Showing posts with label BPI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BPI. Show all posts

Monday, March 21, 2016

The Standardization of Single-use Components for Bioprocessing

The focus in the bioprocessing industry is shifting from acceptance of single-use technology to standardization. It is critical that components be included in the standardization discussion. The tubing connector is essential for secure, sterile, leak-free connections between various single-use systems and processes. A user can have the best filter, bag and tubing but this is all pointless if the connector is not reliable, easy-to-use or robust. Improving connector compatibility and interchangeability are great opportunities for standardization, particularly because of complications related to managing inventories.

Inventory Issues


Several inventory issues arise from lack of connector standardization:

• Increased ordering complexity because the user must define which tube set or assembly works with which part of the application. 
• Greater risks of specifying the wrong system or connection, resulting in downtime and last minute adjustments at the end user site.
• Longer lead times because systems suppliers are manufacturing lower volumes of multiple SKUs as opposed to higher volumes of fewer SKUs. This lowers the incentive and likelihood for a manufacturer to stock of these items.
• Increased stocking requirements for end users, including connectors of different genders and other components needed to create make-shift adapters.

Reducing Overhead Costs: Less is More


While overhead cost reductions might be difficult to quantify, they cannot be overlooked. Reduction in SKUs and inventory lowers the cost of managing and maintaining that inventory, which allows capital to be allocated to additional process improvements. One way to help simplify and reduce inventory is to use genderless connectors that enable transitions between tubing of different sizes. Using genderless connections (e.g. CPC’s interchangeable AseptiQuik® G connectors) eliminate the need for reducer fittings elsewhere in the process as the connectors can act as reducers.

Component Standardization


By focusing on the most versatile genderless connectors, component standardization will help bioprocessing companies make the best use of single-use technology. The right connectors will enable end users to:
• Streamline operations with easy-to-use, robust sterile connections
• Eliminate potential ordering mistakes and reduce inventory demands related to gendered connectors • Maintain more flexibility and lessen production bottlenecks with onsite connector assembly 
• Reduce overhead costs, freeing up capital for other projects

Ultimately, standardizing components by incorporating single-use genderless connectors lets end users accomplish more with fewer finished goods, saving time and money, and getting their biopharmaceutical products to market more efficiently. 


Author: Todd Andrews, Global Sales and Business Development Manager, Bioprocessing for CPC – Colder Products Company

The standardization of single-use components for bioprocessing byTodd Andrews, Colder Products Company



Share this article with your social network, just click below to share now!


Thursday, March 3, 2016

Don’t Miss BPI West!

Last chance to register for BPI West is March 9th. Use the code BPIWEST16BL and save $100- Register now!

The clock is ticking. BPI West is just over a week away! Don't miss out on networking with industry experts, scientists and executives, along with emerging and established technology companies. Your registration will gain you access to:

• 700+ global attendees
• 80+ exhibitors highlighting new products and technologies
• 65+ scientific posters showcasing novel research
• 3 thought-leading keynote presentations
• BPI West Theater Presentations
• And More!

Download the brochure for full program details.

PLUS! We're excited to announce that Michael Egholm, President of Pall Biopharmaceuticals joins the upcoming BPI West event in Oakland on March 14th! Join us as he provides an update on the Significant Technology Advances Enabling Integrated Continuous BioProcessing during Monday's The Future of Continuous Processing pre-conference symposia. Best of all, this session is complimentary to all registered attendees!



Can't make it to all 4 days? We've got you covered with special one-day Exposition Hall & Keynotes passes starting at $150! Click here for more information.


Share this article with your social network, just click below to share now!


Monday, February 29, 2016

Innovative Technologies, People, and Organizations Drive the Future of Bioprocessing

By  S. Anne Montgomery, Editor in Chief, BioProcess International 

In the 14 years that BioProcess International (BPI) magazine has been around, the biopharmaceutical industry has experienced a dramatic confluence of technologies, analytics, and regulatory initiatives aimed toward accelerating development and commercialization of life-saving biotherapeutics. Although a number of these topics were “on the radar” before the turn of the century, by the time of BPI’s first issue in January of 2003, they were beginning to be discussed in earnest, and references to “disruptive technologies” began to appear in print, online, and conference discussions across development phases.

As revealed in BPI’s article archive the list is impressive and includes, notably
• single-use technologies
• quality-by-design
• process-analytical technologies
• advanced medicines/cell and gene therapies
• antibody–drug conjugates
• biosimilars and biobetters
• immunotherapies
• combination products
• companion diagnostics
• platform analytics and manufacturing technologies
• product life-cycle development
• continuous processing.

We have watched, too, as those innovations spread across the globe into regions not previously considered to be biomanufacturing hubs and as international regulatory agencies sought to harmonize pathways to approval. Different partnering models have emerged with both long- and short-term goals, but many in response to concerns about supply-chain integrity in an era of life-cycle management.

Presenting information and guidance for sorting through these choices of platforms, technologies, and manufacturing models is the continuing work of technical publications and conference presentations. BioProcess International magazine has always benefited from its close collaboration with the Informa conference groups (IIR/IBC) to create separate but compatible content and presentation vehicles. Many of the magazine’s editorial advisors also have served on the conference advisory panels, for example, and industry trends (and the best people to speak and write about them) identified by one group are shared with the other to bring as consistent a message to our readers and event attendees as possible.

