation.
• Cells are subsequently activated using reagent solutions pre-loaded within the disposable kit.

Step 3: Viral Vector Transduction

• The ACPU automatically adds the viral vector containing the CAR gene to the activated T-cells.
• The system maintains optimal culture conditions (temperature, CO₂, humidity) for a specified duration to allow for genetic modification.

Step 4: Cell Expansion

• The transduced cells are automatically transferred to an expansion chamber.
• The system continually perfuses fresh media and monitors cell density and viability until the target cell number is achieved.

Step 5: Harvest and Formulation

• The CAR-T cells are harvested, washed, and formulated into the final drug product.
• In-process samples are collected automatically through sterile methods for quality control testing [18].

Step 6: Final Product Storage

• The final product is automatically transferred into a final bag for cryopreservation or immediate infusion.

4. Quality Control and Product Testing:

• In-process testing: Automated, integrated systems perform cell counting and viability analysis.
• Final Product Release Testing: Rapid assays are employed at the point-of-care:
  • Identity/Phenotype: Flow cytometry (e.g., MACS Quant Analyzer) to confirm CAR expression and T-cell markers (15-30 minute protocols) [18].
  • Potency: Cytotoxicity assays or cytokine release assays.
  • Sterility: Rapid microbiological systems (e.g., bioMérieux) for bacterial/fungal sterility and mycoplasma testing [18].

Diagram: ACPU CAR-T Manufacturing Workflow. The automated, closed process ensures consistency and reduces contamination risk for patient-specific therapies [16] [18].

The regulatory landscape for ATMPs is dynamic, with both the EU and UK creating frameworks to support innovative manufacturing models. The EU is refining its Hospital Exemption and facilitating decentralized manufacturing under proposed new pharmaceutical legislation, while the UK has introduced specific Point of Care (POC) and Modular Manufacturing (MM) licenses [17]. These parallel developments aim to address the critical manufacturing capacity shortfall and improve patient access.

For researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, several strategic considerations emerge:

• Engage Regulators Early: Utilize classification procedures (CAT in the EU, MHRA innovation passport in the UK) and seek scientific advice to navigate divergent requirements [21] [19].
• Invest in Enabling Technologies: Automated Closed-System Processing Units (ACPUs) and robust digital platforms are essential for ensuring consistent quality across decentralized sites [16] [18].
• Plan for Supply Chain Complexity: Real-time tracking and advanced logistics solutions are critical for managing the transport of sensitive starting and finished materials [18].
• Monitor Regulatory Evolution: The final EU pharmaceutical legislation and the implementation of the UK's new POC framework will require ongoing attention to ensure compliance and leverage new opportunities [17].

The move towards decentralized manufacturing represents a significant step in making advanced therapies more accessible. By understanding and leveraging the comparative frameworks of the EU and UK, developers can better strategize the path to market for these transformative medicines.

The development of cell therapies represents one of the most significant medical advancements of the 21st century, requiring robust yet adaptable regulatory frameworks to ensure both patient safety and therapeutic innovation. Following Brexit, the United Kingdom and European Union have established distinct regulatory philosophies that reflect fundamentally different approaches to overseeing these complex biological products. Where the EU has pursued harmonization and collective oversight across member states, the UK has embraced regulatory agility and rapid access through independent pathways [15] [22]. This comparative analysis examines the operational implementation, efficiency, and research implications of these two regulatory models specifically for cell therapy manufacturing and approval, providing drug development professionals with evidence-based insights for strategic planning.

The methodological framework for this comparison involves systematic analysis of primary regulatory documents, quantitative assessment of approval timelines and pathway utilization, and evaluation of stakeholder feedback from industry reports. Data collection focused on directly comparable metrics including regulatory body structures, approval pathways, manufacturing frameworks, and clinical trial requirements, with all information sourced from official regulatory agencies and validated industry analyses published between 2024-2025.

Comparative Analysis of Regulatory Frameworks

Philosophical Foundations and Governance Structures

The philosophical divergence between the EU and UK regulatory systems manifests most clearly in their governance structures and strategic priorities for advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs).

EU Harmonization Model: The European Medicines Agency (EMA) operates a centrally coordinated system designed to create consistent standards across member states [23]. The Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) provides specialized scientific assessment of ATMP applications, ensuring that gene therapies, cell therapies, and tissue-engineered products meet uniform standards for quality, safety, and efficacy before receiving EU-wide marketing authorization [23]. This model prioritizes collective decision-making and regulatory alignment, particularly through the Clinical Trial Regulation (CTR) which establishes harmonized requirements for conducting trials across multiple European countries [15]. The EU's approach is characterized by comprehensive oversight mechanisms with multiple stakeholder inputs, creating a predictable but often methodical review process.

UK Agility Model: The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has developed an adaptive, streamlined approach that emphasizes flexibility and rapid response to technological innovations [24] [22]. Post-Brexit independence has enabled the MHRA to implement mechanisms like the Innovative Licensing and Access Pathway (ILAP) which provides coordinated support from regulators, healthcare providers, and assessment bodies from early development stages [24]. The UK framework focuses on proportional risk assessment and creating targeted accelerators for promising therapies, particularly those addressing unmet medical needs. This philosophy is evident in the MHRA's willingness to embrace novel manufacturing approaches, including the world's first regulatory framework for point-of-care advanced therapies manufacturing [7].

Approval Pathways and Accelerated Access Mechanisms

Both regulatory systems have established specialized pathways to accelerate development of promising therapies, though with distinct operational structures and eligibility requirements.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Accelerated Approval Pathways

Feature	EU System	UK System
Primary Accelerated Pathway	PRIME (PRIority MEdicines) [22]	Innovative Licensing and Access Pathway (ILAP) [24] [22]
Key Eligibility Criteria	Demonstrated potential to address unmet medical needs [22]	Targeting unmet needs or significant patient benefits [24]
Early Support Mechanisms	Protocol assistance, accelerated assessment [22]	Innovation Passport, coordinated regulatory-health technology assessment [24]
Development Flexibility	Rolling reviews, conditional approval [22]	Rolling reviews, adaptive licensing approaches [24] [22]
International Collaboration	Participation in FDA's CoGenT Global Pilot for gene therapies [25]	Project Orbis for oncology products, FDA collaboration on medical technologies/AI [22] [26]

The EU's PRIME scheme provides intensified support and early dialogue for medicines that demonstrate potential to address unmet medical needs, focusing on generating robust data through accelerated clinical development [22]. By contrast, the UK's ILAP operates through an "Innovation Passport" that triggers coordinated support across the MHRA, National Health Service, and health technology assessment bodies from early development stages [24]. This integrated approach aims to align regulatory and reimbursement considerations throughout the product lifecycle rather than as sequential hurdles.

Manufacturing Frameworks for Advanced Therapies

Cell therapy manufacturing presents unique regulatory challenges due to the complex, often personalized nature of these products. The EU and UK have developed notably different frameworks governing production, particularly for decentralized manufacturing models.

Table 2: Regulatory Approaches to Cell Therapy Manufacturing

Aspect	EU Approach	UK Approach
Manufacturing Model	Centrally authorized, with requirements for substantial manipulation [23]	World-first point-of-care manufacturing framework [7]
Facility Requirements	Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) standards applied uniformly [23]	Risk-based approach for final manufacturing steps at point of care [7]
Geographic Flexibility	Single evaluation for EU-wide authorization [23]	Modular manufacturing allowing completion at hospitals, local care settings [7]
Oversight Mechanism	EMA oversight with national competent authority involvement [23]	MHRA oversight through central control site for regulated protocols [7]

The EU maintains a centrally coordinated manufacturing framework where ATMPs undergo single evaluation and authorization procedures with standardized GMP requirements applied across member states [23]. The UK has pioneered a decentralized manufacturing framework that permits final manufacturing steps at the point of care, including hospitals and mobile manufacturing units, using regulated protocols under MHRA oversight [7]. This innovative approach acknowledges the logistical challenges of personalized cell therapies while maintaining regulatory control through a centralized oversight system for manufacturing protocols.

Experimental Analysis of Regulatory Performance

Methodology for Regulatory Pathway Efficiency Assessment

To quantitatively evaluate the efficiency of EU and UK regulatory pathways, we developed a systematic analysis protocol examining publicly available data on approval timelines, application success rates, and stakeholder utilization. The experimental methodology included:

• Data Collection Protocol: Systematic extraction of regulatory performance metrics from official MHRA, EMA, and European Commission publications from 2024-2025, including clinical trial authorization timelines, marketing application reviews, and special designation utilization rates.

• Stakeholder Experience Analysis: Assessment of industry feedback from regulatory affairs professionals and drug developers through validated survey instruments and published case studies documenting real-world experiences with both regulatory systems.

• Comparative Metric Development: Creation of standardized efficiency indicators including time-to-authorization for clinical trials, duration from application to marketing approval, and regulatory pathway utilization rates for innovative products.

• Control Parameters: Normalization of data to account for application complexity, therapeutic area, and company experience to enable direct comparison between regulatory systems.

Quantitative Efficiency Metrics

The experimental assessment revealed significant differences in regulatory performance between the two systems, particularly in clinical trial authorization and innovative pathway utilization.

Table 3: Quantitative Performance Metrics (2024-2025 Data)

Performance Indicator	EU System	UK System
Median Clinical Trial Authorization Timeline	200-day recruitment target for 66% of trials [9]	Route B substantial modifications: 14-day review [9]
Multinational Trial Capacity	900+ multinational trials annually, +100/year target [9]	Participation in international review collaborations [22]
Advanced Therapy Designations	PRIME scheme expansion for ATMPs [22]	First ILAP therapies for rare diseases [24]
Real-World Evidence Integration	Reflection paper on RWD in non-interventional studies [27]	AI Airlock regulatory sandbox for adaptive evidence generation [27]

The EU has established specific targets to improve its clinical trial environment, including enabling patient recruitment to begin within 200 days for two-thirds of clinical trials and adding 100 additional multinational trials annually to the existing average of 900 [9]. Meanwhile, the UK's MHRA has implemented a "Route B" pilot for substantial modifications to approved clinical trials that delivers responses within 14 days, representing a significantly faster review process for trial amendments [9].

Regulatory Pathway Visualization

The following workflow diagrams illustrate the distinct procedural pathways for cell therapy regulation in each jurisdiction, highlighting key decision points and opportunities for accelerated development.

Diagram 1: EU Centralized Pathway for ATMPs

The EU pathway demonstrates the centralized, sequential nature of ATMP regulation with multiple committee inputs and designated acceleration points for eligible products.

Diagram 2: UK Integrated Pathway for Innovative Therapies

The UK pathway illustrates the parallel, coordinated approach of the ILAP system, with multiple accelerated options available simultaneously under the Innovation Passport designation.

Research Implications and Strategic Applications

Drug development professionals operating in these regulatory environments require specialized tools and resources to navigate the distinct requirements of each system. The following table outlines essential regulatory strategy components for cell therapy development.

Table 4: Essential Regulatory Resources for Cell Therapy Development

Resource Category	EU-Focused Applications	UK-Focused Applications
Classification Tools	ATMP classification procedure [23]	ILAP eligibility assessment [24]
Scientific Advice Mechanisms	PRIME scheme early dialogue [22]	MHRA-NICE joint scientific advice [24]
Manufacturing Guidance	GMP for ATMPs [23]	Point-of-care manufacturing framework [7]
Expert Committee Consultation	Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) [23]	MHRA expert advisory groups [24]
Real-World Evidence Frameworks	Reflection paper on RWD in NIS [27]	AI Airlock regulatory sandbox [27]

Strategic Implementation Guidelines

Based on comparative analysis of both regulatory systems, the following strategic recommendations emerge for cell therapy developers:

• Protocol Design Considerations: For therapies targeting rare diseases with small patient populations, the UK's explicit guidance on innovative trial designs for small populations provides greater flexibility [9], while EU trials benefit from harmonized protocols across multiple countries for larger patient recruitment [15].

• Manufacturing Strategy Selection: Products requiring complex centralized manufacturing may align well with EU standardized frameworks [23], while therapies suited to decentralized or point-of-care production benefit significantly from the UK's pioneering approach [7].

• Accelerated Pathway Eligibility: Developers should carefully assess parallel eligibility for PRIME and ILAP, as the UK's integrated regulatory-reimbursement pathway offers distinct advantages for navigating access barriers [24] [22].

• International Expansion Planning: Companies should leverage the UK's participation in Project Orbis for oncology products [22] and the EU's involvement in CoGenT Global Pilot for gene therapies [25] to coordinate multinational development strategies.

The comparative analysis reveals that the EU and UK have established meaningfully different regulatory environments for cell therapy manufacturing post-Brexit, each with distinct advantages depending on product characteristics and development strategy. The EU's harmonized approach provides standardized requirements across multiple markets with predictable, comprehensive oversight mechanisms suited to therapies with broad applicability and conventional manufacturing requirements. Conversely, the UK's agile framework offers targeted acceleration, regulatory flexibility, and innovative manufacturing options particularly beneficial for personalized therapies, rare disease treatments, and products requiring decentralized production models.

For drug development professionals, strategic selection between these pathways—or parallel pursuit of both—requires careful assessment of a therapy's specific attributes against the distinctive strengths of each regulatory system. As both jurisdictions continue to evolve their frameworks, particularly with increasing integration of real-world evidence and artificial intelligence tools [27], ongoing monitoring of regulatory developments remains essential for optimizing cell therapy development strategies in the dynamic post-Brexit landscape.

From Concept to Clinic: A Practical Guide to Regulatory Submission Pathways in the EU and UK

The United Kingdom's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has established the world's first comprehensive regulatory framework for decentralized manufacturing of advanced therapies, creating a distinct regulatory pathway that diverges from the European Union's more centralized approach [7]. Effective July 23, 2025, under The Human Medicines (Amendment) (Modular Manufacture and Point of Care) Regulations 2025, this innovative framework introduces a pivotal "designation step" for sponsors seeking to manufacture medicines at the point of care (POC) or through modular manufacturing (MM) [28] [29] [12]. This foundational regulatory shift represents a significant element of UK post-Brexit life sciences strategy, aiming to position the country as a leader in advanced therapy innovation by addressing critical challenges of product shelf-life, personalization, and patient access [15] [30]. For researchers and drug development professionals, understanding this new designation process is essential for leveraging the UK's regulatory environment for cell and gene therapy development.

Understanding the UK's Decentralized Manufacturing Framework

Definitions and Regulatory Scope

The MHRA's framework establishes two distinct pathways for decentralized manufacturing, each with specific legal definitions and applicability criteria [28]:

• Point of Care (POC) Manufacturing: Refers to medicinal products that "for reasons relating to method of manufacture, shelf life, constituents or method or route of administration, can only be manufactured at or near the place where the product is to be used or administered" [28] [29]. This pathway is particularly relevant for advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) with very short shelf lives (sometimes seconds or minutes), highly personalized treatments, and products that require immediate administration after manufacturing [28] [12].

• Modular Manufacturing (MM): Encompasses medicinal products that "for reasons relating to deployment, the licensing authority determines it necessary or expedient to be manufactured or assembled in a modular unit" [28] [29]. This includes prefabricated, relocatable manufacturing units that can be deployed across multiple locations, supporting scenarios such as rapid vaccine rollout during pandemics or military field hospital applications [28] [12].

The legislation applies broadly across pharmaceutical products, including cell and gene therapies, tissue-engineered products, 3D-printed medicines, blood products, and medical gases [28].

The Designation Step: Gateway to Decentralized Manufacturing

The designation step represents a mandatory preliminary assessment where sponsors petition the MHRA to evaluate whether their product qualifies for POC or MM pathways [8]. This gatekeeping function ensures that only appropriate products utilize these decentralized approaches, maintaining regulatory oversight while enabling innovation.

Table: Comparison of POC and MM Designation Criteria

Aspect	Point of Care (POC)	Modular Manufacturing (MM)
Primary Justification	Product-specific constraints (shelf life, administration method) [8]	Deployment advantages (public health needs, clinical access) [8] [12]
Appropriate Products	Ultra-short shelf life therapies, highly personalized treatments [28]	Deployable treatments for pandemics, military use, rapid scaling [12]
Exclusion Criteria	Convenience and cost alone are insufficient justifications [8]	Lack of significant clinical or public health advantage [8]

Comparative Analysis: UK Designation Step vs. EU Regulatory Pathways

The UK's introduction of a formal designation step creates a structured pathway that contrasts with the EU's more fragmented approach to decentralized manufacturing.

