Navigating the EU Cell Therapy Manufacturing License Application: A Strategic Guide for Developers

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive guide for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals on the end-to-end process of securing a manufacturing and marketing license for cell therapies in the European Union. It covers the foundational regulatory landscape, detailing the roles of the EMA and national competent authorities. The guide then outlines the step-by-step application methodology, from pre-submission activities to the European Commission decision. It further addresses common challenges in manufacturing, quality control, and compliance, offering troubleshooting and optimization strategies. Finally, it explores validation requirements and provides a comparative analysis of EU and US regulatory expectations to support global development programs.

Understanding the EU Regulatory Landscape for Cell Therapy Manufacturing

Defining Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs) and Their Legal Framework

Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs) represent a groundbreaking category of medicines for human use that are based on genes, tissues, or cells [1]. These innovative therapies offer revolutionary approaches to treating diseases and injuries by harnessing sophisticated biological mechanisms, often targeting conditions with significant unmet medical needs. Within the European Union, ATMPs are subject to a specialized regulatory framework designed to ensure their safety, quality, and efficacy while fostering innovation in this rapidly evolving field [2] [3]. The regulatory framework for ATMPs was established to address their unique characteristics and complexities, which differentiate them from conventional pharmaceuticals. These therapies often involve living cells or genetic materials that may be substantially manipulated or engineered to achieve therapeutic effects. The legal definitions and classification criteria for ATMPs are precisely outlined in EU legislation, providing clarity for developers, regulators, and healthcare providers navigating this innovative therapeutic landscape [2] [3].

ATMP Classification and Definitions

The European regulatory framework establishes four distinct categories of ATMPs, each with specific characteristics and intended applications. The classification is based on the nature of the active components and their mechanisms of action, as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 and Directive 2001/83/EC [2] [3].

Table: Classification of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs)

ATMP Category	Definition	Key Characteristics	Examples
Gene Therapy Medicines [2]	Medicinal products containing genes that lead to therapeutic, prophylactic, or diagnostic effects [2].	Work by inserting recombinant DNA created in the laboratory; used to treat genetic disorders, cancer, or long-term diseases [2].	Products with functional genes to correct genetic defects; genetically modified viruses for cancer treatment.
Somatic Cell Therapy Medicines [2]	Medicinal products containing cells or tissues that have been manipulated to change their biological characteristics [2].	Cells are substantially manipulated or used for different essential functions; used to cure, diagnose, or prevent diseases [2].	Engineered immune cells for cancer immunotherapy; manipulated stem cells for tissue repair.
Tissue-Engineered Medicines [2]	Medicinal products containing cells or tissues that have been modified to repair, regenerate, or replace human tissue [2].	Focus on structural reconstruction rather than primarily pharmacological or metabolic actions; often involve scaffolds or matrices [2].	Cartilage or bone regeneration products; skin grafts for burn victims.
Combined ATMPs [2]	ATMPs that contain one or more medical devices as an integral part of the medicine [2].	Combination of cells or tissues with scaffolds, matrices, or delivery devices that are essential to their function [2].	Cells embedded in biodegradable matrices or scaffolds for structural support [2].

The classification of a product as an ATMP has significant regulatory implications, as it determines the applicable approval pathways and requirements. The Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) plays a central role in providing scientific recommendations on ATMP classification, ensuring consistent application of the defined criteria across the European Union [2] [3].

Special Considerations for Stem Cell-Based Products

Stem cells are naturally occurring cells with the ability to divide and produce different cell types, important in body growth, development, and repair [2]. They are categorized as ATMPs when they undergo substantial manipulation or are used for a different essential function in the body [2]. These products can be classified as either somatic-cell therapy products or tissue-engineered products, depending on their intended function and mechanism of action [2]. The development of stem cell-based medicines requires particular attention to manufacturing consistency and comprehensive risk assessment, including evaluation of potential tumor development and immune rejection [2].

Comprehensive EU Legal Framework for ATMPs

The regulatory framework for ATMPs in the European Union is established through a comprehensive set of regulations and directives that address the unique characteristics of these innovative therapies. The cornerstone legislation is Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007, which provides the overall framework specifically for ATMPs and established the Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) as a multidisciplinary committee within the European Medicines Agency (EMA) [3]. This regulation amended existing pharmaceutical legislation, including Directive 2001/83/EC relating to medicinal products for human use and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 on authorization and supervision procedures [3].

Table: Core EU Legislative Framework for ATMPs

Legislative Instrument	Purpose and Scope	Key Provisions
Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 [3]	Provides the overall framework for ATMPs in the EU [3].	Established definitions for tissue-engineered products and combined ATMPs; created the Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) [3].
Directive 2001/83/EC [3]	Community code relating to medicinal products for human use [3].	Provides definitions for gene therapy and somatic cell therapy medicinal products in Part IV of Annex I [3].
Commission Directive 2009/120/EC [3]	Technical requirements for specific ATMP categories [3].	Updated definitions and requirements for gene therapy and somatic cell therapy medicinal products; established requirements for tissue-engineered products and combined ATMPs [3].
Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 [3]	Centralized authorization procedures for medicines [3].	Established procedures for authorization and supervision of medicines; all ATMPs must be authorized centrally through EMA [3].

Additional Relevant Legislation

Beyond the core ATMP-specific legislation, several other regulatory frameworks apply to these advanced therapies, creating a comprehensive oversight system:

• Clinical Trials Framework: Companies developing ATMPs must ensure application of good clinical practice (GCP) standards in clinical trials, following Directive 2001/20/EC and the newer Regulation EU No 536/2014, which repeals the directive [3]. The latter applies fully once effective.
• Good Manufacturing Practice: ATMP manufacturing must comply with GMP principles outlined in Commission Directive 2003/94/EC, with specific guidelines for ATMPs published by the European Commission [3] [4].
• Paediatric Requirements: The Paediatric Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006) applies to ATMPs, requiring paediatric investigation plans unless exempted by deferral or waiver [3].
• Pharmacovigilance: A reinforced pharmacovigilance framework adopted in 2010 and 2012 applies to all medicines, including ATMPs, through Regulation (EU) No 1235/2010 and Directive 2010/84/EU [3].
• Tissues and Cells Regulation: When tissues and cells serve as starting materials, Directive 2004/23/EC and its implementing directives establish standards for donation, procurement, testing, processing, storage, and distribution [3].

For ATMPs containing genetically modified organisms, companies must follow Directive 2001/18/EC on deliberate release into the environment [3]. Additionally, ATMPs targeting rare diseases may qualify for orphan designation under Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, providing development incentives and market exclusivity [3].

Regulatory Procedures and Committee Oversight

Centralized Marketing Authorization

All ATMPs must be authorized through the centralized procedure via the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which provides a single evaluation and authorization valid across the European Union [2]. This approach ensures consistent scientific assessment by experts with specific knowledge of these complex therapies. The EMA continues to monitor the safety and efficacy of authorized ATMPs through robust pharmacovigilance systems after they reach the market [2].

Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT)

The Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) plays a fundamental role in the regulatory oversight of ATMPs [2] [3]. This multidisciplinary committee combines expertise in gene therapy, cell therapy, tissue engineering, medical devices, and other relevant fields. The CAT's primary responsibilities include [2]:

• Conducting the scientific assessment of ATMP applications and preparing draft opinions on quality, safety, and efficacy
• Providing recommendations on the classification of borderline products as ATMPs
• Evaluating applications for certification of quality and non-clinical data for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)
• Contributing scientific advice on ATMP development programs
• Advising on efficacy follow-up, pharmacovigilance, and risk management systems
• Supporting regulatory guideline development and scientific advancements in the field

Based on the CAT's opinion, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) adopts an opinion recommending whether the European Commission should grant marketing authorization [2]. The European Commission then makes the final legally binding decision [2].

Certification for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises

To support innovation from smaller developers, the regulatory framework includes a specific certification procedure for micro-, small-, and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) [3]. Established under Article 18 of the ATMP Regulation and detailed in Commission Regulation (EC) No 668/2009, this voluntary procedure allows SMEs to obtain EMA certification of their quality and non-clinical data prior to submitting a marketing authorization application [3]. This certification provides developers with regulatory feedback and strengthens their position when seeking funding for further clinical development.

ATMP Manufacturing Requirements and Controls

Manufacturing Authorization and GMP Compliance

The manufacture of ATMPs within the European Union requires a manufacturing authorization issued by the national competent authority of the Member State where the manufacturing activities occur [4]. This authorization mandates compliance with Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) principles and guidelines, as well as the standards of the European Pharmacopeia [4]. GMP is defined as "the part of quality assurance which ensures that medicinal products are consistently produced, imported and controlled in accordance with the quality standards appropriate to their intended use" [4].

For ATMPs specifically, the European Commission has published detailed GMP guidelines that address their unique characteristics and manufacturing challenges [4]. These guidelines consider the complexity of ATMP manufacturing processes, particularly those involving substances of human origin such as blood, tissues, and cells, and the challenges of ensuring reproducibility when working with live biological samples [4].

Table: Key Challenges in ATMP Manufacturing

Manufacturing Challenge	Impact on ATMP Production	Regulatory Consideration
Complex Logistics [4]	Collection of patient cells, transportation to manufacturing facility, and supply of finished ATMP to patient [4].	Requires validated cold chain and tracking systems; particular challenge for autologous therapies [4].
Maintenance of Sterility [4]	Biological materials vulnerable to contamination throughout manufacturing process [4].	Strict environmental monitoring and aseptic processing requirements; alignment with revised Annex 1 on sterile manufacturing [5].
Product Variability [4]	Biological materials and complex manipulation steps lead to variability, especially in autologous products [4].	Extensive characterization and process validation; demonstration of comparability between batches [4].
Process Validation [4]	Autologous nature and small batch sizes limit number of analytical tests for consistency [4].	Phase-appropriate validation approach; emphasis on in-process controls and real-time release testing [4].
High Development Costs [4]	Specialized facilities, equipment, and skilled personnel required with long-term return on investment [4].	Regulatory incentives for SMEs; fee reductions; certification procedure [3] [4].

Qualified Person and Batch Certification

A critical requirement under the manufacturing authorization is the designation of a Qualified Person (QP), who is responsible for ensuring that each batch of ATMP has been manufactured and checked in compliance with applicable laws, marketing authorization requirements, and GMP standards [4] [6]. The QP performs batch certification before the product can be released for use, providing an essential quality control checkpoint [6].

Recent and Proposed Regulatory Updates

The regulatory framework for ATMP manufacturing continues to evolve to address technological advancements and emerging challenges:

• GMP Guideline Revisions: In May 2025, EMA released a concept paper proposing revisions to Part IV of the EU GMP guidelines specific to ATMPs [5]. The proposed updates aim to align ATMP requirements with the revised Annex 1 on sterile medicinal products, incorporate ICH Q9 (Quality Risk Management) and ICH Q10 (Pharmaceutical Quality System) principles, and address new technologies including automated systems and closed single-use systems [5].
• Clinical Stage ATMP Guideline: Effective July 2025, EMA's new guideline on quality, non-clinical, and clinical requirements for investigational ATMPs in clinical trials provides consolidated recommendations for clinical trial applications [7]. This multidisciplinary document references over 40 separate guidelines and reflection papers, with approximately 70% of its content focused on Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls (CMC) documentation [7].
• Decentralized Manufacturing: The 2023 Proposal for a Directive reforming the Union code relating to medicinal products for human use contains provisions for decentralised manufacturing sites potentially near the patient, which could help address logistical challenges for ATMPs with limited shelf-life [4].

Regulatory Support and Future Developments

Incentives and Support for ATMP Developers

Recognizing the unique challenges in ATMP development, particularly for academic institutions and small companies, the EU regulatory system provides several support mechanisms:

• EMA ATMP Pilot Program: Launched in September 2022, this pilot provides dedicated regulatory support for academic and non-profit organizations developing promising ATMPs targeting unmet medical needs [2]. The program offers guidance throughout the regulatory process and fee reductions to boost the number of ATMPs reaching patients [2].
• Scientific Advice and Protocol Assistance: EMA offers scientific advice and protocol assistance to manufacturers, helping them navigate the complex regulatory landscape and optimize ATMP development strategies [2] [4].
• Training Materials: EMA provides online training modules covering ATMP classification, environmental risk assessment, scientific advice, certification procedures, and quality considerations in clinical development [2].

Addressing Unregulated ATMPs

A significant concern in the ATMP field is the proliferation of unregulated therapies, often marketed directly to patients through websites or social media channels [2]. These products may pose serious risks to patients while having unproven benefits [2]. In March 2025, EMA's Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) and the Heads of Medicines Agencies (HMA) released a joint statement highlighting the risks of unregulated advanced therapies, particularly focusing on providers offering unregulated dendritic cell therapies for cancer treatment in the EU [2].

Warning signs of unregulated ATMPs include [2]:

• Marketing of products as experimental but used outside authorized clinical trials
• Inability of providers to confirm approval by EMA or national authorities
• Claims of benefits that exceed those of approved treatments without supporting medical literature

Patients and caregivers are advised to contact their national competent authority to verify product approval and exercise caution with treatments promoted online or through social media [2].

Future Regulatory Evolution

The ATMP regulatory framework continues to evolve in response to scientific advancements and accumulated experience. Key areas of ongoing development include:

• Regulatory Convergence: Efforts to align regulatory requirements internationally, particularly between EMA and the U.S. FDA, aim to facilitate global development of ATMPs while addressing remaining differences in areas such as allogeneic donor eligibility determination and GMP compliance expectations [7].
• Novel Technologies: The regulatory framework is adapting to accommodate emerging technologies such as gene editing products, with the EMA guideline scheduled for updates as additional experience is gained with these innovative approaches [7].
• Market Expansion: The Europe cell sheet-based gene therapy market exemplifies the growth potential for ATMPs, projected to reach $926 million by 2035 from $219.6 million in 2024, driven by favorable regulatory pathways and increasing focus on rare and degenerative diseases [8].

Table: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for ATMP Development

Research Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function in ATMP Development
Gene Delivery Systems [8]	Viral vectors (lentivirus, adenovirus); Non-viral vectors (liposomes, nanoparticles) [8].	Enable introduction of therapeutic genes into target cells; critical for gene therapy medicines and genetically modified cell products [8].
Cell Culture Technologies [8]	Temperature-responsive culture surfaces; Scaffold-free techniques; Layer-by-layer assembly [8].	Support growth and manipulation of cells while maintaining their functional characteristics; essential for cell expansion and tissue engineering [8].
Gene Editing Tools [8]	CRISPR/Cas9 systems; TALEN technology [8].	Facilitate precise genetic modifications; increasingly important for next-generation ATMPs with enhanced functionality [8].
Cell Sheet Engineering [8]	Monolayer, co-culture, and multilayered cell sheets; Light-induced cell sheet technology [8].	Enable creation of complex tissue structures without scaffolds; particularly relevant for tissue-engineered products [8].
Characterization Reagents [2]	Potency assays; Identity and purity testing methods [2].	Critical for demonstrating product quality, consistency, and biological activity; required for regulatory submissions [2].

The dynamic regulatory landscape for ATMPs reflects the ongoing balance between ensuring patient safety and promoting innovation in this rapidly advancing field. The continued evolution of the regulatory framework will be essential to address emerging scientific opportunities while maintaining rigorous standards for product quality, safety, and efficacy.

The European Union has established a sophisticated and centralized regulatory framework specifically for Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs), which include gene therapies, somatic-cell therapies, and tissue-engineered products. This framework is designed to ensure the highest standards of safety, efficacy, and quality while facilitating patient access to these transformative treatments. The regulatory architecture revolves around three core bodies: the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which provides centralized authorization for all ATMPs across the EU; the Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT), a dedicated multidisciplinary expert committee within EMA that provides specialized scientific evaluation of ATMPs; and the National Competent Authorities (NCAs) of individual EU member states, which oversee national-level activities including clinical trial approvals, regulatory inspections, and market surveillance. This tripartite system functions collaboratively to navigate the unique challenges presented by ATMPs, from their complex manufacturing processes to their often novel mechanisms of action. The foundation of this system is Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007, which created the centralized authorization procedure and established the CAT, recognizing that ATMPs require specialized regulatory oversight distinct from conventional pharmaceuticals. For developers of cell therapies, understanding the distinct yet interconnected roles of these three bodies is essential for successfully navigating the marketing authorization application process [2] [9].

The European Medicines Agency (EMA)

Central Role and Key Responsibilities

The European Medicines Agency serves as the cornerstone of the EU's regulatory system for ATMPs, providing a centralized marketing authorization procedure that results in a single evaluation and authorization valid across all EU member states. This centralized approach is mandatory for ATMPs, ensuring consistent standards and eliminating the need for separate national applications. The EMA's responsibilities extend throughout the product lifecycle, beginning with scientific support and guidance during research and development phases, through the rigorous assessment of marketing authorization applications, and into the post-authorization phase where the agency monitors product safety through pharmacovigilance activities. The EMA provides multiple support mechanisms for ATMP developers, including the PRIME (PRIority MEdicines) scheme which offers enhanced support for medicines targeting unmet medical needs, and specific assistance programs for academia, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and non-profit organizations. These programs include fee reductions, regulatory guidance, and dedicated assistance navigating the regulatory process from manufacturing best practices to clinical development planning. The EMA also coordinates with international regulators to align regulatory standards and has developed specific guidelines for Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP) tailored to the unique characteristics of ATMPs [2] [9] [10].

Operational Mechanisms for ATMP Evaluation

The EMA's evaluation of ATMP marketing authorization applications operates through a structured, multidisciplinary process. Upon submission of an application, the agency initiates a comprehensive assessment coordinated through its Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP), which holds ultimate responsibility for recommending whether a medicine should be authorized. For ATMPs specifically, the CHMP relies heavily on the specialized expertise of the Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT), which prepares a detailed draft opinion on the product's quality, safety, and efficacy. This collaborative evaluation follows a strict timetable with defined milestones, including an initial assessment, clock stops for applicants to respond to questions, and a final opinion from the CHMP to the European Commission, which grants the formal marketing authorization. The entire process typically spans several months, with data indicating median approval times of 441 days for ATMPs. Products benefiting from accelerated pathways such as PRIME designation show significantly reduced timelines (median 376 days), demonstrating the efficiency gains from early regulatory engagement [2] [10].

Table: EMA Marketing Authorization Timelines for ATMPs (2008-2024)

Product Characteristic	Category	Median Time to Approval (Days)	Interquartile Range (IQR)
Overall ATMPs	All Types	441	370-645
ATMP Type	Gene Therapy	385	349-458
	Cell Therapy	660	539-766
	Tissue Engineered	1,174	933-1,415
Regulatory Designation	PRIME	376	324-426
	Non-PRIME	669	459-848
	Orphan	405	352-509
	Non-Orphan	644	515-773
Authorization Type	Standard	462	371-645
	Conditional	405	352-509
	Exceptional Circumstances	644	515-773

Source: Adapted from Frontiers in Medicine (2025) analysis of 27 EMA-approved ATMPs [10]

Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT)

Composition, Role, and Expertise

The Committee for Advanced Therapies is a specialized committee within the EMA composed of Europe's leading experts in advanced therapy fields, including gene therapy, cell therapy, tissue engineering, and molecular biology. Established under Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007, the CAT represents a unique regulatory innovation—a dedicated multidisciplinary body specifically designed to address the scientific and technical complexities of ATMPs. The committee's primary mandate is to provide the specialized scientific expertise necessary to evaluate advanced therapy medicines, balancing the need for rigorous assessment with the encouragement of innovation in this rapidly evolving field. The CAT's membership includes representatives from each EU member state, plus five additional members appointed for their specific scientific expertise, ensuring comprehensive coverage of the diverse technical domains relevant to ATMP development and evaluation. This composition allows the CAT to address the full spectrum of challenges presented by ATMPs, from characterization of complex biological products and validation of novel manufacturing processes to interpretation of innovative clinical trial designs often necessary for these transformative therapies [2] [11].

Core Functions and Regulatory Activities

The CAT performs several critical functions within the EU regulatory framework. Its principal responsibility is the scientific assessment of ATMP marketing authorization applications, for which it prepares a detailed draft opinion on quality, safety, and efficacy that forms the basis for the CHMP's final opinion. Beyond product evaluation, the CAT provides classification recommendations for borderline products, determining whether a product qualifies as an ATMP and which category it belongs to—a crucial determination that dictates the applicable regulatory pathway. The committee also oversees the certification procedure for SMEs, which provides evaluation of quality and non-clinical data for small developers, offering valuable regulatory feedback before initiation of costly clinical trials. Additionally, the CAT contributes to scientific advice procedures in cooperation with the Scientific Advice Working Party, helping developers design robust development programs aligned with regulatory expectations. The committee also plays an important role in developing scientific guidelines specific to ATMPs, creating the regulatory science framework needed to evaluate these innovative products. Through workshops, stakeholder consultations, and publication of meeting reports, the CAT maintains transparency and dialogue with the developer community, helping to build regulatory capability and address emerging scientific challenges [2] [11].

CAT Workflow and Functions: This diagram illustrates the Committee for Advanced Therapies' central role in the ATMP marketing authorization process and its additional regulatory functions [2] [11].

National Competent Authorities (NCAs)

National Roles and Responsibilities

National Competent Authorities are the regulatory bodies of individual EU member states that implement and enforce pharmaceutical regulations at the national level, working in conjunction with the centralized EMA system. While the EMA manages the centralized authorization procedure for ATMPs, NCAs retain critical responsibilities throughout the product lifecycle. Clinical trial authorization falls under the purview of NCAs, with developers required to submit applications to each national authority where a trial will be conducted. NCAs also conduct Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP) inspections of manufacturing sites and clinical trial centers within their territories to ensure compliance with EU standards. Additionally, NCAs are responsible for post-authorization safety monitoring and pharmacovigilance activities within their jurisdictions, including collection and assessment of adverse event reports. Another crucial role for NCAs is addressing the risks of unregulated advanced therapies, as they investigate and take action against providers offering non-compliant ATMPs, which often target vulnerable patients through online channels. NCAs work collaboratively through the Heads of Medicines Agencies (HMA) network to ensure consistent implementation of regulatory standards across the EU while respecting national healthcare system specificities [2].

Specific National Implementation Examples

The implementation of ATMP regulations by NCAs reflects both harmonized EU standards and national specificities. For clinical trials with genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which include many gene therapies, multiple EU countries have developed harmonized approaches to streamline authorization processes. For example, a group of NCAs including those from Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, and others have endorsed common application forms and assessment approaches for clinical trials involving adeno-associated virus (AAV) vectors and genetically modified human cells. This harmonization reduces the administrative burden on developers conducting multinational trials while maintaining rigorous oversight. Similarly, for decentralized manufacturing approaches where ATMPs are manufactured at or near the point of care, NCAs like the UK's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) have developed specific guidance frameworks. The MHRA's 2025 guidance on point-of-care and modular manufacturing establishes designation processes, Good Manufacturing Practice requirements, and pharmacovigilance expectations tailored to these innovative production models. These national implementations demonstrate how NCAs adapt the overarching EU framework to address emerging technological challenges while maintaining consistent patient protection standards across member states [9] [12].

Regulatory Pathways and Support Mechanisms

Marketing Authorization Pathways

ATMP developers can access several regulatory pathways for marketing authorization, each designed to address different development contexts and evidence generation challenges. The standard marketing authorization pathway requires comprehensive evidence of quality, safety, and efficacy from full-scale clinical development programs. For ATMPs addressing unmet medical needs where complete data may not yet be available, the conditional marketing authorization pathway allows approval based on less comprehensive clinical data when the benefit of immediate availability outweighs the risk of less complete evidence, with obligations to complete ongoing studies. In specific circumstances where comprehensive data cannot be generated for scientific or ethical reasons, approval under exceptional circumstances may be granted based on more limited evidence. Additionally, the accelerated assessment procedure can reduce the standard review timeline from 210 to 150 days for products deemed of major public health interest. Data shows that conditional approvals represent 41% of ATMP authorizations, reflecting both the innovative nature of these products and regulators' flexibility in facilitating patient access to promising therapies where full datasets may evolve over time [10].

ATMP-Specific Support Initiatives

The EU regulatory system offers multiple support initiatives specifically designed to address the unique challenges of ATMP development. The PRIME (PRIority MEdicines) scheme provides enhanced support for medicines targeting unmet medical needs, including early dialogue, dedicated EMA coordinators, and accelerated assessment eligibility. Research demonstrates that PRIME-designated ATMPs experience significantly faster approval times (median 376 days versus 669 days for non-PRIME products), highlighting the program's effectiveness in streamlining development. The ATMP certification procedure for SMEs offers evaluation of quality and non-clinical data for small developers, providing valuable regulatory feedback before substantial clinical trial investments. For academia and non-profit organizations, the EMA launched a dedicated pilot in 2022 providing increased regulatory support, including guidance throughout the regulatory process and fee reductions. Additionally, the Action Plan on ATMPs, a joint initiative of the European Commission and EMA, aims to streamline procedures and better address specific ATMP developer requirements through updated guidelines, procedural advice, and enhanced stakeholder dialogue. These support mechanisms collectively address the distinctive challenges faced by ATMP developers, particularly those from resource-constrained organizations like academia and small biotech companies [2] [10].

Current Regulatory Developments and Future Outlook

Evolving Regulatory Framework

The EU regulatory framework for ATMPs continues to evolve in response to scientific advancements and accumulated regulatory experience. Significant changes are anticipated under the proposed revision of EU pharmaceutical legislation, which includes redefinition of gene therapy medicinal products to encompass genome editing techniques and synthetic nucleic acids. This legislative update also addresses market exclusivity provisions, with orphan ATMPs potentially receiving 10-12 years of market protection. Another major development is the implementation of the EU Substances of Human Origin (SoHO) legislation, revised in 2024 to consolidate regulation of blood, tissues, and cells under a single framework that extends to donor registration, collection, testing, storage, and distribution activities. All parties handling SoHO activities must comply with the new regulation by August 2027, requiring significant adaptation by ATMP developers. Additionally, regulatory agencies are increasingly addressing decentralized manufacturing models that move production closer to patients, with the MHRA publishing comprehensive guidance in 2025 establishing frameworks for point-of-care and modular manufacturing. These developments collectively signal continued regulatory innovation to keep pace with scientific progress while maintaining rigorous patient protection standards [13] [12].

Emerging Challenges and Specialized Considerations

Several emerging challenges require specialized regulatory attention in the ATMP field. The regulatory classification of novel products remains complex, particularly for emerging modalities like phage therapies (classified as biological medicinal products) and genetically modified cells, with ongoing clarification through updated guidelines and CAT classification procedures. Manufacturing and control strategies present distinctive challenges, with differences persisting between EU and US requirements for starting materials, potency testing, and replication competent virus testing. For instance, the EMA considers viral vectors used to modify cell therapies as starting materials requiring GMP compliance, while the FDA classifies them as drug substances. Analytical method validation approaches are also evolving, with regulators demonstrating increased acceptance of orthogonal methods and new approach methodologies (NAMs) where scientifically justified, though phase-appropriate validation expectations remain. The preservation of specialized regulatory knowledge represents another consideration, with concerns raised that proposed integration of CAT functions into other EMA committees might impact access to specialized ATMP expertise. These challenges highlight the ongoing need for specialized regulatory approaches tailored to the distinctive characteristics of advanced therapies [14] [13] [15].

Table: Key Regulatory Resources for ATMP Developers

Resource Type	Specific Resource	Purpose and Application	Source
Classification	ATMP Classification Procedure	Formal determination of whether a product qualifies as an ATMP and its specific category	EMA/CAT [2]
Scientific Support	PRIME Scheme	Enhanced support for medicines addressing unmet medical needs, including early dialogue	EMA [10]
Scientific Support	ATMP Pilot for Academia	Dedicated assistance for non-profit developers, including fee reductions	EMA [2]
Quality	GMP Guidelines for ATMPs	Specific good manufacturing practice requirements tailored to ATMP characteristics	European Commission [9]
Clinical	GCP Guidelines for ATMPs	Good clinical practice standards adapted for ATMP clinical trials	European Commission [9]
Environmental Risk	GMO Requirements	Assessment of genetically modified organism aspects for gene therapy trials	National Competent Authorities [9]

Practical Regulatory Strategies for Developers

Navigating Classification and Early Development

For researchers and developers navigating the EU cell therapy licensing process, strategic regulatory planning from the earliest development stages is critical. Early classification through the CAT classification procedure provides formal determination of a product's regulatory status, clarifying applicable requirements and preventing costly development path corrections. Developers should prepare a comprehensive justification for their classification request, including detailed product description, manufacturing process, mechanism of action, and intended use, referencing similar previously classified products where possible. Early regulatory dialogue through scientific advice procedures, potentially enhanced through PRIME designation or specific support programs for SMEs and academia, allows developers to align their development plans with regulatory expectations before substantial resource investments. For complex manufacturing scenarios involving decentralized production or point-of-care manufacturing, early engagement with National Competent Authorities is particularly important, as evidenced by the MHRA's designation process requiring preliminary evaluation of proposed approaches. These early strategic interactions help developers build regulatory quality into their products and processes from the outset, potentially avoiding significant delays and modifications during later development stages [2] [13] [12].

Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls (CMC) Strategy

Robust CMC strategies are particularly critical for ATMPs given their complex biological nature and manufacturing processes. Developers should implement phase-appropriate approaches to CMC development, with initial clinical trials focusing on patient safety and sterility assurance, while progressively refining processes and tightening specifications through later development phases toward commercial standards. Comparability protocols require careful planning, as changes in manufacturing processes are common during ATMP development; developers should employ orthogonal analytical methods and risk-based approaches to demonstrate comparability, referencing emerging EU and FDA guidelines on this topic. Special attention should be paid to starting material controls, with EMA requiring GMP-grade manufacturing of investigational products for first-in-human studies, including vectors and gene editing components used to manufacture genetically modified cells. For ATMPs incorporating medical devices as integral components (combined ATMPs), device compatibility must be demonstrated, addressing potential interactions and biological responses. Additionally, supply chain coordination requires meticulous planning, particularly for autologous products with limited shelf lives and complex logistics involving collection, manufacturing, and administration steps. These CMC considerations often represent significant regulatory challenges and should be integrated into development plans from the earliest stages [13] [12] [16].

