Cell and Gene Therapy Manufacturing: 4 Trends Every CDMO Should Know

Cell and gene therapy has moved firmly from the research bench into commercial manufacturing. For CDMOs, that shift creates real pressure: the processes are complex, the regulatory bar is high, and the talent needed to deliver is in short supply. Understanding where the market is heading isn't optional.

The pipeline tells the story. More than 3,500 cell and gene therapy candidates were in clinical development globally as of late 2024, and the number of approved products reaching commercialisation continues to grow. CDMOs that got in early are now managing multi-product facilities, new modalities, and clients with very different expectations around speed, flexibility, and scale.

What separates the CDMOs managing this well from those struggling isn't just capital investment. It's how they're building capability. Here are four trends shaping the space right now.

‍

Autologous to allogeneic: the manufacturing model is shifting

For much of the sector's early history, autologous therapies dominated. Patient-derived material, personalised manufacturing, and highly bespoke processes set the standard. That model works at low volumes, but it doesn't scale. Each patient batch requires dedicated scheduling, extensive logistics, and significant operator time. As pipelines mature and payers push for cost reduction, allogeneic approaches are gaining serious traction.

Allogeneic cell therapies use donor-derived material, which makes them more amenable to off-the-shelf manufacturing. For CDMOs, this changes the conversation considerably. Batch sizes increase, process standardisation becomes feasible, and the economics start to look more sustainable. The trade-off is complexity at the cell bank level and a different set of regulatory requirements around donor testing, traceability, and comparability.

‍

Why this matters for operations

‍CDMOs moving into allogeneic manufacturing need process development scientists who understand cell bank qualification, master and working cell bank strategies, and the distinct analytical requirements that come with donor-derived starting material. These aren't skills that transfer automatically from autologous experience.

Many CDMOs are now running both modalities under one roof, which creates its own challenges around contamination control, staff scheduling, and client segregation. Facilities designed primarily for autologous work often require significant modification to accommodate allogeneic programmes, and the operational decisions made now will affect capacity and flexibility for years.

Demand is growing for process development scientists and manufacturing leads who've worked across both modalities. People with that breadth are rare, and CDMOs that find them early will have a competitive advantage when clients ask for allogeneic capability alongside existing autologous programmes.

‍

Automation is no longer optional

Manufacturing cell and gene therapies manually at commercial scale is, in most cases, no longer viable. The processing steps are too numerous, the variability risk too high, and the labour intensity too costly. Closed, automated systems have become the expectation rather than the differentiator.

The range of platforms has expanded significantly. Automated cell expansion systems, closed-loop filling lines, and integrated analytical instruments are now widely available, with multiple vendors competing on both functionality and regulatory track record. For CDMOs, platform selection is a long-term commitment: clients want confidence that the chosen system will be supported through commercial life cycles, and regulatory agencies expect a clear rationale for technology choices made during late-stage development.

Beyond the hardware, automation demands a different kind of workforce. Operators who understand the underlying biology remain essential, but they now need to work alongside equipment that requires programming, troubleshooting, and process integration skills that weren't traditionally part of a manufacturing technician's profile.

‍

The validation challenge

‍Introducing new automated platforms into a GMP environment requires process validation expertise alongside equipment qualification. CDMOs scaling up their automation investments often find that the bottleneck isn't the technology itself, but the people qualified to validate it properly.

Manufacturing engineers and automation specialists with cell therapy experience are in consistent demand. Equally important are quality professionals who understand computer system validation (CSV) in a biologics context, as automated platforms bring their own regulatory requirements around software, data integrity, and audit trails.

‍

Regulatory complexity is increasing, not stabilising

The regulatory frameworks for cell and gene therapies have matured considerably, but they haven't settled. Agencies in the US, EU, and UK continue to develop their guidance as the science evolves, and CDMOs operating across multiple markets face a genuinely complex landscape of overlapping, sometimes inconsistent requirements.

In the UK, the MHRA is operating post-Brexit with its own framework, including the Innovative Licensing and Access Pathway (ILAP) for novel therapies. In the EU, the EMA's Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) retains its central role, though recent reforms to the EU pharmaceutical legislation have introduced new considerations around ATMPs. In the US, the FDA continues to refine its approach to manufacturing controls for gene-modified products, with CMC guidance still evolving for some modalities.

For CDMOs, this means regulatory strategy has to be built in from the outset of each client engagement. Late-stage surprises driven by regional differences in acceptable CMC packages or comparability requirements can be costly and difficult to resolve. Clients increasingly expect CDMO regulatory teams to have views on strategy, not just submission mechanics.

‍

Gene therapy: heightened scrutiny

‍Viral vector programmes, particularly those using AAV or lentiviral vectors, continue to attract careful regulatory attention around genotoxicity, immunogenicity, and long-term follow-up data. CDMOs supporting late-stage viral vector programmes need regulatory expertise that goes well beyond standard biologics experience.

Senior regulatory professionals with specific ATMP experience remain among the most difficult hires in the sector. The combination of scientific depth and multi-agency regulatory knowledge is rare, and the demand from both sponsors and CDMOs is intense. CDMOs that build this capability in-house, rather than relying on external consultants for every submission, are better positioned to retain clients long-term.

‍

Capacity is catching up, but talent isn't

A wave of investment in cell and gene therapy manufacturing capacity has been underway for several years. New greenfield facilities, significant expansions to existing sites, and acquisitions of specialist CDMOs have all contributed to a market that looks, on paper, less constrained than it did in 2020 or 2021. Some observers have pointed to early signs of oversupply in specific modalities.

The talent picture is more complicated. Physical capacity is easier to build than workforce capability. A new fill-finish suite or expansion wing can be designed, built, and qualified within a defined timeframe. Building a team of experienced cell therapy manufacturing specialists, QA professionals with ATMP audit experience, or analytical scientists who understand the characterisation of complex biological products takes considerably longer.

This gap between capacity and capability shows up in predictable ways: delayed project timelines, higher rates of deviation, increased reliance on temporary or contract staffing for critical roles, and clients questioning whether their CDMO partner can genuinely deliver at scale. For CDMOs, workforce planning has to run in parallel with facility investment, not follow it.

There's also a geography dimension. Many of the new facilities being commissioned are outside the traditional hubs, in regions where the local talent pool for cell and gene therapy manufacturing is thin. Attracting people to these locations requires a clear employer proposition and, often, a willingness to hire from adjacent industries and invest in development.

CDMOs opening new sites or expanding capacity in less established locations need a recruitment strategy that accounts for relocation, employer branding, and competitive compensation benchmarking against both sector peers and adjacent industries. Waiting until the site is ready to begin hiring typically means delays of six months or more for senior and specialist roles.

‍

What this means in practice

These four trends aren't independent. The shift to allogeneic manufacturing, the adoption of automated platforms, the growing regulatory complexity, and the strain on the talent pipeline all interact. A CDMO managing an allogeneic programme on a new automated platform in a market with limited local expertise, while keeping pace with evolving regulatory guidance across multiple regions, faces all of these challenges simultaneously.

The CDMOs that are managing this well tend to share a few characteristics. They've invested in regulatory and quality capability early, rather than treating it as a late-stage overhead. They've been strategic about workforce planning, hiring ahead of need for roles where the candidate market is genuinely tight. They've built process development teams with breadth across modalities, not just depth in the programmes they started with.

None of this is straightforward, but it's where the competitive differentiation is happening. Clients making CDMO selection decisions for late-stage and commercial programmes are asking increasingly detailed questions about team capability, not just facility credentials.