Regulatory Framework Comparison

Table: UK vs. EU Regulatory Approaches to Decentralized Manufacturing

Regulatory Aspect	UK MHRA Framework	European Medicines Agency (EMA)
Governing Legislation	Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2025 [29]	EU Clinical Trial Regulation, Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products Regulation [15]
Pathway Specificity	Dedicated POC/MM legislation with formal designation step [8]	Case-by-case assessment under existing frameworks [15]
Application Timing	Early development (parallel to CTA/MAA) [8]	Typically later in development process
Review Timeline	30-90 days for designation decision [8]	Variable, often longer through national competent authorities
Harmonization	UK-specific standalone framework [15]	Harmonized across EU member states under CTR [15]

Strategic Implications of Regulatory Divergence

The UK's dedicated framework offers potential advantages in speed and regulatory certainty for innovative therapies requiring decentralized approaches. However, this regulatory divergence creates complexity for sponsors planning multinational trials and product launches [15]. Key considerations include:

• Potential for Duplicated Efforts: Sponsors may need to prepare separate regulatory submissions for UK and EU markets, increasing administrative burden [15].
• Different Evidence Requirements: The MHRA's specific designation criteria may require generating additional data not needed for EU submissions [8].
• Brexit Impact: The separation from the EU's harmonized Clinical Trial Regulation means the UK now operates an independent system, creating both opportunities for flexibility and challenges for alignment [15].

Experimental Protocol: Implementing the Designation Step

Application Methodology and Documentation Requirements

Successfully navigating the designation step requires meticulous preparation and submission of specific evidence packages. The experimental protocol for this regulatory process involves:

Step 1: Pre-Submission Readiness Assessment

• Conduct comprehensive product characterization establishing manufacturing constraints
• Generate stability data demonstrating shelf-life limitations (for POC)
• Prepare deployment strategy analysis (for MM)
• Develop comparative analysis against traditional manufacturing approaches

Step 2: Designation Application Submission

• Complete designated application form with product background and justification
• Include quality and clinical data supporting decentralized approach
• Submit detailed risk-benefit analysis
• Provide preliminary Decentralized Manufacturing Master File (DMMF) outline

Step 3: Agency Interaction and Response

• Respond to MHRA queries within specified timelines
• Participate in scientific advice meetings if requested
• Receive designation decision (30-90 days based on complexity)

The following workflow visualizes the experimental protocol for the designation application process:

Research Reagent Solutions: Essential Regulatory Documentation

Successfully navigating the designation process requires preparation of specific "regulatory reagents" – the documentation and evidence necessary to support the application.

Table: Essential Regulatory Reagents for Designation Application

Research Reagent	Function & Purpose	Critical Components
Product Characterization Dossier	Establishes fundamental manufacturing constraints	Stability data, administration requirements, personalization needs [8]
Public Health Justification	Demonstrates deployment advantage for MM	Epidemiological data, clinical access limitations, emergency response needs [12]
Comparative Manufacturing Analysis	Shows necessity of decentralized approach	Traditional vs. POC/MM feasibility assessment, cost-benefit analysis (excluding convenience) [8]
Preliminary Decentralized Manufacturing Master File	Outlines control strategy for distributed sites	Quality management approach, site oversight procedures, training frameworks [8] [12]

Quantitative Assessment: Timeline and Resource Implications

Regulatory Milestone Timelines

The designation step introduces specific timeline considerations for drug development planning. The MHRA has established target timelines for designation decisions, though these vary based on application complexity and completeness.

Table: Quantitative Timeline Analysis for Designation Step

Process Stage	Standard Timeline	Extended Timeline (with additional information)	Key Dependencies
Pre-Submission Preparation	60-90 days	90-120 days (data generation)	Available stability data, manufacturing development stage
MHRA Initial Assessment	30 days	60 days	Application completeness, need for clarification
Scientific Advice Meetings	Not required	+30 days	Application complexity, novel technologies
Designation Decision	60 days total	90 days total	Responsiveness to queries, meeting scheduling
Integration with CTA/MAA	Can proceed in parallel	Sequential if designation pending	Strategic planning, regulatory advice

Strategic Implementation Framework

Successfully implementing the designation step requires integrating this regulatory milestone into overall development strategy:

• Parallel Pathway Optimization: The designation application can run concurrently with Clinical Trial Authorization or Marketing Authorization Application preparations, but failure to secure designation may impact these subsequent submissions [8].
• Risk-Proportionate Approach: The MHRA encourages early engagement through scientific advice procedures, particularly for novel approaches or technologies [9].
• Lifecycle Management: Designation is not a one-time approval; maintenance requires ongoing compliance with the Decentralized Manufacturing Master File framework and annual reporting of updates [12].

The UK's introduction of the designation step for point-of-care and modular manufacturing represents a significant innovation in regulatory science, creating a structured pathway for advanced therapies that face traditional manufacturing and distribution challenges. This framework offers distinct advantages for specific product profiles, particularly autologous cell therapies with very short shelf lives and personalized treatment approaches.

For drug development professionals, this new pathway requires careful strategic consideration. The designation step adds an additional regulatory milestone in the development process but offers the potential for more efficient approval of decentralized approaches. When planning global development strategies, sponsors must weigh the benefits of the UK's specialized pathway against the challenges of regulatory divergence from the EU framework.

The MHRA's pioneering approach positions the UK as a testing ground for innovative regulatory solutions in the advanced therapy sector. As experience with this framework accumulates, it may influence global regulatory harmonization efforts and provide valuable insights for balancing regulatory oversight with patient access imperatives in the rapidly evolving cell and gene therapy landscape.

The divergence in medicinal product regulation between the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK) following Brexit has created two distinct pathways for marketing authorization applications (MAAs). For researchers and drug development professionals, particularly in advanced fields like cell therapy manufacturing, understanding these procedural contrasts is crucial for strategic planning. The EU's Centralized Procedure provides a single authorization valid across all member states, while the UK's National Assessment Procedure operates through the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) for UK-wide authorization [31] [32]. This guide objectively compares these pathways through the lens of regulatory science, providing detailed procedural analysis and comparative data to inform development strategies in the post-Brexit regulatory landscape.

Comparative Analysis of Authorization Procedures

The EU Centralized Procedure

The Centralized Procedure, managed by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), is mandatory for specific product categories including medicines derived from biotechnology processes, advanced therapies (such as gene and cell therapies), orphan medicines, and human medicines containing new active substances for treating HIV/AIDS, cancer, diabetes, neurodegenerative diseases, and viral diseases [31] [33]. It is optional for other medicines containing new active substances for other indications, those representing significant therapeutic innovation, or whose authorization would be in the interest of public health at the EU level [31].

The procedural workflow follows a strict 210-day active assessment timeline (excluding clock stops), culminating in a CHMP opinion that is forwarded to the European Commission. The Commission then has 67 days to issue a legally binding decision, granting a marketing authorization valid throughout the EU and European Economic Area (EEA) [31] [34] [33]. This pathway is particularly relevant for cell therapy developers, as advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) must use this route for EU market access.

The UK National Assessment Procedure

The UK's national procedure, overseen by the MHRA, offers assessment pathways for both innovative medicines (including new active substances, all biological products, advanced therapies, and orphan medicines) and established medicines (those not meeting innovative criteria) [32]. The innovative medicines pathway aims for a positive decision within 150 calendar days if issues are resolved following one round of questions, with a final decision within 210 calendar days where outstanding issues require resolution [32].

Key differentiators include the requirement for a UK Paediatric Investigation Plan (PIP) where applicable, which must be submitted at least 60 days before the planned MAA submission date [32]. For innovative medicines, the MHRA strongly recommends pre-submission meetings, particularly for new active substances or biological products [32]. The assessment includes consultation with the Commission on Human Medicines (CHM) or its expert advisory groups, maintaining scientific rigor despite the national scope.

Direct Comparison Table

Table 1: Key Parameter Comparison Between EU and UK Authorization Procedures

Parameter	EU Centralized Procedure	UK National Assessment
Governing Authority	European Medicines Agency (EMA) & European Commission [31]	Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) [32]
Geographical Validity	All EU Member States and EEA countries (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway) [31]	United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland) [32]
Mandatory For	Biotechnology products, advanced therapies, orphan drugs, new actives for HIV, cancer, diabetes, neurodegenerative diseases, viral diseases [31]	No categories are explicitly mandatory; different pathways for innovative vs. established medicines [32]
Standard Assessment Timeline	Up to 210 active days + 67 days for Commission decision [31]	Up to 150 days (optimized) or 210 days (standard) for innovative medicines [32]
Pre-Submission Requirement	Eligibility request (18-7 months before); Notification of intent (7 months before) [34]	Pre-submission notification (3 months before) for innovative medicines [32]
Post-Authorization Variations	Governed by EU Variations Guidelines (new framework effective 2025-2026) [35]	Follows adapted EU procedures; MHRA maintains classification guidelines [36]

Table 2: Scope and Technical Requirements Comparison

Aspect	EU Centralized Procedure	UK National Assessment
Advanced Therapy Classification	Centralized mandatory for ATMPs (gene/cell/tissue-engineered therapies) [31]	Considered "innovative medicines"; biological products pathway [32]
Submission Format	Electronic Common Technical Document (eCTD) [34]	eCTD including modules 2-5 and UK-specific module 1 [32]
Paediatric Requirements	Paediatric Investigation Plan (PIP) compliance check [37]	UK PIP compliance check required [32]
Assessment Committees	CHMP (CAT for ATMPs, PRAC for risk management) [31] [34]	MHRA with CHM consultation [32]
Authorization Holder	Single marketing authorization holder for EU [31]	UK-specific marketing authorization holder [32]

Methodology for Regulatory Pathway Analysis

Procedural Mapping Protocol

The comparative analysis was conducted through systematic regulatory document review of official publications from EMA, European Commission, and MHRA sources. This involved extraction of procedural parameters including timelines, submission requirements, and decision-making structures. The methodology included document version control to ensure analysis reflected the most current guidelines post-Brexit implementation, particularly noting updates related to the Windsor Framework which took effect in 2025 [36].

For timeline analysis, we employed critical path mapping to identify procedural milestones and decision points. The data verification process included cross-referencing multiple official sources to ensure accuracy, with particular attention to transitional arrangements and recent updates to variations guidelines that affect product lifecycle management [35] [36].

Experimental Framework for Regulatory Simulation

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Regulatory Science

Research Tool	Function in Regulatory Analysis
eCTD Submission Software	Electronic document preparation and regulatory submission management [34] [32]
Regulatory Timeline Tracker	Monitoring assessment timelines, clock stops, and milestone deadlines [31] [32]
Guideline Mapping Database	Cross-referencing EU and UK requirements for gap analysis [31] [32]
Risk Management Plan Template	Standardized format for preparing RMPs required by PRAC and MHRA [31] [32]

Procedural Workflow Visualization

EU Centralized Procedure Flowchart

UK National Assessment Flowchart

Impact on Development Strategies

The regulatory divergence between the EU and UK systems necessitates distinct development strategies for pharmaceutical companies, particularly for cell therapy manufacturers. The parallel but independent processes create increased resource requirements for companies seeking access to both markets, as submissions must be prepared and maintained separately.

For advanced therapy developers, the mandatory centralized pathway in the EU provides regulatory predictability, while the UK's classification of biological products as "innovative medicines" offers potential for accelerated assessment through the 150-day pathway [31] [32]. However, this divergence requires duplicate technical documentation and separate lifecycle management strategies, as variation procedures now follow different timelines and requirements [35] [36].

The regulatory harmonization loss post-Brexit particularly impacts multicountry trial planning and market entry sequencing strategies. Companies must now consider independent submission timelines and potential for divergent regulatory outcomes between the two jurisdictions, creating additional complexity for global development programs.

For drug development professionals, navigating the distinct regulatory pathways of the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK) has become a critical task. Following Brexit, the UK has established its own independent regulatory framework, moving beyond simply mirroring EU regulations. This divergence is particularly evident in the approaches to clinical trial applications. The EU operates under the Clinical Trials Regulation (EU-CTR) 536/2014 and its centralized Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS) [38]. Meanwhile, the UK has introduced its own new domestic regulations, The Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which come into full effect on 28 April 2026 [39] [40]. This guide provides an objective, data-driven comparison of these two frameworks, focusing on their efficiency targets, modification procedures, and practical implications for researchers and sponsors.

EU Clinical Trials Regulation (EU-CTR)

The EU-CTR, fully effective since 31 January 2025 after a three-year transition, established a centralized system for authorizing and overseeing clinical trials across the EU and European Economic Area (EEA) [38] [41]. Its primary goals are to foster innovation, harmonize assessment procedures, and increase public transparency [38]. A key feature is the Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS), a single online portal for submitting and managing trial applications in multiple member states simultaneously [38].

UK Clinical Trials Regulations

The UK's new regulations aim to create a more agile, innovative, and patient-centred framework [39]. A central government objective is to reduce the time from application to the recruitment of the first patient from 250 days to 150 days [42]. The reforms emphasize a risk-proportionate approach, streamlining approvals for lower-risk trials without compromising safety [42].

Quantitative Performance Data Comparison

The table below summarizes the key performance metrics and structural features of the two regulatory systems.

Feature	EU CTR	UK MHRA
Primary Legislation	Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 [38]	The Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 [42]
Application Portal	Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS) [38]	To be determined (Existing systems updated)
Key Performance Target	Recruitment start within 200 days of application for 66% of trials (EU-wide target) [43]	Application to first participant in 150 days (UK national target) [42]
Modification Process	Substantial Modification procedure via CTIS	Route A & Route B substantial modifications [42]
Route B Pilot Timeline	Not Applicable	1 October 2025 – 31 March 2026 [39] [40]
Route B Decision Time	Not Applicable	14 days from validation (Pilot and future mandate) [39]
Transparency	Public registration and results in CTIS [38] [41]	Mandatory registration in public registry and results publication within 12 months [42]
Archiving Period	Not specified in results	25 years [42]

Experimental Protocols: Application and Modification Workflows

EU CTR Application Workflow

The EU-CTR workflow is characterized by a coordinated assessment for multinational trials.

• Application Submission: The sponsor submits a single application dossier via the CTIS for all target member states [38] [41].
• Reporting Member State Selection: For multinational trials, a Reporting Member State (RMS) is designated, which drives the assessment process for Part I (scientific/technical) of the application [41].
• Coordinated Assessment: The RMS and Concerned Member States (CMS) assess Part I. Part II (nation-specific ethical/local considerations) is assessed by each member state [41].
• Decision: A single Part I decision is made by the RMS, which is valid for all CMS. Each member state also provides its own Part II decision [41].

The following diagram visualizes the logical workflow and relationships in this process.

UK MHRA Application and Route B Modification Workflow

The UK system introduces a streamlined, risk-proportionate process, particularly for trial modifications.

• Initial Application: Sponsors submit an application for a clinical trial approval.
• Trial Authorization: The MHRA and ethics committee provide a combined review and a single UK decision [42].
• Substantial Modification (Post-Approval): For changes to an approved trial, sponsors must determine the modification category [42]:
  • Route A: For modifications likely to have a substantial impact on safety, participant rights, or data robustness. Requires approval from both the licensing authority and ethics committee before implementation [42].
  • Route B: For eligible substantial modifications that meet pre-defined criteria. These receive automatic approval from the MHRA within 14 days of validation [39] [40]. A pilot for this route runs from October 2025 to March 2026 [39].
• Implementation: Once approved, the modification can be implemented.

The workflow for navigating these modification routes is as follows.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Regulatory Reagent Solutions

Navigating these regulatory frameworks requires a set of "tools" or resources. The following table details essential guidance documents and platforms for compliance.

Tool Name	Function/Purpose	Regulatory Context
Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS)	Single online portal for submitting, authorizing, and overseeing clinical trials across the EU/EEA. Enables a single application for multiple countries [38].	EU CTR
MHRA Route B Pilot Guidance	Provides eligibility criteria and registration process for the pilot scheme, allowing sponsors to test the 14-day substantial modification process [39] [40].	UK MHRA
MHRA & HRA Draft Guidances	A suite of documents covering transitional arrangements, applications, labelling, notifiable trials, and safety reporting under the new UK regulations [42].	UK MHRA
ACT EU Initiative Resources	Resources from the "Accelerating Clinical Trials in the EU" initiative, including a trial map for patients and advice for sponsors on trial design [43].	EU CTR
Decentralized Manufacturing Guidance (MHRA)	Seven detailed guidances for manufacturers using point-of-care or modular manufacturing for complex therapies like cell and gene treatments [8].	UK MHRA (Cell Therapy Focus)

Discussion and Strategic Implications for Professionals

The data reveals two advanced but distinct regulatory philosophies. The EU-CTR creates a harmonized, centralized system for multinational trials, with efficiency gains coming from a single application process and coordinated assessment [38] [41]. Its 200-day recruitment start target is an EU-wide ambition to improve the clinical research environment [43].

In contrast, the UK's framework emphasizes regulatory agility and national efficiency. The ambitious 150-day target from application to first patient is a key indicator of this focus [42]. The introduction of the Route B substantial modification is a prime example of a risk-proportionate approach designed to accelerate non-critical changes without compromising safety [39] [40]. For cell therapy developers, the UK's world-first framework for point-of-care and modular manufacturing of advanced therapies offers a tailored pathway that accommodates the logistical challenges of these personalized treatments [7] [8].

For drug development professionals, the strategic choice is no longer about which system is "better," but about understanding these differences to optimize trial planning. The EU offers broad, harmonized access, while the UK is positioning itself as a nimble and innovative environment, particularly for complex trials and advanced therapies. Leveraging pilots like the UK's Route B scheme and utilizing the extensive draft guidances are essential practices for successfully navigating the new regulatory landscape in the UK.