Table: Key Analytical and Documentation Tools for ATMP Development

Tool Category	Specific Tool/Reagent	Regulatory Function and Application
Classification Tools	ATMP Classification Request Form	Formal procedure to determine regulatory status and pathway for borderline products
Quality Assessment	Orthogonal Analytical Methods	Multiple methods using different scientific principles to measure critical quality attributes
Safety Testing	Replication Competent Virus (RCV) Assays	Essential safety testing for viral vector-based products to detect replication-competent viruses
Potency Assessment	Functional Potency Assays	Biologically relevant assays demonstrating biological activity; critical for lot release
Donor Screening	SoHO-compliant Testing Reagents	Tests meeting Substances of Human Origin requirements for donor material safety
Process Validation	Platform Process Data	Historical data supporting validation of manufacturing processes using similar steps
Stability Assessment	Real-time Stability Protocols	Testing under recommended storage conditions to establish shelf life
Comparability	Risk-based Comparability Protocols	Structured approaches to demonstrate comparability after manufacturing changes

The Centralised Procedure is a cornerstone of the European Union's pharmaceutical regulatory framework, enabling a single marketing authorization application that grants market access for a medicinal product throughout the EU and European Economic Area (EEA) [17]. Established under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, this procedure allows the marketing-authorisation holder to market the medicine and make it available to patients and healthcare professionals across all EU member states based on a single authorization granted by the European Commission [17]. For developers of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs), including cell therapies, gene therapies, and tissue-engineered products, the Centralised Procedure is not merely an option but the mandatory pathway to market, ensuring consistent scientific evaluation and regulatory oversight across the Union [17] [18].

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) serves as the central scientific assessment body, coordinating the evaluation through its relevant scientific committees before the European Commission issues the legally binding marketing authorization decision [19]. This process is particularly significant for ATMPs, which represent cutting-edge therapeutic innovations with complex manufacturing and regulatory challenges. The procedure provides a streamlined approach to regulatory review while maintaining rigorous standards for quality, safety, and efficacy, balancing innovation with patient safety in this rapidly evolving field [20].

Scope and Legal Framework

Mandatory Scope

The Centralised Procedure is compulsory for several categories of innovative medicinal products [17]:

• Products derived from biotechnology processes, including recombinant DNA technology
• Orphan medicinal products designated for the treatment of rare diseases
• Medicinal products for human use containing an active substance authorized in the EU after 20 May 2004 and intended for the treatment of AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, or diabetes
• Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs), including gene therapy medicines, somatic cell therapy medicines, and tissue-engineered medicines

Optional Scope and Eligibility

For products outside the mandatory categories, the Centralised Procedure may still be available if they fulfill certain criteria [17]:

• Contain a new active substance not authorized in the EU prior to 20 May 2004
• Constitute a significant therapeutic, scientific, or technical innovation
• Their authorization at the EU level would be in the interest of patient or animal health

For products with uncertain eligibility, companies can submit a request for eligibility determination to the EMA 18-7 months before the planned application submission [19].

Governing Legislation

The procedure operates under a robust legal framework primarily consisting of [18]:

• Regulation (EC) No 726/2004: Establishing the Community procedures for authorization and supervision of medicinal products
• Directive 2001/83/EC: The Community code relating to medicinal products for human use
• Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007: Specific legislation on advanced therapy medicinal products
• Commission Directive 2009/120/EC: Addressing advanced therapy medicinal products specifically

The Centralised Procedure: Step-by-Step Process

Pre-Submission Phase (Months 18-2 Before Submission)

Table: Pre-Submission Timeline Requirements

Timeline	Activity	Description	Reference
18-7 months before submission	Eligibility request	Mandatory for products of uncertain eligibility; uses specific form with justification	[19]
7 months before submission	Notification of intention to submit	Pre-submission request form via EMA service desk	[19]
6-7 months before submission	Pre-submission meetings	Recommended for procedural and regulatory advice	[19]
2-3 months before submission	Re-confirmation of submission date	Notification of any changes to intended submission date	[19]

The pre-submission phase involves critical preparatory steps. Companies must first determine if their product qualifies for the Centralised Procedure, submitting an eligibility request with justification if required [19]. Formal notification of the intent to submit an application must be provided to EMA approximately seven months before the anticipated submission date, using the designated pre-submission request form through the EMA service desk [19].

Pre-submission meetings with EMA are strongly recommended as they provide invaluable opportunities to obtain procedural and regulatory advice, potentially speeding up the subsequent validation process [19]. During this phase, the EMA's Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) appoints rapporteurs who will lead the scientific assessment of the application. For ATMPs, additional rapporteurs are appointed from the Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT), reflecting the specialized nature of these products [19].

Application Submission and Validation

Applications must be submitted in the electronic Common Technical Document (eCTD) format through the eSubmission gateway or web client [19] [18]. The Marketing Authorisation Application (MAA) file is a comprehensive dossier containing extensive documentation and data related to the medicinal product, organized into five modules [18]:

• Module 1: Regional administrative information
• Module 2: CTD summaries (quality, non-clinical, clinical overviews)
• Module 3: Chemical, pharmaceutical, and biological documentation (quality data)
• Module 4: Non-clinical study reports (safety/toxicological data)
• Module 5: Clinical study reports (efficacy data)

Following submission, EMA performs a technical validation to ensure all essential regulatory elements required for scientific assessment are included. If additional information is needed to complete validation, the applicant must supply it by the specified deadline [19].

Scientific Assessment Phase (Up to 210 Days)

Table: Assessment Timeline and Committees

Assessment Element	Timeline	Responsible Committee(s)	Key Responsibilities
Scientific evaluation	Up to 210 days	CHMP (lead), CAT (for ATMPs), PRAC (risk management)	Assessment of quality, safety, efficacy; clock stops possible for responses	[17] [19]
CHMP opinion	Within 15 days of adoption	CHMP	Preparation of final opinion sent to European Commission	[17]
Commission decision	67 days	European Commission	Legally binding marketing authorization decision	[17] [19]

The CHMP, with input from other relevant committees, conducts the scientific assessment of the application. For ATMPs, the Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) plays a crucial role, preparing a draft opinion on the quality, safety, and efficacy for final approval by the CHMP [20] [18]. The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) provides input on the risk-management plan [19].

The standard assessment period is 210 days, but this may be extended if additional questions arise that require responses from the applicant [17]. The EMA updated its procedural advice in 2018 to allow developers more time to respond to questions raised by the committees, recognizing the complex nature of ATMPs [20].

The diagram above illustrates the sequential workflow of the Centralised Procedure, highlighting the critical path from application submission to marketing authorization, with special emphasis on the committees involved in ATMP assessment.

Authorization and Post-Authorization Phase

Following a positive CHMP opinion, the EMA forwards its recommendation to the European Commission within 15 days [17]. The Commission then has 67 days to issue a legally binding decision on the marketing authorization [17] [19]. Once granted, the marketing authorization is valid throughout the EU Member States and EEA countries (Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway) [19].

Marketing authorizations are initially valid for five years, after which they must be renewed. Applications for renewal must be submitted to the EMA at least six months before the expiration of the five-year period [17]. The Commission decisions are published in the Community Register of medicinal products for human use, and EMA publishes a European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) for each medicine, providing transparent information about the authorized product [19].

Specific Considerations for Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs)

Regulatory Committees and Their Roles

The evaluation of ATMPs involves specialized scientific committees within EMA [20] [19]:

• Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT): Responsible for preparing draft opinions on the quality, safety, and efficacy of ATMPs. The CAT assesses whether a medicine qualifies as an ATMP and provides specialized expertise in this innovative field.
• Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP): Maintains ultimate responsibility for the scientific assessment of the marketing authorization application, considering the CAT's draft opinion.
• Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC): Evaluates the risk-management plan and provides recommendations on pharmacovigilance activities.

For ATMP applications, co-rapporteurs are appointed from both the CHMP and CAT to lead the assessment, ensuring both general medicinal product expertise and advanced therapy-specific knowledge guide the evaluation [19].

Specific Documentation Requirements

ATMP marketing authorization applications must follow the specific requirements outlined in Part IV of the Annex to Directive 2001/83/EC (as amended by Commission Directive 2009/120/EC) [18]. This contains:

• Specific requirements for all ATMPs regarding Modules 3, 4, and 5 of the CTD
• Additional specific requirements for gene therapy medicinal products, cell therapy medicinal products, tissue-engineered products, and combined ATMPs
• Updated definitions of gene therapy medicinal products and somatic cell therapy medicinal products
• Guidance on how standard requirements in Part I of the Annex apply to ATMPs

Any deviations from standard requirements must be scientifically justified in Module 2 of the application dossier, and any risk-based approaches applied to ATMP development must be described in this module [18].

Manufacturing Authorization for ATMPs

In addition to marketing authorization, manufacturers of ATMPs must hold a manufacturing authorization issued by the national competent authority of the Member State where the manufacturing activities take place [4]. This requires:

• Compliance with Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) principles and guidelines specific to ATMPs
• Employment of a Qualified Person (QP) responsible for ensuring compliance with authorization requirements and applicable legislation
• Adherence to the European Pharmacopoeia standards
• Regular inspections by national competent authorities to verify ongoing GMP compliance

Manufacturing ATMPs presents unique challenges, including the use of substances of human origin with short shelf lives, maintaining sterility throughout complex processes, and demonstrating comparability between production batches with inherent biological variability [4]. The European Commission has issued detailed guidelines on GMP specific to ATMPs to address these challenges [4].

Essential Research and Regulatory Tools

Key Guidelines for ATMP Development

Table: Essential Regulatory Guidelines for ATMP Development

Guideline Category	Key Documents	Relevance to ATMPs
Gene Therapy	Guideline on quality, non-clinical and clinical aspects of gene therapy medicinal products (EMA/CAT/80183/2014); ICH S12 on nonclinical biodistribution considerations for gene therapy products	Overarching requirements for gene therapy products; specific biodistribution considerations	[21]
Cell Therapy & Tissue Engineering	Guideline on human cell-based medicinal products (EMEA/CHMP/410869/2006); Reflection paper on stem cell-based medicinal products (EMA/CAT/571134/2009)	Core requirements for cell-based products; specific guidance for stem cell therapies	[21]
Quality - ICH	ICH Q5A-Q5E, ICH Q8-Q10, ICH Q7	Viral safety, stability testing, comparability, pharmaceutical quality systems, GMP for APIs	[21]
Non-clinical & Clinical	ICH S6 (R1) Preclinical safety evaluation; Guideline on clinical trials in small populations (CHMP/EWP/83561/2005)	Adapted safety requirements for biotechnology products; statistical approaches for small patient populations	[21]

The European Medicines Agency maintains an extensive set of guidelines specifically relevant to ATMPs, which developers should consult throughout the product development lifecycle [21]. These include overarching guidelines for specific ATMP categories, as well as detailed guidance on quality, non-clinical, and clinical aspects. The guidelines reflect the specific characteristics and challenges of ATMPs, such as their complex manufacturing processes, biological nature, and often limited population sizes for clinical trials.

Support Mechanisms and Interacting with Regulators

EMA offers multiple support mechanisms for ATMP developers [20] [4]:

• Scientific advice and protocol assistance: Available during product development to help optimize ATMP development and manufacturing processes
• Pre-submission meetings: Provide assistance and guidance before finalizing the marketing authorization application
• Early contacts with regulators: Allow discussion of issues related to the marketing authorization application dossier during the pre-submission phase
• SME office: Provides specific support for micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises

The EMA has implemented a joint action plan with the European Commission to streamline procedures and better address the specific requirements of ATMP developers, including updated procedural advice that clarifies the evaluation procedure and reinforces timely interactions between applicants and regulators [20].

The Centralised Procedure represents the definitive regulatory pathway for Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products seeking market authorization in the European Union. This mandatory process provides a streamlined approach to achieving EU-wide marketing authorization through a single application and assessment, while maintaining rigorous standards for quality, safety, and efficacy. For researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals working in the field of cell therapies and other ATMPs, understanding the intricacies of this procedure—from pre-submission planning through post-authorization obligations—is essential for successful product development and regulatory approval. The specialized requirements for ATMPs, including the central role of the Committee for Advanced Therapies and the specific manufacturing authorization requirements, underscore the unique nature of these innovative medicinal products and the tailored regulatory approach needed to ensure their safety and efficacy while facilitating patient access to groundbreaking therapies.

For researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals working on advanced therapies, navigating the European Union's regulatory landscape is a critical step in the journey from the laboratory to the clinic. Two authorizations form the cornerstone of this framework: the Manufacturing Authorization and the Marketing Authorization (MA). While distinct in purpose, they are deeply interdependent, especially for complex products like Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs), which include cell and gene therapies [4] [2].

A Manufacturing Authorization is an activity-specific license that any legal entity manufacturing medicinal products in the EU must hold. It confirms that the manufacturer complies with Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) standards [4] [22] [23]. Conversely, a Marketing Authorization is a product-specific approval issued by the European Commission that allows a medicine to be placed on the market in the EU. It is granted only after a rigorous assessment of the product's quality, safety, and efficacy [24] [22] [25].

For ATMPs, this relationship is particularly intricate. The manufacturing process is often the product's defining characteristic, making the Manufacturer Authorization Holder and the Marketing Authorization Holder legally obligated to cooperate closely to ensure that the manufacturing sites, processes, and quality controls comply with GMP and the specifications of the marketing authorization [4].

Defining the Core Concepts

Marketing Authorization (MA)

The Marketing Authorization (MA) is the official approval that permits a medicinal product to be placed on the market in the European Union. The central responsibility of the Marketing Authorisation Holder (MAH) is to ensure that the marketed product is safe, effective, and of high quality, and that this standard is maintained throughout the product's lifecycle [22] [25].

• Purpose and Legal Basis: The MA is granted based on a comprehensive demonstration of the product's quality, safety, and efficacy in line with EU legislation. For ATMPs, this is exclusively done through the centralized procedure, resulting in a single valid approval across all EU Member States, Iceland, Norway, and Liechtenstein [24] [2].
• Holder and Responsibilities: The MAH is the legal entity that holds the authorization. This organization owns the product data and is fully accountable for the product on the market. This includes upholding pharmacovigilance systems, implementing risk management plans, and managing product supply [26].

Manufacturing Authorization

A Manufacturing Authorization, often referred to as a Manufacturing and Importation Authorization (MIA) in the EU context, is a license required by any legal entity involved in the production or import of medicinal products [23].

• Purpose and Legal Basis: This authorization ensures that all manufacturing and importation activities consistently adhere to Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) standards. The legal basis is outlined in Article 40 of Directive 2001/83/EC [4] [23].
• Holder and Responsibilities: The Manufacturing Authorisation Holder is the legal entity that has been granted the license for a specific manufacturing site or activity. Their core responsibility is to maintain continuous GMP compliance. This includes employing a Qualified Person (QP), who is personally responsible for certifying that each product batch has been produced and controlled in accordance with its marketing authorization before it is released for sale [4].

Table: Core Concept Comparison of Marketing Authorization and Manufacturing Authorization

Feature	Marketing Authorization (MA)	Manufacturing Authorization (MIA)
Primary Focus	Product's safety, efficacy, and quality [22]	GMP compliance of manufacturing/import processes [22] [23]
Authorization Type	Product-specific [22]	Activity- and site-specific [22]
Legal Holder	Marketing Authorisation Holder (MAH) [26]	Manufacturing Authorisation Holder [4]
Core Obligation	Ensure product is safe and effective for patients throughout its lifecycle [22]	Ensure every batch is consistently produced to GMP standards [4]
Key Personnel	Pharmacovigilance Responsible Person	Qualified Person (QP) [4]

The Interdependent Relationship

The relationship between Marketing and Manufacturing Authorization is not linear but symbiotic. One cannot functionally exist without the other in the context of getting a medicine to patients.

The Nexus of Manufacturing and Marketing Authorization

The MAH relies on the Manufacturing Authorisation Holder to produce a product that consistently meets the quality specifications approved in the MA dossier. Conversely, the manufacturer's activities are governed by the product's MA. This interdependence is codified in EU law, as the manufacturer must produce the product in accordance with its marketing authorization, and the MA application itself must contain full details about the manufacturing site and processes [4].

Interdependence Illustrated: The ATMP Example

For ATMPs, this interdependence is profound. The Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls (CMC) data, which constitutes Module 3 of the MA application dossier, is exceptionally critical. It aims to demonstrate the reproducibility of the medicine's complex composition, which is a significant challenge for live biological products [4]. The MAH is ultimately responsible for this data, but it is generated through a close partnership with the GMP-compliant manufacturer.

This relationship is a continuous cycle, not a one-time event. After an MA is granted, the manufacturer is subject to regular GMP inspections by the National Competent Authorities to ensure ongoing compliance. Any major change to the manufacturing process, location, or control strategy typically requires a variation to the Marketing Authorization, which must be assessed and approved [4] [27].

Diagram: Authorization Interdependence. The Marketing Authorization Holder and Manufacturing Authorization Holder have distinct responsibilities centered on product and process, but their authorizations are mutually dependent for a legally compliant, marketed medicine.

Special Considerations for ATMPs

The standard framework for authorizations faces unique challenges when applied to ATMPs, leading to evolving regulatory guidance.

Unique Manufacturing Challenges

ATMPs present distinctive hurdles that intensify the interdependence of authorizations [4]:

• Complexity and Variability: The use of biological materials with inherent variability, complex manipulation steps, and autologous processes (using a patient's own cells) makes validating process consistency exceptionally difficult.
• Logistical Extremes: The "chain of identity" and "chain of custody" from patient cell collection, through transportation, to final product administration requires seamless coordination and control.
• Short Shelf Life: The limited viability of live cells places extreme pressure on the speed of manufacturing, testing, and release, often necessitating real-time release testing (RTRT) strategies.

The Frontier: Decentralized Manufacturing

A significant regulatory evolution in 2025 addresses the challenge of manufacturing ATMPs close to the patient. The UK's MHRA introduced a framework for Point of Care (POC) and Modular Manufacturing (MM) [12].

• Point of Care (POC): Products that, due to their short shelf-life or method of administration, can only be manufactured at or near the place of use (e.g., a hospital bedside). Convenience and cost are not valid criteria for this designation [12].
• Modular Manufacturing (MM): Products manufactured in modular units for reasons of public health or significant clinical advantage [12].

This model redefines the traditional authorization interdependence. A single Manufacturing Authorization for a "control site" can cover multiple decentralized manufacturing sites (POC or MM) under its responsibility. The control site must have a robust Quality Management System to oversee all remote sites, which are not individually licensed but are subject to audit and inspection [12]. This creates a "hub-and-spoke" model for manufacturing, while the Marketing Authorization remains a single product approval that encompasses this decentralized network.

Experimental Protocols for Regulatory Applications

Protocol 1: Demonstrating Comparability for a New ATMP Manufacturing Site

1. Objective: To generate sufficient data to justify that the product manufactured at a new or additional site is comparable in quality, safety, and efficacy to the product from the originally approved site. This is a common variation (B.II.b.1) to an MA [27].

2. Methodology:

• Step 1: Process Performance Qualification (PPQ): Execute a minimum of three consecutive validation batches at the new site using the same, standardized raw materials and master cell bank.
• Step 2: Critical Quality Attribute (CQA) Assessment: Conduct a comprehensive side-by-side analytical comparison of the PPQ batches against historical batches from the original site. This includes, but is not limited to:
  • Potency Assays: Cell viability, phenotypic characterization (e.g., flow cytometry for surface markers), and functional assays (e.g., cytolytic activity for CAR-T cells).
  • Safety Testing: Sterility, mycoplasma, endotoxin, and adventitious virus testing.
  • Physical Attributes: Viability, cell count, and morphology.
• Step 3: Stability Studies: Initiate real-time stability studies under identical conditions to demonstrate that the product from the new site has a comparable shelf-life.
• Step 4: Data Analysis and Reporting: Compile all data into a comparability protocol and report. Statistically analyze CQA data to demonstrate that results from the new site fall within the pre-defined acceptance ranges established from the original site.

3. Regulatory Application: This protocol provides the core evidence for a Type II variation application under classification category B.II.b.1, "Addition of a new finished product manufacturing site" [27].

Protocol 2: Validation of Real-Time Release Testing (RTRT) for an Autologous ATMP

1. Objective: To validate an RTRT strategy that replaces end-product testing for a quality attribute, crucial for ATMPs with very short shelf-lives [12].

2. Methodology:

• Step 1: Identify Correlative In-Process Controls: During process development, identify in-process controls (IPCs) that correlate with the final product's CQAs. For example, the composition of cells at the end of the expansion phase may be a predictor of final product potency.
• Step 2: Define Validated Acceptance Criteria: Establish and validate the acceptable ranges for the chosen IPCs using data from multiple successful manufacturing runs.
• Step 3: Demonstrate Robustness and Reliability: Perform a multi-run study (e.g., n≥10) to demonstrate that meeting the validated IPC acceptance criteria consistently results in a final product that meets all its CQA specifications.
• Step 4: Integrate into QMS: Document the RTRT strategy in a Decentralized Manufacturing Master File (DMMF) or similar document, detailing how the control site will oversee its execution at remote POC locations [12].

3. Regulatory Application: This validation data is a critical component of the Marketing Authorization Application (MAA) for ATMPs using decentralized manufacturing, demonstrating how product quality and consistency will be ensured across multiple sites [12].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagent Solutions

For scientists developing the analytical methods that support regulatory applications for ATMPs, specific reagents and tools are essential.

Table: Essential Reagents for ATMP Analytical Development

Research Reagent / Material	Critical Function in Development & Control
Flow Cytometry Antibody Panels	Characterization of cell product identity, purity (e.g., % T-cells), and potency (e.g., activation markers). Essential for CQA assessment [2].
Cell-Based Potency Assay Kits	Quantification of the product's biological function (e.g., target cell killing for CAR-T cells). A cornerstone of efficacy demonstration.
qPCR/PCR Master Mixes	Detection of specific genetic modifications (for gene therapies), and testing for replication-competent virus or other viral safety concerns.
Endotoxin Testing Kits	Detection of bacterial endotoxins as a critical safety release parameter for injectable therapeutics.
Mycoplasma Detection Kits	Ensuring the final cell therapy product is free from mycoplasma contamination, a mandatory safety test.
Stability Study Reagents	Media, buffers, and staining solutions used to monitor product stability and establish shelf-life under defined storage conditions.

The relationship between Manufacturing Authorization and Marketing Authorization is a foundational, interdependent pillar of the EU regulatory system. For developers of ATMPs, understanding that product approval (MA) is inseparable from process approval (MIA) is critical for success. The evolving landscape, particularly with the advent of decentralized manufacturing models, adds new dimensions to this relationship, requiring even greater collaboration and robust quality systems. For researchers and developers, integrating regulatory strategy with scientific development from the earliest stages—using well-defined experimental protocols and analytical toolkits—is the most effective path to navigating this complexity and delivering transformative therapies to patients.

Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) as the Cornerstone of ATMP Production

Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs), which include gene therapies, somatic-cell therapies, and tissue-engineered products, represent a groundbreaking class of medicines for severe, chronic, and untreatable diseases [2]. The inherent complexity of these living therapies, often tailored to individual patients, necessitates an exceptionally rigorous manufacturing framework. Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) serves as this critical framework, ensuring that ATMPs are consistently produced and controlled to the high quality standards essential for patient safety and therapeutic efficacy [28] [29]. Within the European Union, GMP is not merely a guideline but a legal requirement for any manufacturer or importer of medicinal products, including ATMPs intended for the EU market [28] [30]. The European Commission has established specific GMP guidelines adapted to the unique characteristics of ATMPs, fostering a risk-based approach to their manufacture and testing [29]. This whitepaper details how GMP forms the indispensable foundation for ATMP production within the context of the EU regulatory landscape.

The EU Regulatory Framework for ATMPs and GMP

Legal Foundations and Key Directives

The manufacture of ATMPs in the EU is governed by a robust regulatory structure designed to protect patients while fostering innovation. The cornerstone legislation is Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 on advanced therapy medicinal products, which mandates that all ATMPs must be authorized via the centralized procedure through the European Medicines Agency (EMA) [2] [31]. This regulation works in concert with other key legal instruments, including Directive 2001/83/EC and Commission Directive (EU) 2017/1572, which enshrine GMP into law for human medicines [28] [30]. According to this framework, GMP is defined as "the part of the quality assurance which ensures that medicinal products are consistently produced, imported and controlled in accordance with the quality standards appropriate to their intended use" [30]. Consequently, any company involved in manufacturing or importing ATMPs must hold a Manufacturing Authorisation issued by the national competent authority of the Member State where the activities are performed [30].

The Hierarchy of Regulatory Guidance

To navigate the regulatory process successfully, applicants must be familiar with the hierarchy of EU pharmaceutical legislation. The "Rules governing Medicinal Products in the European Union" are published in a series of volumes that provide detailed guidance [32]. The most critical volumes for ATMP developers include:

• Volume 2 (Notice to Applicants): Covers procedures for marketing authorization and the presentation of the application dossier.
• Volume 4 (Good Manufacturing Practices): Contains the detailed GMP guidelines, including the specific annex for ATMPs [32] [28].
• Volume 9 (Pharmacovigilance): Provides guidance on safety monitoring after authorization [32].

Table 1: Key EU Regulatory Volumes for ATMP Development

Volume	Title	Relevance to ATMPs
Volume 1	Pharmaceutical Legislation	Contains relevant Directives and Regulations [32].
Volume 2A & 2B	Procedures for Marketing Authorisation / Presentation and Content of the Dossier	Guides the compilation and submission of the marketing authorisation application [32].
Volume 4	Good Manufacturing Practices	Provides the legal GMP standards, including the specific guideline for ATMPs [28].
Volume 9	Pharmacovigilance	Guides the safety monitoring and risk management of authorised ATMPs [32].

Specific GMP Considerations for ATMPs

Adapted GMP Guidelines for Advanced Therapies

Recognizing the distinct challenges in producing ATMPs, the European Commission, with extensive input from EMA's Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) and the GMP/GDP Inspectors Working Group (GMDP IWG), has developed detailed GMP guidelines specific to these products [29]. These adaptations address novel and complex manufacturing scenarios, such as decentralized manufacturing, where some production activities may occur at the point-of-care or in modular units [12]. The guidelines emphasize a risk-based approach, acknowledging that the fully validated, large-scale batch processes used for traditional pharmaceuticals are often not feasible for patient-specific ATMPs [29]. This principle is central to the Pharmaceutical Quality System (PQS), which the manufacturer must establish and maintain to ensure products have the quality required for their intended use [30].

Critical Control Points in ATMP Manufacturing

The production of ATMPs involves several stages that demand stringent GMP control to mitigate unique risks. Key considerations include:

• Starting Materials: ATMPs often use human tissues or cells as starting materials. Donor screening, traceability, and testing for infectious agents are paramount to prevent contamination and ensure patient safety [2] [30].
• Process Controls and Validation: Given the living nature of ATMPs, aseptic processing is critical, as many products cannot be terminally sterilized. Process validation must demonstrate consistent production of a product that meets predefined quality attributes, often employing real-time release testing (RTRT) strategies, especially for autologous products with short shelf-lives [12].
• Personnel and Training: Staff must possess highly specialized skills and receive rigorous training in the specific techniques and GMP principles relevant to ATMPs. This is crucial for maintaining aseptic conditions and handling complex procedures consistently [30].
• Facility and Equipment Design: Manufacturing environments must be designed to prevent cross-contamination and mix-ups, which is particularly challenging when handling multiple patient-specific batches concurrently. Equipment must be qualified and maintained to ensure it functions reliably for critical processes [28].

GMP Implementation and the Marketing Authorisation Process

The Integral Role of GMP in License Applications

For an ATMP to receive marketing authorization in the EU, demonstration of GMP compliance is not a separate step but an integral component of the application dossier. The Marketing Authorisation Applicant must provide evidence that all proposed manufacturing sites, including those of contract manufacturers, comply with GMP [28]. This is typically achieved through two primary mechanisms:

• Inclusion of GMP Data in the Dossier: The application must contain detailed information on the manufacturing process, quality control, and validation data, demonstrating that the product can be consistently produced to the required quality [32].
• Successful GMP Inspections: The relevant National Competent Authorities will conduct GMP inspections of the manufacturing sites listed in the application. For the centralized procedure, the EMA coordinates these inspections [28]. A positive outcome is a prerequisite for authorization.

Table 2: Key Guidelines for ATMP Development and GMP Compliance

Product Category	Overarching Guideline	Specific GMP-Related Guidance
Gene Therapy Medicinal Products	Guideline on the quality, non-clinical and clinical aspects of gene therapy medicinal products (EMA/CAT/80183/2014) [21]	ICH Q7 GMP for active pharmaceutical ingredients; Annex 1: Manufacture of Sterile Medicinal Products [21].
Cell-Based Medicinal Products	Guideline on human cell-based medicinal products (EMEA/CHMP/410869/2006) [21]	Guidelines on GMP specific to ATMPs; Reflection paper on stem cell-based medicinal products [2] [21].
Tissue-Engineered Products	Guideline on safety and efficacy follow-up and risk management of ATMPs (EMEA/149995/2008) [21]	Guidelines on GMP specific to ATMPs; Reflection paper on clinical aspects related to tissue engineered products [21].

Diagrams of the Pharmaceutical Quality System and Manufacturing Workflow

A robust Pharmaceutical Quality System is the engine that drives GMP compliance in ATMP manufacturing. The following diagram illustrates its core structure and dynamic interactions.

The workflow for manufacturing an autologous ATMP, from donor to patient, involves multiple critical stages under GMP control, as shown below.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials for ATMP GMP Compliance

The consistent production of high-quality ATMPs relies on the use of well-characterized, GMP-grade reagents and materials. The following table details critical components of the "Scientist's Toolkit."

Table 3: Essential Reagent Solutions for GMP-Compliant ATMP Manufacturing

Reagent/Material	Function in ATMP Manufacturing	GMP Compliance Consideration
Cell Culture Media	Provides essential nutrients for the growth and maintenance of cells.	Must be GMP-grade, and the use of animal-derived components (e.g., bovine serum) should be avoided or rigorously justified and tested for TSE (Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy) risk [21].
Growth Factors & Cytokines	Directs cell differentiation, expansion, and functional activation.	Require GMP-grade manufacture with certificates of analysis. Their potency must be critically assessed as part of the potency assay for the final product [21].
Viral Vectors	Serves as a vehicle for gene delivery in gene therapy medicines.	Manufacturing must comply with GMP guidelines for biologicals. Extensive testing for sterility, mycoplasma, endotoxin, adventitious agents, and vector potency/titer is required [2] [21].
Ancillary Materials	Includes reagents like cytokines, antibodies, and enzymes used in processing but not intended to be part of the final product.	Must be qualified for their intended use. Their quality and purity can significantly impact patient safety and product efficacy, and their removal during the process should be validated [21].
Primary Cells & Tissues	The active biological substance or starting material for the ATMP.	Donor screening, testing, and traceability are mandatory per EU Tissue and Cell Directives. The level of manipulation (substantial vs. non-substantial) determines ATMP classification [2] [31].

In the rapidly evolving field of advanced therapies, Good Manufacturing Practice remains the non-negotiable foundation for translating scientific innovation into safe and effective medicines for patients. The EU's detailed and adaptive regulatory framework for ATMPs, with GMP at its core, ensures that these complex products meet the highest standards of quality from clinical development through to commercial supply. For researchers and drug development professionals, a deep understanding of these principles is not just a regulatory hurdle but a critical component of successful product development. As the industry moves towards more decentralized and personalized manufacturing models, the principles of GMP—embedded within a robust Pharmaceutical Quality System—will continue to provide the necessary flexibility and rigor to safeguard public health while enabling access to these transformative therapies.