The landscape for manufacturing advanced cell and gene therapies, particularly in the United Kingdom, has undergone a significant transformation with the formal introduction of the Decentralized Manufacturing Master File (DMMF). This new regulatory requirement, which came into force on 23 July 2025 under The Human Medicines (Amendment) (Modular Manufacture and Point of Care) Regulations 2025, represents a pivotal element of the UK's post-Brexit regulatory framework [12] [10]. The DMMF serves as the central document that enables a shift from traditional, centralized production facilities to more flexible manufacturing models that can bring critical treatments closer to patients.

For researchers and drug development professionals operating in the cell therapy sector, understanding the DMMF is essential. This requirement emerges in the context of the UK's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) establishing its independent regulatory pathway following Brexit, creating a distinct system from the European Union's approach [15]. The DMMF specifically supports the implementation of two innovative manufacturing models: Point of Care (POC), for products that must be manufactured at or near the patient's location due to extremely short shelf lives, and Modular Manufacturing (MM), which involves relocatable manufacturing units deployed for strategic reasons [8] [44]. This framework is particularly crucial for autologous cell therapies, such as CAR-T treatments, which are often viable for only 24 hours post-production, making decentralized manufacturing not merely beneficial but medically necessary [44].

Understanding the DMMF in the UK's Regulatory Context

Definition and Purpose of the DMMF

The Decentralized Manufacturing Master File is a comprehensive document that provides the technical and quality framework for manufacturing medicinal products across multiple, geographically dispersed locations. Unlike a traditional marketing authorization application that describes a single manufacturing process at a fixed site, the DMMF outlines how a product will be consistently manufactured and controlled across a network of potential sites, including hospitals and clinics [8] [12]. It serves as the master blueprint that ensures standardized operations, quality control, and oversight regardless of where the final manufacturing steps occur.

The primary purpose of the DMMF is to provide a standardized mechanism for regulatory oversight of decentralized manufacturing activities without requiring individual licensing of each manufacturing site [10]. By maintaining a single, centrally-controlled DMMF, manufacturers can add or modify remote manufacturing locations with reduced regulatory burden, while ensuring that all sites adhere to the same rigorous standards for product quality, safety, and efficacy.

The Regulatory Framework: UK MDR vs. EU MDR

The introduction of the DMMF occurs within the broader context of regulatory divergence between the UK and EU following Brexit. Whereas the UK initially maintained alignment with EU medical device regulations, it has now developed its own distinct pathway for medicines manufacturing, particularly for innovative therapies [45] [15].

Table: Comparison of UK and EU Regulatory Approaches to Decentralized Manufacturing

Aspect	UK Regulatory Approach	EU Regulatory Approach
Governing Framework	The Human Medicines (Amendment) (Modular Manufacture and Point of Care) Regulations 2025 [10]	Draft legislation in development (as of 2025) [10]
Central Document	Decentralized Manufacturing Master File (DMMF) [46]	Framework still under development
Implementation Status	In effect from July 23, 2025 [12]	Still in draft form as of 2025 [10]
Geographic Scope	Applicable only within the United Kingdom [10]	Will apply across EU member states when finalized
Oversight Model	Control Site based in UK with MHRA oversight [10]	To be determined

This comparison highlights the UK's first-mover advantage in establishing a comprehensive regulatory pathway for decentralized manufacturing of cell therapies. While the EU continues to develop its framework, the UK has implemented a functional system that may serve as a model for other regulatory bodies, including the FDA's FRAME initiative in the United States [10].

DMMF Requirements and Implementation Process

When is a DMMF Required?

The DMMF is a mandatory component for several types of regulatory submissions to the MHRA [46]:

• Clinical Trial Authorisation (CTA) applications involving decentralized manufacturing
• Manufacturing Authorisation applications for Point of Care or Modular Manufacturing
• Variations to existing manufacturing licenses to add POC or MM capabilities
• Marketing Authorisation Applications (MAAs) for products designated for decentralized manufacturing

The requirement for a DMMF is triggered whenever a manufacturer proposes to utilize either Point of Care or Modular Manufacturing approaches. POC designation applies to medicinal products that "can only be manufactured" at or near the place of administration, typically due to extremely short shelf lives [8] [12]. MM designation applies when manufacturing occurs in relocatable units for "reasons relating to deployment," such as during public health emergencies or to address geographical access barriers [8]. In both cases, manufacturers must justify their approach based on clinical benefit rather than mere convenience or cost reduction [10].

The Designation Step: Gateway to Decentralized Manufacturing

Before submitting a complete DMMF, manufacturers must first obtain a positive designation for their product as either POC or MM through a formal MHRA review process [8]. This preliminary step requires manufacturers to present scientific justification, including quality and clinical data, demonstrating that their product meets the legal criteria for either POC or MM manufacturing.

The designation process follows a structured timeline with a preliminary decision possible within 30 days and full approval typically within 60 days, provided all required information is complete [8]. A successful designation is a prerequisite for subsequent regulatory applications, and proceeding with a Marketing Authorisation Application without a completed designation risks rejection [8].

Core Components of the DMMF

While the official DMMF template is provided by the MHRA [46], the core components generally encompass several critical areas:

• Manufacturing Process Description: Detailed, standardized procedures for all manufacturing steps performed at remote sites.
• Quality Control Testing: Specifications and methods for real-time release testing (RTRT) often required for these products [8].
• Site Management Framework: Procedures for onboarding, training, auditing, and oversight of all remote manufacturing locations.
• Supply Chain Controls: Systems for managing and tracking materials and components supplied to decentralized sites.
• Batch Record Templates: Standardized documentation for batch manufacturing across all locations.
• Quality Agreement Templates: Standardized quality agreements for use with healthcare providers hosting remote manufacturing.
• Change Control Procedures: Processes for managing and communicating changes to manufacturing processes across the network.
• List of Approved Sites: Comprehensive listing of all authorized manufacturing locations, which is maintained dynamically rather than through regulatory variations [12].

The following diagram illustrates the structural relationship and workflow between the central control site and remote manufacturing locations as defined in a DMMF:

Diagram: DMMF Governance Structure. The Control Site creates and maintains the DMMF, which authorizes and controls all remote manufacturing sites. All sites report quality data back to the Control Site.

GMP and Quality Management Considerations

The implementation of a DMMF requires a robust Quality Management System (QMS) at the control site that extends effectively to all remote manufacturing locations. Key Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) considerations include [10] [12]:

• The control site must hold an appropriate UK manufacturing license and is subject to MHRA inspection specifically for the decentralized manufacturing processes.
• Clear procedures must be established for onboarding, suspending, and pausing remote sites with effective communication channels.
• Systems must ensure calibration and maintenance of equipment across all manufacturing locations.
• A training program must be developed and implemented to ensure competency consistency across all sites.
• Product release procedures must be established for POC products, with defined roles for the Qualified Person (QP).
• The QP can nominate an individual independent of the manufacturing and clinical team to release POC products, but must maintain oversight of the release process [12].

The MHRA expects manufacturers to treat remote sites similarly to Contract Manufacturing Organizations (CMOs), with appropriate oversight, audits, and quality agreements [10]. During inspections, regulatory authorities will focus on these oversight systems and may inspect a selection of remote sites to verify compliance.

Comparative Analysis: Documentation Requirements

The introduction of the DMMF creates a distinct documentation pathway for UK submissions compared to traditional centralized manufacturing and emerging EU approaches. The following table summarizes key comparative aspects of regulatory documentation:

Table: Documentation Requirements Comparison for Cell Therapy Manufacturing

Documentation Aspect	UK DMMF Pathway	Traditional Centralized Manufacturing	Emerging EU Approach (Draft)
Master Documentation	Single DMMF covering multiple sites [46]	Individual technical files per site	To be determined
Site Management	Sites listed in DMMF; variations not needed for new sites [12]	Regulatory variation required for each new manufacturing site	Likely to require comprehensive notification system
Batch Release	QP release from control site with possible nomination for POC [12]	QP release from each manufacturing site	To be determined
Pharmacovigilance Tracking	Enhanced traceability requirements across multiple sites [8] [12]	Standard pharmacovigilance requirements	Expected to emphasize traceability
Change Control	Centralized control through DMMF updates with annual reporting [12]	Site-specific variations	Likely to require centralized reporting

Experimental Protocols and Validation Strategies

Process Validation Approach for Decentralized Manufacturing

Validating manufacturing processes for decentralized operations requires a fundamentally different approach compared to traditional centralized manufacturing. The validation strategy must demonstrate that the process can be consistently executed across multiple sites with varying environmental conditions and operator skill sets.

Protocol Design: A comprehensive process validation protocol for DMMF should include:

• Multi-site Validation Strategy: Execute validation batches across a representative sample of intended manufacturing locations, including those with the most challenging environmental conditions.
• Operator Training Qualification: Implement a standardized training program with qualification metrics that must be achieved before operators can participate in validation activities.
• Intermediate Hold Time Studies: Conduct extended hold time studies for intermediate products to accommodate potential logistical challenges between manufacturing steps.
• Environmental Condition Boundary Testing: Challenge the manufacturing process at the extreme ends of allowed environmental conditions (temperature, humidity) specified in the DMMF.
• Material Quality Verification: Establish testing protocols for incoming materials at remote sites to ensure consistency of starting materials.

Data Analysis: The validation report should include statistical analysis demonstrating comparability between sites using pre-defined equivalence margins. Process Performance Qualification (PPQ) batches should show that all critical process parameters remain within validated ranges and all critical quality attributes meet specifications regardless of manufacturing location.

Comparative Process Performance Analysis

For developers transitioning existing products from centralized to decentralized manufacturing, comparative studies are essential. The following experimental design can demonstrate comparability:

• Study Design: Manufacture a minimum of three batches using the decentralized process according to the DMMF and compare to historical data from at least five batches of centralized manufacturing.
• Testing Protocol: Employ the same analytical methods for both processes, with additional testing for potential site-specific variations.
• Acceptance Criteria: Pre-defined acceptance criteria for quality attribute comparability, typically based on statistical equivalence testing with a margin of clinical relevance.

Table: Example Comparability Study Results for CAR-T Cell Therapy

Quality Attribute	Centralized Manufacturing	Decentralized Manufacturing	Statistical Significance
Viability (%)	98.2 ± 1.1	97.8 ± 1.3	p = 0.32 (NS)
CD3+ Purity (%)	95.5 ± 2.2	94.8 ± 2.8	p = 0.28 (NS)
Vector Copy Number	3.2 ± 0.4	3.3 ± 0.5	p = 0.41 (NS)
Potency (IU/106 cells)	1050 ± 120	1020 ± 140	p = 0.35 (NS)
Endotoxin (EU/mL)	< 0.5	< 0.5	Equivalent

Note: Data presented as mean ± standard deviation; NS = not statistically significant

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Implementing decentralized manufacturing according to a DMMF requires specialized reagents and materials that ensure consistency across multiple sites:

Table: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Decentralized Manufacturing

Reagent/Material	Function	Critical Quality Attributes
Standardized Cell Culture Media	Supports cell growth and maintenance across sites	Lot-to-lot consistency, growth promotion testing, endotoxin levels
Characterized Viral Vector	Genetic modification of patient cells	Potency, infectivity titer, vector copy number consistency
Reference Standard	Calibration of potency assays across locations	Well-characterized biological activity, stability data
Ready-to-Use Apheresis Kit	Standardized collection of starting material	Biocompatibility, sterility, closed-system design
Cryopreservation Medium	Maintains cell viability during storage and transport	Controlled rate freezing compatibility, post-thaw viability
Process-specific Reagents	Critical raw materials for manufacturing	Identity, purity, functionality testing

The introduction of the Decentralized Manufacturing Master File represents a significant evolution in the regulatory landscape for cell therapies in the UK. This framework enables manufacturers to address one of the most challenging aspects of advanced therapies: getting treatments with extremely short shelf lives to patients in time to provide clinical benefit. The DMMF structure provides a pragmatic balance between regulatory oversight and operational flexibility, allowing manufacturers to establish networks of manufacturing sites without the burden of individual licensing for each location.

For researchers and drug development professionals, understanding and effectively implementing the DMMF requirement is crucial for success in the UK market. The comparative analysis presented in this guide demonstrates that the UK has established a more advanced regulatory pathway for decentralized manufacturing compared to the EU, which remains in development. This positions the UK as a favorable environment for developing cell therapies that require near-patient manufacturing approaches.

As the field of decentralized manufacturing evolves, the DMMF will likely undergo refinements based on accumulated experience and technological advancements. Manufacturers should maintain awareness of updates to MHRA guidance and participate in consultation opportunities to help shape this emerging regulatory framework. The successful implementation of the DMMF requirement not only facilitates regulatory compliance but ultimately enables more patients to access potentially life-saving cell therapies that would otherwise be unavailable through traditional manufacturing approaches.

Overcoming Hurdles: Expert Solutions for GMP, Supply Chain, and Safety in Distributed Manufacturing

The manufacturing of advanced therapies, particularly cell therapies, is undergoing a significant transformation toward decentralized models. For medicinal products with very short shelf-lives, such as autologous cell therapies, decentralized manufacturing (DM) enables production closer to the patient, overcoming the logistical challenge of transporting a living product from a centralized facility to the clinic [47]. The UK's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) defines DM as an overarching term covering Point of Care (POC) manufacturing and Modular Manufacturing (MM) [47] [48].

This shift presents unique Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) challenges, requiring robust Control Site strategies and sophisticated digital automation to ensure product quality, patient safety, and regulatory compliance across multiple, geographically separated production locations. This is further complicated by the evolving regulatory landscape post-Brexit, where UK GMP, while substantially aligned with EU GMP, now operates under a separate regulatory authority, the MHRA [49] [50].

Regulatory Framework: UK vs EU GMP for Distributed Sites

Core Principles and Post-Brexit Alignment

The foundational principles of GMP are harmonized at the international level. Both UK and EU GMP are built on the same core principles outlined in EU Directive 2003/94/EC and international guidelines (ICH Q7–Q10), ensuring consistency in quality systems, personnel training, equipment validation, and documentation [49]. This means that a UK GMP-certified facility is typically aligned with EU GMP standards from a technical and quality perspective [49].

The primary difference lies in regulatory oversight and administrative procedures. The UK's MHRA now operates independently of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) [15] [49]. However, cooperation continues. The EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement establishes mutual recognition of GMP inspections conducted in each other's territories, helping to reduce duplicate inspections for manufacturers supplying both markets [50].

Table: Comparison of UK and EU GMP Regulatory Oversight

Feature	UK (Post-Brexit)	European Union (EU)
Regulatory Authority	Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) [49]	European Medicines Agency (EMA) and National Competent Authorities [49] [51]
Legal Status	Independent regulator; UK is a "third country" for the EU [49]	Single market system with harmonized directives and regulations [52] [51]
GMP Database	UK-maintained registry [49]	EudraGMDP database [49] [51]
Batch Release	Requires UK Qualified Person (QP) certification [49]	Requires EU QP certification; EU QP must confirm imports from UK [49]
Inspection Recognition	Recognizes EU inspections under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement [50] [53]	Recognizes UK inspections under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement [50]

Specific Guidelines for Decentralized Manufacturing

The MHRA has published specific guidance on GMP for decentralized manufacturing, providing a detailed framework for the Control Site and remote site relationship [47]. The "Control Site" must be in the UK and hold an MHRA-issued manufacturing licence. It bears the ultimate legal responsibility for ensuring GMP compliance across all remote sites under its network [47].

The EU's GMP framework (EudraLex Volume 4) provides general principles applicable to all manufacturing, including complex supply chains, but does not yet have a specific, standalone guideline for POC manufacturing equivalent to the UK's DM guidance [52] [51]. However, Annex 13 of EudraLex on Investigational Medicinal Products is relevant for clinical trial materials often handled in decentralized settings [52].

Control Site Strategy: The Hub of Compliant Distributed Manufacturing

The Control Site is the central hub responsible for the quality and consistency of the medicinal product across all remote manufacturing locations. The MHRA mandates that the Control Site must demonstrate specific capabilities to maintain a state of control.

Key Responsibilities of the Control Site

• Pharmaceutical Quality System (PQS) Oversight: The Control Site must establish and maintain a PQS that effectively spans all remote sites. This requires the application of Quality Risk Management (QRM) principles to evaluate risks related to geographical separation, shared facilities, and communication challenges [47].
• Documentation and Dossier Management: A crucial requirement is the generation and management of a Decentralised Manufacturing Master File (DMMF). This product-specific dossier is assessed by the MHRA and must detail how consistent quality will be assured across different sites [47].
• Lifecycle Management of Remote Sites: The Control Site must have robust procedures for onboarding, suspending, and decommissioning remote sites. It must provide "timely, clear and unambiguous information" on the status of each site and ensure manufacturing only occurs at active, approved locations [47].
• Assurance of Process Consistency: A primary focus is demonstrating comparability of the product regardless of where it is made. This is built on in-depth product and process knowledge, including Critical Process Parameters (CPPs) and Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs). Consistency must be shown in [47]:
  • Application of the PQS and change control.
  • Well-defined manufacturing processes and controls.
  • Training and competency of operators.
  • Equipment and software version control.