A Step-by-Step Guide to the Manufacturing and Marketing Authorization Application Process

The pre-submission phase represents a critical preparatory stage in the European Union's marketing authorisation process for advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs), including cell therapies. This structured pathway establishes the foundation for a successful application by requiring early regulatory interactions, precise planning, and scientific evaluation readiness. For cell therapy developers, navigating this phase effectively is paramount to accelerating patient access to transformative treatments while ensuring robust assessment of quality, safety, and efficacy [33].

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has established this structured pre-submission pathway to facilitate dialogue between developers and regulators, particularly for complex therapies like ATMPs. The process encompasses three key procedural milestones: eligibility determination, intent notification, and rapporteur appointment [32] [19]. These steps ensure that applications entering the formal assessment phase align with regulatory requirements and are supported by sufficient scientific evidence. For cell therapies classified as ATMPs, additional considerations apply throughout this phase due to their complex nature, novel manufacturing processes, and often personalized application [7] [33].

Regulatory Framework and Definitions

Legal Basis and Regulatory Documents

The pre-submission phase operates within a well-defined regulatory framework established by EU pharmaceutical legislation. The foundational documents governing this process include Volume 2 of "The Rules Governing Medicinal Products in the European Union" (Notice to Applicants), which provides detailed guidance on procedural and regulatory requirements [32]. Specifically, Volume 2A covers procedures for marketing authorisation, while Volume 2B addresses the presentation and content of the application dossier [32].

For cell therapies classified as ATMPs, Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 (the ATMP Regulation) establishes specific requirements, recognizing that these innovative products "face specific challenges for which the existing regulatory framework did not provide sufficient guidance" [33]. This regulation created the Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) within the EMA, which plays a pivotal role in evaluating ATMP applications alongside the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) [19] [33].

Key Terminology

Understanding the specific terminology used in the EU regulatory system is essential for successful navigation of the pre-submission phase:

• Eligibility Request: A formal submission to determine whether a product qualifies for evaluation under the centralised procedure, required for all ATMPs [19].
• Notification of Intent: A mandatory communication informing EMA of the planned submission date for a marketing authorisation application [19].
• Rapporteurs: CHMP and/or CAT members appointed to lead the scientific assessment of an application [19].
• ATMP Classification: A procedure to determine whether a product based on genes, cells, or tissues meets the criteria defining an advanced therapy medicinal product [33].
• PRIME Scheme: EMA's priority medicines scheme providing enhanced support for medicines targeting unmet medical needs [34].

Step-by-Step Pre-Submission Process

Eligibility Request

The eligibility request represents the formal starting point for the centralised marketing authorisation process. For cell therapies, this step determines whether the product meets the mandatory criteria for the centralised procedure and identifies any product-specific requirements.

Timeline and Submission Requirements Applicants should submit eligibility requests 18 to 7 months before the anticipated marketing authorisation application submission [19]. The request must be made using the specific eligibility form accompanied by a detailed justification addressing the criteria for compulsory or optional centralised procedure [19]. For cell therapies, this justification should specifically address the ATMP classification and any novel characteristics requiring particular regulatory consideration.

Eligibility Criteria for Cell Therapies Cell therapies typically fall under the mandatory centralised procedure pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 if they are classified as ATMPs [33]. Additional considerations for eligibility include:

• Demonstration of substantial manipulation of cells or tissues
• Evidence of non-homologous use where applicable
• Pharmaceutical, metabolic, or immunological mode of action
• Industrial manufacturing process [33]

Table: Eligibility Request Components for Cell Therapies

Component	Description	Cell Therapy Specific Considerations
Eligibility Form	Standardized form for centralised procedure requests	Must specify ATMP classification
Justification Document	Detailed rationale for centralised procedure	Description of substantial manipulation and mode of action
Supporting Data	Preliminary data on product characteristics	Information on cell sourcing, manipulation, and manufacturing process
ATMP Classification	Confirmation of advanced therapy status	Previous ATMP classification opinion if obtained

Notification of Intent to Submit Application

The notification of intent formally alerts the EMA to an upcoming submission and initiates the appointment process for committee rapporteurs.

Timeline and Submission Mechanism Applicants must notify the Agency of their intended submission date 7 months before the planned marketing authorisation application submission [19]. This notification is submitted via the EMA Service Desk using the pre-submission request form, selecting the category 'Business Services' → 'Human Regulatory' → 'Pre-Submission Phase - Human' → 'Letter of Intent Request' [19].

Reconfirmation Process Applicants must reconfirm the submission date or communicate any changes 2-3 months before the planned submission date [19]. This is done by resending the completed pre-submission request form via the EMA Service Desk, selecting the 'Notification of Change Request' sub-option [19]. This step is crucial for maintaining efficient procedural planning and resource allocation within the regulatory network.

Table: Notification of Intent Timeline and Requirements

Timeline	Action Required	Submission Method
7 months before submission	Initial notification of intent	EMA Service Desk with pre-submission request form
2-3 months before submission	Reconfirmation of date or notification of changes	EMA Service Desk with updated pre-submission request form
At time of change	Notification of delays or cancellations	EMA Service Desk with change request

Appointment of Rapporteurs

Following the notification of intent, the CHMP appoints (co-)rapporteurs to conduct the scientific assessment of the application. For cell therapies classified as ATMPs, (co-)rapporteurs are also appointed from the Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) [19].

Rapporteur Selection and Role Rapporteurs are committee members with specific expertise relevant to the product being evaluated. For cell therapies, this typically includes expertise in cell biology, tissue engineering, or specific therapeutic areas. The appointed rapporteurs lead the scientific assessment throughout the evaluation process, coordinating with other committee members and the applicant as needed [19].

Early Appointment for PRIME Products For products accepted into the PRIME scheme, a CHMP or CAT rapporteur is appointed within one month after PRIME eligibility is granted, significantly earlier than in the standard procedure [34]. This early appointment facilitates more extensive guidance during development and preparation for the marketing authorisation application.

Special Considerations for Cell Therapies

ATMP Classification and Specific Requirements

Cell therapies must undergo specific regulatory scrutiny to determine their classification as ATMPs. The EMA's Committee for Advanced Therapies provides ATMP classification upon request, which developers of cell therapies should seek early in development [33]. This classification determines the specific regulatory pathway and requirements applicable to the product.

Key classification criteria for cell therapies include:

• Substantial manipulation of cells or tissues (e.g., expansion, genetic modification)
• Non-homologous use where cells are used for a different essential function than in the donor
• Industrial manufacturing process employing standardized, controlled production methods [33]

For cell therapies incorporating medical devices or active ingredients, additional combined ATMP requirements apply, necessitating demonstration of compatibility between components [7] [16].

Manufacturing and Quality Considerations

The manufacturing process for cell therapies requires particular attention during the pre-submission phase due to its critical impact on product quality, safety, and efficacy.

Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs) Cell therapy developers must identify and characterize CQAs that correlate with safety and efficacy, establishing specifications and control strategies for these attributes [33]. This includes:

• Identity, purity, and potency markers
• Characteristics related to cell viability and functionality
• Process-related impurities and contaminants

Manufacturing Process Control The design and control of the manufacturing process must be thoroughly documented, including:

• Starting materials: Definition and qualification of cell sources, vectors, and critical reagents
• Process characterization: Identification of critical process parameters and their impact on CQAs
• Analytical methods: Validation of methods used for in-process testing and release [33] [16]

Comparability Protocols For cell therapies, establishing comparability after manufacturing changes presents unique challenges. The EMA has issued specific guidance on demonstrating comparability for ATMPs, requiring comprehensive analytical and, when necessary, non-clinical or clinical data [16].

Pre-Submission Meetings

Pre-submission meetings are strongly recommended for cell therapy developers and typically occur 6 to 7 months before submission of the marketing authorisation application [19]. These meetings provide the best opportunity for applicants to obtain procedural and regulatory advice from the Agency specific to their product.

Meeting Objectives

• Discuss the proposed application strategy and regulatory pathway
• Review available data and identify potential gaps or issues
• Clarify expectations for dossier content and organization
• Align on the scope of quality, non-clinical, and clinical data [19]

Preparation Requirements Effective pre-submission meetings require thorough preparation, including:

• Advanced submission of meeting materials and specific questions
• Clear presentation of product characteristics and development program
• Proposed strategies for addressing potential regulatory challenges

Strategic Regulatory Approaches

PRIME Scheme for Promising Cell Therapies

The PRIME (Priority Medicines) scheme provides enhanced regulatory support for medicines that may offer a major therapeutic advantage over existing treatments or address unmet medical needs [34]. Cell therapies with promising early clinical data may be eligible for this program, which offers significant benefits during the pre-submission phase.

Eligibility Criteria for PRIME To be accepted for PRIME, a cell therapy must demonstrate the potential to address an unmet medical need based on preliminary clinical evidence [34]. For SMEs and academic developers, Early Entry PRIME may be available with compelling non-clinical data providing proof of principle [34].

PRIME Benefits in Pre-Submission

• Early appointment of CHMP/CAT rapporteur (within one month of PRIME eligibility)
• Kick-off meeting with rapporteur and multidisciplinary experts (3-4 months after PRIME eligibility)
• Iterative scientific advice on overall development plans
• Appointment of PRIME Scientific Coordinator as dedicated EMA contact point
• Submission readiness meeting approximately one year ahead of marketing authorisation application [34]

Table: PRIME Scheme Benefits for Cell Therapy Developers

Benefit	Timeline	Impact on Pre-Submission Phase
Early Rapporteur Appointment	1 month after PRIME eligibility	Enables early alignment on regulatory strategy
Kick-off Meeting	3-4 months after PRIME eligibility	Multidisciplinary guidance on development plan
Iterative Scientific Advice	At any stage, major milestones	Ongoing support for addressing development challenges
PRIME Scientific Coordinator	Immediately after eligibility	Dedicated point of contact for coordination
Submission Readiness Meeting	~1 year before MAA	Assessment of development status and dossier maturity

SME Support and Incentives

The EMA offers specific support for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which represent 67 of the 157 products granted access to the PRIME scheme [34]. These incentives are particularly valuable for smaller developers of cell therapies.

SME Incentives Include:

• Administrative and procedural assistance from the SME Office
• Fee reductions for scientific advice, scientific services and inspections (90% fee reduction)
• Fee exemptions for certain administrative services
• Deferral of the fee payable for an application for marketing authorisation
• Translation assistance for product information documents [32]

SME Status Registration To access these incentives, companies must register for SME status with the EMA's SME Office by submitting a declaration of SME status prior to accessing financial or administrative assistance [32].

Workflow Visualization

The following diagram illustrates the complete pre-submission process for cell therapies in the EU regulatory system, highlighting key decision points and interactions:

EU Cell Therapy Pre-Submission Process: This workflow illustrates the key stages, timelines, and optional enhanced support through the PRIME scheme.

Essential Research and Regulatory Tools

Table: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Cell Therapy Development

Reagent/Category	Function in Development	Regulatory Considerations
Cell Separation Media	Isolation of specific cell populations from source material	Documentation of composition, quality, and performance qualifications
Cell Culture Media/Supplements	Expansion and maintenance of therapeutic cells	Defined composition, absence of animal-derived components where possible
Growth Factors/Cytokines	Direction of cell differentiation and activation	Potency testing, characterization, and stability data
Gene Delivery Vectors	Genetic modification of cells (where applicable)	Comprehensive characterization including identity, purity, and potency
Critical Raw Materials	Components contacting cells during manufacturing	Supplier qualification, testing, and quality assurance documentation
Analytical Standards	Calibration and validation of analytical methods	Traceability to recognized standards and qualification data

Common Challenges and Best Practices

Navigating Regulatory Complexities

Cell therapy developers often face specific challenges during the pre-submission phase that require strategic approaches:

Manufacturing Complexity The biological nature and often personalized characteristics of cell therapies present unique manufacturing challenges. Best practices include:

• Early development of a control strategy identifying critical quality attributes
• Implementation of phase-appropriate GMP compliance
• Comprehensive process characterization to establish parameter ranges [33] [16]

Demonstrating Comparability Changes in manufacturing during development require demonstration of comparability. The EMA has published specific guidance on comparability for ATMPs, recommending:

• Risk-based approach to determine the extent of comparability studies
• Comprehensive analytical comparison using orthogonal methods
• Assessment of impact on safety and efficacy where appropriate [16]

Donor Screening and Testing Cell therapies using allogeneic donor material must comply with EU Tissue and Cell Directives, requiring:

• Rigorous donor eligibility determination
• Comprehensive infectious disease testing
• Documentation of traceability from donor to final product [16]

Strategic Regulatory Interactions

Maximizing the value of regulatory interactions during the pre-submission phase requires careful planning and execution:

Effective Meeting Management

• Submit comprehensive background materials well in advance of meetings
• Focus discussions on specific, actionable questions
• Document outcomes and follow up on agreed actions

Data Package Preparation

• Prepare summary documents highlighting key data and development rationale
• Anticipate regulatory concerns and address them proactively
• Present data in CTD format to facilitate eventual application preparation

Timeline Management

• Establish realistic timelines accounting for regulatory feedback cycles
• Build flexibility for additional data generation if requested
• Maintain regular communication with regulatory authorities

The pre-submission phase for cell therapies in the European Union represents a strategic opportunity to align development plans with regulatory expectations, potentially accelerating patient access to innovative treatments. By understanding and effectively navigating the key components of eligibility determination, intent notification, and rapporteur appointment, developers can establish a solid foundation for successful marketing authorisation applications.

The structured approach outlined in this guide, complemented by special procedures such as the PRIME scheme and SME support initiatives, provides multiple pathways for cell therapy developers to engage with regulatory authorities throughout the development process. As the regulatory landscape for advanced therapies continues to evolve, early and strategic engagement during the pre-submission phase remains critical for efficiently bringing transformative cell therapies to patients in need.

This technical guide details the requirements for the Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls (CMC) module within a Marketing Authorisation Application (MAA) for cell therapies in the European Union (EU). It is designed to assist researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals in navigating the complex regulatory landscape to ensure the quality, safety, and efficacy of these Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs).

The CMC module is a critical component of the marketing authorisation application, providing a comprehensive description of the product's quality attributes and the manufacturing process designed to ensure them. For cell therapies, which are classified as Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs)—encompassing somatic-cell therapy, tissue-engineered, and gene therapy medicines—the CMC dossier presents unique challenges due to the inherent complexity and variability of biological systems [2]. A well-structured and data-rich CMC module demonstrates that the applicant has established sufficient control over the manufacturing process to consistently produce a product that meets predefined quality, safety, and efficacy specifications. The Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) at the European Medicines Agency (EMA) provides the specialized scientific expertise for evaluating ATMPs, preparing a draft opinion on which the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) bases its authorization recommendation [2].

Foundational Regulatory Framework

Understanding the regulatory hierarchy is essential for successful dossier compilation. The following documents and organizations form the core of the EU's regulatory framework for ATMPs.

Key Regulations and Guidelines

• Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007: The central legal framework governing ATMPs in the EU, establishing specific rules for their authorization, supervision, and pharmacovigilance [2].
• EudraLex, Volume 4 - Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) Guidelines: This volume provides the standards for the manufacturing of medicinal products. Of particular importance are:
  • Part IV - GMP requirements for ATMPs: Outlines specific GMP principles for Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products.
  • Annex 1 - Sterile Medicinal Products: Critical for cell therapies due to their often parenteral administration and limited capacity for terminal sterilization.
• EMA Guidelines: The EMA publishes numerous scientific guidelines relevant to CMC for cell therapies, covering quality, non-clinical, and clinical aspects. Developers should consult the EMA website for the latest revisions and new guidelines [2] [32].

Regulatory Bodies and Their Roles

• European Medicines Agency (EMA): Responsible for the centralized evaluation of ATMP marketing authorisation applications. The EMA coordinates the scientific assessment carried out by its committees [2].
• Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT): A dedicated committee within the EMA that conducts the initial scientific assessment of ATMP applications and provides a draft opinion to the CHMP [2].
• National Competent Authorities (NCAs): While the authorization is centralized, individual EU member state authorities are involved in activities such as GMP inspections and pharmacovigilance oversight.

Detailed CMC Content Requirements

This section breaks down the specific data and information required for each part of the CMC module for a cell therapy product.

Starting and Raw Materials

The control of starting materials is a foundation for ensuring final product quality. The EMA defines 'starting materials' as those that will become part of the drug substance, such as cells and vectors used for genetic modification [16]. A key regulatory nuance is that viral vectors used to modify cell therapy products in vitro are considered a starting material by the EMA, whereas the U.S. FDA classifies them as a drug substance [16]. This distinction impacts GMP application.

Table: Key Starting and Raw Material Requirements

Material Type	Key Data and Controls Required	Specific Considerations for Cell Therapy
Human Cells/Tissues (Autologous/Allogeneic)	- Donor eligibility, screening, and testing per European Union Tissues and Cells Directives (EUTCD).- Traceability from donor to recipient and back (for autologous).- Transportation and storage conditions validation.	The EMA requires some donor testing even for autologous material [16].
Viral Vectors	- Full characterization (identity, titer, purity, potency).- Testing for replication-competent virus (RCV).- GMP-compliant manufacturing.	The EMA position is that once RCV absence is demonstrated on the vector, the resulting genetically modified cells may not require further RCV testing [16].
Cell Culture Media & Reagents	- Qualification of all raw materials, especially those of animal or human origin.- Risk assessment for TSE/BSE.- Testing for endotoxins and bioburden.	Use of serum-free, xeno-free media is encouraged to reduce variability and safety risks.
Gene Editing Components	- Characterization of structure, identity, and purity.- Assessment of off-target activity risk.	For CRISPR/Cas9 systems, this includes characterization of the guide RNA and nuclease.

Drug Substance and Drug Product Manufacturing

The description of the manufacturing process must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate a deep process understanding and a state of control.

• Manufacturing Process and Development: A step-by-step description of the entire process, from cell collection through to final product formulation. This should include:
  • Process Flow Diagram: A detailed schematic of all unit operations.
  • Critical Process Parameters (CPPs): Identification and justification of the operating ranges for parameters that impact Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs).
  • Process Validation Data: Evidence that the manufacturing process, when operated within established parameters, consistently produces a product meeting its quality attributes. For cell therapies, the EMA generally expects validation data from three consecutive batches, though some flexibility is allowed for products addressing unmet needs [16].
• Control Strategy: A holistic plan detailing how control of the product and process is assured. This includes in-process controls, release testing, and characterization studies. The strategy should be risk-based.
• Comparability Protocols: For cell therapies, process changes are inevitable during development and post-approval. A comparability exercise is required to demonstrate that the change does not adversely impact product quality, safety, or efficacy. While ICH Q5E is a reference, cell therapies are currently considered outside its scope. Instead, developers should refer to the EMA's 'Questions and Answers' document on comparability for these products [16]. The comparability exercise should include side-by-side testing of pre- and post-change products for quality attributes, with a focus on potency, identity, and purity.

Product Characterization and Specification

A thorough understanding of the product's physicochemical and biological properties is required.

• Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs): These are physical, chemical, biological, or microbiological properties or characteristics that should be within an appropriate limit, range, or distribution to ensure the desired product quality. CQAs are linked to the safety and efficacy profile of the product. For a cell therapy, CQAs may include:
  • Identity: Specific cell surface markers, phenotypic characterization, genetic identity (for autologous products).
  • Potency: A quantitative measure of the biological activity of the product, which should be linked to the intended clinical effect. Developing a validated, functional potency assay is critical [16].
  • Purity and Impurities: The degree of contamination by process-related (e.g., residual reagents, vector) and product-related (e.g., aberrant cell populations) impurities.
  • Viability and Cell Number/Dose.
• Analytical Procedures: A detailed description of all test methods used to assess CQAs, including validation data demonstrating they are suitable for their intended purpose (in accordance with ICH Q2(R1)).

Stability

The stability program must demonstrate the product's quality remains within specification under the proposed storage and handling conditions.

• Real-time Stability Data: For the marketing application, primary stability data should be generated on representative batches using the final formulation, container closure system, and storage conditions.
• Stability-Indicating Methods: The analytical methods used must be capable of detecting changes in the product's quality over time.
• Proposed Shelf-life and Storage Conditions: The shelf-life is established based on the stability data and is a critical part of the product's label.

The following diagram illustrates the logical relationships and workflow between the core CMC components, from foundational materials to the final validated product.

Current Regulatory Initiatives and Updates

The regulatory landscape for ATMPs is dynamic. Several recent initiatives are particularly relevant to CMC.

Decentralized Manufacturing

A significant development is the regulatory acceptance of decentralized manufacturing, which includes Point of Care (POC) and Modular Manufacture (MM). The UK's MHRA has introduced a new framework effective July 2025, allowing medicines to be manufactured closer to patients, which is highly relevant to personalized autologous cell therapies [35] [12] [36]. The MHRA has published seven accompanying guidance documents covering designation, MAA, GMP, and pharmacovigilance, emphasizing the need for a robust control strategy and a Decentralized Manufacturing Master File (DMMF) [12].

Support for Developers

• EMA ATMP Pilot for Academia and Non-profits: This pilot provides dedicated regulatory assistance, including fee reductions and waivers, to non-commercial developers targeting unmet medical needs [2].
• SME Incentives: The EMA offers significant administrative and financial assistance to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), including 90% fee reductions for scientific advice and certification of quality/non-clinical data for ATMPs [32].
• Innovation Task Force (ITF): A multidisciplinary group at the EMA that provides a forum for early dialogue with applicants on emerging therapies and technologies [32].

Strategic CMC Development and Submission

Navigating EU and US Differences for Global Development

For sponsors planning global development, understanding key CMC differences between the EMA and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is crucial for efficient program design.

Table: Comparison of Key CMC Requirements: EMA vs. FDA

Regulatory CMC Consideration	EMA Position	FDA Position
Potency Testing for Viral Vectors (for in vitro use)	Infectivity and transgene expression often sufficient in early phase [16].	Validated functional potency assay is essential for pivotal studies [16].
Donor Testing Requirements	Governed by the EUTCD; must be handled and tested in licensed, accredited centres [16].	Governed by 21 CFR 1271; expected to be tested in CLIA-accredited labs [16].
Process Validation (PV) Batches	Generally three consecutive batches, with some flexibility [16].	Number not specified, but must be statistically adequate based on variability [16].
Use of Surrogate Approaches in PV	Allowed only in case of a shortage in starting material [16].	Allowed, but must be rigorously justified [16].
Stability Data in Support of Comparability	Real-time data not always mandatory for certain changes [16].	Thorough assessment including real-time data is typically required [16].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

The development and testing of a cell therapy product rely on a suite of critical research reagents and materials. The following table details key items and their functions in the context of CMC.

Table: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Cell Therapy CMC

Reagent/Material	Function in CMC Development & Testing
Cell Separation/Selection Kits (e.g., CD4+/CD8+ microbeads)	To isolate specific cell populations from a leukapheresis product, ensuring a defined starting population for manufacturing and improving process consistency.
Cell Culture Media Formulations (e.g., serum-free, xeno-free media)	To support the ex vivo growth, activation, and/or genetic modification of cells while reducing the risk of introducing adventitious agents and process variability.
Viral Vector Lots (e.g., Lentivirus, Retrovirus)	To genetically modify patient or donor cells to express a transgene of interest (e.g., a CAR). Used as a starting material, these must be produced and tested to GMP standards.
Flow Cytometry Antibody Panels	To characterize the identity, purity, and potential impurities of the cell product throughout manufacturing and in the final drug product (e.g., measuring CD3+ T-cell percentage).
Cytokine & Metabolic Assay Kits	To measure functional activity in potency assays (e.g., IFN-γ release in response to antigen) and to monitor cell health and metabolism during process development.
Reference Standard & Critical Reagents	A well-characterized cell bank or material used as a benchmark for analytical method qualification/validation and to demonstrate assay performance and product comparability.

Compiling a robust CMC dossier for an EU cell therapy application is a complex, iterative process that begins in early development. Success hinges on a deep understanding of the product and process, a proactive and risk-based control strategy, and careful navigation of the specific regulatory framework for ATMPs. Engaging early with regulators through scientific advice, leveraging available support mechanisms for innovators, and planning for global requirements from the outset are all critical strategies for efficiently bringing transformative cell therapies to patients.

Navigating Pre-Submission Meetings and Scientific Advice with Regulators

For developers of advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) such as cell therapies, navigating the European Union's regulatory landscape requires strategic planning and early engagement with regulatory bodies. Scientific advice and pre-submission meetings provide critical opportunities to align development strategies with regulatory expectations before submitting marketing authorization applications. These interactions are particularly valuable for cell therapies, which often involve novel technologies, complex manufacturing processes, and innovative clinical trial designs where established regulatory pathways may be limited or insufficiently detailed.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) offers structured development support to address the unique challenges of cell therapy development [37]. This guidance mechanism helps ensure that developers generate robust evidence regarding product quality, safety, and efficacy using appropriate methods and study designs. For cell therapies specifically, this may include advice on novel potency assays, characterisation methods, clinical endpoint selection, and long-term follow-up requirements. Engaging with regulators through these formal channels increases the likelihood that subsequent marketing authorization applications will contain sufficient evidence for approval, potentially avoiding costly delays or requests for additional information.

The Scientific Advice and Protocol Assistance Framework

Scientific advice constitutes formal, prospective guidance provided by regulators on the development plan for a medicinal product [37]. It focuses on future development activities rather than retrospective assessment of existing data. The advice covers the design of tests and trials necessary to demonstrate product quality, safety, and efficacy, but does not pre-evaluate results or pre-judge the benefit-risk balance of the final product [37]. Importantly, scientific advice is not legally binding on either the regulator or the developer regarding any future marketing authorization application, though compliance with received advice significantly increases the probability of application success [37].

Protocol assistance represents a specialized form of scientific advice specifically for orphan medicinal products, which includes many cell therapies targeting rare diseases [37]. In addition to standard development questions, protocol assistance addresses criteria for orphan designation, including demonstration of significant benefit and issues of similarity or clinical superiority over existing orphan medicines [37]. This is particularly relevant for cell therapies in rare diseases where establishing significant benefit over existing treatments can be challenging.

When to Seek Scientific Advice

Scientific advice is most valuable at critical decision points in the product development lifecycle [37]:

• Early development phase: When developing innovative cell therapies with no or insufficient relevant detail in existing EU guidelines
• Deviation from guidelines: When choosing to deviate from established scientific guidelines in the development plan
• Novel technologies: When employing emerging technologies or innovative development strategies
• Limited regulatory experience: When developers have limited knowledge about medicine regulation, such as academic groups or small enterprises

For cell therapy developers, strategic advice is particularly beneficial when addressing complex manufacturing processes, novel analytical methods, or innovative clinical trial designs specific to ATMPs [37]. The EMA's Scientific Advice Working Party (SAWP) and Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) provide specialized expertise for these products.

Table: Appropriate Timing for Scientific Advice in Cell Therapy Development

Development Stage	Focus of Scientific Advice	Key Considerations for Cell Therapies
Preclinical	Quality aspects, non-clinical testing strategies	Potency assays, characterisation methods, comparability protocols
Early Clinical	First-in-human study design, clinical endpoints	Starting dose, patient selection, novel efficacy measures
Pivotal Clinical	Phase 3 trial design, statistical approach	Endpoint validation, trial population, long-term follow-up
Post-Authorisation	Risk management, additional studies	Safety monitoring, registry studies, additional indications

Preparing for Pre-Submission Engagement

Registration and Preliminary Steps

Before requesting scientific advice, developers must complete several administrative procedures. Unless already registered with EMA, medicine developers need to register themselves, their organisation, and their product in development with the Agency [37]. This includes obtaining a Research Product Identifier (RPI), which replaces the previously-used unique product identifiers and helps track medicines through pre-authorisation procedures [38]. Developers should use this RPI consistently in all communications with the Agency regarding the specific cell therapy product.

The EMA encourages preparatory meetings, particularly for first-time users of scientific advice, micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and developers of innovative products like cell therapies [38]. These meetings are free of charge and conducted via teleconference, providing an opportunity for developers to introduce their proposed development programme and receive feedback from Agency staff on the planned scientific advice request [38]. preparatory meetings also allow EMA to identify needs for additional expertise at an earlier stage in the procedure.

Strategy for Question Development

Formulating precise, strategic questions is critical for productive scientific advice. Effective questions should be forward-looking, focused on development plans rather than assessment of existing data, and specific to the cell therapy product [37]. The briefing document should clearly present the development approach, identify key challenges, and propose possible solutions for regulatory consideration.

Table: Examples of Effective vs. Out-of-Scope Questions for Cell Therapy Scientific Advice

Effective Questions	Rationale	Out-of-Scope Questions
Are the proposed potency assays sufficient to demonstrate product activity?	Addresses critical quality attribute measurement	Are existing non-clinical data adequate to support first-in-human study?
Is the planned clinical study duration appropriate to demonstrate persistence?	Focuses on study design for unique cell therapy aspects	Could proposed modelling replace an agreed paediatric investigation plan?
Are the proposed acceptance criteria for product characterisation adequate?	Concerns future development strategy	Are phase 3 study results adequate to support marketing authorisation?
Is the comparability protocol suitable for assessing manufacturing changes?	Addresses specific cell therapy challenge	Matters of purely regulatory nature

The Scientific Advice Procedure

Formal Request and Assessment Process

The scientific advice procedure follows a structured timeline once a formal request is submitted. Developers must use the IRIS platform for all scientific advice requests, including the mandatory briefing document prepared using the CHMP scientific advice/protocol assistance briefing document template [38]. The process involves multiple stages of assessment and discussion:

• Formal Request and Validation: Following submission via IRIS, EMA validates the request and determines whether the questions fall within the scope of scientific advice [37].

• Appointment of Coordinators: For each validated procedure, two SAWP members with relevant expertise are appointed as coordinators [37]. For cell therapies, this typically includes expertise in ATMPs and may involve consultation with the Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT).

• Assessment Team Formation: Each coordinator forms an assessment team with assessors from their national agency or other EU agencies [37].

• Report Preparation: Assessment teams prepare reports addressing the scientific questions and draft a list of issues for discussion with SAWP [37].

• Meeting with Developer: If SAWP disagrees with aspects of the proposed development plan or proposes alternative approaches, it may organise a meeting with the medicine developer [37].

• Expert Consultation: The SAWP consults relevant EMA committees, working parties, and external experts as needed [37]. For cell therapies, consultation with CAT is common.

• Patient Consultation: Patients are often consulted, either through written comments or by attending meetings with the developer [37].

• Final Response Consolidation: The SAWP consolidates responses to the scientific questions, with final advice discussed and adopted by the CHMP before being sent to the medicine developer [37].

The following diagram illustrates the complete scientific advice procedure workflow:

Timelines, Fees, and Incentives

The standard scientific advice procedure takes approximately 40-70 days from submission to final advice, depending on the complexity of the questions and the need for additional meetings or consultations [38]. EMA charges fees for scientific advice, with variations based on scope, but offers several reductions and waivers:

• Fee reductions: 75% reduction for orphan medicines, 90% reduction for SMEs [38]
• Fee waivers: Full waiver for scientific advice on clinical trials for medicines addressing public health emergencies, and for entities not engaged in economic activities (e.g., academic institutions) as of January 2025 [38]

For cell therapy developers, the SME status provides significant advantages beyond fee reductions, including dedicated administrative support, translation assistance for product information, and regulatory guidance [32]. To qualify as an SME, companies must meet the EU definition based on staff headcount, annual turnover, or balance sheet total, and must obtain formal SME status from the EMA's SME Office before accessing incentives [32].

Special Considerations for Cell Therapies

Advanced Therapy Specific Guidance

Cell therapy developers should consider several specialized avenues for regulatory guidance beyond standard scientific advice. The Innovation Task Force (ITF) provides a multidisciplinary forum for early dialogue with applicants dealing with emerging therapies, technologies, and borderline products [32]. This is particularly relevant for cell therapies incorporating novel manufacturing approaches or combination products.

For cell therapies targeting rare diseases, protocol assistance offers specific guidance on orphan designation criteria and demonstrating significant benefit [37]. Additionally, the PRIority MEdicines (PRIME) scheme provides enhanced support for medicines that target unmet medical needs, including accelerated assessment and early dialogue [39].

Recent developments in decentralized manufacturing guidance are particularly relevant for autologous cell therapies. The MHRA's 2025 guidance on point-of-care and modular manufacturing provides a regulatory framework for cell therapies requiring manufacturing activities at the patient bedside [12]. This includes specific considerations for:

• Designation process: Seeking early regulatory evaluation of products proposed for decentralized manufacturing
• Marketing Authorization Applications: Emphasizing process validation and comparability between remote manufacturing sites
• Clinical Trial Applications: Addressing unique challenges in blinding and product preparation at multiple sites
• Good Manufacturing Practices: Establishing control sites with oversight of remote manufacturing locations
• Pharmacovigilance: Implementing enhanced tracking systems for products manufactured at multiple locations

Parallel Advice and Integrated Development Strategies

Cell therapy developers should consider parallel advice procedures to align regulatory requirements across different decision-making bodies. EMA offers parallel scientific advice with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and with the EU Member State Coordination Group on Health Technology Assessment (HTACG) [37]. This coordinated approach can streamline global development strategies and facilitate earlier access for patients.

The proposed new EU pharmaceutical legislation aims to better integrate development support mechanisms through several enhancements [39]:

• Leveraging clinical trial and medical device expertise from national competent authorities
• Mandating consultation of other authorities and public bodies as applicable
• Formalizing parallel consultations with HTA bodies and medical device expert panels
• Requiring publication of high-level information from scientific advice at marketing authorization

These developments highlight the importance of considering evidence requirements beyond traditional regulatory approval, including reimbursement and health technology assessment perspectives, early in the development process.

Implementing Scientific Advice in Cell Therapy Development

Compliance and Documentation

While scientific advice is not legally binding, documenting compliance with received advice strengthens future marketing authorization applications. For medicines approved after January 1, 2019, EMA includes a summary of the developer's questions and key elements of EMA's advice in the assessment report, along with information on whether the developer complied with this advice [37]. Therefore, developers should maintain clear records of how advice was implemented or justifications for any deviations.

For cell therapies, specific documentation should include:

• Manufacturing process development: How advice on characterisation, potency assays, and comparability was implemented
• Non-clinical strategies: Documentation of follow-up on advice regarding animal model selection and safety assessment
• Clinical development: Evidence of how clinical trial designs, endpoints, and statistical approaches align with regulatory advice
• Risk management: Implementation of advised pharmacovigilance activities and risk minimization measures

Table: Key Regulatory Resources for Cell Therapy Developers

Resource	Function	Access Platform
IRIS Platform	Secure online portal for scientific advice requests and communication	EMA IRIS website
Research Product Identifier (RPI)	Unique identifier tracking medicines through pre-authorisation procedures	IRIS platform registration
CHMP Scientific Advice Briefing Document Template	Mandatory template for scientific advice requests	EMA website - Scientific advice section
SME Office	Dedicated support for small and medium-sized enterprises	EMA SME website and contact point
Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS)	Portal for clinical trial applications under EU Clinical Trials Regulation	EMA CTIS website
Orphan Device Guidance	Specific guidance for devices used in rare diseases (relevant for combination products)	MDCG 2024-10 document

Strategic engagement with regulators through scientific advice and pre-submission meetings represents a critical success factor for cell therapy developers navigating the EU regulatory landscape. By proactively seeking guidance on development strategies, manufacturing approaches, and clinical trial designs, developers can generate more robust evidence packages for marketing authorization applications while potentially reducing overall development timelines. The specialized procedures for innovative therapies, orphan designation, and parallel advice offer cell therapy developers multiple avenues for tailored regulatory support throughout the development lifecycle. As regulatory frameworks evolve to address the unique challenges of advanced therapies, early and strategic engagement with regulators remains essential for successfully bringing innovative cell therapies to patients in need.

Submission, Validation, and the 210-Day Scientific Assessment by CHMP and CAT

For developers of advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) in the European Union, navigating the marketing authorisation process is a critical final step toward patient access. The standard regulatory pathway for these innovative medicines is the centralised procedure, overseen by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). This procedure mandates a rigorous scientific assessment that spans up to 210 active days, a timeline designed to thoroughly evaluate a product's quality, safety, and efficacy [40] [41]. This whitepaper provides an in-depth technical guide to the submission, validation, and 210-day assessment process, with a specific focus on the distinct roles of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) and the Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT), particularly for cell and gene therapies.

The CHMP is responsible for adopting a final opinion on the marketing authorisation of all medicinal products under the centralised procedure [11]. For ATMPs, the CAT plays an indispensable preliminary role, preparing a draft opinion on each ATMP application before the CHMP finalises its assessment [11] [42]. This collaborative, two-committee approach ensures that the unique scientific and technical challenges of ATMPs are evaluated by Europe's foremost experts.

Pre-Submission: Laying the Groundwork for Success

A successful application is built upon meticulous preparation and early engagement with regulators. For ATMPs, this begins even before the formal submission of a marketing authorisation application (MAA).

ATMP Classification and Early Interaction

A foundational step for any developer is to obtain a scientific recommendation on ATMP classification from the CAT. This voluntary, free-of-charge procedure allows developers to determine with certainty whether their product falls under the ATMP definition and, if so, which specific category (gene therapy, somatic cell therapy, tissue-engineered, or combined ATMP) applies [42]. Securing this classification is strongly recommended, as it clarifies the applicable regulatory pathway and guidance, and can unlock specific incentives for ATMP developers [42].

Engaging with the EMA six to seven months before submission is a strategic best practice. The Agency strongly recommends a pre-submission meeting with the EMA procedure manager, CHMP and CAT rapporteurs, and other relevant committees (e.g., PRAC) [40]. In this meeting, developers can present their proposed data package and risk management plan, aligning expectations and smoothing the path for the formal evaluation.

Accelerated Assessment

In certain cases, an accelerated assessment may be warranted. This can reduce the active assessment timeframe from 210 days to 150 days [40] [41]. To qualify, the applicant must demonstrate that the product is of major public health interest, particularly from the perspective of therapeutic innovation [40]. A request for accelerated assessment must be submitted two to three months before the MAA, with sufficient justification provided for the CHMP's consideration [40]. The PRIME scheme also offers the possibility for developers to receive early confirmation of potential eligibility for accelerated assessment during the clinical development phase [40].

Preparing the Application Dossier

The application dossier must comprehensively address all aspects of the product. For ATMPs, special attention must be paid to the Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) requirements outlined in Part IV of the EU GMP guidelines and the related annexes, which provide a flexible, risk-based framework specific to these complex products [43]. This includes detailed documentation on a Contamination Control Strategy (CCS), especially following the updated EudraLex Volume 4 EU-GMP Annex 1 [43]. Furthermore, the quality of ancillary materials must be rigorously controlled in accordance with standards such as USP <1043>, the IPRP report, and the European Pharmacopoeia (5.2.12) [44]. Documentation such as a comprehensive Drug Master File (DMF) and Certificates of Analysis (CoA) are critical for demonstrating this compliance [44].

Table 1: Key Pre-Submission Activities and Timelines

Activity	Recommended Timeline Before MAA Submission	Key Considerations
CAT Scientific Recommendation on Classification	As early as possible (during development)	Free of charge; determines applicable regulatory pathway [42]
Pre-Submission Meeting	6-7 months	Discuss data package & risk management plan with rapporteurs [40]
Request for Accelerated Assessment	2-3 months	Justify major public health interest and therapeutic innovation [40]
GMP & Ancillary Material Documentation Preparation	Ongoing during development	Adhere to EU GMP Part IV, USP <1043>, Ph. Eur. 5.2.12 [44] [43]

Submission, Validation, and the 210-Day Assessment Timeline

The formal assessment process is a meticulously structured sequence of evaluation, clock-stops, and iterative dialogue between the applicant and the regulatory committees.

Submission and Validation

The marketing authorisation application is submitted directly to the EMA for the centralised procedure. The Agency performs a validation step to ensure the application is complete and that the required key information and supporting documents are present before the formal scientific assessment can begin [45].

The 210-Day Assessment Process

The following diagram illustrates the workflow and major milestones of the 210-day scientific assessment.

Initial Assessment and List of Questions (By Day 120)

The first phase of the active evaluation involves a deep dive into the application by the appointed rapporteurs. For ATMP applications, the rapporteurs are appointed from among the CAT members, who each work with a CHMP coordinator [41]. The rapporteurs' teams, along with the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) for the risk management plan, independently prepare assessment reports [41]. These reports are consolidated through a peer-review process, leading to a single assessment report and a List of Questions addressed to the applicant, which is adopted by the CHMP by day 120 [41].

First Clock-Stop and Further Assessment (By Day 180)

The evaluation is then paused (first clock-stop), typically for up to three months, while the applicant prepares a comprehensive response to the questions [41]. Once the responses are submitted, the rapporteurs and the committees assess the provided information. By day 180, the CHMP adopts an updated report, which often includes a List of Outstanding Issues, triggering a second clock-stop of usually one month for the applicant to respond [41].

Final Consultation and Adoption of Opinion (By Day 210)

Following the second response, an Oral Explanation may be held if major objections remain [41]. At this stage, the CHMP may also consult external experts, healthcare professionals, or patients through Scientific Advisory Groups to address specific questions related to clinical use [41]. For ATMPs, the CAT finalizes its draft opinion [11]. By day 210, the CHMP adopts a final opinion on whether to grant a marketing authorisation, agreeing on the product information and any post-authorisation obligations [41]. This opinion is then sent to the European Commission, which issues the final binding marketing authorisation for the EU.

Table 2: The 210-Day Assessment Timeline: Key Milestones and Outputs

Assessment Phase	Maximum Timeline (Active Days)	Key Committee Actions & Outputs
Initial Assessment	Day 1 - 120	Rapporteurs (from CAT for ATMPs) and PRAC prepare assessment reports. CHMP adopts a List of Questions for the applicant [41].
First Clock-Stop	Up to 3 months	Applicant prepares and submits responses to the List of Questions [41].
Further Assessment	Day 121 - 180	CHMP assesses responses and adopts a List of Outstanding Issues [41].
Second Clock-Stop	Up to 1 month	Applicant prepares and submits responses to Outstanding Issues; may attend an Oral Explanation [41].
Final Consultation & Opinion	Day 181 - 210	CHMP consults experts if needed. CAT finalizes draft opinion (for ATMPs). CHMP adopts a final opinion on marketing authorisation by Day 210 [11] [41].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research and Compliance Reagents

The development and regulatory approval of an ATMP relies on a suite of critical reagents and materials, each governed by stringent quality standards.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for ATMP Development and Compliance

Reagent / Material	Function in ATMP Development & Manufacturing	Key Regulatory Considerations & Documentation
Ancillary Materials (AMs)	Substances used in the manufacturing process (e.g., cytokines, growth factors, antibodies) but not intended to be part of the final product [44].	Classified per USP <1043> (Tiers 1-4). Requires extensive documentation including CoA, Certificate of Origin, and viral safety data. GMP-grade is essential for clinical phases [44].
Cell Culture Media & Supplements	Provides nutrients and environment for ex vivo cell expansion and differentiation.	Must be produced under a suitable quality system. Requires data on biological safety (e.g., sterility, mycoplasma, endotoxins) as per European Pharmacopoeia 5.2.12 [44].
Viral Vectors	Serve as delivery vehicles for gene therapy medicinal products (GTMPs).	Full CMC data required. GMP compliance for manufacturing is mandatory. In-process and release testing must demonstrate safety (e.g., replication-competent viruses, sterility) and potency [43].
Critical Starting Materials	Biological tissues or cells of human/animal origin that initiate the manufacturing process.	Requires the highest level of traceability and quality control. Supplier qualification and quality agreements are critical. Must comply with IPRP guidelines and ISO 20399:2022 for origin and microbial safety [44].

Experimental Protocol for a Key Supporting Study: In Vitro T Cell Killing Assay

To support the mechanism of action for an immunomodulatory ATMP (e.g., an engineered cell therapy), a robust in vitro T cell killing assay is often essential. The protocol below outlines a standard methodology for quantifying the cytotoxicity of T cells against target tumor cells, a key experiment cited in foundational research [46].

Methodology

• Step 1: Co-culture Setup. Seed target tumor cells (e.g., melanoma cell line A375) in a multi-well plate. After the cells adhere, add activated T cells (e.g., from human PBMCs) at various Effector-to-Target (E:T) ratios (e.g., 1:1, 5:1, 10:1). Include control wells with only target cells (for spontaneous release) and only T cells [46].
• Step 2: Assay Execution. Co-culture the cells for a predetermined period (e.g., 24-48 hours) in a controlled environment (37°C, 5% CO₂). To measure cytotoxicity, use a real-time cell analyzer (e.g., xCelligence) or an endpoint assay like LDH release. For the latter, lyse a set of target-only wells at the start to determine maximum LDH release [46].
• Step 3: Data Collection and Analysis. Measure the LDH activity in the supernatant from all wells. Calculate the percentage of specific cytotoxicity using the formula: [ (Experimental LDH - Spontaneous Effector LDH - Spontaneous Target LDH) / (Maximum LDH - Spontaneous Target LDH) ] x 100 [46]. Compare the cytotoxicity across different E:T ratios and experimental conditions (e.g., CD137L-overexpressing vs. control tumor cells) [46].

The experimental workflow for this protocol is summarized in the following diagram.

Post-Opinion and Appeal Procedures

Following the CHMP opinion, the applicant has 15 days to request a re-examination (appeal) [41]. The grounds for appeal must be clearly stated, and the process involves the appointment of new rapporteurs. The re-examination is limited to the points contested by the applicant and is based on the original data; no new evidence can be introduced [41]. This procedure lasts up to 60 active days, concluding with the adoption of a final, binding CHMP opinion [41].

Within the European Union's centralized regulatory framework for advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs), the journey from scientific assessment to market access culminates in a critical legislative phase. While the European Medicines Agency (EMA) provides the scientific evaluation, the European Commission (EC) serves as the single authorizing body that transforms scientific opinion into legally binding marketing authorization across all Member States [19] [47]. This technical guide examines the EC's role, procedures, and decision-making criteria during the final 67-day decision-making process that follows a positive Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) opinion, providing drug development professionals with essential insights for strategic planning.

For ATMPs, including cell therapies, this pathway operates under Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007, which establishes a centralized marketing authorization procedure specifically designed for these innovative products [9]. The EC's decision represents the final step in this process, converting the scientific recommendation into a legally enforceable authorization that enables simultaneous market access throughout the European Economic Area (EEA).

The Legal and Regulatory Framework

The Centralized Authorization Procedure

The centralized procedure for ATMPs mandates a single application to the EMA, resulting in a single assessment and authorization valid across all EU Member States and EEA countries (Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway) [47] [2]. This harmonized approach eliminates the need for multiple national applications, creating a streamlined pathway for innovative therapies.

The EC's authority derives from Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, which establishes the centralized marketing authorization procedure for innovative medicines, including all ATMPs [47]. The Regulation on advanced therapies (1394/2007) further specifies that ATMPs must follow this centralized route, recognizing their technical complexity and the need for specialized evaluation [9].

Institutional Roles and Responsibilities

A clear division of responsibilities characterizes the EU authorization process:

Table: Institutional Roles in ATMP Authorization Process

Institution	Primary Responsibility	Output
EMA (via CHMP/CAT)	Scientific assessment of quality, safety, and efficacy	Positive or negative opinion
European Commission	Legal authorization and decision-making	Binding marketing authorization
National Authorities	Implementation and supervision at member state level	National market access following EC decision

For ATMPs, the Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) provides specialized expertise during the EMA assessment phase, preparing a draft opinion on the ATMP's quality, safety and efficacy before the CHMP adopts the final scientific opinion [2]. This dual-committee evaluation ensures appropriate expertise is applied to these complex therapies.

The Decision-Making Procedure: From Opinion to Authorization

The 67-Day Decision Process

Following the CHMP's positive opinion, the EC initiates a precisely defined decision-making procedure with a statutory completion timeframe of 67 days [19]. This period involves comprehensive legal and procedural review beyond the scientific assessment.

Table: Detailed Timeline from CHMP Opinion to EC Decision

Process Stage	Timeline	Key Activities
CHMP Opinion Transmission	Day 0	EMA sends formal opinion to European Commission
EC Review & Drafting	Days 1-60	Legal review, drafting of decision, translation into all EU languages
Standing Committee Consultation	Days 45-55	Consultation with Member State representatives
Final Adoption	Day 67	Formal adoption of marketing authorization decision

During this period, the EC verifies that the CHMP opinion is correctly founded on EU legislation and that all procedural requirements have been met. The decision document is drafted and translated into all official EU languages, followed by consultation with the Standing Committee on Medicinal Products for Human Use, composed of representatives from all Member States [47].

Implementation and Publication

Once adopted, the EC decision is immediately implemented through publication in the Community Register of medicinal products for human use [19]. This publication makes the authorization legally binding and enables marketing across the EU/EEA.

Concurrently, EMA publishes a European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) providing detailed assessment information [19]. For developers, understanding that the EPAR will become publicly available is crucial for strategic planning, as it contains comprehensive details on the scientific basis for authorization, which may include proprietary information.

Strategic Considerations for Developers

Preparation for the EC Decision Phase

While the EC decision phase is primarily administrative, sponsors should prepare for several critical activities:

• Manufacturing and Labeling Compliance: Verify that all product information, labeling, and packaging materials comply with EU requirements ahead of the decision
• Pharmacovigilance System Readiness: Ensure the pharmacovigilance system and risk management plan are fully operational before authorization [47]
• Launch Planning: Coordinate market launch plans across member states, recognizing that national pricing and reimbursement processes may cause variations in actual patient access [47]

For ATMPs specifically, developers should note the requirement for follow-up measures on efficacy and safety, which form part of the post-authorization requirements [2].

Post-Authorization Obligations

Following EC authorization, marketing authorization holders assume significant responsibilities:

• Pharmacovigilance: Continuous monitoring and reporting of adverse reactions through the EudraVigilance system [47]
• Risk Management: Implementation of specific risk management measures outlined in the risk management plan
• Variation Management: Submission of applications for any changes to the marketing authorization through established procedures
• Periodic Safety Updates: Regular submission of periodic safety update reports (PSURs) according to specified timelines

For ATMPs, the traceability of products from donor to patient and vice versa represents a particularly critical requirement that must be established before product launch [47].

Visualizing the Authorization Pathway

The following workflow diagrams illustrate the complete pathway from application to decision and the specific EC decision process.

Diagram 1: Complete EU ATMP Authorization Pathway. This workflow shows the journey from application through to marketing authorization, highlighting the distinct phases of scientific assessment and legal decision-making.

Diagram 2: European Commission Decision Process. This detailed workflow illustrates the specific 67-day procedure from receipt of the CHMP opinion to final authorization, emphasizing the legal and administrative steps.

Essential Research and Regulatory Tools

Successfully navigating the EC decision process requires familiarity with key regulatory tools and documentation.

Table: Essential Regulatory Tools for the EC Decision Phase

Tool/Document	Function	Strategic Importance
Community Register	Official publication of authorized medicines	Verification of legal status; mandatory for launch
European Public Assessment Report (EPAR)	Detailed scientific assessment report	Transparency of basis for authorization; competitor intelligence
Product Information	Legally binding labeling, packaging	Required for all member state markets
Risk Management Plan	Pharmacovigilance and risk minimization	Post-authorization safety requirements
EURD List	Updated list of safety reference dates	Periodic safety update report scheduling

The European Commission's role in the ATMP authorization process represents the critical transition from scientific assessment to legally enforceable market access. Understanding the 67-day decision procedure, preparation requirements, and post-authorization obligations enables developers to strategically plan for successful EU market entry. While the EC phase is primarily administrative, thorough preparation ensures efficient transition from regulatory success to commercial availability, ultimately accelerating patient access to innovative cell therapies across the European Union.

Overcoming Common Hurdles in Cell Therapy CMC and GMP Compliance

For developers seeking a cell therapy manufacturing license in the European Union, navigating the requirements for raw materials, process validation, and demonstrating comparability presents a complex yet critical pathway. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) framework for Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs) consolidates expectations from over 40 guidelines and reflection papers [7]. A robust Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls (CMC) dossier is foundational to regulatory success, with quality systems that must be mature enough to support a Marketing Authorisation Application (MAA) even at the clinical trial stage [7]. This guide provides a technical roadmap for addressing these core challenges within the specific context of the EU regulatory landscape, focusing on the most current guidelines effective in 2025.

Raw Materials: Classification and Control Strategies

Raw materials directly impact the quality, safety, and efficacy of the final cell therapy product. Establishing a scientifically sound and regulatory-compliant control strategy begins with precise classification.

Regulatory Definitions and Impact

Table 1: Comparative Terminology for Materials in Cell and Gene Therapies

Material Type	European Union (EU) Definition	United States (US) Definition	Regulatory Implications
Starting Material	Materials forming an integral part of the active substance [48].	Materials that will become part of the drug substance [16].	Every starting material is considered critical. Requires rigorous testing and quality assurance.
Raw Material	Materials used during the manufacture of the active substance and NOT intended to form part of it [48].	ALL materials used in the manufacturing process (USP <1047>) [48].	Quality requirements depend on risk assessment and contact with the product.
Ancillary Material	The term is not formally used in EU definitions [48].	A subset of Raw Materials that contact the product but are NOT in the final product (USP <1043>) [48].	Requires documentation and qualification to ensure they do not introduce risk.

The classification dictates the level of control. In the EU, Starting Materials—such as patient/donor cells, vectors for genetic modification, and gene editing components—are considered an integral part of the drug substance and are therefore automatically critical [48]. A significant nuance for viral vectors exists: the EMA classifies in vitro viral vectors used to modify cell therapy products as a starting material, whereas the US FDA classifies them as a drug substance [16]. For vectors as starting materials, the EMA expects them to be prepared per GMP principles, with quality assurance provided by the manufacturer's Qualified Person (QP) [16].

A Risk-Based Control Strategy

A robust control strategy extends beyond classification. The industry is shifting towards chemically defined, xeno-free media and reagents to reduce variability and contamination risk [49]. As therapies progress to late-stage trials and commercialization, demand surges for GMP-grade, traceable, and standardized raw materials [49]. Key elements of a control strategy include:

• Supplier Qualification: Rigorous assessment of material suppliers, especially given that raw materials for ATMPs often come from non-traditional sources and are frequently single-sourced [50].
• Testing and Specifications: Establishing identity, purity, potency, and safety tests for each material based on risk. The European Pharmacopoeia (Ph. Eur.) provides critical standards, including general chapter 5.2.12 on raw materials of biological origin [51] [49].
• Documentation and Traceability: Maintaining full traceability from material receipt to final product is paramount for investigating deviations and ensuring batch-to-batch consistency [49].

Process Validation: From Clinical Trials to Commercial Licensure

Process validation in the EU is a phased, lifecycle approach, with expectations escalating as the product moves from early-stage trials to an MAA.

Phased and Lifecycle Approach

For an MAA, the EMA typically expects validation based on three consecutive commercial-scale batches to demonstrate process consistency and robustness [16]. However, some flexibility exists. The MHRA allows for concurrent validation for products addressing unmet medical needs, such as those in the PRIME scheme, and acknowledges the use of surrogate approaches in validation when there is a shortage of the actual starting material (e.g., patient cells) [16]. Furthermore, the use of platform data is acceptable where similar manufacturing steps are used across multiple products [16].

Emerging Paradigms: Decentralized Manufacturing

A significant evolution in 2025 is the MHRA's new framework for decentralized manufacturing, relevant to autologous therapies and those with short shelf-lives [12]. This introduces "Point of Care" (POC) and "Modular Manufacturing" (MM) designations, radically altering traditional validation.

The validation strategy for a decentralized model must demonstrate comparability between products manufactured at the controlling site and all remote POC/MM sites [12]. This often relies heavily on Real-Time Release Testing (RTRT) [12]. The sponsor must submit a Decentralized Manufacturing Master File detailing how to complete manufacturing at remote sites and maintain oversight via a comprehensive Quality Management System [12].

Diagram: Regulatory Pathway for Decentralized Manufacturing in the UK

Demonstrating Comparability After Process Changes

Navigating comparability is a major challenge for ATMP developers, especially as processes are refined and scaled. While the ICH Q5E guideline is currently considered out of scope for ATMPs, regional guidances provide a clear framework.

EU Regulatory Framework for Comparability

The primary EMA guidance is the "Questions and answers on comparability considerations for advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMP)" (EMA/CAT/499821/2019) [21] [16]. For products containing genetically modified cells, the "Guideline on quality, non-clinical and clinical aspects of medicinal products containing genetically modified cells" provides further specific attributes to evaluate [21] [16]. A new multidisciplinary EU guideline on demonstrating comparability for CGTs undergoing clinical development came into effect in July 2025 [16] [7].

Both EMA and FDA advocate a risk-based approach where the extent of testing increases with the clinical stage [16]. The comparability exercise should include a combination of release testing, extended characterization, and stability studies. Both agencies agree on the critical importance of including potency testing using a functional assay [16].

Key Differences and Specific EMA Requirements

Despite general alignment, key divergences exist. The EMA outlines specific attributes for comparability when the manufacturing process for the recombinant starting material (e.g., viral vector) changes. These include [16]:

• For the starting material: Full vector sequencing, confirming the absence of Replication Competent Virus (RCV), comparing impurities, and assessing stability.
• For the finished product: Transduction efficiency, vector copy number, and transgene expression.

The FDA has no direct equivalent to this detailed list in its current draft guidance [16]. Furthermore, requirements for stability data supporting comparability differ. The EMA may not always require real-time data for certain changes, whereas the FDA expects a thorough assessment including real-time data [16]. The EMA also does not recommend using historical data as a comparator, unlike the FDA [16].

Table 2: Key Elements of a Comparability Exercise for an EU MAA

Element	Testing Scope	EMA-Specific Considerations
Quality Attributes	Identity, Purity, Impurities, Potency, Safety (e.g., sterility, endotoxin).	For GM cells, test transduction efficiency, vector copy number, and transgene expression if vector process changes [16].
Stability	Real-time and accelerated stability on pre- and post-change product.	Real-time data not always mandatory for comparability; case-by-case assessment [16].
Analytical Methods	Methods must be validated and stability-indicating.	Emphasis on functional potency assays, especially for late-stage trials and MAA [16] [7].
Non-Clinical & Clinical Data	May be needed if quality data is insufficient to demonstrate comparable safety/profile.	Refer to ICH E11 for pediatric populations [7]. Historical data comparison not recommended [16].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Cell Therapy Development

Reagent / Material	Function in Development & Manufacturing	Critical Quality Attributes
Cell Culture Media	Supports the growth, expansion, and viability of therapeutic cells.	Chemically defined formulation, xeno-free, batch-to-batch consistency, growth promotion performance [49].
Viral Vectors (e.g., LV, AAV)	Gene delivery vehicles for genetically modifying therapeutic cells (ex vivo) or for in vivo gene therapy.	Functional titer (TU/mL), purity (ratio of full/empty capsids), absence of RCV, sequence fidelity [16] [49].
Cell Separation Reagents	Isolation and purification of specific cell populations (e.g., CD34+ cells) from a starting tissue or apheresis product.	Purity, recovery, viability, and functional potency of the isolated cell population.
Growth Factors & Cytokines	Directs cell differentiation, expansion, and activation.	Potency (specific activity), purity (e.g., SDS-PAGE, HPLC), identity (mass spec), endotoxin levels [49].
Cryopreservation Media	Preserves cell viability and functionality during frozen storage and transport.	Formulation (e.g., DMSO concentration), performance (post-thaw viability and recovery), sterility [49].

Success in the EU cell therapy manufacturing license application process hinges on a deep and proactive approach to raw materials, process validation, and comparability. Developers must implement risk-based, phase-appropriate control strategies for materials, leveraging the latest pharmacopoeial standards. Process validation must evolve to embrace novel manufacturing paradigms like decentralization, supported by robust comparability protocols. By understanding the nuances of EMA guidance and early engagement with regulators, developers can navigate this complex landscape, ensuring that transformative cell therapies reach patients safely and efficiently.

Strategies for Managing Complex Logistics and Short Shelf-Lives

For developers of cell and gene therapies, managing complex logistics with extremely short shelf-lives is not merely a supply chain challenge—it is a fundamental determinant of regulatory success and patient access. Within the European Union's regulatory framework, the Marketing Authorisation Application (MAA) process for these advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) demands an unprecedented integration of logistical control into the core quality dossier [32]. These therapies, particularly autologous products manufactured at the point of care (POC), redefine traditional pharmaceutical paradigms by collapsing manufacturing and administration timelines from months to hours or days [12]. This technical guide examines the strategic integration of logistics and shelf-life management within the context of EU cell therapy license applications, providing drug development professionals with the methodologies and frameworks necessary to demonstrate control to regulators. Success hinges on proving that logistical strategies can robustly maintain critical quality attributes (CQAs) from apheresis to patient infusion, a requirement that permeates every section of the MAA, from pharmaceutical development to pharmacovigilance [32].

Regulatory Framework: Incorporating Logistics into Your Submission

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) provides specific guidance for marketing authorisation, emphasizing that the Marketing Authorisation Holder (MAH) retains ultimate legal responsibility for the product, even when logistical or manufacturing activities are delegated [32]. This is particularly critical for decentralized manufacturing models. While the EU framework is established, recent MHRA (UK) guidances on decentralized manufacturing provide a forward-looking model for the technical expectations that are increasingly relevant across Europe [12]. These emerging frameworks introduce two key concepts:

• Point of Care (POC) Manufacturing: Products that, due to their method of manufacture, shelf life, or constituents, can only be manufactured at or near the patient's location [12].
• Modular Manufacturing (MM): A approach where manufacturing occurs in self-contained units, justified by public health need or significant clinical advantage [12].