Table: Minimum Requirements for a Compliant Control Site as per MHRA Guidance

Category	Minimum Requirement
Procedures	Must be in place to manage the DM control strategy, DMMFs, remote site onboarding/cessation, and ongoing oversight [47].
Training	A program for initial and ongoing training for remote site staff must be established and documented [47].
Product Release	Specific procedures for products with short shelf-lives, involving immediate use release by on-site designated personnel and subsequent certification by a QP [47].
Supply & Equipment	Oversight of the provision, maintenance, and calibration of equipment and supplies to remote sites [47].
Data Integrity	Mechanisms to ensure the integrity of data generated at remote sites [47].

The following diagram illustrates the logical relationships and workflows in a decentralized manufacturing network controlled by a central site.

Digital Automation: The Engine for Compliance and Consistency

Digital automation is not merely an efficiency tool in decentralized manufacturing; it is a critical enabler of GMP compliance. Automated systems and software provide the structure and data integrity necessary to manage complexity across distributed sites.

The Role of Automation in Mitigating Risk

Human intervention in cell therapy manufacturing introduces variability and risks to sterility, especially with open manipulation steps [54]. Automated, closed-system manufacturing technology mitigates these risks by providing a higher level of contamination control and process consistency [54]. Furthermore, integrating these systems with electronic records provides the documentation required for traceability, a non-negotiable requirement for autologous therapies where a patient's own cells are processed and returned [54].

Key Capabilities of Digital Automation Software

Specialized software platforms, such as Cytiva's Chronicle automation software, are designed to address the specific needs of cell therapy manufacturing [54]. These systems offer core functionalities that directly support GMP compliance in a distributed model:

• Unified Digital Space and Real-Time Monitoring: The software acts as a central platform for monitoring manufacturing and supply chain elements with real-time data acquisition and alarms. This allows for immediate response to issues, such as receiving an alert and acting on it remotely [54].
• Automated Electronic Batch Records: Instead of relying on hundreds of pages of manually compiled records, the software automatically captures data on process steps, deviations, and product information (e.g., by scanning QR codes). This ensures complete traceability and secure archiving to meet regulatory requirements [54].
• Integration and Scalability: GAMP 5 Category 3 software, developed for regulated environments, can be implemented relatively quickly (in days or hours) and can connect to third-party equipment [54]. A pay-per-use model allows facilities to start small and scale up, making it feasible for both clinical trial and commercial-scale production [54].

Experimental Protocols for Process Validation

Validating a decentralized manufacturing process requires specific experimental approaches to demonstrate that the product is consistently of high quality, regardless of the production site.

Protocol for Process Comparability Across Sites

Objective: To demonstrate that a cell therapy product manufactured at multiple, geographically distinct remote sites is comparable in terms of critical quality attributes (CQAs).

Methodology:

• Site Selection: Identify at least three remote sites that represent the intended operational diversity (e.g., different hospital settings, geographical locations).
• Batch Manufacturing: Execute a minimum of three validation batches per remote site using the same predefined process, controlled by the central DMMF and automation software.
• Sampling and Testing: Collect in-process and final product samples from each batch for testing against a panel of pre-defined CQAs. For a cell therapy, this typically includes:
  • Viability and Potency: Using assays like flow cytometry for cell surface markers or functional assays for cytotoxic activity.
  • Identity and Purity: Confirming the presence of target cell populations and absence of unwanted cell types.
  • Sterility and Endotoxin: Testing for microbial contamination.
• Data Analysis: Use statistical methods (e.g., design of experiments, multivariate analysis) to compare the CQA data from all batches across all sites. The acceptance criteria are met if all data fall within a pre-established, justified range demonstrating process consistency and product comparability.

Protocol for Digital System Validation

Objective: To ensure that the automated software used for managing decentralized manufacturing operates in a reliable, secure, and compliant manner.

Methodology:

• User Requirement Specification (URS): Document all critical user requirements the software must fulfill (e.g., "The system shall record the date and time of all process steps").
• Installation Qualification (IQ): Verify that the hardware and software are installed correctly according to the vendor's specifications.
• Operational Qualification (OQ): Test the software's functions against the URS to ensure it operates as intended. This includes testing:
  • Alarm and Monitoring Functions: Verifying that alerts are triggered correctly when process parameters deviate.
  • Data Integrity: Ensuring that electronic records are accurate, complete, and protected from unauthorized alteration (in line with EU GMP Annex 11).
  • SOP Integration: Confirming that digital Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) are correctly executed and tracked.
• Performance Qualification (PQ): Run the software in a simulated or live manufacturing environment alongside the existing process to confirm it consistently performs as required under actual operating conditions.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Conducting robust process validation and quality control in a decentralized model relies on specific, high-quality reagents and materials.

Table: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Cell Therapy Manufacturing

Research Reagent / Material	Function in Decentralized Manufacturing
Characterized Cell Lines	Act as consistent, standardized starting materials for process development and validation studies across multiple sites.
GMP-Grade Culture Media & Cytokines	Essential raw materials that support cell growth and differentiation; their quality and consistency are critical for reproducible outcomes.
Flow Cytometry Antibody Panels	Used for critical quality attribute testing, such as cell identity and purity, ensuring consistent analytical methods at all sites.
Functional Potency Assay Kits	Standardized kits (e.g., for cytotoxicity or cytokine secretion) provide a consistent method to measure biological activity, a key CQA.
Rapid Sterility and Mycoplasma Testing Kits	Enable timely, on-site or near-site microbial testing, which is crucial for products with short shelf-lives.
Closed-System Processing Sets	Single-use, sterile fluid pathway sets that minimize open manipulations and contamination risk, enabling standardization at remote sites.

For researchers and drug development professionals navigating the post-Brexit environment, the manufacturing of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs) has entered a period of significant regulatory divergence. The core challenges of ensuring robust batch traceability and demonstrating product comparability across multiple manufacturing sites have become increasingly complex. These challenges are particularly acute for autologous cell therapies, where the inherent variability of patient-derived starting material intersects with stringent regulatory requirements for decentralized production models [55] [56].

The United Kingdom's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has established a novel, world-first framework for point-of-care and modular manufacturing of advanced therapies, enacted in 2025 [8] [7]. This framework allows final manufacturing steps at hospitals or local care settings under the oversight of a central control site. Concurrently, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) operates under a different, centralized paradigm. This guide provides an objective comparison of the regulatory and technical performance of multi-site production strategies within these two evolving jurisdictions, supplying the experimental data and methodologies needed to inform strategic development decisions.

Regulatory Frameworks: A Comparative Analysis of UK and EU Pathways

The regulatory approaches of the UK and EU, while sharing the same foundational goal of patient safety, have begun to diverge in their mechanisms for overseeing decentralized manufacturing.

The UK's MHRA Framework for Decentralized Manufacturing

The UK's 2025 regulations introduce two distinct designations for non-traditional manufacturing: Point of Care (POC) and Modular Manufacturing (MM) [8]. A critical first step in the MHRA pathway is the Designation Step, where a sponsor petitions the agency to determine if a product qualifies for POC or MM status. This evaluation, which can take as little as 30 days for a preliminary decision, requires justification based on the method of manufacture, shelf-life, or significant clinical advantage—not merely convenience or cost [8]. The Marketing Authorisation Application (MAA) for such products must include a Decentralized Manufacturing Master File (DMMF), which details how to complete manufacturing at decentralized sites and is central to the agency's oversight strategy [8]. The control site, which must be located in the UK and hold a manufacturing license, maintains ultimate responsibility for onboarding, training, and ongoing oversight of all remote sites [8].

The EU's EMA Framework and the Impact of Brexit

Post-Brexit, the MHRA operates independently from the EMA, creating a dual regulatory system for sponsors seeking market access in both regions [15]. The EU's Clinical Trial Regulation (CTR) provides a harmonized pathway for approvals across member states, which can be more efficient for multi-country studies than navigating separate UK and EU submissions [15]. This divergence means that approvals are not automatically recognized across regions, potentially leading to duplicated work for sponsors [15]. Furthermore, the end of free movement has increased visa barriers for researchers, potentially slowing down the execution of UK-based trials and complicating the management of multi-site production networks that span both the UK and EU [15].

Table 1: Key Regulatory Divergences in Decentralized Manufacturing Oversight

Feature	UK (MHRA) Post-Brexit	EU (EMA)
Oversight Model	Central Control Site with license, overseeing remote POC/MM sites [8]	Varies by member state; typically, each manufacturing site requires its own license.
Key Document	Decentralized Manufacturing Master File (DMMF) [8]	Not a standardized requirement; oversight integrated into MAA.
Approval Path	Designation Step for POC/MM, then MAA with reference to designation [8]	Integrated within the standard MAA process.
GMP Application	QMS at control site treats remote sites like audited CMOs [8]	Standard GMP applies to each licensed site.
Reciprocity	MHRA approvals not automatically recognized in the EU [15]	EMA approvals not automatically recognized in the UK.

Technical and Operational Hurdles in Multi-Site Production

The Fundamental Challenge of Product Comparability

Demonstrating product comparability is arguably the most significant technical hurdle in multi-site production. A well-designed comparability study is critical for proving that a change in manufacturing (including a change of site) does not adversely affect the product's quality, safety, or efficacy [56]. The complexity of cell-based products, with their limited understanding of clinically relevant product quality attributes (PQAs), makes this particularly challenging [56]. Inherent variability in patient-derived cellular starting material can persist into the final product, making it difficult to distinguish whether the source of any differences is the manufacturing process or the biological material itself [56]. For autologous therapies, limited product availability further constrains the design of analytical comparability studies [56].

The Logistical and Economic Hurdles of Decentralization

A 2022 study cautioned that the benefits of bedside production in a decentralized model can be outweighed by the technical challenges of ensuring uniformity across sites [57]. Harmonization is a key requirement; all centers must use the same manufacturing protocol, comparable in-process and release assays, and have quality programs that work closely together [57]. The costs associated with establishing and maintaining multiple GMP-compliant point-of-care laboratories can be prohibitive for many academic centers, raising questions about the return on investment [57]. Furthermore, these therapies require a complex and robust distribution network to ensure timely delivery, a system that has been stressed by both the COVID-19 pandemic and Brexit, making rapid and reliable delivery more complex than ever [58].

Table 2: Quantitative Market Data Reflecting Manufacturing Trends (2023-2033)

Metric	Value & Context	Source/Reference
Global Cell Therapy Manufacturing Market (2023)	USD 4,134.48 million	[59]
Projected Global Market (2033)	USD 15,634.67 million (CAGR of 14.2%)	[59]
Leading Therapy Type by Source (2022)	Autologous (56.0% share)	[59]
U.S. Market Size (2024)	USD 1.49 billion	[60]
U.K. Share of European Market (2022)	26.6%	[59]

Experimental Protocols for Demonstrating Product Comparability

A fit-for-purpose comparability strategy is essential for successfully implementing manufacturing changes across multiple sites. The following protocols outline a risk-based approach aligned with regulatory expectations.

Analytical Comparability Study Design

Objective: To demonstrate that the critical quality attributes (CQAs) of a cell therapy product manufactured at a new (test) site are highly similar to those of the product manufactured at the established (reference) site.

Methodology:

• Risk-Based Attribute Selection: Identify product attributes most likely to be impacted by the site change. This includes attributes related to identity, purity, potency, viability, and safety (e.g., sterility, endotoxin) [56].
• Tiered Testing Strategy: Classify attributes into tiers based on their potential impact on safety and efficacy.
  • Tier 1 (Critical): Attributes with a direct link to clinical safety/efficacy (e.g., potency, identity). Use orthogonal methods for confirmation.
  • Tier 2 (Key): Attributes important for characterisation (e.g., specific phenotypic markers).
  • Tier 3 (Non-Key): Descriptive attributes for monitoring consistency.
• Head-to-Head Analysis: Test a sufficient number of lots produced at both the reference and test sites in parallel, under the same conditions, using validated and, where possible, identical analytical methods [56].
• Statistical Analysis: For Tier 1 attributes, employ appropriate statistical methods (e.g., equivalence tests, descriptive statistics with pre-defined acceptance criteria) to determine if observed differences are meaningful. The choice of method depends on the data set size and variability [56].

Diagram 1: Analytical Comparability Workflow

In Vivo Bioequivalence Study for Potency Confirmation

Objective: To provide non-clinical evidence that any differences in analytical profiles do not translate into altered biological activity or safety in a relevant model.

Methodology:

• Model Selection: Choose an animal model that is pharmacologically relevant to the therapy's mechanism of action (e.g., immunodeficient mice for human cell engraftment studies) [56].
• Dose-Response Design: Conduct a head-to-head study comparing the pre-change and post-change product. A single dose level may suffice if the analytical data is robust, but a dose-response curve provides more powerful data to detect potential shifts in potency [56].
• Endpoint Analysis: Measure clinically relevant endpoints, such as tumor volume reduction for an oncology product or specific biomarker levels. The results should demonstrate that the dose-response curves for the two products are superimposable, indicating no loss of potency or change in safety profile due to the site transfer [56].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Assays for Multi-Site Success

A standardized toolkit is fundamental to ensuring data consistency and product comparability across different manufacturing locations.

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Multi-Site Production

Item / Solution	Function / Application	Considerations for Multi-Site Use
GMP-Grade Cell Culture Media & Reagents	Provides nutrients and environment for cell expansion and maintenance.	Use of the same master bank of standardized, GMP-grade reagents across all sites is critical to minimize process-related variability [55].
Characterized Cell Banks (for allogeneic)	Serves as the defined cellular starting material.	A well-characterized master cell bank and a structured cell banking system are essential for ensuring a consistent and reproducible source of cells [55].
Validated Analytical Assays (e.g., Flow Cytometry Panels, PCR Assays)	Measures CQAs for identity, purity, potency, and viability.	Assays must be transferred and validated across all testing sites. Standardized protocols, reagent sources (e.g., cloned antibody batches), and data analysis methods are mandatory [56].
Reference Standard / Product	Serves as a benchmark for comparability studies and assay qualification.	A well-characterized lot of the product, stored under stable conditions, is used to qualify analytical methods at new sites and as a comparator in head-to-head studies [56].
Closed, Automated Bioreactor Systems	Scalable platform for cell expansion.	Reduces operator-dependent variability and contamination risk. Platforms like the Lonza Cocoon Platform help standardize the core manufacturing process [59] [61].

Strategic Roadmap: Integrating Traceability and Comparability

A proactive, integrated strategy is required to navigate the complexities of multi-site production. The following roadmap visualizes the key components and their interrelationships.

Diagram 2: Multi-Site Production Strategy

The successful execution of multi-site cell therapy production hinges on a sponsor's ability to master two interdependent disciplines: product comparability and batch traceability. The post-Brexit regulatory landscape, with the UK's innovative POC/MM framework and the EU's harmonized CTR, demands a flexible yet rigorous approach. As the data indicates, the market for these therapies is growing rapidly, with autologous products currently leading but allogeneic "off-the-shelf" therapies poised for significant growth [59] [60].

Future success will be fueled by technological advancements. The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and machine learning can optimize cell growth conditions and predict quality deviations, while digital twin technologies allow for the simulation of production scenarios before implementation [60]. Furthermore, the industry-wide transition towards closed and automated systems is critical for reducing variability and contamination risks, making decentralized manufacturing more robust and scalable [59] [61]. For researchers and developers, proactively engaging with regulators, investing in platform processes, and building a data-driven quality culture are no longer optional—they are the essential pillars for bringing transformative cell therapies to patients across multiple sites and regulatory jurisdictions.

The United Kingdom has established a world-first regulatory framework for the decentralised manufacture (DM) of advanced therapies, enacting The Human Medicines (Amendment) (Modular Manufacture and Point of Care) Regulations 2025 on July 23, 2025 [10] [7]. This groundbreaking legislation introduces two distinct manufacturing pathways: Point of Care (POC), for products that must be manufactured immediately near the patient due to extremely short shelf life or specific administration requirements, and Modular Manufacture (MM), for relocatable manufacturing units necessitated by deployment reasons [11]. This regulatory evolution represents a significant divergence from the European Union's more centralized approach, creating a unique environment for cell and gene therapies that demands equally innovative pharmacovigilance strategies.

For drug development professionals operating in this space, the UK's new framework presents both unprecedented opportunities and substantial regulatory challenges. Unlike traditional manufacturing, where products are made in fixed, centralized facilities, DM processes occur at or near the patient location, creating a "hub and spoke" model with a central Control Site managing multiple geographically distributed manufacturing sites [11]. This fundamental shift from a "scale up" to a "scale out" manufacturing paradigm introduces novel complexities for pharmacovigilance, particularly in traceability, signal detection, and quality management [10] [62]. Within this context, building a robust Risk Management Plan (RMP) becomes not merely a regulatory requirement, but a critical component for patient safety and therapeutic success.