A pivotal early regulatory step is the Designation Step, a formal process where sponsors petition the regulator to approve the use of a POC or MM approach for their product. This should be completed early in development, ideally before MAA submission, as a negative designation can result in application rejection [12]. The accompanying Marketing Authorisation Application must include a Decentralized Manufacturing Master File (DMMF), which details how to complete manufacturing at decentralized sites and how the control site will oversee these remote operations [12].

Table: Key Regulatory Documents for Logistics and Shelf-Life in an MAA

Document Type	Purpose & Content	Relevant EMA Volume/Annex
Decentralized Manufacturing Master File (DMMF)	Describes processes for completing manufacturing at remote sites; outlines control site oversight [12].	Volume 2B - Presentation and content of the dossier [32]
Risk Management Plan (RMP)	Details pharmacovigilance activities and additional risk minimization measures for products with complex logistics [12].	Volume 9 - Pharmacovigilance (Replaced by GVP modules) [32]
Process Validation Protocol	Demonstrates comparability between products made across all manufacturing sites [12].	Volume 3 - Scientific guidelines [32]
Product Information Documents	Includes translated Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC), labeling, and package leaflet for all member states [32].	Volume 2C - Regulatory guidelines [32]

Quantitative Logistics & Stability Data Analysis

Effective regulatory submissions are built on quantitative data that demonstrates control. The following tables summarize key parameters that must be validated and monitored throughout the product lifecycle.

Table 1: Critical Shelf-Life and Stability Parameters for Cell Therapy Logistics

Parameter	Target Range	Monitoring Method	Data for MAA
Temperature Stability	Validated hold time at (2-8^\circ C) (or other specified range)	Continuous data loggers with alarms	Mean kinetic temperature (MKT) and analysis of excursions [52]
Short Shelf-Life	Often < 48 hours for POC products	Real-time release testing (RTRT)	Validation data showing CQAs maintained over shelf-life [12]
Minimum Required Shelf-Life	Defined by customer (e.g., clinical site) requirements [53]	Chain of Identity (COI) tracking	Documentation of different B2B customer requirements [53]

Table 2: Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for Logistics Control

Logistics KPI	Industry Benchmark	Impact on Shelf-Life	Measurement Protocol
On-Time Delivery	Target: >95% within scheduled window [52]	Directly impacts usable shelf-life	(Actual arrival time - Scheduled arrival time) / Total shipments [53]
Temperature Excursion Rate	Target: <1% of shipments [52]	May invalidate product shelf-life	Number of shipments with T° deviation / Total shipments [52]
Patient Wait Time	Begin recruitment within 200 days of CTA submission (EU target) [54]	Affects product scheduling	Time from application submission to patient recruitment [54]

Experimental Protocols for Validating Logistics and Stability

Protocol: Validation of Real-Time Release Testing (RTRT) for Shelf-Life

Objective: To validate RTRT methods as a substitute for end-product testing, proving that CQAs are maintained throughout the short shelf-life [12].

Methodology:

• Stability Testing: Perform accelerated and real-time stability studies on products from multiple manufacturing runs. Sample and test at T=0 (release), T=mid (e.g., 12 hours), and T=end (e.g., 36 hours) of shelf-life.
• Parameter Correlation: Correlate rapid, real-time analytical results (e.g., cell viability via flow cytometry, potency assays) with full shelf-life stability data.
• Edge-of-Failure Analysis: Intentionally stress the product (temperature, time) to establish the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable quality.

MAA Submission Data: A statistical analysis comparing RTRT results with final product quality, demonstrating that RTRT is a predictive and reliable measure of safety and efficacy at the point of administration [12].

Protocol: Mapping and Qualifying the Supply Chain Network

Objective: To generate data proving the entire logistics network, including remote sites, can maintain the product's CQAs.

Methodology:

• Shipment Qualification: Execute "mock shipments" using qualified temperature-monitoring devices along all potential logistics routes. Data loggers should record temperature, shock, and orientation.
• Site Qualification: Audit and qualify all remote manufacturing or administration sites against a predefined checklist covering equipment (e.g., centrifuges, incubators), staff training, and environmental monitoring.
• Chain of Identity/Custody Testing: Perform process simulations to validate the system that tracks the product from patient cell collection through to final infusion, ensuring zero mix-ups.

MAA Submission Data: A dossier containing the qualification protocols, raw data from mock shipments, audit reports for remote sites, and a summary report concluding that the network is fit for purpose [55].

Visualization of Control Systems

Diagram: Cell Therapy Logistics Oversight Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the integrated workflow and oversight responsibilities for a decentralized cell therapy logistics model, from the central control site to the point-of-care.

Diagram: Critical Parameter Monitoring Logic

This diagram outlines the decision-making logic for monitoring and acting upon critical process parameters during cell therapy logistics.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful validation of logistics and shelf-life strategies requires specific tools and materials. The following table details key items essential for conducting the experiments and generating the data required for a regulatory submission.

Table: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Logistics Validation

Item / Reagent	Function in Logistics & Stability Research	Example Application in Protocol
Continuous Data Loggers	Monitor temperature, humidity, and shock in real-time during transit and storage [52].	Shipment Qualification Protocol (4.2) to map the temperature profile of the supply chain.
Viability/Potency Assay Kits	Rapidly measure Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs) for Real-Time Release Testing (RTRT) [12].	RTRT Validation Protocol (4.1) to correlate rapid measures with end-of-shelf-life product quality.
Chain of Identity (COI) Software	A secure, validated software platform to track product from patient cell collection to final infusion [12].	Supply Chain Mapping Protocol (4.2) to validate the tracking system and prevent mix-ups.
Stability Study Chambers	Precisely control environmental conditions (temperature, humidity, gas) for accelerated and real-time shelf-life studies.	RTRT Validation Protocol (4.1) to conduct edge-of-failure and formal stability testing.
Quality Management System (QMS)	The overarching system for managing documentation, deviations, and corrective actions across all sites [12].	Required for all protocols to ensure data integrity and compliance with GMP.

Implementing a Risk-Based Approach to GMP for Early and Late-Stage Development

The development of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs), including cell and gene therapies, represents one of the most innovative yet challenging frontiers in modern medicine. For researchers and drug development professionals navigating the European Union's regulatory landscape, implementing a Risk-Based Approach (RBA) to Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) is not merely a regulatory suggestion—it is a fundamental necessity for successful market authorization. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) explicitly emphasizes that ATMPs demand tailored manufacturing strategies due to their unique characteristics, including complex biological starting materials, limited shelf lives, and frequently personalized nature [2].

A risk-based approach in GMP provides a systematic framework for focusing quality assurance efforts and resources where they matter most—on factors with the greatest potential impact on product safety, quality, and efficacy. This approach is particularly crucial for ATMP developers because, as noted in regulatory guidance, "these Guidelines do not intend to place any restrain on the development of new concepts of new technologies. While this document describes the standard expectations, alternative approaches may be implemented by manufacturers if it is demonstrated that the alternative approach is capable of meeting the same objective" [56]. This regulatory philosophy acknowledges the rapid pace of innovation in ATMP science and creates space for novel manufacturing paradigms, provided manufacturers can scientifically justify their approaches through rigorous risk assessment.

Regulatory Framework for ATMPs in the EU

Foundational Regulations and Guidelines

The regulatory framework for ATMPs in the European Union has evolved significantly to address the unique challenges presented by these innovative therapies. The cornerstone regulation—Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007—established the specific legal framework for ATMPs and created the Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) within the EMA [2]. The CAT plays a pivotal role in the scientific assessment of ATMPs, preparing draft opinions on quality, safety, and efficacy that inform the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) recommendations for market authorization [2].

For GMP-specific guidance, manufacturers should primarily consult EudraLex Volume 4, Part IV: Guidelines on Good Manufacturing Practice specific to Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products, which was developed specifically to address ATMP manufacturing challenges [56]. This document diverged from previous approaches that categorized ATMPs under broader biologics guidelines and instead established a dedicated regulatory pathway. It's important to note that the PIC/S Guide to GMP takes a different approach, addressing ATMPs through Annex 2A while keeping them within the broader GMP annex structure [56]. The following table summarizes the key regulatory documents relevant to ATMP development in the EU:

Table 1: Key EU Regulatory Documents for ATMP GMP Compliance

Regulatory Document	Issuing Authority	Focus Area	Applicability to ATMPs
EudraLex Vol 4, Part IV	European Commission	GMP specific to ATMPs	Primary guidance for ATMP manufacturing
Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007	European Parliament & Council	Legal framework for ATMPs	Defines ATMP categories and regulatory requirements
PIC/S Annex 2A	PIC/S	Manufacture of ATMPs for human use	Applies in PIC/S member states and associated countries
EMA/CAT Classification	European Medicines Agency	ATMP classification procedure	Determines regulatory status of developmental products
ICH Q9	EMA/FDA/Other ICH members	Quality Risk Management	Provides foundational risk management principles

Regulatory Support Initiatives

Recognizing the unique challenges faced by ATMP developers, particularly academic institutions and small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs), the EMA has established several support initiatives. The SME Office provides administrative and procedural assistance, including fee reductions for scientific advice (90% reduction), certification of quality/non-clinical data for ATMPs, and translation assistance for product information [32]. Additionally, the Innovation Task Force (ITF) offers a multidisciplinary forum for early dialogue with applicants developing emerging therapies and technologies [32].

For promising therapies addressing unmet medical needs, the Priority Medicines (PRIME) scheme provides enhanced support, including early appointment of CAT and CHMP rapporteurs, and accelerated assessment of marketing authorization applications [57]. Similar accelerated pathways exist, such as conditional approval, which allows submission of final proof of efficacy under specific obligations with defined timelines post-MAA filing [57]. These regulatory mechanisms acknowledge that a one-size-fits-all approach to GMP compliance is inappropriate for the diverse spectrum of ATMPs and instead encourage risk-proportionate strategies.

Core Principles of Risk-Based GMP Implementation

Fundamental Components of Quality Risk Management

Implementing a successful risk-based approach to GMP requires foundational understanding of quality risk management principles as outlined in ICH Q9. These principles provide the structural framework for all risk-based activities throughout the product lifecycle. The fundamental components include:

• Risk Assessment: Initiating the process through systematic identification of hazards, followed by analysis and evaluation of risks associated with exposure to those hazards. For ATMPs, this includes unique risks related to starting materials of biological origin, limited shelf lives, and frequently complex, patient-specific manufacturing processes [56] [57].

• Risk Control: Implementing appropriate decisions to reduce risks to acceptable levels, including mitigation plans for high-priority risks and acceptance of certain unavoidable risks when adequately justified. This includes process controls, acceptance criteria, and other measures that directly impact manufacturing strategy and facility design [56].

• Risk Communication: Ensuring transparent sharing of risk-related information between all stakeholders, including manufacturers, regulators, and healthcare providers. This is particularly crucial for ATMPs with decentralized manufacturing models where multiple sites are involved [12].

• Risk Review: Conducting periodic reassessment of risks throughout the product lifecycle, leveraging knowledge gained during development, manufacturing, and post-marketing surveillance. This continuous improvement cycle is essential for adapting to new information and process changes [58].

Application Across Product Lifecycle Stages

The implementation of risk-based GMP must evolve throughout the product lifecycle, with different emphases during early development versus late-stage and commercial manufacturing:

• Early Development Phase: During early clinical development, the focus should be on risks potentially impacting patient safety, with particular attention to controlling variability in biological starting materials, ensuring aseptic processing where sterile filtration isn't possible, and implementing appropriate in-process controls for complex manufacturing processes [56] [57]. The regulatory expectation is for a science-based approach that identifies critical process parameters without necessarily having complete process characterization.

• Late-Stage Development: As products approach pivotal clinical trials and marketing authorization applications, risk management should expand to include process robustness, scalability, and comparability between clinical and commercial manufacturing sites. The Product Quality Review (PQR) process becomes increasingly important, requiring annual assessment of data gathered from manufacturing, deviations, stability testing, complaints, and recalls [59].

• Commercial Phase: For approved products, risk management extends to the entire supply chain, including continuity of raw material supply, management of multiple manufacturing sites (particularly relevant for decentralized manufacturing models), and comprehensive pharmacovigilance systems capable of detecting potential safety signals that might relate to specific manufacturing events [12].

Table 2: Risk Prioritization Framework for ATMP Manufacturing

Risk Level	Impact on Product Quality	Control Strategy Elements	Documentation Requirements
High	Potential for irreversible harm to patient safety or significant efficacy reduction	Rigorous process controls, extensive in-process testing, redundant systems, strict acceptance criteria	Comprehensive risk assessment reports, detailed validation protocols, trend analysis
Medium	Moderate impact on quality attributes, potentially affecting efficacy but not safety	Standard process controls, defined operational parameters, periodic monitoring	Standard operating procedures, batch records, deviation investigations
Low	Minor impact on product quality, unlikely to affect safety or efficacy	General GMP controls, standard monitoring, supplier qualification	Basic documentation, change control records, training documentation

Methodologies and Tools for Risk Assessment

Structured Risk Assessment Tools

Implementation of a risk-based approach requires specific methodological tools for systematic risk identification, analysis, and evaluation. The following established tools are particularly relevant for ATMP manufacturing:

• Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA): A systematic, proactive method for evaluating processes to identify where and how they might fail and assessing the relative impact of different failures. For ATMPs, FMEA is particularly valuable for assessing risks in complex manufacturing processes involving multiple unit operations with limited opportunities for intermediate testing [58].

• Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP): A structured approach that identifies, evaluates, and controls hazards that are significant for food safety. Adapted for ATMPs, HACCP principles help identify critical control points in manufacturing where failures would be unacceptable and require strict monitoring [58].

• Fault Tree Analysis (FTA): A top-down, deductive failure analysis method that maps failure pathways to understand system vulnerabilities. FTA is particularly useful for investigating deviations and identifying root causes in complex ATMP manufacturing processes [58].

• Risk Matrices: Visual tools that plot the severity of potential harm against the likelihood of occurrence to prioritize risks. These provide accessible visualization of risk priorities and facilitate decision-making on resource allocation for risk control measures [58].

Experimental Protocols for Risk Assessment

Protocol 1: Risk Assessment for Critical Process Parameters

Objective: To identify and prioritize critical process parameters (CPPs) for an ATMP manufacturing process using a structured risk assessment methodology.

Materials:

• Multidisciplinary team (process development, manufacturing, quality, regulatory)
• Process flow diagrams and manufacturing instructions
• Historical data (development reports, batch records, deviation reports)
• Risk assessment template (electronic or paper-based)

Methodology:

• Define Assessment Scope: Clearly delineate the manufacturing process steps to be assessed, including all unit operations from raw material receipt to final product release.
• Identify Process Parameters: List all adjustable inputs for each process step that may potentially impact critical quality attributes (CQAs).
• Evaluate Severity: For each parameter, assess the severity of impact on CQAs using a standardized scoring system (e.g., 1-5 scale from negligible to critical).
• Assess Occurrence Probability: Evaluate the likelihood of parameter variation occurring during manufacturing based on historical data and process capability.
• Evaluate Detectability: Score the ability to detect parameter deviations before they impact product quality.
• Calculate Risk Priority: Apply risk priority formula (e.g., Severity × Occurrence × Detectability) to identify parameters requiring focused control strategies.
• Document Rationale: Record scientific justification for all assessments to support regulatory submissions.

Output: Prioritized list of process parameters guiding validation strategy and control system design.

Protocol 2: Supply Chain Risk Assessment for Biological Starting Materials

Objective: To evaluate and mitigate risks associated with the supply chain for critical biological starting materials used in ATMP manufacturing.

Materials:

• Supplier qualification questionnaires
• Audit reports (if available)
• Material specification documents
• Supply chain mapping tools

Methodology:

• Map Supply Chain: Document the complete supply chain from original source to manufacturing site, identifying all parties involved.
• Identify Vulnerabilities: For each node in the supply chain, identify potential vulnerabilities including single-source suppliers, geographical risks, regulatory status, and technical capabilities.
• Assess Impact: Evaluate the potential impact of supply chain disruption on product availability and patient access to therapy.
• Evaluate Control Measures: Review existing quality agreements, testing strategies, and contingency plans.
• Develop Risk Control Plan: Establish additional controls for high-risk areas, including alternative sourcing strategies, increased testing frequency, or enhanced inventory management.
• Implement Monitoring: Establish ongoing monitoring of supply chain performance with defined metrics and review frequency.

Output: Comprehensive supply chain risk assessment with prioritized mitigation strategies and monitoring plan.

Implementation Strategies Across Development Stages

Early Phase Development (Pre-clinical to Phase I/II)

During early development, the primary objective of risk-based GMP implementation is to ensure patient safety while enabling efficient process optimization. Key strategies include:

• Focus on Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs): Identify a limited set of CQAs with direct potential impact on safety, prioritizing controls for these attributes while acknowledging that full process characterization may not be complete. This approach aligns with regulatory expectations for early-phase development, where complete process understanding is still evolving [57].

• Leverage Prior Knowledge: Systematically collect and document scientific knowledge from similar processes or platforms to inform initial risk assessments. As noted in regulatory guidance, "increased communication between developers and regulators have proven to be extremely valuable for areas where there is still limited knowledge" [57].

• Implement Phase-Appropriate Controls: Establish controls commensurate with the current stage of development, recognizing that overly restrictive controls early in development may impede process optimization while insufficient controls may compromise patient safety.

• Design for Flexibility: Create manufacturing processes and control strategies that can accommodate expected changes and improvements as the product advances through development, with particular attention to maintaining product comparability across process changes.

The following diagram illustrates the iterative risk assessment process throughout product development:

Late-Stage Development (Phase III to Marketing Application)

As products approach marketing authorization applications, risk management strategies must evolve to demonstrate process robustness and consistency:

• Expand Control Strategy: Enhance the control strategy based on knowledge gained during earlier development phases, including more rigorous process parameter controls, expanded material qualification, and comprehensive characterization of the final product [56].

• Implement Process Validation: Design and execute process validation studies that demonstrate manufacturing process consistency and robustness, focusing specifically on parameters and steps previously identified as high risk through earlier risk assessments.

• Establish Continued Process Verification: Develop a continued process verification plan for commercial manufacturing that focuses monitoring efforts on parameters and attributes identified as highest risk through the development lifecycle.

• Prepare for Pre-Approval Inspection: Ensure comprehensive documentation of the risk-based approach throughout development, including rationales for decisions regarding criticality determinations and control strategy elements, to facilitate successful regulatory assessment and inspection [32].

Special Considerations for ATMPs

Unique ATMP Manufacturing Challenges

ATMPs present unique manufacturing challenges that demand specialized application of risk-based principles:

• Personalized Therapies: For autologous therapies, the risk management strategy must address challenges related to product variability, chain of identity maintenance, and limited opportunities for batch testing. The decentralized manufacturing framework recently established by the MHRA provides a regulatory model for managing these risks through designated control sites and comprehensive oversight of remote manufacturing locations [12].

• Limited Shelf Life: Many ATMPs have very short shelf lives, necessitating risk management strategies that prioritize real-time release testing (RTRT) approaches and emphasize process control over end-product testing [12].

• Complex Supply Chains: ATMPs often involve complex global supply chains for biological starting materials, requiring particularly rigorous supply chain risk management. As noted in GMP guidance, "the supply chain for each active substance must be established back to the manufacture of the active substance starting materials. This should be documented and must be kept current. The risks associated with this supply chain should be formally documented" [59].

• Aseptic Processing Constraints: Many ATMPs cannot undergo sterile filtration, requiring the entire manufacturing process to meet rigorous aseptic processing standards. This necessitates comprehensive risk assessment of all potential contamination sources throughout the manufacturing process [56].

Decentralized and Point-of-Care Manufacturing

Emerging manufacturing models for ATMPs, particularly point-of-care (POC) and modular manufacturing (MM), introduce additional dimensions for risk-based approach implementation. Recent guidance from the MHRA outlines a regulatory framework for these approaches, requiring specific risk management considerations [12]:

• Designation Process: Manufacturers must petition regulatory authorities for evaluation and designation of products proposed to use decentralized manufacturing processes early in development [12].

• Control Site Responsibilities: A designated control site located in the jurisdiction must maintain a comprehensive quality management system with procedures for managing the decentralized manufacturing control strategy, onboarding and overseeing remote sites, and maintaining a Decentralized Manufacturing Master File (DMMF) [12].

• Comparability Demonstration: Manufacturers must demonstrate comparability between products made at various remote manufacturing sites, with particular emphasis on process validation strategies [12].

• Pharmacovigilance Considerations: With manufacturing occurring across multiple locations, pharmacovigilance systems must be "acutely sensitive to subtle differences" between manufacturing sites and "be able to track them effectively" [12].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

The successful implementation of risk-based GMP for ATMPs requires specific research reagents and materials carefully selected and qualified through risk-based approaches. The following table details essential categories and their functions:

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for ATMP Development

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function in ATMP Development	Risk-Based Qualification Approach
Cell Culture Media	Serum-free media, specialized supplements, growth factors	Supports expansion and maintenance of therapeutic cells	Risk-based raw material qualification focusing on consistency, adventitious agent safety, and impact on critical quality attributes
Gene Editing Tools	CRISPR-Cas9 systems, viral vectors, mRNA	Genetic modification of therapeutic cells	Risk assessment focusing on specificity, efficiency, and potential for off-target effects; tiered testing strategy based on risk level
Cell Separation Reagents	Antibody cocktails, magnetic beads, density gradient media	Isolation and purification of target cell populations	Qualification based on purity, viability, and functional impact on separated cells; risk-based approach to determine extent of testing
Cryopreservation Solutions	DMSO-containing solutions, specialized freezing media	Preservation of cell products and intermediates	Risk assessment focusing on impact on cell viability, recovery, and functionality post-thaw; stability studies based on intended storage conditions
Quality Control Reagents	Flow cytometry antibodies, ELISA kits, PCR reagents	Characterization and release testing of ATMPs	Risk-based qualification focusing on specificity, accuracy, and precision; determined by criticality of test to safety and efficacy
Animal Origin-Free Reagents	Recombinant enzymes, synthetic lipids, chemically defined media	Reduction of adventitious agent risk	Risk assessment focusing on supplier qualification, manufacturing process controls, and alternative sourcing strategies

Documentation and Regulatory Submission

Risk Management Documentation

Comprehensive documentation of the risk-based approach is essential for successful regulatory submissions and inspections. Key documentation elements include:

• Risk Management Plan: An overarching document describing the manufacturer's approach to risk management throughout the product lifecycle, including roles, responsibilities, methodologies, and review processes [58].

• Risk Assessment Reports: Detailed documentation of specific risk assessments conducted for manufacturing processes, quality control strategies, and supply chain elements, including rationales for all risk assessments and resulting risk control decisions [58].

• Risk Review Reports: Periodic assessments of risks based on accumulated data from manufacturing experience, quality control testing, and post-marketing surveillance, demonstrating the iterative nature of risk management [59].

• Change Control Documentation: Records of changes to manufacturing processes or control strategies, including assessment of potential impact on previously identified risks and justification for changes based on risk management principles [59].

Regulatory Submission Strategy

When preparing marketing authorization applications, manufacturers should strategically present their risk-based approach to facilitate regulatory assessment:

• Clear Rationale: Provide clear scientific rationales for risk-based decisions regarding criticality determinations, control strategy elements, and process validation approaches [57].

• Cross-Referencing: Ensure appropriate cross-referencing between quality, non-clinical, and clinical sections of the submission to demonstrate how knowledge from all development aspects informed the risk-based approach [57].

• Lifecycle Perspective: Present the evolution of the risk-based approach throughout development, demonstrating how knowledge gained at each stage informed subsequent risk management decisions [56].

• Visual Summaries: Include clear visual summaries of risk assessments, such as risk matrices or process maps with critical control points highlighted, to facilitate regulatory understanding of the approach [58].

Implementing a robust, risk-based approach to GMP compliance throughout ATMP development is not merely a regulatory requirement—it is a fundamental enabler of efficient, science-driven product development. By systematically identifying, assessing, and controlling risks specific to each ATMP's characteristics and manufacturing process, developers can focus resources where they matter most, potentially accelerating development timelines while ensuring product quality, safety, and efficacy. The evolving regulatory framework for ATMPs in the European Union increasingly recognizes and encourages such risk-based approaches, particularly through mechanisms like the PRIME scheme and specialized support for SMEs and academic developers. As the ATMP field continues to advance with increasingly complex modalities including decentralized manufacturing models, the principles of quality risk management will remain essential for navigating the path from concept to commercial reality, ultimately benefiting patients through accelerated access to transformative therapies.

Leveraging EMA Incentives and Support for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs)

For Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) navigating the complex landscape of cell therapy development in the European Union, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) offers a robust framework of targeted incentives and regulatory support. These mechanisms, particularly the PRIority MEdicines (PRIME) scheme and tailored regulatory assistance, are designed to accelerate the development and approval of innovative therapies that address unmet medical needs. Within the specific context of cell therapy manufacturing license applications, these supports provide SMEs with enhanced regulatory guidance, fee reductions, and opportunities for early dialogue—critical advantages for resource-constrained organizations. This whitepaper provides a comprehensive technical guide for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals on strategically leveraging these EMA initiatives to optimize their cell therapy development pathways and successfully navigate the EU regulatory system.

The EU Regulatory Landscape for Cell Therapies

Cell therapies, including Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies, are classified as Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs) within the European Union regulatory framework [60]. They fall under the category of gene therapy medicinal products (GTMPs) or somatic-cell therapy medicinal products (CTMPs) and are subject to a centralized marketing authorization procedure. This means a single authorization, assessed by the EMA's Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) and Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP), is valid across all EU member states [60]. The regulatory environment is dynamic, with recent implementation of the Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR) creating a streamlined application process for clinical trials via the Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS) [61]. For SMEs, understanding this interconnected framework of ATMP regulations, clinical trial requirements, and available support schemes is the foundational first step toward successful market authorization.

Key EMA Incentive Schemes for SMEs

The PRIME (PRIority MEdicines) Scheme

The PRIME scheme is EMA's flagship initiative to support the development of medicines that target an unmet medical need. Its core objective is to optimize data generation and enable accelerated assessment, helping patients benefit from transformative therapies as early as possible [34].

2.1.1 Eligibility and Application for SMEs A distinctive advantage for SMEs and academic applicants is the availability of Early Entry PRIME status. While any sponsor typically needs preliminary clinical evidence to demonstrate promising activity, SMEs can apply based on compelling non-clinical data in a relevant model that provides early evidence of promising activity (proof of principle), coupled with first-in-human studies indicating adequate exposure and tolerability [34]. This acknowledges the resource constraints faced by smaller developers.

To apply, medicine developers must use EMA's secure online IRIS platform, which serves as a single space for submitting requests, communication, and document sharing [34]. The agency strongly encourages pre-submission engagement, including virtual pre-submission meetings to discuss PRIME eligibility, which can be requested via IRIS.

2.1.2 Quantitative Impact of PRIME Recent scientific literature confirms the significant impact of PRIME designation on approval timelines. A 2025 retrospective analysis of all EMA-approved ATMPs found that products with PRIME designation had a 42.7% reduction in time to marketing authorization compared to non-PRIME products, a statistically significant result (p = 0.001) [10]. This translates to a median approval time of 376 days for PRIME-designated ATMPs, compared to 669 days for those without this designation [10]. Furthermore, the study found that PRIME-designated products experienced fewer and shorter clock stops during the assessment procedure and engaged in more frequent scientific advice interactions, leading to more efficient regulatory reviews [10].

Table 1: Key Benefits of the PRIME Scheme for SMEs

Benefit	Stage of Support	Detailed Description
Early Appointment of CHMP/CAT Rapporteur	One month after PRIME eligibility is granted	Provides early regulatory guidance and ensures preparedness for the Marketing Authorisation Application (MAA) [34].
Kick-off Meeting	Three-four months after eligibility	A multidisciplinary meeting with rapporteurs and experts from the European medicines regulatory network for guidance on the overall development plan and regulatory strategy [34].
Iterative Scientific Advice	At any stage, and at major milestones	Enhanced, proactive scientific advice with the opportunity to involve other stakeholders like Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies and the US FDA [34].
Expedited Follow-up Scientific Advice	At any stage	Under certain criteria, provides increased flexibility and shortened timelines for scientific advice procedures [34].
Submission Readiness Meeting	~One year ahead of MAA	Discussion on development status, dossier maturity, and potential regulatory challenges [34].
Confirmation of Accelerated Assessment	At time of MAA	Increases certainty of a 150-day assessment timeline instead of the standard 210 days [34].
Fee Exemption for Scientific Advice	At any stage	Total fee exemption for scientific advice for applicants from the European Economic Area (EEA), a significant financial benefit for SMEs [34].

SME-Specific Support and Other Regulatory Tools

Beyond PRIME, the EMA offers a dedicated SME Office providing multifaceted support. This includes regulatory guidance, financial incentives such as fee reductions for scientific advice, inspections, and marketing authorization applications, as well as administrative assistance throughout the regulatory process. The SME status also facilitates more interactive dialogue with the EMA's scientific committees.

Other critical regulatory tools synergize with PRIME to support cell therapy development:

• Orphan Designation: For therapies targeting rare diseases (affecting not more than 5 in 10,000 people in the EU), this designation provides ten years of market exclusivity, protocol assistance, and reduced fees. The 2025 ATMP analysis showed orphan designation was associated with a 32.8% reduction in time to marketing authorization (p = 0.021) [10].
• Adaptive Pathways: A scientific approach for progressive and staggered authorization of a medicine, allowing early access to a restricted patient population based on early data.
• Advanced Therapy Medicinal Product (ATMP) Classification and Certification: SMEs can request an ATMP classification from the CAT to clarify the regulatory status of their product. For products undergoing clinical trials, the EMA offers an ATMP certification procedure for quality and non-clinical data, providing free scientific advice on these domains for micro-, small-, and medium-sized enterprises.

Implementing EMA Support in Cell Therapy Manufacturing License Applications

Strategic Regulatory Roadmap

Successfully leveraging EMA incentives requires a proactive and strategic approach integrated from the earliest stages of development. The following workflow outlines the key stages and decision points for an SME developing a cell therapy.

Navigating Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls (CMC)

For cell therapy ATMPs, the CMC section of the application is particularly critical. The manufacturing process is often the product, making quality and production data paramount. Key considerations for SMEs include:

• Starting Materials: The EMA defines 'starting materials' as those that become part of the drug substance, such as vectors and cells [16]. Vectors used as precursors must be prepared per Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) principles. The drug substance manufacturer must ensure the quality of the starting material via their Qualified Person (QP) [16].
• Donor Eligibility and Testing: Cellular starting material procured in the EU is governed by the EU Tissues and Cells Directives (EUTCD) [16] [62]. Facilities collecting these materials must be authorized by national or regional authorities. Donor testing requirements differ from the US; for example, the EU may require additional testing for pathogens like Hepatitis A/E and Parvovirus B19, and testing timelines can vary [62].
• Control Strategy and Comparability: A robust, risk-based control strategy is essential. While ICH Q5E does not currently cover CGTs, the EMA has a specific 'Questions and Answers' document on comparability [16]. For changes in the manufacturing process of genetically modified cells, the EMA outlines specific attributes to evaluate for the starting material (e.g., full vector sequencing, absence of replication competent virus) and the finished product (e.g., transduction efficiency, vector copy number) [16].

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions and Regulatory Considerations for Cell Therapy CMC

Item / Material	Function / Description	Key Regulatory Considerations & References
Viral Vectors (e.g., Lentivirus)	Gene delivery vehicle for modifying cells. Considered a "starting material" by EMA.	Must be produced under GMP principles. EMA expects infectivity and transgene expression assays for potency, with more functional assays needed in later phases [16].
Cell Culture Media & Reagents	Supports the growth and viability of cellular products.	Quality and consistency are critical. Use of serum-free, xeno-free components is often preferred for safety. All raw materials should be qualified.
Human Cellular Starting Material	Autologous or allogeneic cells obtained via apheresis or tissue donation.	Donor screening and testing must comply with EUTCD. Collection facilities must be nationally authorized or JACIE accredited [60] [62].
Critical Raw Materials	Includes reagents for gene editing (e.g., CRISPR/Cas9), growth factors, and cytokines.	An enhanced material control approach, aligned with the risk of the material and development stage, is expected by both FDA and EMA [16].
Analytical Assays	Used for characterization, release, and stability testing (e.g., flow cytometry, PCR, potency assays).	Methods must be validated. Potency assays are critical for lot release. A new ICH Q5E annex for CGT-specific comparability is in development [16].

The European Medicines Agency provides a powerful and multi-layered system of incentives specifically designed to assist SMEs in the challenging journey of bringing innovative cell therapies to market. By strategically utilizing the PRIME scheme, SME-specific support, and orphan designation, developers can significantly accelerate their timelines, as evidenced by the ~42% reduction in time to marketing authorization for PRIME-designated ATMPs. Success hinges on a proactive regulatory strategy that integrates these incentives from the earliest stages of development, with a particular focus on navigating the complex CMC requirements specific to cell-based ATMPs. For researchers and drug development professionals, mastering this supportive regulatory landscape is not just an advantage—it is an essential component of successful cell therapy development in the European Union.

The manufacturing paradigm for advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs), particularly cell and gene therapies (CGT), is undergoing a fundamental transformation. Traditional centralized production models face significant challenges with autologous therapies, where a patient's own cells are harvested, manipulated, and reintroduced. These challenges include extremely short shelf-lives, complex logistics, and the need for highly specialized administration procedures. Recognizing these constraints, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has established a groundbreaking regulatory framework for decentralized manufacturing (DM) that took effect on July 23, 2025 [63] [36]. This framework provides two distinct pathways: Point-of-Care (POC) manufacturing and Modular Manufacturing (MM).

For researchers and drug development professionals navigating the EU cell therapy license application process, understanding this new framework is crucial. It represents a significant shift from purely facility-based assessment to a system-based control strategy that extends across multiple locations. The MHRA's initiative is particularly notable as it unfolds alongside the UK's separation from the European Medicines Agency (EMA), demonstrating a deliberate effort to foster innovation in advanced therapy development [12]. This technical guide examines the core components of the new DM framework, its implementation requirements, and its strategic implications for the future of cell therapy manufacturing.

Decentralized Manufacturing Framework: Core Concepts and Definitions

Legislative Foundation and Scope

The DM framework is established through amendments to the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004 [63]. This statutory instrument provides the first comprehensive regulatory framework of its kind specifically designed to transform the manufacture of innovative medicines at the point of patient care [12] [63]. The regulation applies to a broad spectrum of pharmaceutical products, including medical gases, biological products, small molecule drugs, and Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs), with particular relevance to cell and gene therapies [63].

Point-of-Care vs. Modular Manufacturing: Critical Distinctions

The framework establishes two distinct DM categories with specific designation criteria:

• Point-of-Care (POC) Manufacturing: This designation applies to medicinal products that, for reasons relating to method of manufacture, limited shelf life, specific constituents, or method/route of administration, can only be manufactured at or near the place where the product is to be used or administered [12]. The guidance explicitly states that convenience and cost reduction are not valid criteria for POC designation; the justification must center on fundamental product characteristics that necessitate bedside manufacturing.

• Modular Manufacturing (MM): This pathway applies to medicinal products that, for deployment-related reasons, the licensing authority determines it necessary or expedient to manufacture or assemble in a modular unit [12]. The justification for MM focuses on public health requirements and/or significant clinical advantages, including improved efficacy, tolerability, or safety. This approach supports scaling out rather than scaling up, which is particularly valuable during pandemics or for rapid vaccine deployment [63].

Table 1: Comparison of POC and Modular Manufacturing Designations

Aspect	Point-of-Care (POC) Manufacturing	Modular Manufacturing (MM)
Primary Justification	Product-specific characteristics (shelf life, administration method)	Deployment needs and public health requirements
Scale Considerations	Single patient focus (typically autologous therapies)	Multi-patient focus, scaling out capacity
Typical Applications	Bedside manufacture of cell therapies, immediate administration	Mobile manufacturing units, field deployment
Regulatory Threshold	Product "can only be manufactured" at/near administration site	"Necessary or expedient" for public health benefit

Implementation Roadmap: From Designation to Authorization

The Designation Step: Strategic Entry Point

The initial DM designation application represents a critical strategic step that sponsors should pursue early in development. Applicants must petition the MHRA for evaluation of their product's suitability for the DM pathway, providing comprehensive data on the program including quality metrics and clinical justification [12]. This designation can be sought for a new application (Clinical Trial Authorization or Marketing Authorization) or via an amendment to existing authorizations [12].

The MHRA has established an ambitious timeline for designation decisions, targeting 30 days for preliminary assessment and 60 days for full approval, assuming all required information is complete [12]. When additional information or meetings are required, this timeline may extend to 90 days [63]. The designation outcome fundamentally influences all subsequent regulatory strategies, making early engagement essential.

Marketing Authorization Application (MAA) Considerations

With a positive designation, the MAA can proceed with appropriate references to the DM framework. Notably, failure to secure designation before MAA review can result in application rejection [12]. The expectations for these MAAs mirror those for conventional products but with particular emphasis on:

• Process Validation: Demonstrated comparability between products manufactured across multiple remote sites [12]
• Real-Time Release Testing (RTRT): Substantial data supporting this strategy, which is commonly employed for autologous products with limited shelf lives [12]
• Control Site Definition: Clear identification of the primary manufacturing location that oversees decentralized operations [12]
• Decentralized Manufacturing Master File (DMMF): Comprehensive documentation describing how to complete manufacturing at decentralized sites [12]

Clinical Trial Authorization (CTA) Adaptations

For clinical trials employing DM approaches, additional considerations apply. The CTA must reference the DM designation and maintain this designation throughout the trial [12]. Particular emphasis is placed on:

• Blinding Mechanisms: Ensuring retention of blinding despite potential differences in manufacturing timing, appearance, or administration procedures between active and placebo products [12]
• Investigator Oversight: Demonstrating how the principal investigator will maintain oversight of investigational medicinal product activities at remote sites [12]
• Manufacturing Importation Authorisation (MIA): Submission of appropriate applications with supporting data for the control site [12]

Diagram 1: DM Designation and Application Pathways

Technical Requirements: Control Strategies and Quality Systems

The Control Site Model and Oversight Responsibilities

The DM framework establishes a "control site" model, where a primary manufacturing facility maintains overall responsibility and coordination. This control site must be located in the UK and hold the appropriate manufacturing license [12] [63]. The quality system at the control site must establish and maintain procedures for several critical activities:

• Management of the DM Control Strategy: Comprehensive oversight of all decentralized manufacturing activities [12]
• Generation and Management of DMMFs: Following classic Drug Master File rules for designation and reporting [12]
• Site Onboarding and Management: Procedures for onboarding, suspending, and pausing remote sites with adequate communication channels [12]
• Ongoing Site Oversight: Continuous monitoring of remote sites including data integrity assurance [12]
• Equipment Management: Assurance of calibration and maintenance for all equipment across the network [12]
• Supply Chain Coordination: Managing supply of materials and components to all manufacturing sites [12]
• Training Programs: Development and implementation of standardized training for all sites [12]
• Product Release Procedures: Specifically designed for POC products [12]
• Qualified Person (QP) Oversight: Designated QP responsibility for product release and quality assurance [12]

The Decentralized Manufacturing Master File (DMMF)

The DMMF serves as the central document governing DM activities, capturing all authorized locations, manufacturing status, contact details, specific products, manufacturing processes, and standard procedures [63]. License holders must maintain the DMMF and keep it updated with annual reporting of changes, but are not required to submit a variation to notify the MHRA of new or decommissioned sites [63]. This approach provides operational flexibility while maintaining regulatory oversight through the control site.

Quality Management and Inspection Approach

The guidance emphasizes treating remote sites like contract manufacturing organizations (CMOs) with appropriate oversight, audits, and quality agreements [12]. During inspections, regulators will focus on how the control site assures all remote sites function adequately. The MHRA may inspect a selection of remote sites rather than all locations, with all site approvals and documentation maintained at the control site for regulatory review [12].

Diagram 2: Control Site Oversight Model

Specialized Considerations for Cell and Gene Therapies

Pharmacovigilance and Traceability Imperatives

For ATMPs utilizing DM approaches, pharmacovigilance presents particular challenges. With multiple interpretation points across numerous manufacturing sites, the pharmacovigilance program must be highly sensitive to subtle differences in manufacturing execution and able to effectively track these variations [12]. Product traceability becomes a critical element, necessary not only for safety monitoring but also to ensure the correct medicine reaches the correct patient [12].

The guidance mandates a robust quality management system with a designated Qualified Person for Pharmacovigilance (QPPV) to oversee the program [12]. A comprehensive Pharmacovigilance System Master File (PSMF) must be prepared and maintained, with decentralized medicines and associated site lists included [63]. License holders must demonstrate how the QPPV maintains oversight across all sites and how this process integrates with other quality functions [63].

Labeling Exemptions and Limitations

The DM framework maintains most standard labeling requirements but provides a narrow exemption for POC medicines that are administered immediately with no portion retained for subsequent administration [12]. In such cases, products do not need to be labeled after manufacture, though the MHRA encourages pre-labeling containers [12]. The guidance specifically defines "immediate" administration as occurring within two minutes [12], creating a very limited window for this exemption that will apply predominantly to certain cell therapies prepared at bedside.

EU Regulatory Context and Comparability Challenges

While the MHRA's DM framework is specifically UK-focused, developers targeting both UK and EU markets must navigate additional regulatory considerations. The EMA defines 'starting materials' as those that will become part of the drug substance, requiring vectors used to modify cells to be prepared according to GMP principles [16]. Currently, CGTs fall outside the scope of ICH Q5E regarding comparability, though a new annex is in development [16].

Table 2: Key EU vs. MHRA Regulatory Considerations for Cell Therapies

Regulatory Aspect	MHRA DM Framework	EMA Requirements
Starting Materials	Controlled via DMMF and control site oversight	Vectors considered starting materials, must be GMP-prepared
Comparability Approach	Emphasis on process validation across sites	Guided by EMA Q&A document on CGT comparability
RCV Testing	Not explicitly addressed in DM guidance	Once absence demonstrated on vector, GM cells need no further testing
Control Site Location	Must be in UK	No specific geographic requirement for oversight facility
Stability Data for Comparability	Real-time data not always needed [16]	Thorough assessment including real-time data for certain changes [16]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Documentation and Quality Systems

Successful implementation of DM strategies requires careful preparation of specific documentation and quality systems. Researchers and developers should ensure they have established the following essential components:

Table 3: Essential Documentation for DM Implementation

Document/System	Function and Purpose	Regulatory Reference
Decentralized Manufacturing Master File (DMMF)	Central document capturing all locations, processes, and procedures for remote manufacturing	[12] [63]
Pharmacovigilance System Master File (PSMF)	Documents the pharmacovigilance system and includes all DM sites for safety monitoring	[12] [63]
Quality Management System (QMS)	Comprehensive system treating remote sites as CMOs with oversight, audits, and quality agreements	[12]
Risk Management Plan	Detailed plan addressing additional risks associated with decentralized manufacturing approaches	[12]
Training Program Documentation	Standardized training materials and records for all personnel across the manufacturing network	[12]
Process Validation Protocols	Documents demonstrating comparability between products manufactured across multiple sites	[12]

The MHRA's decentralized manufacturing framework represents a significant advancement in regulatory science, acknowledging the unique challenges of advanced therapies while maintaining rigorous quality standards. For researchers and developers focusing on cell therapies, this framework offers a pathway to address the fundamental logistical constraints that have limited patient access to these transformative treatments.

The successful implementation of DM strategies requires meticulous planning, robust quality systems, and comprehensive documentation. Early engagement with the designation process is critical, as decisions made during development can significantly impact regulatory success. Furthermore, as treatment methods evolve and regulatory experience with DM increases, developers should anticipate that guidance will continue to develop over time [63].

For the European cell therapy landscape, the MHRA's DM framework provides an innovative regulatory model that may influence future EMA considerations. While navigating both UK and EU requirements presents challenges, the core principles of demonstrated quality, thorough oversight, and patient-focused manufacturing provide a solid foundation for global development strategies. As the field advances, this regulatory innovation promises to accelerate the delivery of transformative cell therapies to patients who need them most.

Ensuring Product Quality and Navigating Divergent Global Standards

For developers of cell and gene therapies (CGTs) targeting the European market, establishing a robust framework for demonstrating product quality is a critical component of the marketing authorization application. Unlike traditional pharmaceuticals, living cell-based products present unique challenges due to their inherent complexity, variability, and dynamic nature. Within the European regulatory framework, two fundamental concepts form the cornerstone of quality demonstration: Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs) and Control Strategies.

CQAs are the physical, chemical, biological, or microbiological properties or characteristics that must be controlled within predetermined limits to ensure the product maintains the desired quality, safety, and efficacy. A well-defined Control Strategy, in turn, is a planned set of controls derived from current product and process understanding that ensures process performance and product quality [64]. For advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs), the European Medicines Agency (EMA) emphasizes a risk-based approach to quality, aligning with the principles of Quality by Design (QbD) to build quality directly into the manufacturing process rather than relying solely on end-product testing [64].

This technical guide provides an in-depth examination of the scientific and regulatory considerations for identifying CQAs and implementing comprehensive Control Strategies specifically for cell-based therapies within the European Union's regulatory context, serving as an essential resource for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals navigating the EU licensing process.

Fundamental Concepts: CQAs, CPPs, and Their Interrelationship

Defining Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs)

CQAs form the foundation of product quality assessment. These attributes are identified through a systematic risk assessment and are maintained within appropriate limits, ranges, or distributions to ensure the final product achieves the intended safety and efficacy profile. For cell therapies, CQAs typically encompass a multi-parametric profile that reflects the product's critical biological functions.

Common CQAs for cell therapies include [64]:

• Cell Viability: Typically required to be ≥ 80% for many cell products.
• Identity/Phenotype: Correct cell phenotype confirmed via specific marker expression (e.g., CD4/CD8 ratio for T-cells, CD73/CD90/CD105 for mesenchymal stem cells).
• Potency: A quantitative measure of the biological function, such as the ability to kill target tumor cells in vitro for CAR-T therapies.
• Purity: Absence of process-related impurities such as residual beads, vectors, or host cell proteins.
• Microbiological Safety: Sterility, endotoxin levels, and freedom from adventitious agents.

Understanding Critical Process Parameters (CPPs)

Critical Process Parameters (CPPs) are process variables that have a direct and significant impact on CQAs. These are the "knobs and dials" of the manufacturing process that must be controlled within predefined ranges to ensure consistent product quality. CPPs are distinguished from non-critical process parameters, which may be monitored but do not require tight control as they demonstrate no significant impact on CQAs [64].

Typical CPPs in cell therapy manufacturing include [64]:

• Temperature, pH, and dissolved oxygen levels during cell expansion
• Transduction parameters such as multiplicity of infection (MOI) and exposure time
• Centrifugation speed and time during cell washing or harvesting
• Cell seeding density and media exchange frequency
• Cryopreservation conditions, including cooling rate and DMSO concentration

The Interrelationship Between CPPs and CQAs

The relationship between CPPs and CQAs is fundamental to process control: CPPs are the process parameters that must be controlled to directly influence and ensure the CQAs meet their specified targets. This cause-and-effect relationship forms the basis of an effective Control Strategy.

For example, in CAR-T cell manufacturing [64]:

• The MOI during viral transduction (CPP) directly affects the level of CAR expression (CQA) on the final T cells.
• Maintaining dissolved oxygen within tight limits (CPP) reduces oxidative stress, thereby preserving cell viability and stemness (CQA).
• Controlling culture parameters such as pH and temperature (CPPs) within optimal ranges supports predictable cell growth, phenotype, and potency (CQAs).

The following diagram illustrates this fundamental relationship and how it integrates into a holistic control strategy:

Regulatory Framework and EMA Expectations

EU Regulatory Foundations for ATMPs

The EU regulatory framework for Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs) is established under Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007, which provides a centralized marketing authorization procedure specifically adapted for these complex therapies [9]. The Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) within EMA provides specialized assessment of ATMP applications. The European Commission has adopted specific guidelines on Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP) for ATMPs, recognizing their unique characteristics [9].

The EMA requires a comprehensive control strategy that includes CPPs, generally aligned with the principles outlined in ICH Q8-Q11, though adapted for the specific challenges of cell-based products [64] [16]. Unlike small molecule drugs, CGTs are currently considered outside the scope of the ICH Q5E guideline on comparability, though a new annex is in development to address CGT-specific challenges [16].

Key Regulatory Expectations for CQAs and CPPs

Regulatory agencies expect a science- and risk-based approach to identifying and controlling CQAs and CPPs. Specifically, the EMA expects [64]:

• Data Supporting CPP Selection and Control Ranges: Developers must generate data demonstrating the relationship between CPPs and CQAs, often through Design of Experiments (DoE) studies.
• Justification for Non-Critical Parameters: Parameters not classified as critical require justification through risk assessment and experimental data.
• Documentation of Deviations and Impact Assessment: Any process deviations must be thoroughly investigated and their impact on product quality documented.
• Comparability Studies: When process changes affect CPPs, comparability studies must demonstrate equivalent product quality.

For autologous therapies, the EMA recognizes the challenges of product variability and emphasizes the importance of demonstrating process consistency across multiple manufacturing sites, particularly relevant for decentralized manufacturing models [65].

EU vs. US Regulatory Nuances for CGT Products

While many scientific principles align globally, understanding key regulatory distinctions between EMA and FDA is crucial for developers planning multi-regional development:

Table 1: Key EMA vs. FDA Regulatory Nuances for CGT Products [16]

Regulatory Aspect	EMA Position	FDA Position
Starting Materials Definition	Materials that become part of drug substance (e.g., vectors, cells) must follow GMP principles	No regulatory definition; uses "critical raw materials" with risk-based control approach
Viral Vector Classification	Considered starting materials	Classified as a drug substance
Replication Competent Virus (RCV) Testing	Once absence demonstrated on vector, resulting GM cells need no further testing	Requires testing on both vector and final cell-based drug product
Donor Testing for Autologous Material	Requires some donor testing even for autologous material	Governed by 21 CFR 1271, tested in CLIA-accredited labs
Drug Master Files (DMFs)	No equivalent system for biologicals/CGTs	Use of DMFs for raw materials allowed
Process Validation Batches	Generally three consecutive batches (with flexibility)	Number not specified but must be statistically adequate
Use of Historical Data for Comparability	Comparison to historical data not required/recommended	Inclusion of historical data recommended

Practical Implementation: From Concept to Application

Implementing a Risk-Based Control Strategy

A successful Control Strategy for cell therapies in the EU context implements a holistic, risk-based approach that encompasses all aspects of manufacturing. The strategy should be structured in layers, addressing materials, process, and product controls:

• Input Material Controls: Raw and starting materials, particularly those of biological origin, require rigorous qualification and testing programs. The EMA emphasizes strict requirements for materials of biological origin used in CGT production, including comprehensive quality criteria covering biological activity, impurities, and microbial safety [44].

• Process Controls and Monitoring: This includes defined ranges for CPPs, in-process testing, and process monitoring. For decentralized manufacturing models, which are gaining regulatory acceptance, the MHRA recommends a "Control Site" model where a central site maintains oversight and ensures consistency across multiple manufacturing locations [65].

• Product Controls: Release testing against CQA specifications, stability testing, and characterization studies form the final layer of the control strategy.

The following workflow diagram illustrates the systematic development of a Control Strategy from initial development through to commercial manufacturing:

Analytical Methods for CQA Assessment

Robust analytical methods are essential for accurate CQA assessment. The methodology must be fit-for-purpose at each development stage, with increasing validation rigor as the product advances toward marketing authorization.

Table 2: Essential Analytical Methods for CQA Assessment in Cell Therapies

CQA Category	Specific Attribute	Recommended Analytical Methods	Key Method Validation Parameters
Identity/Phenotype	Surface marker expression (e.g., CD3, CD19-CAR)	Flow cytometry, Mass cytometry (CyTOF)	Specificity, precision, stability-indicating capability
Viability	Membrane integrity, metabolic activity	Trypan blue exclusion, Flow cytometry with viability dyes, MTT assay	Accuracy, precision, linearity, range
Potency	Target cell killing, cytokine secretion, gene expression	Cytotoxicity assays (e.g., luciferase-based), ELISA/MSD, qRT-PCR	Specificity, accuracy, precision, robustness
Purity/Impurities	Residual vectors, beads, host cell proteins, DNA	qPCR for vector copy number, ELISA, HPLC, ddPCR	Specificity, sensitivity (LOQ), accuracy
Safety	Sterility, mycoplasma, endotoxin	BacT/ALERT, Microbial culture, LAL test	Specificity, sensitivity, robustness

Case Studies: CQA and CPP Implementation

CAR-T Cell Therapy Case Study

For a CD19-directed CAR-T cell therapy, a comprehensive CQA/CPP framework would include:

• Critical Quality Attributes:

  • Identity: Expression of CD3+ T-cell markers and CD19-CAR (typically ≥20% CAR expression)
  • Potency: In vitro lysis of CD19+ target cells (e.g., ≥30% specific lysis at effector:target ratio of 10:1)
  • Viability: ≥80% viability post-thaw
  • Purity: Residual vector particles ≤100 DNase-resistant particles per cell, residual beads ≤1 bead per 3000 cells
  • Safety: Sterility, mycoplasma, endotoxin ≤5 EU/kg

• Critical Process Parameters:

  • Transduction: MOI range of 3-5, transduction duration of 16-24 hours
  • Cell Expansion: Seeding density of 0.5-1.0 × 10^6 cells/mL, IL-2 concentration of 50-100 IU/mL
  • Media Conditions: Dissolved oxygen maintained at 20-50%, pH 7.2-7.4

Experimental Protocol: Establishing MOI as a CPP for CAR Expression

• Objective: Determine the optimal MOI range that maximizes CAR expression while maintaining cell viability and functionality.
• Methodology:
  • Isolate CD3+ T-cells from healthy donor leukapheresis product using magnetic separation.
  • Activate cells with anti-CD3/CD28 beads for 48 hours.
  • Transduce cells at varying MOIs (1, 3, 5, 10) in duplicate runs.
  • Maintain cells in culture with IL-2 (50 IU/mL) for 10 days with regular monitoring.
  • Analyze CAR expression by flow cytometry on days 5, 7, and 10.
  • Assess cell viability and expansion fold.
  • Evaluate functionality via cytokine secretion (IFN-γ, IL-2) upon CD19+ stimulation.
• Data Analysis: Use statistical models (e.g., response surface methodology) to identify the MOI range that provides CAR expression ≥20% with viability ≥80% and maximal functionality.

Mesenchymal Stem Cell (MSC) Therapy Case Study

For an MSC-based therapy, the CQA/CPP framework would differ significantly:

• Critical Quality Attributes:

  • Identity: Expression of CD73, CD90, CD105 (≥95% positive), absence of CD34, CD45, HLA-DR (≤5% positive)
  • Potency: Immunosuppressive function (e.g., ≥30% inhibition of T-cell proliferation in vitro)
  • Viability: ≥70% post-thaw
  • Purity: Absence of endothelial cell contamination

• Critical Process Parameters:

  • Oxygen Tension: Physiological oxygen levels (3-5%) significantly enhance MSC proliferation, preserves stemness markers, and improves genetic stability compared to atmospheric oxygen (~20%) [64].
  • Cell Seeding Density: 1,000-5,000 cells/cm²
  • Passaging Criteria: 70-90% confluence, using specific detachment enzymes

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Implementing robust CQA assessment and process control requires specific reagent systems and materials. The following table details essential components for cell therapy development and manufacturing:

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for CQA and CPP Assessment

Reagent/Material Category	Specific Examples	Function in CQA/CPP Assessment	GMP-Grade Requirement for Commercial Manufacturing
Cell Separation Reagents	Anti-CD3/CD28 beads, Ficoll density gradient media, Magnetic cell separation kits	Isolation of specific cell populations, process consistency	Required (e.g., GMP-grade cytokines) [66]
Cell Culture Media	Serum-free media formulations, Specific cytokine supplements (IL-2, IL-7, IL-15)	Maintain cell growth, phenotype, and functionality	Required (full GMP compliance) [66]
Genetic Modification Tools	Viral vectors (lentiviral, retroviral), mRNA, Gene editing systems (CRISPR)	Introduce therapeutic transgenes, process efficiency assessment	Required (stringent GMP for viral vectors) [16]
Process Analytics	Cell viability stains, Antibodies for flow cytometry, qPCR reagents for vector copy number	Direct CQA measurement, process monitoring	Required for release testing
Ancillary Materials	Growth factors, cytokines, antibiotics, DNase	Support manufacturing process, control critical parameters	Required with comprehensive regulatory support files [44]

For regulatory compliance in the EU, manufacturers must implement a rigorous quality management system for ancillary materials, particularly those of biological origin [44]. The European Pharmacopoeia (5.2.12) specifies stringent requirements for raw materials used in CGT production, emphasizing sterility, traceability, and comprehensive quality testing [44].

Navigating the EU Marketing Authorization Application

CMC Documentation Requirements

The Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls (CMC) section of the EU Marketing Authorization Application must comprehensively document the Control Strategy and demonstrate thorough understanding of CQAs and CPPs. Key elements include:

• Manufacturing Process Description: Detailed description of the manufacturing process with identification of CPPs and their control ranges.
• Control Strategy Justification: Scientific rationale for the classification of parameters as critical or non-critical, supported by development data.
• Comparability Protocols: For anticipated process changes, detailed protocols for demonstrating comparability at the CQA level.
• Validation Data: Process validation data demonstrating the manufacturing process consistently produces product meeting CQA specifications.

For small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), the EMA provides specific incentives and administrative assistance, which can be particularly valuable for navigating the complex CMC requirements [32].

Addressing Emerging Regulatory Trends

The EU regulatory landscape for ATMPs continues to evolve. Two significant trends impacting CQA and Control Strategy approaches include:

• Decentralized Manufacturing: The MHRA has introduced a new framework for point-of-care and modular manufacturing, emphasizing the need for comparability across manufacturing sites and robust control strategies managed by a central "Control Site" [12] [65]. Demonstrating product comparability across multiple manufacturing locations becomes paramount in this model.

• Advanced Analytical Technologies: Regulatory acceptance of novel analytical approaches, such as real-time release testing (RTRT) for autologous products with very short shelf lives, is increasing [12]. This shifts the focus from end-product testing to in-process controls and parametric release, placing greater emphasis on CPP monitoring and control.

Establishing a robust framework for demonstrating product quality through well-defined Critical Quality Attributes and comprehensive Control Strategies is fundamental to successful cell therapy development and EU marketing authorization. By implementing a science- and risk-based approach that deeply understands the relationship between process parameters and product attributes, developers can build quality directly into their manufacturing processes. As the regulatory landscape evolves to accommodate innovative manufacturing approaches like decentralized production, the principles of CQA identification and control strategy implementation remain the bedrock of quality assurance for these transformative therapies.

Process Validation and Stability Testing Requirements for ATMPs

In the European Union, Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products are regulated under a sophisticated framework designed to address their unique biological characteristics and manufacturing complexities. The overarching regulation, Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007, establishes the legal foundation for gene therapies, cell therapies, and tissue-engineered products [67]. The European Medicines Agency oversees this framework through its specialized body, the Committee for Advanced Therapies, which provides scientific expertise evaluating quality, safety, and efficacy of ATMPs [67]. This regulatory structure acknowledges that ATMPs differ fundamentally from conventional pharmaceuticals in their manufacturing processes, stability profiles, and mode of action, necessitating tailored regulatory approaches.

Recent regulatory developments have significantly enhanced this framework. Effective July 1, 2025, the EMA's new Guideline on quality, non-clinical and clinical requirements for investigational advanced therapy medicinal products in clinical trials has come into force [7]. This comprehensive 60-page document consolidates requirements from over 40 separate guidelines and reflection papers, providing a multidisciplinary reference for ATMP development [7]. Simultaneously, on May 8, 2025, the EMA released a concept paper proposing revisions to Part IV of the GMP guidelines specific to ATMPs, aiming to align them with modern quality frameworks like ICH Q9 and the Contamination Control Strategy [68]. These developments signal a maturation of the regulatory landscape, emphasizing risk-based approaches and phase-appropriate validation strategies throughout the product lifecycle.

Process Validation Requirements

Core Principles and Lifecycle Approach

Process validation for ATMPs demonstrates that the manufacturing process consistently produces products meeting predetermined quality attributes. The European framework mandates a lifecycle approach to process validation, integrating quality risk management and phase-appropriate strategies that evolve with product development [69]. Unlike traditional pharmaceuticals, ATMP process validation must account for unique challenges including limited shelf lives, complex biological starting materials, and frequently personalized manufacturing paradigms.

The EMA Guideline on clinical-stage ATMPs emphasizes that immature quality development may compromise the use of clinical trial data to support a marketing authorization application, underscoring the critical importance of robust process validation [7]. A weak quality system could prevent authorization of a clinical trial if deficiencies pose risks to participant safety or data robustness [7]. The guideline further stresses that process validation strategies must be multidisciplinary, encompassing quality, non-clinical, and clinical considerations, with nearly 70% of the guideline focused on quality documentation requirements [7].