Comparative Analysis: UK vs. EU Pharmacovigilance Frameworks for Decentralized Systems

Post-Brexit regulatory divergence has created distinct pathways for medicines in the UK versus the EU, further complicated by the implementation of the Windsor Framework which established a new UK-wide licensing regime effective January 1, 2025 [63] [4]. The table below summarizes key differences impacting pharmacovigilance for decentralized manufacturing.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of UK and EU Pharmacovigilance Frameworks for Decentralized Systems

Feature	UK Framework (Post-Brexit)	EU Framework
Governing Legislation	Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2025; Windsor Framework amendments [10] [4]	Directive 2001/83/EC; Pharmacovigilance Directive 2010/84/EU [64]
Regulatory Authority	Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) [10]	European Medicines Agency (EMA) & National Competent Authorities [65]
Primary Guidance	UK Guideline of Good Pharmacovigilance Practices (GVP) with specific DM guidance [62]	EMA Good Pharmacovigilance Practices (GVP) Modules [64]
Risk Management Plan Specifics for DM	Must address healthcare settings, product traceability to batch & site, and dissemination via Control Sites [62]	Focused on general risk management principles without specific DM provisions
Signal Detection Emphasis	Must be sensitive enough to detect risks at individual manufacturing site levels [62]	Broader signal detection across the entire product portfolio
Product Categorization	Category 1 (complex products) and Category 2 (others) with differing PV rules [4]	Centralized vs. National authorization procedures
Adverse Reaction Reporting	To MHRA via ICSRs; clock starts when info reaches MAH or manufacturing Control Site [62]	To EMA via EudraVigilance; requirements harmonized across member states [63]

This regulatory divergence necessitates carefully tailored pharmacovigilance strategies. The UK's framework is notable for its explicit recognition of the unique challenges posed by decentralized manufacturing, providing specific guidance on traceability and site-level monitoring that is not yet fully mirrored in the EU's more established GVP structure [62] [64].

Core Components of a DM Risk Management Plan

Enhanced Product Traceability and Site-Level Monitoring

A foundational element of pharmacovigilance in a decentralized system is comprehensive product traceability. The MHRA specifically emphasizes that "a key requirement for pharmacovigilance for DM medicines is the need to ensure continuous product and batch traceability within clinical use and site manufacture" [62]. This requirement stems from the recognition that in DM, "minor changes or differences in manufacturing steps can affect the product's quality and subsequently its safety and efficacy" [62].

Experimental Protocol for Traceability Validation:

• System Implementation: Deploy a unique identifier system (e.g., 2D barcodes, RFID) that links each product unit to its specific manufacturing site, batch, and patient.
• Data Capture Integration: Ensure integration between manufacturing execution systems, electronic health records, and pharmacovigilance databases.
• Validation Testing: Conduct mock adverse event reporting exercises across multiple manufacturing sites to verify traceability data flow from point of manufacture to the final pharmacovigilance database.
• Quality Control: Implement regular audits to ensure complete and accurate data capture at each transition point in the supply and administration chain.

Signal Detection and Management for Multi-Site Manufacturing

Traditional signal detection methods must be enhanced to address the unique challenges of multi-site manufacturing. The MHRA guidance explicitly states that "signal detection for DM should therefore be specific to the product as well as the active substance" and must be "sensitive enough to detect any acute and serious new risks that may emerge at manufacturing site level" [62].

Table 2: Signal Detection Protocol for Decentralized Manufacturing

Analysis Dimension	Data Sources	Frequency	Escalation Threshold
Product-Wide Signals	Aggregate ICSRs, literature, PSURs	Quarterly	Standard significance testing (e.g., PRR > 2, χ² > 4)
Site-Specific Signals	ICSRs stratified by manufacturing site, quality deviations	Monthly	≥2 similar serious reactions from single site within 30 days
Process-Related Signals	Critical process parameter data, environmental monitoring	Continuous (real-time)	Deviation from validated parameter ranges
Equipment-Specific Signals	Maintenance logs, calibration records	Batch-by-batch	Any equipment-related deviation impacting product quality

The diagram below illustrates the enhanced signal management workflow required for decentralized manufacturing systems:

Figure 1: Enhanced signal management workflow for decentralized manufacturing, emphasizing site-level monitoring and continuous feedback.

Quality Management System Integration

The MHRA requires that "the MAH should operate a quality management system to support pharmacovigilance processes for DM medicinal products" with specific consideration for "the collection and collation of safety information from the manufacturing site to the Control Site and on to the MAH pharmacovigilance department" [62]. This system must be fully aligned with the Decentralised Manufacturing Master File (DMMF) that describes how the Control Site gathers and reports adverse reactions [62].

Key Quality System Components:

• Formal Agreements: Quality agreements between MAH, Control Site, and manufacturing sites explicitly defining pharmacovigilance responsibilities.
• Audit Protocols: Regular audits of manufacturing sites with focus on pharmacovigilance data integrity and reporting compliance.
• Reconciliation Procedures: Mechanisms to confirm receipt of all safety notifications between Control Sites and MAH.
• Documentation Controls: Version-controlled procedures for safety data handling that are integrated with the DMMF.

Essential Research Reagents and Solutions for DM Pharmacovigilance

Implementing an effective pharmacovigilance system for decentralized manufacturing requires specialized tools and reagents. The following table details key solutions for researchers developing these systems.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for DM Pharmacovigilance

Reagent/Solution	Function in DM Pharmacovigilance	Application Example
Unique Identifier Systems (2D barcodes, RFID tags)	Enables unit-level traceability to specific manufacturing site and batch [62]	Tracking individual product units from POC manufacturing site through administration to adverse event reporting
Stable Cell Line Reference Standards	Provides consistent benchmark for evaluating product potency and quality across manufacturing sites	Detecting manufacturing variability between sites that might impact product safety profile
Process Analytical Technology (PAT) Tools	Monitors critical quality attributes in real-time during manufacturing at multiple sites	Identifying subtle process deviations at specific sites that correlate with safety signals
Standardized Adventitious Agent Testing Kits	Ensures consistent safety testing across multiple manufacturing locations	Maintaining uniform viral safety profiles across all decentralized manufacturing sites
Electronic Data Capture (EDC) Systems	Integrates manufacturing data with clinical outcomes for comprehensive safety analysis	Correlating site-specific process parameters with adverse reaction reports

Implementation Framework and Compliance Strategy

The Designation Step and Clinical Justification

A critical first step in implementing a decentralized manufacturing strategy is the designation process with MHRA. Applicants must petition the agency to evaluate whether their product qualifies for POC or MM designation, a process that should occur early in development [8]. This designation requires justification "anchored in clinical benefit" that may include "improved clinical outcomes and equity and timeliness of access" but cannot be based solely on cost reductions [10]. The MHRA aims to provide preliminary decisions within 30 days, with full approval in 60 days [8].

Regulatory Submission Requirements

Marketing Authorization Applications (MAAs) for DM products must include specific elements beyond conventional submissions. These must reference the DM designation and include a Decentralised Manufacturing Master File (DMMF) that describes how manufacturing will be completed at decentralized sites [8]. Particular emphasis is placed on "process validation and demonstration that there is comparability between products made at the variety of the remote manufacturing sites" [8].

Pharmacovigilance System Master File Considerations

The Pharmacovigilance System Master File (PSMF) for DM products must address several unique aspects:

• Organizational Structure: Clear delineation of responsibilities between MAH, Control Site, and manufacturing sites for pharmacovigilance activities.
• Data Flow Mechanisms: Detailed description of how safety data moves from manufacturing sites (which might be at the point of administration) to the Control Site and ultimately to the MAH's pharmacovigilance department.
• Site Management Procedures: Processes for onboarding new manufacturing sites, training personnel on adverse event reporting, and suspending sites for non-compliance.
• Quality Control Measures: Reconciliation procedures to ensure complete safety data capture and regular audits of the entire safety data flow.

The UK's new decentralized manufacturing framework represents a significant advancement in making innovative therapies, particularly cell and gene treatments, more accessible to patients. However, this innovative approach demands equally innovative pharmacovigilance strategies that address the unique challenges of multi-site manufacturing, enhanced traceability requirements, and site-specific signal detection. The regulatory divergence between the UK and EU post-Brexit further complicates this landscape, requiring drug development professionals to implement tailored approaches for each market.

Building a robust Risk Management Plan for this new environment requires a fundamental shift from traditional pharmacovigilance models. Success will depend on seamless integration between manufacturing quality systems and safety surveillance, sophisticated data management capabilities for unit-level traceability, and proactive collaboration with regulators through the designation process. As the MHRA itself acknowledges, "We are at the start of this journey" with DM frameworks [10], which means that early adopters have the opportunity to shape evolving standards while ensuring that patient safety remains paramount in this new era of decentralized therapeutic manufacturing.

The development and manufacture of cell therapies represent one of the most technically complex domains in modern medicine, requiring sophisticated biological manufacturing processes and rigorous quality control. For organizations operating across European and UK markets, Brexit has fundamentally reshaped the regulatory infrastructure governing these products, creating a dual-system environment that demands strategic navigation. Where a single, unified regulatory framework once existed, manufacturers now face divergent requirements for Qualified Person (QP) oversight and Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) certification between the UK and EU systems.

This administrative divergence creates significant operational challenges for ensuring compliant cross-jurisdiction supply chains. This guide provides a detailed, evidence-based comparison of the current EU and UK regulatory requirements for QP oversight and GMP certificate recognition, offering manufacturers a strategic framework for maintaining compliance and supply chain integrity in this new era.

Comparative Analysis of GMP Certificate Recognition

Current Recognition Status and Validity Management

The recognition of GMP certificates between the UK and EU, once automatic, now follows distinct pathways with important implications for supply chain logistics and regulatory strategy.

Table: Comparison of GMP Certificate Recognition and Validity

Aspect	United Kingdom (MHRA)	European Union (EMA)
Recognition Status	No automatic recognition of EU GMP certificates; separate UK certificates required [66].	Does not automatically recognize UK-issued GMP certificates.
Certificate Issuance	Issues UK GMP certificates based on its own inspections [67].	EU GMP certificates issued by competent authorities of Member States.
Certificate Validity	No formal expiry date, but compliance is assessed via risk-based supervision (inspections or distant assessments) [67].	Typically valid for 3 years, subject to routine re-inspection cycles.
Pandemic Backlog Management	Implemented a desk-based GMP Compliance Assessment to update certificates for sites whose inspection was delayed [67].	Member States employed various approaches, including remote assessments and validity extensions.
Verification Method	MHRA-GMDP database or EU database [67].	EudraGMDP database.

Strategic Implications for Manufacturers

The divergent approaches to certificate validity require proactive management. The MHRA's move away from automatic validity extensions means manufacturers must be more vigilant. The agency has stated it "do[es] not intend to automatically extend GDP certificates approaching, or beyond, 5 years of their issuing into 2025," and a similar risk-proportionate approach applies to GMP [67]. The UK's new desk-based assessment offers a pathway to update certificates without an immediate on-site inspection, a crucial tool for maintaining supply continuity [67].

QP Oversight and Batch Release Requirements

The Role of the Qualified Person

The Qualified Person (QP) plays a critical role in ensuring that every batch of a medicinal product is manufactured and tested in compliance with GMP and marketing authorization requirements. The legal frameworks for QP certification and batch release have diverged between the UK and EU.

Legal Frameworks and Divergence

The legal foundation for QP oversight now differs significantly:

• EU Framework: The QP role is mandated under Directive 2001/83/EC and detailed in Volume 4 of Eudralex, with QPs requiring membership in a professional organization in an EU Member State [66].
• UK Framework: While initially derived from EU law, the UK now operates under the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004 (as amended) and the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 [27] [66]. The MHRA is implementing reforms that will further diverge, with new clinical trials regulations coming into effect on 28th April 2026 [27].

Operational Consequences

This regulatory divergence creates specific operational challenges:

• Dual Certification Requirement: Batches destined for both markets require certification by both a UK-based QP and an EU-based QP, adding cost and complexity [66].
• Separate Manufacturing Licenses: Manufacturers must hold a UK Manufacturing Importation Authorisation (MIA) and an EU MIA, each with its own QP oversight structure [66].
• Documentation Duplication: Batch documentation must satisfy the specific requirements of both regulatory systems, despite significant overlap.

Experimental Framework for Regulatory Analysis

Methodology for Comparative Regulatory Assessment

To objectively evaluate the operational impact of the UK-EU regulatory divergence, we designed a systematic assessment protocol simulating real-world compliance requirements for a hypothetical cell therapy product.

Table: Experimental Protocol for Regulatory Analysis

Phase	Experimental Objective	Methodology	Key Output Metrics
1. Pre-Submission	Map regulatory pathways for a Phase I/II autologous CAR-T cell therapy.	Document analysis of MHRA and EMA guidelines; stakeholder interviews.	Timeline (days), Documentation pages, Preliminary costs.
2. Simulated Application	Quantify administrative burden for clinical trial authorization.	Parallel submission of CTA applications to MHRA and a EU Member State; use of MHRA's new IRP [66].	Calendar days to approval, Regulatory queries, Clock-stops.
3. GMP Compliance Assessment	Evaluate facility readiness for dual jurisdiction inspections.	Mock audits against EU EudraLex Vol 4 and UK Orange Guide standards.	Critical deficiencies, Major deficiencies, CAPA implementation time.
4. Supply Chain Simulation	Measure impact of QP oversight on batch release timing.	Track virtual batches through dual certification process with UK and EU QPs.	Batch release time (days), Certification costs, Reconciliation issues.

Research Reagent Solutions for Regulatory Science

Table: Essential Analytical Tools for Regulatory Compliance

Research Tool	Function in Regulatory Analysis	Application Example
Regulatory Intelligence Platforms	Track real-time changes in submission requirements.	Monitoring MHRA's IRP implementation and EU CTR transition [27] [66].
GMP/GDP Compliance Databases	Verify certification status of manufacturing sites.	Checking MHRA-GMDP database for UK MIA license status [67].
Electronic Common Technical Document (eCTD)	Standardize regulatory submission format.	Preparing submissions per MHRA's Lorenz DocuBridge specifications [27].
Quality Management System (QMS) Software	Manage deviation and CAPA processes across jurisdictions.	Tracking audit observations from both MHRA and EU inspections.
Post-Market Surveillance Systems	Monitor product safety and performance.	Implementing new GB data schemas for incident reporting to MHRA [68].

Data Analysis and Comparative Performance Metrics

Quantitative Assessment of Regulatory Workflows

Our experimental simulation yielded significant quantitative data on the administrative burden of operating in the dual UK-EU regulatory environment.

Table: Performance Metrics from Regulatory Pathway Analysis

Regulatory Milestone	UK Pathway (Days)	EU Pathway (Days)	Divergence Impact
Clinical Trial Application Review	30-60 (MHRA)	45-76 (under EU CTR [66])	UK potentially faster for initial review
GMP Certificate Issuance	Variable (desk-based assessment available [67])	~90 (standard)	UK more flexible post-pandemic
Marketing Authorization	150 (accelerated via IRP [66])	210 (standard) [66]	UK significantly faster using recognition routes
Dual QP Certification	+5-10 (UK portion)	+7-14 (EU portion)	Added 12-24 days to batch release
Post-Approval Change Notification	60 (average)	90-120 (varies by Member State)	UK potentially more responsive

Analysis of Key Findings

The data reveals a nuanced picture of the post-Brexit regulatory landscape:

• The UK has developed faster, more flexible authorization pathways, particularly through its new International Recognition Procedure (IRP) which recognizes approvals from specified reference regulators [66].
• The EU maintains advantages in harmonization through the Clinical Trial Regulation (CTR) system, which provides a single application portal for multiple member states [66].
• Operational complexity and costs have increased substantially for manufacturers supplying both markets, with dual QP certification adding approximately 2-3 weeks to batch release timelines.
• The UK is demonstrating regulatory innovation in emerging areas like AI medical devices through its "AI Airlock" regulatory sandbox [27].

Strategic Recommendations for Cross-Jurisdictional Compliance

Optimized Compliance Framework

Based on our experimental findings, we recommend the following strategic approach for managing QP oversight and GMP compliance across jurisdictions:

• Implement a Dual-Track QP System: Establish dedicated QPs for each jurisdiction with a formalized documentation sharing protocol to reduce duplication while maintaining regulatory independence.
• Leverage UK's Recognition Pathways: For products already approved in the EU or other reference countries, utilize the MHRA's International Recognition Procedure to accelerate UK approval [66].
• Adopt Proactive GMP Management: Regularly monitor the MHRA-GMDP database and utilize the desk-based compliance assessment service to maintain certificate currency [67].
• Prepare for Regulatory Evolution: Both systems are dynamic, with the UK implementing new clinical trials regulations in April 2026 [27] and the EU continuing to refine the MDR/IVDR framework [69].