Risk-Based Validation Methodology

Implementing a risk-based approach provides manufacturers with the flexibility necessary to adapt controls to the process while ensuring all critical requirements are met [69]. As expressed by industry experts, "Ultimately, the purpose of a risk-based approach is to understand what's critical to your product quality, patient safety, and product variability. This understanding helps you to focus on those elements to be able to ensure you have manufactured a safe product" [69]. Without this risk-based focus, companies may waste resources, implement inefficient operations, or potentially prevent products from reaching market.

The International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering outlines comprehensive risk-based validation strategies across the ATMP product lifecycle that enable [69]:

• A phase-appropriate validation strategy, adapting the level of rigor and documentation based on development stage
• A focus on risk-based approaches to ensure critical aspects of product quality and patient safety
• Establishing an effective control strategy to navigate the complexities of ATMP validation
• Facilitating regulatory compliance while fostering innovation

Process Validation Stages and Activities

The validation lifecycle for ATMPs follows three primary stages, each with distinct activities and deliverables tailored to product development phase.

Table 1: Process Validation Stages for ATMPs

Validation Stage	Development Phase	Key Activities	Regulatory Expectations
Process Design	Early-phase (Exploratory trials)	- Identify Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs)- Define Critical Process Parameters (CPPs)- Establish initial control strategy- Process characterization studies	Phase-appropriate approach with focus on patient safety; Immature quality systems may compromise use of clinical data for marketing authorization [7] [69]
Process Qualification	Late-phase (Pivotal trials)	- Facility/equipment qualification- Process performance qualification- Cleaning validation- Shipping validation	Mandatory self-inspections with documented results providing evidence of effective quality system; Compliance with EU GMP standards [7] [68]
Continued Process Verification	Post-approval	- Ongoing monitoring of critical process parameters- Trend analysis of quality attributes- Process capability assessment- Annual product quality review	Maintenance of validated state; Implementation of Contamination Control Strategy; Adherence to ICH Q10 Pharmaceutical Quality System [68]

Experimental Protocols for Process Validation

Manufacturing Process Performance Qualification Protocol

The Process Performance Qualification protocol demonstrates and documents that the manufacturing process, operating with the defined process parameters, consistently produces ATMPs meeting all critical quality attributes.

Objective: To demonstrate the manufacturing process consistently produces ATMP meeting predetermined specifications and quality attributes when operated according to established procedures and parameters.

Methodology:

• Protocol Development: Define sampling plans, test methods, and acceptance criteria for in-process, release, and characterization tests
• Campaign Execution: Perform a minimum of three consecutive consistency batches at commercial scale using production equipment and facilities
• In-process Monitoring: Monitor critical process parameters including:
  • Temperature control during processing steps
  • Incubation times and conditions
  • Cell viability and density measurements
  • Vector transduction efficiency (for gene therapies)
• Comprehensive Testing: Perform extended characterization beyond routine release testing, including:
  • Identity confirmation via flow cytometry and PCR
  • Potency assays measuring biological activity
  • Purity assessments (process- and product-related impurities)
  • Safety testing (sterility, mycoplasma, endotoxin)
• Data Analysis: Apply statistical process control methods to demonstrate process capability and reproducibility

Acceptance Criteria: All critical process parameters remain within validated ranges; all batches meet pre-defined product specifications; process demonstrates statistical control and capability.

Cleaning Validation Protocol for Equipment

Objective: To demonstrate that cleaning procedures effectively remove product and process residues to acceptable levels, preventing cross-contamination.

Methodology:

• Residue Identification: Identify challenging-to-clean residues (proteins, DNA, vectors)
• Sampling Approach: Implement swab sampling of worst-case locations and rinse sampling
• Analytical Methods: Validate specific, sensitive detection methods for target residues
• Acceptance Limit Justification: Calculate limits based on health-based exposure limits or carryover to subsequent batches

Acceptance Criteria: All analyte levels below established acceptance limits; demonstrated cleaning procedure reproducibility.

Stability Testing Requirements

Evolving Regulatory Landscape for ATMP Stability

Stability testing for ATMPs presents unique challenges due to their complex biological nature, limited shelf lives, and frequently cryopreserved storage requirements. The regulatory framework for stability testing is currently evolving, with significant developments in international guidelines. The ICH Q1 Draft Guideline reached Step 2b of the ICH Process on April 11, 2025, and represents a comprehensive modernization of stability testing requirements [70]. This consolidated document replaces the legacy ICH Q1A-F series and ICH Q5C, creating a single streamlined framework that specifically addresses advanced therapy medicinal products [70].

The draft guideline introduces a modular structure with 18 main sections and 3 annexes, designed to address both foundational stability principles and specialized needs of emerging product types [70]. For ATMP developers, the inclusion of Annex 3, which specifically addresses ATMP stability testing, has received strong support from regulatory stakeholders [70]. This represents a significant advancement, as previous guidelines provided limited specific guidance for cell and gene therapy products. The updated approach emphasizes science- and risk-based stability strategies that align with the unique characteristics of ATMPs, moving away from one-size-fits-all requirements toward more flexible, product-specific testing protocols.

Stability Study Design Considerations for ATMPs

Designing appropriate stability studies for ATMPs requires careful consideration of their specific attributes. Unlike traditional small molecule drugs, ATMPs often consist of viable cells, viral vectors, or engineered tissues with complex degradation pathways. The EMA guideline on clinical-stage ATMPs emphasizes that stability data must support the proposed storage conditions and shelf life throughout product development, from early clinical trials through marketing authorization [7].

Key considerations for ATMP stability study design include:

• Real-time vs. accelerated stability: Primary shelf life claims must be based on real-time studies under recommended storage conditions
• In-use stability: Studies must simulate conditions during product preparation, administration, and any reconstitution steps
• Multiple analytical methods: Stability testing requires orthogonal methods assessing identity, purity, potency, and safety
• Container closure system: Studies must include the primary container closure system under various storage orientations
• Shipping validation: Stability under transportation conditions must be validated, particularly for cryopreserved products

Stability Testing Protocols and Parameters

Table 2: Stability Testing Requirements for Different ATMP Categories

Test Parameter	Cell-Based Therapies	Gene Therapies	Tissue-Engineered Products	Testing Frequency
Identity	Flow cytometry (surface markers), PCR (genotypic), STR profiling	Vector sequencing, Transgene expression, PCR	Histology, Immunohistochemistry, Biochemical composition	Initial, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24 months and annual thereafter
Potency	Cell viability, Differentiation potential, Functional assays	Transduction efficiency, Expression level, Biological activity	Mechanical properties, Biochemical activity, Cellular function	Initial, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24 months
Purity	Process-related impurities (residual reagents), Product-related impurities (unwanted cell types)	Empty vs. full capsid ratio, Host cell proteins/DNA, Residual process reagents	Residual scaffold materials, Processing reagents, Degradation products	Initial, 6, 12, 18, 24 months
Safety	Sterility, Mycoplasma, Endotoxin, Adventitious agents	Sterility, Mycoplasma, Endotoxin, Replication-competent viruses	Sterility, Mycoplasma, Endotoxin, Bioburden	Initial and endpoint
Viability/ Titer	Total nucleated cell count, Viable cell density, Cell potency	Vector genome concentration, Infectious titer, Particle-to-infectivity ratio	Cell number, Metabolic activity, Matrix integrity	Initial, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24 months

Experimental Protocol for ATMP Stability Studies

Objective: To establish shelf life, storage conditions, and container compatibility for ATMPs through structured stability studies that monitor critical quality attributes over time.

Methodology:

• Study Design: Implement a bracketing or matrixing design where scientifically justified, with sufficient testing points to determine degradation kinetics
• Storage Conditions: Include:
  • Long-term storage at recommended temperature (±2°C for frozen, ±5°C for refrigerated)
  • Accelerated conditions (e.g., -65°C for products stored at -80°C)
  • Stress conditions to identify degradation pathways
• Test Intervals: Schedule testing at minimum at 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months for real-time studies, with more frequent early timepoints for accelerated studies
• Test Methods: Employ validated, stability-indicating methods including:
  • Potency assays: Cell-based functional assays, vector transduction assays, or biochemical activity measurements
  • Physical characteristics: Appearance, color, opacity, particulate matter, pH
  • Biological characteristics: Identity, purity, impurities, concentration/viability
• Container Closure Testing: Evaluate compatibility with primary container including potential for adsorption or leachables

Data Analysis: Establish statistical models for degradation trends; determine shelf life based on the timepoint at which the one-sided 95% confidence limit for mean degradation intersects the acceptance criterion.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful process validation and stability testing for ATMPs requires specialized reagents, materials, and equipment designed to address their unique biological characteristics. The following table outlines essential components of the ATMP development toolkit.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for ATMP Development

Reagent/Material	Function	Application Examples	Critical Quality Attributes
Cell Separation Media	Density gradient separation of mononuclear cells from whole blood or tissue digests	Isolation of PBMCs, cord blood cells, tissue-derived cells	Osmolality, density, endotoxin level, sterility
Cell Culture Media	Support cell growth, expansion, and maintenance while maintaining phenotypic and functional characteristics	Expansion of stem cells, T-cells, progenitor cells	Composition, growth factors, cytokines, pH, osmolality
Cryopreservation Media	Maintain cell viability and functionality during freeze-thaw cycles by mitigating ice crystal formation and osmotic stress	Cryopreservation of final drug product, intermediate cell banks	DMSO concentration, cryoprotectants, serum/content-free formulation
Characterization Antibodies	Identification and quantification of cell surface and intracellular markers via flow cytometry	Purity assessment, identity testing, impurity profiling	Specificity, titer, fluorochrome-to-protein ratio, cross-reactivity
Vector Standards	Quantification of vector concentration and determination of infectious titer for gene therapy products	qPCR standard curves, transduction efficiency calculations	Accuracy, traceability to reference standards, stability
Functional Assay Reagents	Measurement of biological activity and potency through specific mechanistic actions	Cytotoxicity assays, differentiation potential, secretory profiles	Specificity, sensitivity, accuracy, precision
Process-Related Impurity Assays	Detection and quantification of residual materials from manufacturing process	Residual cytokines, antibiotics, serum, purification reagents	Detection limit, quantification limit, specificity

Process validation and stability testing represent critical pillars in the development of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products within the European regulatory framework. The evolving guidelines from EMA and ICH reflect a maturation of the regulatory landscape, emphasizing risk-based approaches, phase-appropriate strategies, and lifecycle management of product quality. The recent implementation of the EMA guideline on clinical-stage ATMPs and the ongoing revision of ICH Q1 stability guidelines provide enhanced clarity for manufacturers navigating the complex pathway from exploratory clinical trials to marketing authorization.

Successful implementation requires robust quality risk management frameworks that address the unique challenges of ATMPs, including their complex biological nature, limited shelf lives, and frequently personalized manufacturing approaches. By adopting the structured validation methodologies and stability testing protocols outlined in this guide, manufacturers can build comprehensive data packages that demonstrate product quality throughout the lifecycle, ultimately facilitating regulatory approval and ensuring patient access to these transformative therapies.

For researchers and drug development professionals working in the field of cell and gene therapies, navigating the regulatory landscape is as critical as the scientific research itself. The Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls (CMC) sections of regulatory submissions form the backbone of demonstrating product quality, consistency, and safety. However, significant differences exist between the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in their CMC expectations. These differences directly impact development timelines, costs, and global market access strategies for Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs). Understanding these distinctions is particularly crucial for the EU cell therapy manufacturing license application process, where a lack of harmonization can create substantial barriers to approval. This analysis examines key divergence points, from foundational regulatory philosophies to specific technical requirements, providing a framework for successful multinational application strategies.

Foundational Frameworks and Regulatory Philosophies

The structural and philosophical differences between the EMA and FDA systems create distinct environments for CMC evaluation.

Governance and Decision-Making Structures

• FDA: A centralized federal authority where the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) has direct decision-making power. This structure enables relatively swift decision-making with consistent internal communication [71]. The FDA has full authority to approve products, resulting in immediate nationwide market access in the U.S. [72].

• EMA: A coordinating network model where the Agency coordinates scientific evaluation through national competent authorities across EU Member States. The Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) provides scientific assessment, but the final marketing authorization is granted by the European Commission [71] [2]. This network model incorporates broader scientific perspectives but requires more complex coordination across diverse healthcare systems [71].

Underlying Regulatory Philosophies

• FDA Approach: Employs a "fit-for-phase" philosophy for CMC development, allowing flexibility and data progression throughout the development lifecycle [73]. The FDA has historically been more receptive to novel adaptive approaches and is generally more accepting of placebo-controlled trials even when active treatments exist [71].

• EMA Approach: Tends to expect greater manufacturing and analytical detail upfront, including Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) certification of sites early in development [73]. The EMA generally expects comparison against relevant existing treatments and places greater emphasis on clinical meaningfulness beyond statistical significance [71].

Table 1: Foundational Regulatory Framework Differences

Aspect	U.S. FDA	EU EMA
Authority Structure	Centralized federal agency	Coordinating network of national authorities
Decision-Making Power	FDA has full approval authority	European Commission grants marketing authorization based on EMA scientific opinion
Primary CMC Philosophy	Fit-for-phase, progressive data	More comprehensive data expected earlier
Clinical Trial Comparator Preference	More accepting of placebo controls	Generally expects active comparators when available
GMP Compliance Verification	Phase-appropriate approach with verification at BLA stage	Mandatory self-inspections and documented evidence early in development [7]

CMC Submission Pathways and Procedural Distinctions

The procedural pathways for CMC submissions differ significantly between regions, affecting both strategy and timeline management.

Submission Frameworks and Formatting

Both agencies utilize the Common Technical Document (CTD) format, but important differences remain in specific expectations:

• FDA Submissions: Require specific forms including Form FDA 356h and detailed CMC information following FDA-specific guidances. The FDA recently announced the Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls Development and Readiness Pilot (CDRP) Program to facilitate expedited CMC development for products with accelerated clinical timelines [74] [75]. This program provides additional CMC-focused Type B meetings and increased communication [75].

• EMA Submissions: Must include EU-specific administrative information, Risk Management Plans following EU templates, and compliance with Pediatric Investigation Plan requirements under the EU Pediatric Regulation [71]. The EMA's new guideline on clinical-stage ATMPs, effective July 1, 2025, serves as a primary-source multidisciplinary reference document consolidating information from over 40 separate guidelines [7].

Expedited Pathway Structures

Both agencies offer expedited pathways, but with different structures and requirements:

• FDA Expedited Programs: Include multiple options that can be applied individually or in combination: Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy, Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy (RMAT), and Accelerated Approval pathways [72]. These allow more frequent FDA communication, rolling submission, and approval based on surrogate endpoints.

• EMA Expedited Mechanisms: Include Accelerated Assessment (reducing assessment from 210 to 150 days) and Conditional Marketing Authorization [72] [71]. The PRIME (Priority Medicines) scheme provides enhanced support for medicines with promising preliminary data [72].

The following diagram illustrates the parallel submission pathways for ATMPs/CGTs through the FDA and EMA systems:

Key Technical Divergences in CMC Expectations

Critical technical differences in CMC requirements present substantial challenges for developers seeking simultaneous approvals.

Manufacturing and Quality Control

• Donor Eligibility Determination: For allogeneic therapies, the FDA is more prescriptive in requirements for donor screening, specifying relevant communicable disease agents, testing methodologies, and laboratory qualifications [7]. The EMA guideline provides only general guidance and reminds developers to comply with relevant EU and member state-specific legal requirements [7].

• GMP Compliance Timelines: The EMA requires mandatory self-inspections with documented results providing physical evidence of an effective quality system early in development [7]. In contrast, the U.S. employs a phased approach with attestation at early stages and full GMP compliance verified during pre-license inspection at the BLA stage [7].

• Point of Care Manufacturing: The MHRA (UK) has introduced innovative guidance for decentralized manufacturing, designating products as either Point of Care (POC) or Modular Manufacturing (MM) [12]. This includes specific requirements for a Decentralized Manufacturing Master File (DMMF) and modified GMP applications for bedside manufacturing [12].

Analytical Testing and Characterization

• Potency Assay Expectations: Both agencies require potency assays, but the EMA often expects more extensive characterization early in development, while the FDA may accept a more progressive approach aligned with phase-appropriate principles [7].

• Specification Setting: The EMA's updated quality guidance for inhaled and nasal products (effective February 2026) demonstrates their evolving approach to specification justification, now recognizing that additional batches and statistical considerations may be needed when clinical batches differ from commercial batches [76].

• Real-Time Release Testing (RTRT): For autologous products, the EMA specifically acknowledges the use of RTRT but emphasizes the need for robust data to support this strategy, particularly in Marketing Authorization Applications [12].

Table 2: Technical CMC Requirement Differences for Cell and Gene Therapies

Technical Area	U.S. FDA Expectations	EU EMA Expectations
Donor Eligibility	Prescriptive requirements for screening, testing methods, and lab qualifications [7]	General guidance with reference to EU and member state laws [7]
GMP Compliance	Phase-appropriate approach verified at BLA stage [7]	Mandatory self-inspections with documented evidence early in development [7]
Potency Assays	Progressive, phase-appropriate development [7]	More extensive characterization expected earlier [7]
Stability Data	Fit-for-phase requirements	Typically more extensive long-term data expected
Process Validation	Approach aligned with clinical phase	Often earlier expectations for process characterization
Decentralized Manufacturing	Emerging framework	MHRA has specific POC/MM designations with DMMF requirements [12]

Post-Approval and Lifecycle Management

Divergence in CMC requirements continues after initial approval, impacting lifecycle management strategies.

Post-Marketing Surveillance

• FDA Requirements: Mandate 15+ years of long-term follow-up for gene therapies and may require Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) for high-risk products [72]. Post-marketing commitments often include completion of confirmatory studies for accelerated approvals.

• EMA Requirements: Enforce a decentralized pharmacovigilance system with country-specific compliance requirements [72]. The EMA requires Risk Management Plans (RMPs) for all products, which are generally more comprehensive than typical FDA risk management documentation [71].

Change Management and Comparability

• FDA Approach: Employs a risk-based framework for manufacturing changes, with varying reporting categories based on the potential impact on product quality [7].

• EMA Approach: Also risk-based but often requires more substantial data packages for manufacturing changes, with particular emphasis on demonstrating comparability through extensive analytical and, in some cases, clinical data [7].

The following workflow illustrates a strategic approach to managing CMC development for global applications:

Successfully navigating both regulatory systems requires specific documentation and strategic approaches.

Table 3: Essential CMC Documentation and Resources for Global Submissions

Resource Category	Key Components	Strategic Application
Quality Guidelines	EMA quality guidelines (e.g., for inhaled products) [77], FDA-specific CMC guidances	Justify deviations fully in applications; seek scientific advice early [77]
Regulatory Pathways	FDA RMAT designation, EMA PRIME scheme, Conditional MA pathways	Identify suitable expedited pathways early; understand evidence requirements for each [72]
CMC Development Plans	FDA CDRP Program [74] [75], EMA ATMP certification for SMEs	Leverage pilot programs for increased agency communication and guidance
Pharmacovigilance Systems	FDA REMS, EU RMPs and EudraVigilance	Develop comprehensive risk management documentation exceeding minimum requirements [72]
Comparative Analyses	In vitro equivalence studies, analytical comparability exercises	Prepare for more extensive comparability data for EMA, particularly for manufacturing changes [7]
Expert Committees	FDA CBER, EMA CAT	Understand the role of EMA's Committee for Advanced Therapies in scientific assessment of ATMPs [2]

The divergent CMC expectations between the EMA and FDA represent more than procedural differences—they reflect fundamentally distinct regulatory philosophies that must be addressed through strategic planning. For researchers and developers targeting both markets, a "one-size-fits-all" approach to CMC documentation is ineffective. The recent implementation of the EMA's clinical-stage ATMP guideline (July 2025) and the FDA's CDRP program highlight that regulatory frameworks continue to evolve, requiring ongoing vigilance and adaptation [7] [75].

Successful global development strategies must incorporate early and separate engagements with both agencies, distinct application designs that acknowledge different efficacy and safety requirements, and robust post-market surveillance planning that addresses both the FDA's long-term follow-up requirements and the EMA's decentralized pharmacovigilance system [72]. While regulatory convergence remains an aspirational goal, current realities demand sophisticated, region-specific approaches to CMC development that acknowledge and strategically address these persistent differences.

Divergence in Starting Material Definitions, Potency Testing, and Long-Term Follow-Up

The authorization of a cell therapy in the European Union is a rigorous process governed by a comprehensive legal framework. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) provides pre-authorisation guidance, outlining that applications for a Community marketing authorisation must be submitted through the centralised procedure, with the applicant (the future Marketing Authorisation Holder) being legally established in the European Economic Area (EEA) [32]. The regulatory foundation is detailed in "The Rules governing Medicinal Products in the European Union," notably Volume 2, Notice to Applicants, and Volume 9 on Pharmacovigilance [32]. For advanced therapy medicinal products, the regulatory pathway involves demonstrating quality, safety, and efficacy, with specific considerations for novel manufacturing paradigms like decentralized manufacturing, a concept recently formalized by the UK's MHRA and relevant for EU applications concerning point-of-care production [12] [36]. This guide delves into the critical technical challenges of defining starting materials, establishing potency assays, and planning for long-term follow-up within this complex and evolving framework.

Starting Material Definitions: A Foundation for Quality and Regulatory Strategy

The definition of a Key Starting Material is a pivotal strategic decision in pharmaceutical development, as it establishes the foundation for the entire manufacturing process and marks the point at which Good Manufacturing Practice principles are first applied in the synthesis process [78]. According to regulatory definitions, an API starting material is “a raw material, intermediate, or an API that is used in the production of an API and that is incorporated as a significant structural fragment into the structure of the API” [78]. For cell-based therapies, this concept translates to the critical biological raw materials, such as a patient's cells or donor cells, which initiate the manufacturing process.

Regulatory and Quality Implications

The selection and characterization of starting materials have a profound impact on the quality of the final drug product. Industry analysis indicates that approximately 40% of all drug quality issues can be traced back to problems with starting materials [78]. This direct link elevates starting material sourcing from a procurement function to a core quality assurance and proactive risk management imperative [78]. A poorly defined or characterized starting material can lead to persistent impurity profiles, regulatory delays, and vulnerabilities in the supply chain, potentially compromising the entire development program.

Table: Key Considerations for Cell Therapy Starting Material Definition

Consideration	Impact on Manufacturing and Regulation
Point of Introduction	Determines the start of GMP application and the scope of regulatory oversight.
Structural Significance	The material must contribute a significant structural fragment to the final product.
Inherent Variability	Cell-based sources require robust testing and qualification to manage biological variation.
Supply Chain Control	Requires stringent vendor management and quality agreements to prevent disruptions.

Strategic Definition and the "Quality by Design" Approach

The strategic designation of a material as a starting material is also an economic decision. By defining a material earlier in the synthesis pathway as the official starting point, companies can potentially reduce GMP compliance costs for earlier synthetic steps [78]. This approach allows for the optimization of the overall manufacturing cost structure while ensuring quality at critical junctures that directly impact the active substance. Adopting a "quality by design" (QbD) approach from the earliest stages is essential. For cell therapies, this means understanding how the quality attributes of the input cells (e.g., viability, potency, identity) influence the critical quality attributes of the final therapy. This proactive approach, where quality is built into the design and manufacturing process at every step, significantly reduces the risk of batch failures and regulatory issues [78].

Potency Testing: Cornerstone of Product Efficacy and Quality

Potency testing is a critical release criterion for cell-based immunotherapy medicinal products, serving as a quantitative measure of the biological activity relevant to the intended therapeutic effect. The EMA has published specific scientific guidelines on potency testing of cell-based immunotherapy medicinal products for the treatment of cancer, which were recently updated to reflect current best practice with regard to the implementation of 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement) approaches [79]. This underscores the dynamic nature of regulatory expectations, which evolve alongside scientific and ethical standards.

Methodologies and Analytical Strategies

A comprehensive potency testing strategy must be established based on the mechanism of action of the product.

• Mechanism-Based Bioassays: Develop cell-based assays that mirror the known biological pathway. For a CAR-T cell product, this involves co-culturing the CAR-T cells with target tumor cells and measuring specific outputs like cytokine secretion or target cell lysis.
• Surrogate Assay Correlations: In cases where a direct bioassay is complex or highly variable, identify and validate surrogate assays (e.g., flow cytometry for transgene expression, qPCR for vector copy number) that correlate strongly with the product's biological activity.
• Multi-Attribute Potency Assays: For products with multiple mechanisms of action, a single assay may be insufficient. A potency assay panel that measures several key biological activities may be necessary to fully characterize the product's functional profile.
• Real-Time Release Testing (RTRT): For advanced therapies with short shelf-lives, particularly those involving decentralized manufacturing at the point of care, traditional end-product testing may not be feasible. In these cases, RTRT strategies, supported by process validation and demonstration of comparability across manufacturing sites, are critical [12].

Table: Example Potency Assay Portfolio for a Hypothetical CAR-T Cell Therapy

Assay Type	Measured Output	Analytical Method	Link to Mechanism of Action
Cytotoxic Activity	Percentage of specific target cell lysis	Flow cytometry (e.g., Annexin V, PI staining)	Direct measure of tumor cell killing
Cytokine Secretion	IFN-γ, IL-2 concentration	ELISA or Luminex multiplex assay	Indicator of T-cell activation upon target engagement
Transduction Efficiency	Percentage of CAR-positive cells	Flow cytometry	Quantifies the fraction of effector cells
Proliferation Capacity	Fold expansion in response to stimulation	Cell counting (trypan blue) / CFSE dilution	Assesses T-cell fitness and potential for in vivo persistence

Experimental Protocol: Cytokine Release Bioassay

This protocol outlines a method to quantify the potency of a cell therapy product based on its ability to secrete IFN-γ upon target recognition.

Methodology:

• Preparation of Effector Cells: Thaw and rest the investigational cell therapy product (e.g., CAR-T cells) in complete media for a specified period. Determine cell count and viability.
• Preparation of Target Cells: Culture target cells expressing the relevant antigen and negative control cells not expressing the antigen. Harvest cells during logarithmic growth phase.
• Co-culture Setup: Seed target cells in a 96-well plate. Add effector cells at multiple effector-to-target ratios. Include replicates for each condition and controls for effector cells alone and target cells alone.
• Incubation: Incubate the plate for 18-24 hours at 37°C with 5% CO₂.
• Supernatant Harvest: Centrifuge the plate and carefully transfer the supernatant to a new plate.
• IFN-γ Quantification: Perform a standardized ELISA on the supernatant according to the manufacturer's instructions.
• Data Analysis: Generate a dose-response curve of IFN-γ concentration versus effector-to-target ratio. The potency of a test sample can be calculated by comparing its response to a reference standard included in each assay.

Long-Term Follow-Up: Ensuring Ongoing Safety and Efficacy

Long-term follow-up is a mandatory component of the development and post-authorization monitoring of cell and gene therapies, driven by the potential for delayed adverse events, such as secondary malignancies, or sustained efficacy. The EU pharmacovigilance framework, detailed in Volume 9 of the rules governing medicinal products and the Good Pharmacovigilance Practices, imposes strict obligations on the Marketing Authorisation Holder to continuously monitor product safety [32].

Regulatory Framework and Risk Management

The EU system mandates that the MAH remains legally responsible for the product's safety profile, even when activities are delegated [32]. This responsibility is operationalized through the Risk Management Plan, which for advanced therapies, invariably includes a requirement for long-term follow-up studies. The EudraVigilance system is the primary tool used by the EMA and national competent authorities to monitor suspected adverse drug reactions [36]. For therapies involving novel approaches like decentralized manufacturing, the pharmacovigilance program must be acutely sensitive to subtle differences in manufacturing across sites and ensure robust product traceability to link any safety signals to the specific product and manufacturing instance [12].

Designing and Implementing an Effective LTFU Program

• Study Duration and Population: The follow-up period is typically 15 years for gene therapy products, though this may be adjusted based on product-specific risks. The study should encompass all patients treated in clinical trials and, post-authorization, all patients receiving commercial product.
• Data Collection and Management: A robust data collection system is essential. This includes patient demographics, treatment details, efficacy outcomes, and the systematic recording of adverse events, with special attention to events of special interest like insertional mutagenesis, autoimmunity, or delayed off-target effects.
• Patient Retention Strategies: High rates of patient retention are critical for meaningful data. Strategies include clear communication with patients and physicians, minimizing the burden of follow-up visits, and potentially using telehealth and digital health technologies.
• Data Analysis and Reporting: The MAH is responsible for analyzing the collected data and submitting periodic safety update reports to the regulators. Signal detection activities must be performed to identify any new or changing risks.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

The successful development and testing of a cell therapy product rely on a suite of critical reagents and materials. The following table details key solutions used in the featured experiments and regulatory testing.

Table: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Cell Therapy Development

Research Reagent	Function and Application
Cell Isolation Kits	Immunomagnetic separation kits for the specific enrichment of starting cell populations from apheresis material.
Cell Culture Media	Serum-free, xeno-free media formulations optimized for the expansion and maintenance of therapeutic cells.
Cytokines/Growth Factors	Recombinant human proteins used to activate, differentiate, or expand cell products.
Flow Cytometry Antibodies	Fluorochrome-conjugated antibodies for characterizing cell identity, purity, and transgene expression.
qPCR/dPCR Reagents	Assays for quantifying vector copy number, detecting replication-competent viruses, and measuring residual host cell DNA.
Cytokine ELISA/Luminex Kits	Validated kits for quantifying cytokine release in potency bioassays.
Target Cell Lines	Engineered cell lines expressing the target antigen for use in functional potency assays.
Viability/Proliferation Assays	Reagents for measuring cell health and expansion capacity.

Navigating the EU cell therapy marketing authorisation process requires a holistic and integrated strategy. The definitions set for starting materials form the foundation of the quality dossier and directly impact the scope of GMP. The potency testing strategy is not merely a release specification but a comprehensive demonstration of the product's biological function and consistency. Finally, a well-designed long-term follow-up program is non-negotiable, providing the necessary data to assure regulators and clinicians of the product's long-term safety and durability of response. These three pillars are interconnected; a change in the starting material may impact potency, which in turn must be monitored in the long term. A deep understanding of the regulatory guidance, coupled with robust scientific data and a proactive quality culture, is essential for successfully bringing a transformative cell therapy to patients in the European Union.

Strategies for Aligning Clinical Trial Designs and Data for Simultaneous EU and US Submissions

The development of cell and gene therapies (CGTs) represents one of the most transformative advances in modern medicine, yet their pathway to global market authorization remains complex due to divergent regulatory requirements across major markets. For developers aiming to accelerate patient access to these innovative treatments, strategic alignment of clinical trial designs and data packages for simultaneous European Union (EU) and United States (US) submissions has become a critical objective. The regulatory landscape for these advanced therapies is rapidly evolving, with recent initiatives specifically designed to facilitate global harmonization and reduce development timelines.