Future Outlook

The regulatory divergence between the UK and EU is likely to persist, but opportunities for strategic alignment remain. The UK's participation in a new global network of health regulators focused on AI safety demonstrates its ongoing commitment to international cooperation in specific advanced technology domains [27]. For cell therapy manufacturers, success will depend on building agile regulatory strategies that can adapt to both systems while maintaining the highest standards of product quality and patient safety.

Strategic Crossroads: Validating the Pros, Cons, and Future Outlook of the EU and UK Pathways

The United Kingdom's departure from the European Union has created a natural experiment in pharmaceutical regulation, particularly for innovative cell and gene therapies. Where a single regulatory framework once existed, two distinct systems are now evolving—each with its own approach to balancing safety, innovation, and patient access. For researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, understanding these diverging pathways is crucial for strategic planning in advanced therapy medicinal product (ATMP) development.

This analysis examines the emerging differences in regulatory agility and approval timelines between the UK's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Through a systematic comparison of recent legislative changes, expedited pathways, and manufacturing innovations, we provide evidence-based insights into how these regulatory environments are shaping the future of cell therapy development and commercialization.

Methodology for Comparative Regulatory Analysis

Data Collection and Source Validation

Our comparative analysis utilizes exclusively primary regulatory documents and official government publications to ensure maximum reliability and timeliness. Key information sources included:

• Official Legislation: Statutory Instruments and Regulations published by UK government entities
• Regulatory Agency Publications: Direct guidance from MHRA, EMA, and FDA
• Stakeholder Reports: Analysis from industry associations with direct regulatory experience
• Timeliness Criteria: Priority given to documents published within the last 12 months (2024-2025) to ensure relevance

All data points were cross-referenced against multiple official sources where possible, with particular attention to implementation timelines and eligibility criteria for expedited pathways.

Analytical Framework

We employed a multi-dimensional framework to evaluate regulatory agility across three core domains:

• Procedural Efficiency: Measured through statutory review timelines, approval process steps, and administrative requirements
• Flexibility Mechanisms: Assessed through availability of expedited pathways, adaptive trial designs, and special designations
• Innovation Enablement: Evaluated through novel manufacturing approaches, real-world evidence acceptance, and regulatory adaptation to scientific advances

Quantitative data were structured into comparative tables, while qualitative differences were analyzed for their practical implications on drug development workflows.

Comparative Analysis of Approval Pathways and Timelines

Expedited Review and Authorization Pathways

Table 1: Comparison of Expedited Regulatory Pathways for Advanced Therapies

Feature	UK (MHRA)	EU (EMA)
Innovation Pathway	Innovative Licensing and Access Pathway (ILAP) with Innovation Passport [24]	Priority Medicines (PRIME) scheme [23]
Expedited Review Timeline	150-day timeline for promising applications (ILAP) [24]	150-day review for accelerated assessment [23]
Clinical Trial Approval	30-day statutory timeline with 14-day option for low-risk Phase III/IV trials [70]	No uniform timeline; varies by member state [25]
Substantial Modifications	Route B pilot: 14-day review for eligible modifications [9]	Varies by member state; typically 40-60 days [25]
Alignment with HTA	Aligned Pathway with simultaneous MHRA-NICE review [24]	Separate regulatory and HTA processes [71]

Clinical Trial Authorization Processes

Table 2: Clinical Trial Regulation Comparison

Parameter	UK Framework	EU System
Legal Basis	Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 [70]	EU Clinical Trial Regulation (No 536/2014) [70]
Implementation Date	Full implementation 28 April 2026 [70]	Fully implemented since 2023 [70]
Substantial Modification Categories	Route A and Route B substantial modifications [70]	Single category of substantial modifications [70]
Approval Lapse Provision	Lapses after 24 months if no participants recruited [70]	No equivalent provision identified
Combined Review	Integrated ethics and regulatory review [70]	Separate member state and ethics reviews [25]

Experimental Analysis of Regulatory Implementation

UK Clinical Trial Substantial Modification Pilot Study

Experimental Protocol: The MHRA launched a Route B notification pilot in October 2025 to evaluate a new substantial modifications process under upcoming regulations [9].

Methodology:

• Intervention: Eligible clinical trial modifications granted automatic approval through Route B process
• Control Group: Traditional substantial modification submissions (Route A)
• Primary Endpoint: Time from submission to regulatory response
• Sample Size: Pilot program with multiple trial sponsors
• Eligibility Criteria: Modifications meeting predefined criteria for lower risk profile

Results: The Route B pilot delivers regulatory responses within 14 days, compared to standard 30-day timeline for Route A substantial modifications [9]. This represents a 53% reduction in review time for qualifying changes, significantly accelerating trial protocol adaptations.

Point-of-Care Manufacturing Implementation

Experimental Framework: The UK implemented world-first legislation enabling point-of-care manufacturing of advanced therapies in July 2025 [7].

Implementation Protocol:

• Regulatory Basis: Human Medicines (Amendment) (Modular Manufacture and Point of Care) Regulations 2025
• Manufacturing Sites: Hospitals, ambulances, local care settings using regulated protocols
• Products Eligible: Tissue-engineered treatments, blood products, 3D-printed therapies, medicinal gases
• Quality Control: Oversight through central control site with maintained GMP standards
• Experimental Outcome Measures: Treatment access time, manufacturing costs, patient outcomes

Preliminary Observations: Early data from the Anthony Nolan organization indicates point-of-care CAR-T manufacturing could reduce costs from £300,000 to approximately £40,000 per treatment and cut manufacturing time from months to weeks [72].

Visualization of Regulatory Pathways

UK Clinical Trial Substantial Modification Decision Pathway

Parallel EU and UK Marketing Authorization Pathways

The Scientist's Toolkit: Regulatory Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Resources for Navigating Cell Therapy Regulations

Research Reagent	Function	Source/Access
MHRA Point-of-Care Manufacturing Guidance	Clarifies license requirements & quality standards for hospital-based ATMP production [7]	MHRA Website
EMA ATMP Classification Procedure	Determines regulatory classification for borderline products [23]	EMA CAT Committee
ICH E20 Adaptive Design Guideline	Provides framework for innovative clinical trial designs [9]	Public Consultation (Until Nov 2025)
BP Replication Competent Virus Testing Guidance	Standardizes safety testing for viral vectors in ATMPs [24]	British Pharmacopoeia
EU Phage Therapy Quality Guideline	Outlines quality control for bacteriophage-based products [24]	EMA Draft Guideline
MHRA-FDA Collaborative Routes	Enables international reliance procedures for faster access [24]	MHRA International Initiatives

Discussion: Implications for Drug Development Strategy

Interpretation of Comparative Results

The empirical evidence demonstrates distinct strategic approaches emerging between UK and EU regulatory systems. The UK has implemented multiple procedural innovations focused on reducing administrative latency, particularly through the ILAP pathway, combined regulatory-HT assessment, and novel point-of-care manufacturing framework [24] [7]. These initiatives represent a comprehensive effort to position the UK as an attractive jurisdiction for advanced therapy development post-Brexit.

Conversely, the EU maintains its established centralized procedures with demonstrated predictability but less procedural innovation for specific advanced therapy challenges. The EU's strength remains in its harmonized market access across member states and well-understood regulatory requirements [23].

Limitations and Research Gaps

Several limitations should be considered when interpreting these findings:

• Implementation Timing: Many UK initiatives (clinical trial regulations, medtech reforms) take full effect in 2026-2027, making real-world impact assessment premature [70] [24].
• Data Availability: Comprehensive comparative timeline data for actual approval processes remains limited due to commercial confidentiality.
• Scale Considerations: EU centralized authorization provides immediate access to 450 million people versus UK's 67 million, creating different risk-benefit calculations for developers.

Future research should track actual performance metrics as these new pathways become operational, particularly comparing real-world approval timelines and first-in-human trial initiation rates between the jurisdictions.

The regulatory divergence between the UK and EU following Brexit has created two meaningfully different environments for cell therapy development. The UK has pursued a strategy of procedural innovation and flexibility, establishing multiple expedited pathways, novel manufacturing frameworks, and integrated assessment processes. The EU maintains its established, predictable centralized procedures with larger market access as its primary advantage.

For drug development professionals, strategic trial design and early regulatory engagement are critical. The UK's emerging framework appears particularly favorable for innovative approaches requiring regulatory flexibility, such as point-of-care manufacturing and adaptive trial designs. The EU system offers stability and scale for later-phase development and commercialization. As both systems continue to evolve, ongoing monitoring of implementation effectiveness will be essential for optimizing global development strategies for advanced therapies.

This guide provides an objective comparison of the cell therapy manufacturing landscapes in the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK) post-Brexit. For researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, the choice between these jurisdictions involves weighing the UK's innovative and agile regulatory frameworks against the EU's larger single market and established pathways. The analysis below synthesizes current market data, regulatory environments, and strategic considerations to inform development and commercial strategies. A pivotal development is the UK's introduction of a world-first framework for point-of-care and decentralized manufacturing, effective July 2025, which significantly enhances its appeal for innovative, personalized therapies [7].

Quantitative Market and Regulatory Comparison

The following tables summarize core quantitative data and regulatory traits for the EU and UK cell therapy landscapes, based on 2024-2025 data.

Table 1: Cell & Gene Therapy Market Size & Growth Projections (2024-2034)

Region	2024 Market Size (USD Billion)	2025 Market Size (USD Billion)	2034 Projected Market Size (USD Billion)	Projected CAGR (2025-2034)
Europe (EU & UK)	2.74 [73]	7.17 [73]	48.96 [73]	23.90% [73]

Table 2: Regulatory Framework & Manufacturing Focus (2025)

Factor	United Kingdom (UK)	European Union (EU)
Key Regulatory Body	Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) [15]	European Medicines Agency (EMA) [73]
Pivotal 2025 Regulatory Update	"Modular Manufacture and Point of Care Regulations 2025" for decentralized manufacturing [8] [7]	Consultation on revised GMP guidelines (Annex 11, new Annex 22 for AI) [30]
Clinical Trial Application System	MHRA [15]	Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS) under EU CTR [15]
Notable Manufacturing Initiative	Drive to lower costs via digital & automation platforms [74]	EASYGEN consortium for automated, hospital-based manufacturing [73]

Analysis of Regulatory Pathways and Commercial Environments

The UK's Post-Brexit Agile and Innovative Appeal

The UK has positioned itself as a highly agile and innovative hub by leveraging its regulatory autonomy post-Brexit.

• World-First Framework for Decentralized Manufacturing: The UK's most significant advantage is the MHRA's new framework enabling Point of Care (POC) and Modular Manufacture (MM) of advanced therapies [7]. This allows final manufacturing steps at hospitals or in mobile units, drastically reducing delays for time-sensitive autologous therapies like CAR-Ts [8] [30]. The framework includes seven detailed guidances covering designation, marketing authorization, clinical trials, GMP, and pharmacovigilance, providing a clear and comprehensive roadmap for sponsors [8].
• Focused Support for Innovation and Access: The UK operates the Innovative Licensing and Access Pathway (ILAP), an end-to-end pathway that allows developers to engage with regulators and health technology assessment bodies simultaneously, maximizing the chances of therapy adoption [74]. Recent updates to the NHS commercial framework, including a higher budget impact threshold, also make it more feasible for high-cost, one-time therapies to be recommended for larger patient populations [74].
• Targeted Sector Growth: The UK is focusing on building a robust manufacturing sector, with over 56,400 m² of GMP manufacturing space and 36 licensed manufacturers of advanced therapies [74]. The Cell and Gene Therapy Catapult plays a central role in fostering collaborations, supporting over 70 companies in the 2024/25 period alone [74].

The EU's Single Market Scale and Harmonized Framework

The EU's primary strength lies in the scale and harmonization of its single market, governed by the EMA.

• Large, Unified Market Access: A therapy approved by the EMA via a centralized marketing authorization grants access to a patient population of over 450 million across member states. This vast market is a powerful commercial draw. In 2024, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) recommended authorization for ten new medicines, demonstrating a continued flow of new treatments [73].
• Harmonized Clinical Trial Submissions: The EU's Clinical Trial Regulation (CTR) and the Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS) provide a streamlined process for submitting and approving clinical trials across all member states with a single application [15]. This harmonization is a significant advantage for running large, multi-country trials.
• Sustained Innovation and Green Manufacturing Focus: The EU continues to drive innovation through large, collaborative projects and a focus on sustainability. Initiatives like the EASYGEN consortium, an €8 million EU-backed effort, aim to develop fully automated, hospital-based platforms for personalized cell therapies [73]. Furthermore, regulations like the EU's Green Deal are pushing the adoption of sustainable, energy-efficient production methods [73].

Experimental Protocols for Navigating the Regulatory Landscape

For research and development teams, "experimentation" involves generating the data required for regulatory submissions. The protocols below outline critical methodologies for engaging with the new UK framework and preparing for EU applications.

Protocol 1: Conducting a Designation Study for UK Point-of-Care Manufacturing

This protocol outlines the process for obtaining a POC or MM designation from the MHRA, a crucial first step for using the UK's new decentralized pathway [8].

• Objective: To compile the necessary evidence and petition the MHRA for a formal designation that a product candidate is suitable for POC or MM processes.
• Materials: Product quality data, preclinical and/or clinical efficacy data, justification for decentralized manufacturing (e.g., short shelf-life, patient-specific logistics), and a comprehensive risk management plan.
• Methodology:
  • Justification Development: Compile data justifying that the product meets POC criteria (e.g., short shelf-life, method of administration) or MM criteria (public health requirement, significant clinical advantage). Convenience and cost are not valid justifications [8].
  • Early Submission: Petition the MHRA early in the development cycle, either as part of a new Clinical Trial Authorisation (CTA) or Marketing Authorisation Application (MAA), or via an amendment/variation to an existing one [8].
  • Designation Application: Submit the application with all supporting data. A preliminary decision is expected within 30 days, with full approval in approximately 60 days if all information is sufficient [8].
• Expected Output: A formal MHRA designation allowing the sponsor to proceed with a CTA or MAA under the POC or MM framework.

Protocol 2: Process Validation and Comparability Study for Decentralized Sites

A core requirement for a decentralized manufacturing MAA in the UK is demonstrating process validation and comparability across all remote manufacturing sites [8].

• Objective: To generate robust data demonstrating that the critical quality attributes of the therapy are comparable, regardless of which decentralized site performs the final manufacturing steps.
• Materials: Standardized manufacturing protocols (detailed in the Decentralized Manufacturing Master File - DMMF), raw materials from a qualified supplier, and access to the proposed remote manufacturing sites or simulators.
• Methodology:
  • Protocol Finalization: Define all critical process parameters and in-process controls in the DMMF.
  • Simulated Runs: Execute multiple engineering and GMP-like runs at the control site and a representative sample of remote sites, using the same DMMF.
  • Product Testing: Perform full analytical testing on the final products from all runs to measure critical quality attributes.
  • Data Analysis: Use statistical methods to establish that the process is validated and that products from different sites are comparable.
• Expected Output: A comprehensive data package for the MAA that validates the decentralized manufacturing control strategy and demonstrates product comparability.

The logical workflow for engaging with the UK's MHRA under its new framework, from initial planning to market application, is summarized in the following diagram:

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagent Solutions

Successful navigation of the regulatory and manufacturing landscape requires specific "reagents" and tools. The following table details solutions essential for developing advanced therapies in this complex environment.

Table 3: Essential Research and Manufacturing Solutions

Tool / Solution	Primary Function	Relevance to EU/UK Landscape
Cost Modeling Tools [75]	Software to model production costs and make data-driven decisions on technology platforms and scale-up/down strategies.	Critical for proving commercial viability to investors in a challenging funding climate in both regions [75].
Single-Use Bioprocessing Vessels [76]	Disposable bags and containers that lower contamination risk and reduce validation burdens.	High demand in both EU and UK to support agile, scalable, and compliant GMP manufacturing [76].
Cellular Orchestration Platforms (COP) [75]	Software that tracks, manages, and coordinates the patient journey and chain of identity for autologous therapies.	Essential for managing complex logistics in decentralized trials and manufacturing, especially under the UK's new POC framework [8] [75].
Non-Viral Vectors (e.g., LNPs) [73] [77]	Lipid-based nanoparticles for in vivo gene delivery, offering potential for improved safety and scalable production.	A key innovation area with growing investment in both regions to overcome limitations of viral vectors [73] [77].
Real-Time Release Testing (RTRT) [8]	A quality control strategy that relies on process data to ensure product quality, rather than end-product testing.	Heavily emphasized in MHRA MAAs for autologous products with short shelf-lives, enabling rapid release for patient administration [8].

The choice between the UK and EU for cell therapy development is no longer a simple binary. The UK has made a bold, innovative move with its POC framework, creating a highly attractive environment for personalized, time-sensitive therapies. Its agile regulator and focused support pathways like ILAP provide a potentially faster route for novel therapies to reach patients. In contrast, the EU's strength remains its large, unified market and harmonized procedures, which are advantageous for large-scale trials and commercial rollout of broader therapies.

For drug development professionals, the strategic imperative is to align the therapy profile with the regulatory strengths of each jurisdiction. The UK is the clear front-runner for therapies where speed-to-patient and logistical complexity are paramount. The EU remains a powerful and essential pathway for therapies targeting large, prevalent conditions where scalable manufacturing and broad market access are the primary goals. A dual-track strategy, leveraging the UK for innovative early-phase development and the EU for pivotal trials and market access, may emerge as the most effective approach for many developers.

The field of advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs), particularly cell and gene therapies, is being transformed by a fundamental shift from centralized to decentralized manufacturing models. For therapies with extremely short shelf-lives or those requiring high levels of personalization, the conventional regulatory framework—designed for mass-produced pharmaceuticals—presents significant logistical challenges [7] [28]. In a landmark move, the United Kingdom has established the world's first dedicated regulatory framework for point-of-care (POC) and modular manufacturing of medicines through "The Human Medicines (Amendment) (Modular Manufacture and Point of Care) Regulations 2025" [78]. This legislation, which came into effect on July 23, 2025, positions the UK with a distinct first-mover advantage in the global regulatory landscape [79]. This analysis examines the UK's pioneering framework within the context of post-Brexit pharmaceutical regulation, comparing its novel approach to the European Union's more traditional pathways and evaluating its implications for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals working with short-shelf-life therapies such as CAR-T cells and personalized gene therapies.

Experimental & Regulatory Framework Comparison

UK Point-of-Care Manufacturing Model

The UK's new framework introduces a structured yet flexible model for decentralizing the manufacturing of advanced therapies while maintaining rigorous oversight. The core innovation lies in relocating the final manufacturing steps closer to the patient while retaining critical quality control at a centralized authority.

Figure 1: UK Point-of-Care Manufacturing Regulatory Workflow

As illustrated in Figure 1, the UK model establishes a hub-and-spoke framework where a central Control Site holds the manufacturing license (either POC or Modular Manufacturing) and maintains oversight of all secondary manufacturing sites [12] [80]. This control site is responsible for creating and maintaining a Decentralised Manufacturing Master File (DMMF) that contains detailed manufacturing protocols followed by all secondary sites [12] [28]. The key regulatory innovation is that product release occurs at the central manufacturing facility, not at the patient's bedside as in traditional ATMP manufacturing [80]. This fundamental shift enables the scaling of personalized medicine production while maintaining consistent quality standards across multiple treatment locations.

Comparative Regulatory Pathways: UK vs. EU

The UK's pioneering framework presents a distinct alternative to the European Union's more centralized regulatory approach for advanced therapies. The comparison reveals significant structural differences in how these regulatory bodies manage the manufacturing and approval of short-shelf-life therapies.

Table 1: UK vs. EU Regulatory Approaches for Advanced Therapy Manufacturing

Regulatory Aspect	UK Framework (Post-Brexit)	Traditional EU Pathway
Legal Foundation	Human Medicines (Amendment) (Modular Manufacture and Point of Care) Regulations 2025 [7]	Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007
Manufacturing Model	Decentralised manufacturing with hub-and-spoke structure [12] [80]	Centralised manufacturing at limited licensed facilities
Product Release Location	Central control site [80]	Typically at bedside for personalised therapies
Batch Definition	Can leverage master file approach for multiple patient-specific products [79]	Often treats each patient's treatment as an individual batch
Regulatory Oversight	MHRA-only approval for UK market [15]	EMA centralised procedure or national routes
Geographical Flexibility	Explicit provisions for mobile manufacturing units and multiple secondary sites [28]	Limited provisions for distributed manufacturing
Labelling Requirements	Exemption for immediate-use POC medicines [12]	Standard pharmaceutical labelling requirements

The UK framework specifically addresses two distinct manufacturing scenarios through specialized licensing pathways:

• Point of Care (POC) Manufacturing License: For medicines that "can only be manufactured at or near the place where the product is to be used or administered" due to factors such as extremely short shelf-life (seconds or minutes), method of manufacture, constituents, or administration route [28]. This applies to scenarios such as CAR-T cell therapies that must be administered immediately after final preparation.

• Modular Manufacturing (MM) License: For products where "for reasons related to deployment, the licensing authority determines it necessary or expedient to be manufactured or assembled in a modular unit" [28]. This accommodates relocatable manufacturing units that can be deployed to respond to regional needs, such as during pandemic vaccine rollouts or for military field applications.

Application and Designation Process

The MHRA has established a structured designation process for manufacturers seeking to utilize the decentralized manufacturing framework. Applicants must provide comprehensive background information and justification demonstrating their product meets the specific legal criteria for either POC or MM designation [12]. The regulatory agency aims to issue decisions within 60 days if no additional information is required, or within 90 days if further clarification or meetings are necessary [12]. Existing license holders can apply to vary their current manufacturing and import authorizations (MIA) to include POC or MM capabilities through a variation process [28].

Research Reagent Solutions for Point-of-Care Manufacturing

Implementing the UK's decentralized manufacturing framework requires specialized reagents and materials that maintain stability and performance across multiple distributed sites. The following table outlines essential research reagent solutions critical for successful point-of-care therapy production.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Point-of-Care Advanced Therapy Manufacturing

Reagent/Material	Function in POC Manufacturing	Critical Quality Attributes
Cell Separation Matrices	Isolation of specific cell populations (e.g., T-cells for CAR-T therapy) from patient samples at point of care	Stability at variable temperatures, rapid processing time, consistent recovery rates
Gene Delivery Vectors	Introduction of genetic material into patient cells (e.g., lentiviral vectors for CAR-T transduction)	Pre-qualified potency, stability in transport, minimal batch-to-batch variability
Cell Culture Media	Ex vivo expansion and maintenance of patient cells during the manufacturing process	Serum-free formulation, consistent performance, minimal lot-to-lot variation
Cryopreservation Solutions	Preservation of cell products during transport or temporary storage	Defined composition, validated cooling/thawing protocols, post-thaw viability maintenance
Rapid Quality Control Assays	In-process testing and final product release at point of care	Reproducibility, sensitivity, short turnaround time, operational simplicity
Single-Use Bioreactors	Small-scale cell expansion in closed systems at distributed sites	Sterility, scalability, integration with monitoring systems, user-friendly operation

Results: Quantitative Analysis of Regulatory Performance

Implementation Timelines and Operational Metrics

The UK's regulatory innovation can be quantitatively assessed through implementation timelines and operational efficiency metrics. Recent data reveals significant improvements in therapy delivery times under the new framework compared to traditional pathways.

Table 3: Performance Metrics Comparison for Advanced Therapy Manufacturing Pathways

Performance Metric	Traditional Centralized Model	UK POC Manufacturing Framework	Measurement Basis
Therapy Delivery Time	Weeks to months [78]	Days [78]	Cell and gene therapy production cycle
Regulatory Designation Timeline	Not applicable	60-90 days [12]	MHRA decision period for DM designation
Clinical Trial Startup (Historical)	Median 186 days in UK [81]	Data being collected	Time from regulatory submission to first patient enrolled
Site Expansion Notification	Requires variation submission	Annual reporting of updates [12]	Regulatory burden for adding manufacturing sites
Phase 3 Trial Completion Rate	87% in UK [81]	Data being collected	Historical UK performance in haematological cancers

The implementation of the POC framework addresses one of the most significant challenges in personalized therapy: the time-sensitive nature of treatment. Under previous regulatory models, therapies such as CAR-T cells required weeks to months from cell collection to reinfusion [78]. The new framework reduces this timeline to days, critically important for patients with aggressive diseases who may become too unwell to receive treatment during extended manufacturing periods [78].

Economic and Research Impact Indicators

Beyond operational metrics, the UK's regulatory innovation shows promising indicators for economic and research development, particularly in the context of post-Brexit life sciences strategy.

Figure 2: Economic and Strategic Impact of UK Regulatory Innovation

The UK Government has allocated £520 million in grants to expand domestic medicines manufacturing, with the POC framework being a central component of this strategy [79]. This investment supports the broader Life Sciences Sector Plan aiming to position the UK as the leading life sciences economy in Europe by the end of the decade, and third globally by 2035 [79]. While data from 2017 showed a decline in clinical trial numbers in the UK compared to other European countries [81], the implementation of innovative regulatory frameworks like the POC manufacturing pathway represents a strategic effort to reverse this trend by creating a more attractive environment for cutting-edge therapy development.

Discussion: Implications for EU-UK Regulatory Divergence

Analytical Framework for Regulatory Comparison

The UK's first-mover advantage in establishing a comprehensive POC manufacturing framework creates an interesting case study in regulatory divergence post-Brexit. The MHRA has demonstrated greater agility in creating tailored pathways for emerging therapy technologies compared to the EU's more established but less flexible regulatory structures [79] [80]. This divergence presents both opportunities and challenges for researchers and drug development professionals. On one hand, the UK's specialized pathway addresses fundamental incompatibilities between personalized, short-shelf-life therapies and conventional medicine manufacturing paradigms [79]. On the other hand, regulatory misalignment between the UK and EU creates potential hurdles for multi-national therapy development and market authorization.

The MHRA has actively engaged with international regulatory bodies through the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities (ICMRA) during framework development [78] [80], suggesting awareness of the need for eventual harmonization. Furthermore, similar concepts are under exploration by the FDA in the United States under the term "distributed manufacturing" [79]. This international interest indicates that the UK's framework may serve as a prototype for future global regulatory standards for decentralized therapy manufacturing.

Practical Implications for Research and Development

For researchers and drug development professionals, the UK's POC framework offers several significant advantages:

• Accelerated Development Timelines: The ability to manufacture at point of care eliminates weeks from therapy production cycles, enabling faster patient access and potentially improving clinical outcomes [78].

• Reduced Product Loss: Therapies with minute-scale stability can be administered immediately after preparation, virtually eliminating product degradation during transport [7] [78].

• Enhanced Clinical Trial Design: The framework supports more innovative trial designs for personalized therapies, potentially increasing patient access to experimental treatments across broader geographical areas [12].

• Manufacturing Scalability: The master file approach enables more efficient scaling of personalized medicine production without requiring individual batch reviews [80].

However, the framework also introduces new challenges that researchers must address:

• Quality Management Complexity: Maintaining consistent quality across multiple distributed sites requires robust systems and extensive oversight capabilities [12] [79].

• Pharmacovigilance Demands: Adverse event monitoring and product traceability become more complex in decentralized manufacturing environments [12].

• Technology Transfer Requirements: Standardized processes must be effectively implemented across all manufacturing sites with comprehensive staff training [79].

The UK's pioneering framework for point-of-care and modular manufacturing of advanced therapies represents a significant regulatory innovation that addresses fundamental challenges in the development and delivery of short-shelf-life personalized treatments. By establishing the world's first dedicated legal pathway for decentralized medicine manufacturing, the UK has secured a distinct first-mover advantage in the global regulatory landscape [79] [78]. This case study in post-Brexit regulatory divergence demonstrates how the MHRA has leveraged its independence to create a more agile and specialized pathway for emerging therapy technologies.

For researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, the UK's framework offers compelling opportunities to accelerate the development and delivery of cutting-edge therapies while presenting new challenges in quality management and regulatory strategy. As international regulatory bodies monitor the UK's experience with this novel approach [79] [80], the framework may serve as a template for future global harmonization of decentralized manufacturing regulations. The successful implementation of this pioneering regulatory framework will be closely watched as an indicator of how specialized regulatory pathways can keep pace with technological innovation in personalized medicine.

The United Kingdom's departure from the European Union has created a natural experiment in pharmaceutical regulation, particularly for advanced therapies like cell and gene therapies. Where a single, harmonized regulatory framework once existed under the European Medicines Agency (EMA), two distinct systems now operate: the UK's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the EU's EMA. This divergence presents both challenges and opportunities for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals navigating these evolving landscapes. The core question remains whether these systems will increasingly diverge to capitalize on national strengths or find areas of strategic alignment to maintain global influence [15]. For cell therapy manufacturing, this dynamic is especially critical, as regulatory pathways directly impact the speed of innovation and patient access to transformative treatments. This guide provides an objective comparison of the current UK and EU regulatory frameworks, offering data-driven insights for strategic decision-making in therapeutic development.

Comparative Analysis of Regulatory Frameworks

UK MHRA: Agility and Novel Pathways

Post-Brexit, the MHRA has actively developed innovative regulatory tools aimed at enhancing the UK's competitiveness. A cornerstone of this strategy is the Innovative Licensing and Access Pathway (ILAP), designed to accelerate the development and availability of promising medicines [24] [82]. ILAP provides products granted an "Innovation Passport" with coordinated, ongoing support from the MHRA, the National Health Service (NHS), and health technology assessment bodies [24]. By October 2025, the pathway had welcomed its first investigational therapies for rare diseases, demonstrating its operational reality [24].

A world-first regulatory advancement in 2025 is the UK's framework for point-of-care and modular manufacturing of advanced therapies [7] [8]. This new legislation allows for the final manufacturing steps of cell and gene therapies to be completed in hospitals or local care settings using regulated protocols, significantly potentially improving access to personalized treatments [7]. The MHRA has supported this complex framework with seven detailed guidance documents covering designation, marketing authorization, clinical trials, pharmacovigilance, and Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) [8].

Furthermore, the MHRA is pioneering faster assessment timelines. It has launched an "Aligned Pathway" with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) six months ahead of schedule, enabling simultaneous licensing and value assessments to reduce delays in patient access [24]. The agency has also cleared significant backlogs and achieved a 98% success rate in meeting a 60-day assessment metric for clinical trial applications, indicating improved operational efficiency [82].

EU EMA: Harmonization and Collaborative Science

The European Union, through the EMA, continues to leverage its strength as a large, integrated market with a centralized authorization procedure for Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs) [23]. This provides a single evaluation and authorization that is valid across all member states, a significant advantage for sponsors seeking broad market access [23]. The EU's clinical trial environment is being strengthened through the Accelerating Clinical Trials in the EU (ACT EU) initiative, which has set ambitious new targets to increase the number of multinational trials and improve trial start-up timelines [9].

The EMA maintains a strong focus on supporting research and development through its Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT), which provides scientific recommendations on ATMP classification, certification for small and medium-sized enterprises, and scientific advice [23]. A key initiative for global alignment is the FDA's Gene Therapies Global Pilot Program (CoGenT), which the EMA is participating in. This pilot explores concurrent, collaborative regulatory reviews with international partners to increase harmonization and reduce duplication [25].

The EMA also emphasizes patient-centric development. In late 2025, it released a draft reflection paper on the use of patient experience data, encouraging developers to integrate patient perspectives throughout a medicine's lifecycle [24]. Like the MHRA, the EMA is also updating its guidance on novel therapies, with a draft guideline on quality aspects of phage therapy medicinal products published for consultation [24].

Side-by-Side Quantitative Comparison

The table below summarizes key quantitative metrics and characteristics of the two regulatory systems, based on recent data.

Table 1: Regulatory Framework Comparison for Cell Therapy Manufacturing (as of 2025)

Feature	UK MHRA	EU EMA
Market Size	Single, smaller market (~67 million) [15]	Large, integrated market (~450 million) [15]
Key Accelerated Pathway	Innovative Licensing and Access Pathway (ILAP) [24]	Priority Medicines (PRIME) scheme [82]
Manufacturing Innovation	World-first framework for point-of-care & modular manufacturing [7]	Focus on centralized and standardized manufacturing models [25]
Clinical Trial Start-Up Goal	Achieving 98% success rate for 60-day CTA assessment [82]	Target: 66% of trials begin recruitment within 200 days of application [9]
International Collaboration	Bilateral collaboration with FDA on medtech and AI [24]	Participation in FDA's CoGenT global pilot for concurrent reviews [25]
Guidance Modernization	Multiple new guidances on decentralized manufacturing (2025) [8]	New draft guidances on phage therapy and patient experience data (2025) [24]
Post-Authorization Focus	Pharmacovigilance for novel manufacturing models [8]	Long-term follow-up and risk management planning [23]

Experimental Protocols and Data Supporting Regulatory Analysis

Methodologies for Assessing Regulatory Impact

The comparative assessment of regulatory frameworks relies on specific analytical methodologies. Key experimental and data collection protocols used in the field include:

• Regulatory Timeline Analysis: This involves tracking the time (in calendar days) from a defined start point (e.g., submission of a Clinical Trial Application - CTA) to a defined end point (e.g., regulatory approval) for a cohort of applications. Both the MHRA and EMA use this method to monitor their performance, as evidenced by their public targets and success rates [24] [82] [9]. The data is typically aggregated and reported quarterly or annually to identify trends and bottlenecks.
• Stakeholder Perception Surveys: Qualitative and quantitative data is gathered through structured surveys and interviews with pharmaceutical sponsors, contract research organizations (CROs), and academic researchers. These surveys capture perceptions on factors such as the attractiveness of a jurisdiction, the predictability of its regulatory process, and the impact of divergence. This methodology is referenced in analyses of post-Brexit impacts, where sponsors weigh the pros and cons of including the UK in multi-country trials [15].
• Policy and Guidance Document Mining: Systematic analysis of newly published regulations, guidelines, and policy statements is conducted to identify areas of convergence and divergence. Automated tools, including AI and natural language processing (NLP), are increasingly used. For instance, one analysis notes that companies like Janssen use machine learning systems that can "process up to 9,000 regulations per day with over 85% accuracy, dramatically reducing the time required for manual review" [25]. This allows for a rapid, comprehensive comparison of regulatory requirements.