Regulatory agencies recognize that the traditional paradigm of sequential country-by-country approval creates significant delays in patient access to breakthrough therapies. In response, both the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) have implemented frameworks to support parallel assessment. Most notably, the FDA launched the Gene Therapies Global Pilot Program (CoGenT), an initiative designed to explore concurrent, collaborative reviews of gene therapy applications with international regulatory partners like the EMA [80]. This program allows foreign regulators to participate in FDA review meetings and share information, potentially reducing duplication and accelerating global approvals.

For cell therapy developers operating within the context of EU manufacturing license applications, understanding these alignment opportunities is essential for efficient global development. This technical guide examines current regulatory frameworks, identifies convergence points in clinical trial design, and provides strategic methodologies for creating development programs that simultaneously satisfy both EU and US requirements, thereby optimizing resource utilization and accelerating patient access to transformative cell therapies.

Regulatory Landscape and Expedited Pathways

EU Regulatory Framework for Advanced Therapies

In the European Union, cell-based therapies are regulated as Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs) and must undergo the centralized marketing authorization procedure [2]. This pathway ensures a single evaluation and authorization decision applicable to all EU member states. The Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) plays a pivotal role in this process, providing specialized scientific assessment of ATMP quality, safety, and efficacy before the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) adopts a final opinion [2]. Beyond the standard authorization pathway, the EMA offers two expedited routes particularly relevant to cell therapies addressing unmet medical needs:

• Conditional Marketing Authorization: Available for therapies with a positive benefit-risk balance that are likely to address unmet medical needs, this pathway allows approval based on less comprehensive data than normally required, with the obligation to submit confirmatory evidence post-authorization [81].
• Marketing Authorization under Exceptional Circumstances: Granted when comprehensive data cannot be generated due to disease rarity or ethical considerations, this pathway acknowledges the practical limitations in developing certain cell therapies [81].

The EMA also provides substantial support mechanisms for developers, including the ATMP pilot for academia and non-profit organizations launched in September 2022, which offers dedicated regulatory assistance and fee reductions for developers targeting unmet clinical needs [2]. Additionally, the Innovation Task Force (ITF) provides a multidisciplinary forum for early dialogue with applicants working on emerging therapies and technologies [32].

US Regulatory Framework for Cell Therapies

In the United States, cell therapies are regulated by the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) as biological products [81]. The US framework offers multiple expedited programs specifically adapted for innovative therapies:

• Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy (RMAT) Designation: Established under the 21st Century Cures Act, this designation provides expedited review for regenerative medicine therapies addressing serious or life-threatening conditions, with opportunities for increased FDA interaction and potential use of surrogate endpoints [81] [80].
• Fast Track Designation: Aims to facilitate development and expedite review of therapies treating serious conditions and addressing unmet medical needs [81].
• Breakthrough Therapy Designation: Provides intensive FDA guidance on efficient drug development for therapies demonstrating substantial improvement over available treatments [81].
• Accelerated Approval: Allows approval based on effect on a surrogate endpoint reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, with post-approval studies to verify clinical benefit [81].

In September 2025, the FDA released updated draft guidance on Expedited Programs for Regenerative Medicine Therapies, further clarifying how sponsors can leverage these pathways to accelerate patient access while maintaining rigorous safety standards [82] [80].

Initiatives for Regulatory Convergence

Recognizing the challenges posed by divergent regulatory requirements, international agencies have launched initiatives to promote global harmonization:

• Gene Therapies Global Pilot Program (CoGenT): Modeled after Project Orbis for oncology, this FDA initiative explores concurrent collaborative reviews with international partners including the EMA, allowing foreign regulators to participate in FDA review meetings and share information [80].
• International Council for Harmonisation (ICH): Ongoing efforts to harmonize technical requirements, including the development of a new Annex to ICH Q5E addressing CGT-specific comparability challenges [16].
• Accelerating Clinical Trials in the EU (ACT EU): A joint initiative by the European Commission, Heads of Medicines Agencies (HMA), and EMA to increase the number of multinational clinical trials in the EU and improve patient recruitment speed [83].

The following diagram illustrates the parallel regulatory pathways and convergence opportunities in the EU and US:

Figure 1: Parallel Regulatory Pathways and Convergence Opportunities in the EU and US

Strategic Clinical Trial Design Alignment

Clinical Trial Targets and Recruitment Strategies

Recent EU initiatives have established specific clinical trial targets aimed at enhancing the region's competitiveness in global clinical research. By 2030, the EU aims to increase the number of multinational clinical trials by 100 annually and raise the speed of patient recruitment so that two-thirds of trials recruit patients within 200 calendar days from application submission, up from the current 50% [83]. These targets are part of the ACT EU initiative which provides sponsors with valuable resources including clinical trial maps, guidance on designing effective trials, and assistance for multinational applications [83].

To align with these initiatives while satisfying US requirements, sponsors should consider several strategic approaches:

• Multinational Site Selection: Utilize the EU's new clinical trial map to identify sites with strong patient recruitment capabilities and historical success in similar trials, while ensuring these sites also meet FDA requirements for clinical trial conduct and data collection [83] [36].
• Harmonized Protocol Development: Implement the ICH E6(R3) Good Clinical Practice guideline, which introduces flexible, risk-based approaches and embraces modern innovations in trial design, conduct, and technology accepted by both regions [82].
• Shared Control Arms: Develop statistically justified shared control arms that meet both EMA and FDA standards for external controls, particularly valuable for rare diseases with small patient populations [82] [80].

Endpoint Selection and Estimand Framework

Alignment on endpoint selection is crucial for simultaneous submissions. Both agencies have shown increasing flexibility in accepting novel endpoints while maintaining rigorous standards:

• Surrogate Endpoints: For serious conditions with unmet needs, both regions may accept reasonably likely surrogate endpoints for accelerated approval, with post-market requirements to verify clinical benefit [81] [80].
• Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs): The EMA's draft reflection paper on patient experience data encourages inclusion of patient perspectives throughout the medicine's lifecycle, aligning with FDA's Patient-Focused Drug Development initiatives [14] [82].
• Estimand Framework: Implementation of ICH E9(R1) on estimands, which has been adopted by both regions, ensures clarity in defining clinical trial objectives, endpoints, and handling of intercurrent events [82].

Innovative Trial Designs for Small Populations

Cell therapies often target rare diseases with limited patient populations, necessitating innovative approaches to trial design. The FDA's September 2025 draft guidance on "Innovative Designs for Clinical Trials of Cellular and Gene Therapy Products in Small Populations" encourages adaptive, Bayesian, and externally controlled designs to generate robust evidence with fewer patients [82] [80]. To ensure transatlantic acceptance of these designs:

• Engage in Early Regulatory Dialogue: Pursue parallel scientific advice with both agencies to align on novel statistical approaches and trial designs before implementation [80].
• Implement Adaptive Designs: Consider platform trials, master protocols, or Bayesian adaptive designs that allow for modifications based on accumulating data while maintaining trial integrity [82] [80].
• Leverage Real-World Evidence (RWE): Develop strategies to incorporate RWE as supplemental or supportive data, particularly for external control arms, in alignment with both EMA and FDA frameworks [36].

The following table summarizes key considerations for aligning clinical trial endpoints and designs:

Table 1: Clinical Trial Endpoint and Design Alignment Strategies

Aspect	EU Considerations	US Considerations	Alignment Strategy
Primary Endpoints	Prefer clinically relevant endpoints; may accept surrogates in conditional MA	More flexible on surrogate endpoints for accelerated approval	Justify endpoint selection with biological plausibility and clinical relevance
Patient Experience Data	Draft reflection paper encourages collection throughout lifecycle [14]	PFDD guidance series emphasizes incorporation in development [14]	Implement patient engagement early; use validated instruments accepted in both regions
Trial Designs for Rare Diseases	Support innovative designs through ACT EU initiative [83]	New draft guidance encourages adaptive designs for small populations [82]	Pursue parallel scientific advice; use Bayesian methods with pre-specified algorithms
External Controls	Acceptable with strong justification and comparability [80]	Encouraged in recent draft guidance for rare diseases [82]	Use propensity score matching; ensure comprehensive data collection on potential confounders
Long-Term Follow-Up	Required for ATMPs with potential long-term risks [2]	Expected for gene therapies with integrating vectors [82]	Develop unified safety monitoring plan meeting both regions' requirements (15+ years)

Manufacturing and CMC Alignment Strategies

Raw and Starting Materials

Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls (CMC) alignment presents significant challenges due to differing regulatory definitions and requirements between regions. A fundamental distinction exists in the classification of starting materials:

• EMA Perspective: Defines 'starting materials' as those that will become part of the drug substance, such as vectors used to modify cells, gene editing components, and cells. These must be prepared in accordance with Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) principles [16].
• FDA Perspective: Does not have a regulatory definition of starting materials, instead using the term 'critical raw materials' with enhanced material control approaches based on risk and development stage [16].

For viral vectors used to modify cell therapy products, the regulatory classification differs significantly. The FDA classifies in vitro viral vectors as a drug substance, while the EMA considers them starting materials [16]. This distinction has practical implications for potency verification, with the FDA expecting more functional assays compared to the EMA's generally accepted infectivity and transgene expression measurements, particularly in early development [16].

Demonstration of Comparability

Both regions recognize that CGT products fall outside the scope of the current ICH Q5E guideline on comparability, though a new annex is in development [16]. Until international harmonization is achieved, sponsors must navigate regional guidance documents:

• EMA Guidance: Refer to the 'Questions and Answers' document on comparability considerations (December 2019), medicinal products containing genetically modified cells (November 2012, updated June 2021), and the multidisciplinary guideline on demonstrating comparability for CGTs in clinical development (effective July 2025) [16].
• FDA Guidance: Consult the July 2023 draft guidance on comparability for CGT products, which reflects current FDA thinking on this topic [16].

For cell therapies undergoing process changes, the EMA specifies particular attributes to evaluate when changing the manufacturing process for recombinant starting materials, including full vector sequencing, confirming absence of replication competent virus (RCV), comparing impurities, and assessing stability [16]. The FDA guidance does not contain an equivalent specific provision.

Decentralized Manufacturing Considerations

The UK's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has implemented a novel regulatory framework for decentralized manufacturing effective July 2025, which allows medicinal products to be manufactured at or near the patient's location [12] [36]. While specifically applicable to the UK, this framework may influence broader regulatory thinking and presents important considerations for global developers:

• Point of Care (POC) Designation: Reserved for products that can only be manufactured at or near the place of use due to method of manufacture, shelf life, constituents, or administration route—with convenience and cost explicitly excluded as justification [12].
• Modular Manufacturing (MM) Designation: Applicable when deployment necessitates manufacture or assembly in modular units, requiring evidence of public health requirement and/or significant clinical advantage [12].
• Control Site Requirements: A designated control site in the UK with a manufacturing license must maintain oversight of all decentralized sites, with a comprehensive Quality Management System and procedures for onboarding, training, and auditing remote sites [12].

The following diagram illustrates a comparability exercise workflow aligned with both EU and US expectations:

Figure 2: Comparability Exercise Workflow Aligned with EU and US Expectations

Pharmacovigilance and Post-Authorization Evidence Generation

Risk Management and Safety Monitoring

Cell therapies present unique pharmacovigilance challenges due to their complex mechanisms of action, potential for long-term effects, and in some cases, permanent genetic modification. Both regulatory regions require robust risk management plans, but with differing emphases:

• EU Requirements: The Good Pharmacovigilance Practices (GVPs) modules provide detailed requirements for risk management systems, with specific considerations for ATMPs [2]. The EMA emphasizes the need for traceability from donor to patient and back, particularly for autologous products [12].
• US Requirements: The FDA's September 2025 draft guidance on "Postapproval Methods to Capture Safety and Efficacy Data for Cell and Gene Therapy Products" emphasizes robust long-term post-market monitoring to gather safety and effectiveness data over time, acknowledging the limitations of pre-market studies with small populations [82].

For decentralized manufacturing models, pharmacovigilance systems must be particularly sensitive to potential variations in manufacturing across sites. The MHRA guidance emphasizes that "with a significant number of sites of manufacture that could interpret manufacturing instructions differently, the pharmacovigilance program must be acutely sensitive to these subtle differences and be able to track them effectively" [12].

Long-Term Follow-Up Strategies

Long-term follow-up is especially critical for cell therapies with integrating vectors or potential delayed adverse effects. Alignment strategies should include:

• Unified Follow-Up Protocol: Develop a single long-term follow-up study protocol that collects all data elements required by both regions, typically for 15 years for gene therapies [82].
• Real-World Evidence Generation: Implement systems to capture real-world outcomes that can supplement clinical trial data and support post-approval requirements in both regions [36] [80].
• Patient Registry Development: Consider establishing product-specific registries to monitor long-term safety and effectiveness, particularly for therapies approved via accelerated pathways [82].

The table below summarizes key pharmacovigilance alignment considerations:

Table 2: Pharmacovigilance and Post-Authorization Alignment Strategies

Requirement	EU Expectations	US Expectations	Alignment Strategy
Risk Management Plan	Required for all ATMPs with additional risk minimization as needed [2]	Expected with elements tailored to product-specific risks [82]	Develop unified RMP with annexes addressing region-specific requirements
Long-Term Follow-Up	15+ years for gene therapies with integrating vectors [2]	15+ years for gene therapies; specified in guidance [82]	Implement single protocol with comprehensive data collection meeting both requirements
Traceability	Required from donor to patient and back for autologous products [12]	Strongly recommended to monitor product administration [12]	Establish system capturing complete chain of identity and chain of custody
Post-Authorization Studies	Often required as specific obligations for conditional MAs [81]	May be required as post-market requirements for accelerated approval [82]	Design studies to generate evidence applicable to both regions' confirmatory needs
Periodic Safety Update Reports	Required according to EU-specific timelines [2]	Required according to US-specific timelines	Develop core content with region-specific modules to streamline reporting

Implementation Framework and Best Practices

Strategic Regulatory Intelligence

Implementing a successful simultaneous submission strategy requires proactive regulatory intelligence and cross-functional planning. Leading organizations are increasingly leveraging artificial intelligence tools to monitor the evolving regulatory landscape. Companies like Janssen have developed augmented intelligence systems that can process up to 9,000 regulations per day with over 85% accuracy, dramatically reducing manual review time [80].

Best practices for maintaining regulatory intelligence include:

• Automated Monitoring Systems: Implement AI-powered tools to track updates to relevant guidelines from both EMA and FDA, with particular attention to draft guidance documents open for consultation [80].
• Participation in Public Consultations: Engage in public consultation periods for draft guidelines, such as the EMA's reflection paper on patient experience data (open until January 2026) or the FDA's draft guidance on innovative trial designs (open until November 2025) [14] [82].
• Stakeholder Engagement: Proactively engage with both agencies through established pathways like the EMA's Innovation Task Force and the FDA's INTERACT meetings to discuss novel development challenges [32].

Organizational Alignment and Submission Timing

The internal organizational structure can significantly impact the efficiency of simultaneous submission programs:

• Integrated Regulatory Teams: Establish cross-regional regulatory teams with shared responsibilities for both submissions rather than separate regional teams, facilitating consistent strategy implementation [16].
• Common Document Management: Implement a unified document management system with a single source of truth for core submission documents, allowing for region-specific adaptations without duplication of effort [80].
• Parallel Agency Interactions: Where possible, schedule parallel scientific advice meetings with both agencies to discuss critical development issues, using the same core presentation materials with region-specific appendices [80].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful alignment of development programs requires careful selection of research reagents and materials that meet the standards of both regions. The following table details key reagents and their functions in the context of aligned EU/US development:

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Aligned Development

Reagent/Material	Function in Development	EU/US Alignment Considerations
Research Cell Banks	Starting material for cell-based therapies; ensure genetic stability and consistency	Characterize according to ICH Q5D; document lineage and manipulation history for both regions
Viral Vector Systems	Gene delivery vehicles for genetically modified cell therapies	Implement RCV testing per regional expectations: FDA requires testing of cell-based drug product; EMA may focus on vector [16]
Gene Editing Components	CRISPR-Cas9 systems, TALENs, or ZFNs for precise genetic modifications	Document origin, design, and verification; assess off-target effects using methods acceptable to both agencies
Cell Separation Reagents	Isolation of specific cell populations from source material	Use clinical-grade reagents; document potential carry-through and impact on final product safety
Cryopreservation Media	Maintenance of cell viability and function during frozen storage	Qualify for use with final product formulation; document DMSO or alternative concentrations and potential effects on potency
Culture Media/Supplements	Ex vivo expansion and maintenance of cellular products	Use xeno-free components where possible; document all components for regulatory filing in both regions
Cytokines/Growth Factors	Directing differentiation or expansion of cellular products	Use recombinant human proteins with documented sourcing and characterization; avoid animal-derived components
Quality Control Reagents	Analytical tools for characterization, potency, and safety testing	Validate key assays according to ICH Q2(R1) where applicable; justify platform selection for both regions

The successful alignment of clinical trial designs and data packages for simultaneous EU and US submissions represents a strategic imperative for cell therapy developers seeking to maximize global patient access. While significant differences remain between regulatory frameworks, the convergence initiatives now being implemented—such as the CoGenT pilot program and ICH harmonization efforts—are creating unprecedented opportunities for synchronized development.

The most critical success factors include: (1) early and strategic engagement with both agencies to align on development plans; (2) implementation of robust manufacturing and control strategies that address regional differences in areas such as starting materials and comparability assessment; and (3) proactive planning for post-authorization evidence generation that satisfies both regions' requirements. Additionally, the increasing acceptance of innovative trial designs and decentralized manufacturing models provides new tools to address the unique challenges in cell therapy development.

As regulatory landscapes continue to evolve, developers should maintain flexible strategies that can adapt to new guidelines and initiatives. By establishing cross-functional teams with integrated responsibilities for both submissions, leveraging technological advances in regulatory intelligence, and maintaining focus on the core scientific principles underlying both regulatory systems, sponsors can navigate the complexities of simultaneous submissions successfully. This approach ultimately serves the shared goal of all stakeholders: accelerating the delivery of transformative cell therapies to patients in need on a global scale.

Conclusion

Successfully navigating the EU cell therapy manufacturing license application demands a deep, proactive understanding of a complex and evolving regulatory framework. The process is rigorous, with a strong emphasis on robust CMC data, GMP compliance, and comprehensive demonstration of quality, safety, and efficacy. Developers, particularly SMEs who form the backbone of this innovative sector, must anticipate challenges in manufacturing, comparability, and meeting specific regional requirements. A strategic approach that leverages available incentives, engages early with regulators via scientific advice, and plans for global submissions by understanding the nuances between EMA and FDA expectations is crucial. As the field advances with trends like decentralized manufacturing, ongoing regulatory adaptation will continue to shape the pathway, making continuous engagement and strategic planning indispensable for bringing transformative cell therapies to patients in the EU and beyond.

References

• 1. Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products ( ATMP ) [https://www.pei.de/EN/medicinal-products/atmp/atmp-node.html]
• 2. Advanced therapy medicinal products: Overview [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory-overview/advanced-therapy-medicinal-products-overview]
• 3. Legal framework: Advanced therapies [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory-overview/advanced-therapy-medicinal-products-overview/legal-framework-advanced-therapies]
• 4. Manufacturing Authorisation of ATMPs [https://www.eurogct.org/research-pathways/manufacturing/manufacturing-authorisation-atmps]
• 5. EMA Proposes Revisions to GMP Guideline for ATMPs [https://www.gmp-compliance.org/gmp-news/ema-proposes-revisions-to-gmp-guideline-for-atmps]
• 6. manufacturing and import authorisation (MIA) license and ... [https://www.propharmagroup.com/manufacturing-and-import-license/]
• 7. EMA Guideline On Clinical-Stage ATMPs Comes Into Effect [https://www.cellandgene.com/doc/ema-guideline-on-clinical-stage-atmps-comes-into-effect-on-the-verge-of-convergence-0001]
• 8. The "Europe Cell Sheet-based Gene Therapy Market [https://finance.yahoo.com/news/europe-cell-sheet-based-gene-120300594.html]
• 9. Advanced therapies - Public Health - European Commission [https://health.ec.europa.eu/medicinal-products/advanced-therapies_en]
• 10. Impact of regulatory measures on the approval timelines of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12240929/]
• 11. Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/committees/committee-advanced-therapies-cat]
• 12. 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]
• 13. 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/]
• 14. Regulatory Round-up - October 2025 [https://ct.catapult.org.uk/news/regulatory-round-up-october-2025]
• 15. Call for preserving specialized knowledge and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S146532492500845X]
• 16. Manufacturing and control strategies for Cell and Gene ... [https://www.parexel.com/insights/blog/manufacturing-and-control-strategies-for-cell-and-gene-therapy-products-navigating-eu-and-us-regulatory-requirements]
• 17. 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]
• 18. Marketing Authorisation Application file for ATMPs [https://www.eurogct.org/research-pathways/commercialisation/market-access-atmps/standard-marketing-authorisation-pathway-0]
• 19. 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]
• 20. Marketing-authorisation procedures for advanced-therapy ... [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory-overview/marketing-authorisation/advanced-therapies-marketing-authorisation/marketing-authorisation-procedures-advanced-therapy-medicinal-products]
• 21. Guidelines relevant for advanced therapy medicinal products [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory-overview/advanced-therapy-medicinal-products-overview/guidelines-relevant-advanced-therapy-medicinal-products]
• 22. The Key Differences Between MA and MIA : What You Need to ... [https://q-support.be/en/2023/04/24/the-key-differences-between-ma-and-mia-what-you-need-to-know/]
• 23. What is a Manufacturing and Import Authorization in pharma? [https://www.pcs-nl.com/en/post/what-is-a-manufacturing-and-import-authorization-in-pharma]
• 24. Marketing authorisation | European Medicines Agency (EMA) [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory-overview/marketing-authorisation]
• 25. Marketing authorisation - European Medicines Agency (EMA) [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/glossary-terms/marketing-authorisation]
• 26. Marketing vs. Manufacturing Authorisation Holder [https://help.emvo-medicines.eu/en/articles/6244230-marketing-vs-manufacturing-authorisation-holder]
• 27. Classification of changes: questions and answers [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory-overview/post-authorisation/classification-changes-questions-answers]
• 28. Good manufacturing practice | European Medicines Agency ... [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory-overview/research-development/compliance-research-development/good-manufacturing-practice]
• 29. New guidelines on good manufacturing practices for ... [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/new-guidelines-good-manufacturing-practices-advanced-therapies]
• 30. Good Manufacturing Practice for ATMPs [https://www.eurogct.org/research-pathways/manufacturing/good-manufacturing-practice-atmps]
• 31. Current State‐Of‐Play of the EU Advanced Therapy ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12104850/]
• 32. Pre-authorisation guidance [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory-overview/marketing-authorisation/pre-authorisation-guidance]
• 33. Manufacturing process development of ATMPs within a ... [https://insights.bio/immuno-oncology-insights/journal/article/467/manufacturing-process-development-of-atmps-within-a-regulatory-framework-for-eu-clinical-trial-marketing-authorisation-applications]
• 34. PRIME: priority medicines | European Medicines Agency (EMA) [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory-overview/research-development/prime-priority-medicines]
• 35. Regulatory Round-up - July 2025 - Cell and Gene Therapy [https://ct.catapult.org.uk/news/regulatory-round-up-july-2025]
• 36. Regulatory Round-up - March 2025 - Cell and Gene Therapy [https://ct.catapult.org.uk/news/regulatory-round-up-march-2025]
• 37. Scientific advice and protocol assistance [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory-overview/research-development/scientific-advice-protocol-assistance]
• 38. Requesting scientific advice or protocol assistance from EMA [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory-overview/research-development/scientific-advice-protocol-assistance/requesting-scientific-advice-or-protocol-assistance-ema]
• 39. Challenges and ongoing initiatives towards better integrated ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11808126/]
• 40. Accelerated assessment | European Medicines Agency (EMA) [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory-overview/marketing-authorisation/accelerated-assessment]
• 41. The evaluation of medicines, step-by-step [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory-overview/marketing-authorisation/evaluation-medicines-step-step]
• 42. CAT scientific recommendations on classification [https://www.eurogct.org/research-pathways/therapy-classification/atmps-applicable-regulatory-pathways/cat-scientific]
• 43. Regulatory Requirements for Cell and Gene... | Valicare GmbH [https://www.valicare.com/en/cell-and-gene-therapy/regulatory-requirements/]
• 44. GMP Standards for Ancillary Materials in CGT Manufacturing [https://www.news-medical.net/whitepaper/20240222/What-are-the-US-and-EU-Compliance-Requirements-for-GMP-ancillary-materials-in-CGT-Manufacturing.aspx]
• 45. Clinical trial application (CTR): from start to finish | Investigators [https://english.ccmo.nl/investigators/clinical-trials-with-medicinal-products-ctr/clinical-trial-application-ctr-from-start-to-finish]
• 46. CD137L promotes immune surveillance in melanoma via ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12475238/]
• 47. Commercialisation [https://www.eurogct.org/research-pathways/commercialisation]
• 48. Critical Materials considerations for Cell and Gene therapy ... [https://voisinconsulting.com/blog/critical-materials-considerations-for-cell-and-gene-therapy-product-development-part-1/]
• 49. Cell Therapy Raw Materials Market Size is Expected to ... [https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cell-therapy-raw-materials-market-150000879.html]
• 50. New: Points to Consider on Materials in ATMP Manufacturing [https://www.pda.org/about-pda/press-releases/press-release-detail/new-points-to-consider-on-materials-in-atmp-manufacturing-available-now]
• 51. Regulatory Round-up - June 2025 [https://ct.catapult.org.uk/news/regulatory-round-up-june-2025]
• 52. Challenges and Solutions for Perishable Goods Logistics [https://www.sekologistics.com/au-en/resource-hub/knowledge-hub/challenges-and-solutions-for-perishable-goods-logistics/]
• 53. A Road Map to An Effective Shelf Life Process in Your ... [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/road-map-effective-shelf-life-process-your-supply-chain-nishant-kumar]
• 54. Regulatory Round-up - September 2025 [https://ct.catapult.org.uk/news/regulatory-round-up-september-2025]
• 55. The hidden arrow in the FedEx logo: Do we really ... [https://cognitiveresearchjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41235-023-00494-x]
• 56. GMP guidelines for ATMP manufacturing: A practical guide to ... [https://www.crbgroup.com/insights/biotechnology/gmp-guidelines-for-atmp-manufacturing]
• 57. A Regulatory Risk-Based Approach to ATMP/CGT ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2022.855100/full]
• 58. Risk-Based Approach in GMP - [https://pharmuni.com/2024/11/25/risk-based-approach-in-gmp/]
• 59. Guidance on good manufacturing practice and good ... [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory-overview/research-development/compliance-research-development/good-manufacturing-practice/guidance-good-manufacturing-practice-good-distribution-practice-questions-answers]
• 60. The Regulatory Framework for CAR-T Cells in Europe - NCBI [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK584158/]
• 61. Entry into application of the Clinical Trials Regulation [https://health.ec.europa.eu/medicinal-products/clinical-trials/entry-application-clinical-trials-regulation_en]
• 62. Cell and Gene Therapy Regulation Requirements Worldwide [https://www.bioprocessintl.com/sponsored-content/international-differences-in-quality-and-regulatory-requirements-for-cellular-starting-material]
• 63. 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]
• 64. Critical Process Parameters (CPPs) in Cell Therapy ... [https://www.atlantisbioscience.com/blog/cell-therapy-cpps-for-startups/?srsltid=AfmBOopo_c5FbZ0mnU10T1lGvvopHDWgfHVN2rcqaeD3K8oaxdPhffBx]
• 65. Implementation of a quality management system for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12361990/]
• 66. to Guide for Autologous CAR T Cell Therapy GMP Manufacturing [https://www.thermofisher.com/blog/behindthebench/guide-to-cell-therapy-gmp-manufacturing-for-autologous-car-t-and-beyond/]
• 67. 欧盟细胞治疗产品监管政策概述 [https://incosc.net/?list_160/544.html]
• 68. EMA releases concept paper to revise GMP Guidelines for ... [https://www.gxp-cc.com/insights/blog/1823/]
• 69. Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs ... [https://ispe.org/pharmaceutical-engineering/ispeak/new-ispe-guide-advanced-therapy-medicinal-products-atmps]
• 70. ICH Q1 Draft Guideline Marks a New Era for Stability Testing [https://stabilityhub.com/2025/09/07/ich-q1-draft-guideline-marks-a-new-era-for-stability-testing/]
• 71. FDA vs EMA: Key Regulatory Differences for ... [https://lsacademy.com/en/fda-vs-ema-key-regulatory-differences-for-pharmaceuticals/]
• 72. FDA vs. EMA: Navigating Divergent Regulatory ... [https://cromospharma.com/fda-vs-ema-navigating-divergent-regulatory-expectations-for-cell-and-gene-therapies-what-biopharma-companies-need-to-know/]
• 73. Comparing CMC Expectations: US FDA IND vs. EMA IMPD ... [https://www.linkedin.com/posts/prasad-s-sunkara-0b992963_comparing-cmc-expectations-us-fda-ind-activity-7391557351297773568-3Tmj]
• 74. Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls Development ... [https://www.fda.gov/drugs/pharmaceutical-quality-resources/chemistry-manufacturing-and-controls-development-and-readiness-pilot-cdrp-program]
• 75. Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls Development and ... [https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/28/2025-16513/chemistry-manufacturing-and-controls-development-and-readiness-pilot-program-program-announcement]
• 76. EMA Updates Key Quality Guidance on Inhaled Product [https://www.dlrcgroup.com/ema-updates-key-quality-guidance-on-inhaled-product/]
• 77. Quality guidelines | European Medicines Agency (EMA) [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory-overview/research-development/scientific-guidelines/quality-guidelines]
• 78. Sourcing Key Starting Materials (KSMs) for Pharmaceutical ... [https://www.drugpatentwatch.com/blog/sourcing-the-key-starting-materials-ksms-for-pharmaceutical-active-pharmaceutical-ingredients-apis/?srsltid=AfmBOooAU4JFj2o5sMUC2Bq26ebx0XjB721oJU3nSDMX0ruJL5jMxs01]
• 79. Potency testing of cell-based immunotherapy medicinal ... [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/potency-testing-cell-based-immunotherapy-medicinal-products-treatment-cancer-scientific-guideline]
• 80. 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]
• 81. Regulatory Pathways in Europe, the United States, and ... [https://www.ispor.org/publications/journals/value-outcomes-spotlight/vos-archives/issue/view/challenges-in-precision-medicine-aiming-to-align-data-value-and-costs/regulatory-pathways-in-europe-the-united-states-and-japan-and-health-technology-assessments-for-gene-therapies]
• 82. Regulatory Updates, September 2025 [https://www.caidya.com/resources/regulatory-updates-sept-2025/]
• 83. New Targets for Clinical Trials in the European Union [https://www.pharmtech.com/view/new-targets-for-clinical-trials-in-the-european-union]