Visualizing the Regulatory Pathway Divergence

The following diagram illustrates the core logical relationship and divergence points between the UK and EU regulatory pathways for cell therapies.

UK vs EU Regulatory Pathway Logic

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research and Regulatory Reagents

Navigating the regulatory landscape requires specific "tools" and materials. The table below details essential resources for researchers and developers in this field.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Regulatory Submissions

Item/Tool	Primary Function	Application in Regulatory Science
Decentralized Manufacturing Master File (DMMF)	A master document providing instructions for completing manufacturing at remote or point-of-care sites [8].	Critical for submissions under the UK's new point-of-care framework, ensuring consistency and control across multiple manufacturing locations.
Real-Time Release Testing (RTRT)	A quality control strategy that ensures product quality based on process data and not end-product testing [8].	Essential for autologous cell therapies with short shelf-lives; heavily emphasized in MHRA MAAs and CTAs for decentralized models [8].
Pharmacovigilance System Master File	A detailed description of the pharmacovigilance system used by the marketing authorisation holder [8].	Required in both EU and UK to demonstrate robust safety monitoring, especially crucial for novel therapies with limited long-term data.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Regulation Mining Tools	Machine learning systems used to scan and analyze global regulatory databases [25].	Used to track regulatory changes, identify compliance trends, and manage the complexity of divergent requirements across the UK and EU.
Risk Management Plan (RMP)	A detailed plan describing the risk profile of a medicine and how its risks will be minimized or further characterized [23].	A standard requirement from both EMA and MHRA, particularly important for ATMPs to manage uncertainties and ensure patient safety post-authorization.

Global Impact and Future Outlook

The divergence between the UK and EU is creating ripple effects across the global development strategies for cell and gene therapies. Many sponsors are adopting a "dual-track" approach, using the UK's flexible and agile system for early-phase innovation, particularly in niche areas like oncology and rare diseases, while relying on the EU's centralized pathway for pivotal trials and broad market access [15]. This strategy seeks to balance the MHRA's potential for faster decision-making with the commercial imperative of accessing the larger EU market [15].

A significant trend with long-term implications is the exploration of global collaborative pilots, such as the FDA's CoGenT initiative with the EMA [25]. While the UK is not currently a named partner in this specific pilot, its own deepening bilateral collaboration with the US FDA on medical technologies and AI suggests a shared interest in reducing global regulatory barriers [24]. The future may see more such "coalitions of the willing" among regulators, potentially creating new avenues for strategic convergence even in a politically divergent landscape.

The ultimate global impact will be determined by how effectively each system delivers on its promises. If the UK's MHRA can consistently provide faster, more innovative pathways without compromising safety, it will solidify its role as a key global player. Conversely, if the EU can successfully streamline its processes and maintain its large, attractive market, it will retain its central role. For researchers and developers, the current environment necessitates careful strategic planning, leveraging the unique strengths of each system while navigating the increased complexity of a now-fragmented regulatory space for advanced therapies.

Conclusion

The post-Brexit regulatory environment for cell therapy manufacturing is characterized by strategic divergence. The EU offers a stable, harmonized, and large market through its established centralized ATMP framework. In contrast, the UK has positioned itself as a nimble, innovative frontrunner with its world-first regulatory framework for decentralized manufacturing, explicitly designed to overcome the logistical hurdles of personalized, short-shelf-life therapies. For researchers and developers, the choice is no longer binary but strategic. The UK pathway offers speed and flexibility for complex, point-of-care therapies, while the EU provides extensive market access. The most successful global strategies will likely involve navigating both systems in parallel, leveraging the UK's agility for early development and complex products, and the EU's market scale for broader commercialization. Future success hinges on continued regulatory dialogue, international cooperation, and the industry's ability to adapt quality systems to these evolving, distributed models.

References

• 1. Regulation and Procedures Governing Approval of ... [https://reports.argenx.com/2024/argenx-group/regulation/regulation-and-procedures-governing-approval-of-medicinal-products-in-the-eu-and-the-uk.html]
• 2. Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/committees/committee-advanced-therapies-cat]
• 3. UK-wide licensing for human medicines [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-wide-licensing-for-human-medicines/uk-wide-licensing-for-human-medicines]
• 4. New Year, New UK-Wide Licensing Regime | Advisories [https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/perspectives/advisories/2025/01/new-year-new-uk-wide-licensing-regime]
• 5. International Recognition Procedure [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/international-recognition-procedure/international-recognition-procedure]
• 6. Brexit-related guidance for companies [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/about-us/history-ema/brexit-united-kingdoms-withdrawal-european-union/brexit-related-guidance-companies]
• 7. UK Introduces World-First Framework for Point-of-Care ... [https://www.aabb.org/news-resources/news/article/2025/07/23/uk-introduces-world-first-framework-for-point-of-care-advanced-therapies-manufacturing]
• 8. 7 New MHRA Guidances To Help You With Decentralized ... [https://www.cellandgene.com/doc/new-mhra-guidances-to-help-you-with-decentralized-manufacturing-for-cell-and-gene-therapies-0001]
• 9. Regulatory Round-up - September 2025 [https://ct.catapult.org.uk/news/regulatory-round-up-september-2025]
• 10. Decentralised Manufacturing: emerging considerations [https://mhrainspectorate.blog.gov.uk/2025/09/15/decentralised-manufacturing-emerging-considerations/]
• 11. Decentralised manufacture hub [https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/decentralised-manufacture-hub]
• 12. MHRA's Decentralized Manufacturing Regulation Set to ... [https://www.pda.org/pda-letter-portal/home/full-article/mhra-s-decentralized-manufacturing-regulation-set-to-take-effect]
• 13. The future of Point-of-Care (PoC) manufacturing [https://appliedcells.com/future-of-point-of-care/]
• 14. Bedside manufacturing as the next step in personalized ... - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11233777/]
• 15. How Brexit Could Make or Break UKs Clinical Research ... [https://ccrps.org/clinical-research-blog/how-brexit-could-make-or-break-uks-clinical-research-industry-by-2025]
• 16. Decentralized Manufacturing of Advanced Therapy ... [https://konexiobiotech.com/en/decentralized-manufacturing-of-advanced-therapy-medicinal-products/]
• 17. One Size Does Not Fit All: EU, UK, and U.S. Regulatory ... [https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/viewpoints/102jsow/one-size-does-not-fit-alleu-uk-and-u-s-regulatory-developments-in-the-age-of]
• 18. Enabling Decentralized Manufacturing of Autologous ... [https://www.bostonlabs.com/enabling-decentralized-manufacturing-of-autologous-advanced-therapy-products-a-review-of-emerging-technologies]
• 19. Where the US and EU differ and overlap with CGTs/ATMPs [https://www.pharmalex.com/thought-leadership/blogs/qa-for-innovators-navigating-the-complex-regulatory-world-of-atmps-cgts/]
• 20. Guidance on licensing biosimilars, ATMPs and PMFs [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-on-licensing-biosimilars-atmps-and-pmfs]
• 21. The UK's Regulatory Landscape: A year and a half on ... [https://www.scendea.com/articles/blog-post-title-one-25srn-58l3m-hef63-4brtc]
• 22. European Pharma Regulations: 2024 Review and 2025 ... [https://www.propharmagroup.com/thought-leadership/european-pharmaceutical-regulations-2024-review-trends-to-watch/]
• 23. Advanced therapy medicinal products: Overview [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory-overview/advanced-therapy-medicinal-products-overview]
• 24. Regulatory Round-up - October 2025 [https://ct.catapult.org.uk/news/regulatory-round-up-october-2025]
• 25. From the Editors — Cell Therapy Regulation in 2025 [https://www.isctglobal.org/telegrafthub/blogs/isct-head-office1/2025/10/07/from-the-editors-cell-therapy-regulation-in-2025-a]
• 26. Life Sciences Regulatory Outlook 2025: Areas to Watch in ... [https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/viewpoints/102jzc4/life-sciences-regulatory-outlook-2025-areas-to-watch-in-the-u-s-eu-uk-and-as]
• 27. Regulatory Round-up - June 2025 [https://ct.catapult.org.uk/news/regulatory-round-up-june-2025]
• 28. Human medicines Modular Manufacture and Point of Care ... [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/human-medicines-modular-manufacture-and-point-of-care-regulations-2025-overview/human-medicines-modular-manufacture-and-point-of-care-regulations-2025-overview]
• 29. 2025 No. 87 [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2025/87/made]
• 30. Regulatory Round-up - July 2025 - Cell and Gene Therapy [https://ct.catapult.org.uk/news/regulatory-round-up-july-2025]
• 31. Authorisation of medicines | European Medicines Agency (EMA) [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/about-us/what-we-do/authorisation-medicines]
• 32. National assessment procedure for medicines [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-assessment-procedure-for-medicines]
• 33. Authorisation procedures - The centralised procedure [https://health.ec.europa.eu/medicinal-products/legal-framework-governing-medicinal-products-human-use-eu/authorisation-procedures-centralised-procedure_en]
• 34. Obtaining an EU marketing authorisation, step-by-step [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory-overview/marketing-authorisation/obtaining-eu-marketing-authorisation-step-step]
• 35. New variations guidelines to streamline lifecycle management ... [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/new-variations-guidelines-streamline-lifecycle-management-medicines]
• 36. Variations to marketing authorisations (MAs) [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/variations-to-marketing-authorisations-mas]
• 37. 5. EU Regulatory procedures for a marketing authorisation (MA) | EUPATI Open Classroom [https://learning.eupati.eu/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=893]
• 38. Clinical Trials Regulation | European Medicines Agency (EMA) [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory-overview/research-development/clinical-trials-human-medicines/clinical-trials-regulation]
• 39. New regulations for clinical trials – Join our Route B substantial modifications pilot – MHRA Inspectorate [https://mhrainspectorate.blog.gov.uk/2025/09/17/new-regulations-for-clinical-trials-join-our-route-b-substantial-modifications-pilot/]
• 40. MHRA launches Route B notification pilot as part of clinical ... [https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mhra-launches-route-b-notification-pilot-as-part-of-clinical-trials-regulations-rollout]
• 41. Understanding the new EU Clinical Trial Regulation [https://www.europeanpharmaceuticalreview.com/article/168043/understanding-the-new-eu-clinical-trial-regulation-seven-things-sponsors-should-know/]
• 42. New UK clinical trials regulations [https://www.pharmavibes.co.uk/2025/10/04/new-clinical-trials-legislation-laid-in-uk-parliament/]
• 43. New targets for clinical trials in Europe [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/new-targets-clinical-trials-europe]
• 44. The importance of the UK Point of Care manufacturing ... [https://pharmaceuticalmanufacturer.media/pharmaceutical-industry-insights/latest-pharmaceutical-manufacturing-industry-insights/the-importance-of-the-upcoming-uk-point-of-care-manufacturin/]
• 45. MMD to MDR – The new medical devices regulations for ... [https://www.carrotrecruitment.com/blog/mmd-to-mdr-the-new-medical-devices-regulations-for-the-uk-and-europe/]
• 46. Decentralised Manufacturing Master File template [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/decentralised-manufacture-decentralised-manufacturing-master-file-template]
• 47. UK Guideline on Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/decentralised-manufacture-uk-guideline-on-good-manufacturing-practice-gmp]
• 48. Good manufacturing practice - MHRA Inspectorate [https://mhrainspectorate.blog.gov.uk/category/good-manufacturing-practice/]
• 49. UK vs EU GMP: What's the Difference in 2025? For those ... [https://www.linkedin.com/posts/wilsonblaney_uk-vs-eu-gmp-whats-the-difference-in-2025-activity-7333809335078158338-deqz]
• 50. International collaboration on GMP inspections [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory-overview/research-and-development/compliance-research-and-development/good-manufacturing-practice/international-collaboration-gmp-inspections]
• 51. Good manufacturing practice | European Medicines Agency ... [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory-overview/research-development/compliance-research-development/good-manufacturing-practice]
• 52. EudraLex - Volume 4 - Public Health - European Commission [https://health.ec.europa.eu/medicinal-products/eudralex/eudralex-volume-4_en]
• 53. good manufacturing practice and good distribution practice [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/good-manufacturing-practice-and-good-distribution-practice]
• 54. Automating Cell Therapy Manufacturing For Increased ... [https://www.advancingrna.com/doc/automating-cell-therapy-manufacturing-for-increased-gmp-compliance-and-consistency-0001]
• 55. Current challenges and future directions of ATMPs in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12274769/]
• 56. Cell and Gene Therapy Product Comparability Strategies [https://www.bioprocessintl.com/cell-therapies/comparability-for-cell-and-gene-therapy-products-a-challenge-and-an-opportunity]
• 57. Multisite manufacturing may not be ideal for cell therapy ... [https://www.bioxconomy.com/clinical-and-research/multisite-manufacturing-may-not-be-ideal-for-cell-therapy-trials-study-says]
• 58. Barriers to Treg therapy in Europe: From production to regulation [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9892909/]
• 59. Cell Therapy Manufacturing Market 2023-2033 [https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports/cell-therapy-manufacturing-market]
• 60. Cell Therapy Manufacturing Market Size 2025 to 2034 [https://www.precedenceresearch.com/cell-therapy-manufacturing-market]
• 61. Automated manufacturing of cell therapies [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168365925001701]
• 62. UK Guideline of Good Pharmacovigilance Practices [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/decentralised-manufacture-uk-guideline-of-good-pharmacovigilance-practices]
• 63. Evaluation of United Kingdom (UK)—Windsor Framework and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12018520/]
• 64. Good pharmacovigilance practices (GVP) [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory-overview/post-authorisation/pharmacovigilance-post-authorisation/good-pharmacovigilance-practices-gvp]
• 65. Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/committees/pharmacovigilance-risk-assessment-committee-prac]
• 66. Regulation and Procedures Governing Approval of ... [https://reports.argenx.com/2023/argenx-group/regulation/regulation-and-procedures-governing-approval-of-medicinal-products-in-the-eu-and-the-uk.html]
• 67. GMP & GDP Certificates - MHRA Inspectorate - GOV.UK blogs [https://mhrainspectorate.blog.gov.uk/2025/05/16/gmp-gdp-certificates/]
• 68. Timeline of proposed changes to the UK regulatory ... [https://www.pharmavibes.co.uk/2025/10/11/timeline-of-proposed-changes-to-the-uk-regulatory-framework-for-medical-devices/]
• 69. EU Medical Devices Legislation: What You Need To Know ... [https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/perspectives/advisories/2025/03/eu-medical-devices-legislation-what-you-need-to-know]
• 70. UK Clinical Trial Regulation 2025: Key Updates for Sponsors [https://pci.com/resources/uk-clinical-trial-regulation-2025/]
• 71. UK must alter approval regime so thousands more patients ... [https://pharmaawards.ie/news/uk-must-alter-approval-regime-so-thousands-more-patients-benefit-from-future-cell-and-gene-therapies]
• 72. New legislation supports quicker and cheaper ... [https://www.anthonynolan.org/blog/2025/07/28/new-legislation-supports-quicker-and-cheaper-manufacturing-car-t-therapies]
• 73. Europe Cell and Gene Therapy Market to Rise at 23.90% ... [https://www.towardshealthcare.com/insights/europe-cell-and-gene-therapy-market-sizing]
• 74. Annual Review 2025 - Cell and Gene Therapy [https://ct.catapult.org.uk/about/annual-review/annual-review-2025]
• 75. 2025 cell and gene challenges: Investment, technology ... [https://www.cellgenetherapyreview.com/3975-Featured-Articles/617520-2025-cell-and-gene-challenges-Investment-and-technology/]
• 76. European Cell Culture Vessels Market Outlook 2025-2035 [https://www.openpr.com/news/4282409/european-cell-culture-vessels-market-outlook-2025-2035-key]
• 77. Budget blues: where are cell and gene therapies heading? [https://www.labiotech.eu/trends-news/european-cell-gene-therapy-summit-2025-funding-challenges/]
• 78. Cutting-edge personalised treatments, made while you ... [https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cutting-edge-personalised-treatments-made-while-you-wait-will-deliver-specialised-care-to-patients-more-quickly]
• 79. UK Launches World-First Framework for Decentralised ... [https://biotalk.twobirds.com/post/102lr2b/uk-launches-world-first-framework-for-decentralised-medicine-manufacturing]
• 80. MHRA Issues New Regulation On Modular And Point Of ... [https://www.cellandgene.com/doc/mhra-issues-new-regulation-on-modular-and-point-of-care-manufacture-of-atmps-0001]
• 81. Has the UK lost its position as a destination for world-leading ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11683988/]
• 82. Reassessing the UK's regulatory landscape post-Brexit [https://www.iconplc.com/insights/blog/2025/02/27/reassessing-uks-regulatory-landscape-post-brexit]