Our two annual flagship events — now called BPI West and BPI — pull these interrelated topics together into week-long programs that you don’t want to miss if you need to stay on top of the latest interpretations of these trends. A quick look at the program for the upcoming BPI West (14–17 March 2016 in Oakland, CA) reveals the ongoing impact of the past decade’s advances on the current biopharmaceutical industry. The opening preconference symposia in themselves reflect key areas of attention: innovative approaches and technologies in process development and manufacturing, cell-therapy commercialization, ADC development, and continuous processing. Many elements of those topics were just promising ideas a decade ago, research topics that “might someday” be brought into commercial viability.

Another example is that the Basic Research and Discovery track of this year’s conference is far from the relatively “siloed” research presentations of the past. Speakers here now will stress the needed overlap of development strategies with early risk analysis and process optimization — with their goals (repeating across product classes and development stages) of shortening the times for lead optimization and transition into manufacturing. Enabling technologies incorporate analytical tools that in themselves introduce new questions: How much information is too much? What are we seeing now of contaminants and particulates in marketed products that we didn’t know were there before, and what does that mean for developers of follow-on products? What statistical knowledge for assessing this wealth of data is now required of those entering the industry that was not deemed necessary before?

I urge you to visit the conference site, download the program, and plan to attend sessions that will help you navigate the current and future worlds of biomanufacturing. Network with your peers, among whom are many veterans who helped build our current industry as well as a younger generation who are introducing fresh insights and new ways of implementing technologies and communication tools.

And as you contribute to advancing this new world biomedical approaches, take a look, also, at BPI’s third biennual awards program categories. Our awards are designed to reflect key milestones in the industry, highlight technologies that are making often-disruptive changes in how biopharmaceutical products and modalities are reaching those who desperately need them, and honor companies and people who are building a new world of healthcare options for both regional and global communities.

I have followed the biopharmaceutical industry as an editor since 1988, and I sometimes take a step back and marvel at how far this work has come. Technologies come and go — and some return again, with problems solved and new challenges revealed. Terminology may look the same, but its connotations are sometimes radically different to new generations. As always, communication is key, but exchange of knowledge must be based on shared understanding of terminology and technologies. Plan to join us in March and continue to contribute to these meaningful discussions. Make your mark on the future of biomanufacturing — we need your voice and we want to hear about your experiences.


Share this article with your social network, just click below to share now!


Monday, February 15, 2016

Key Industry Business & Market Trends; From a CMO Perspective


For a sneak peek at the high caliber of content presented at BPI West, we had industry expert Dr. Victor Vinci of Cook Pharmica join us for an exclusive interview.

In this interview, Victor Vinci, Ph.D., Chief Scientific Officer and Vice President of Process Development at Cook Pharmica discusses key trends as they relate to the business and market landscape from a CMO perspective, what the risks are and how as a CMO do you share or mitigate those risks - as well as what that process of sharing and mitigating looks like, and finally he discusses Cook Pharmica and their unique position relative to other CMO's and the strategic direction they are taking.


Interested in learning more? Join us at BPI West - March 14-17 in Oakland, CA. Register before 2/19 with the code BPIWEST16BL and save $300! Click here to activate your savings.


Share this article with your social network, just click below to share now!


Monday, February 8, 2016

The General Evolution of the Vaccine Industry

For a sneak peek at the high caliber of content presented at BPI West, we had industry expert Rahul Singhvi, COO of Takeda Vaccines join us for an exclusive interview.

In this interview, Rahul Singhvi, MBA, the Chief Operating Officer at Takeda Vaccines starts by discussing the general evolution of vaccine industry over the years and what the industry looks like today. He mentions that companies in the vaccine space today tend to be very insular - controlling all aspects of the process - but continues on to say that Takeda is proudly taking a partnering approach and goes on to explain what that means and why it is important. On top of that, Rahul continues to discuss what he feels the greatest needs and opportunities are in terms of technological innovation, development and manufacturing solutions. And finally makes some bold predictions on the vaccine industries future, and the key trend and opportunities that you should watch for.


Interested in learning more? Join us at BPI West - March 14-17 in Oakland, CA. Register before 2/19 with the code BPIWEST16BL and save $300 | To activate your savings, click here.



Share this article with your social network, just click below to share now!


Friday, February 5, 2016

Advances in Continuous BioProcessing | Experts from Pall Life Sciences Provide Insights

Pall Biopharmaceuticals' Leader Provides an Update on Significant Technology Advances Enabling Integrated Continuous BioProcessing 


There is a lot of talk about Continuous Bioprocessing, but how does the desire for a continuous bioprocess get turned into reality? On October 29th, 2015 at BPI in Boston Michael Egholm provided Pall Life Sciences' view on building a working GMP end-to-end continuous bioprocess. The activity on the project is fast paced and this will be an update on the latest in continuous processing.

Join the Pall Life Sciences team at BPI West for their session on March 14th as they provide a much needed update on technological advances that are enabling integrated continuous bioprocessing.

Interested in learning more? Register for BPI West now and save $300 - To activate your savings, use the code BPIWEST16BL

Pall Life Sciences provides process, pilot and laboratory filtration, separation, purification and fluid handling devices, systems and services, with single-use systems available for all unit operations from cell culture through final formulation and filling.


Share this article with your social network, just click below to share now!


Wednesday, February 3, 2016

[Survey] Bioprocessing Efficiency | Enter for a Chance to Win









Maximize Efficiency; Streamline Biopharmaceutical Process Development & Production 

One of the major goals of BPI West it to provide information that you can use to streamline and accelerate process development and production to maximize efficiency from basic research to commercial manufacturing. With that in mind, we would greatly appreciate a few moments of your time to answer the following questions to help us better understand your needs and approaches to accomplishing these goals.


Upon completing the survey, you will be entered into a drawing to win an all-access pass* to BPI West, taking place in Oakland, CA March 14-17, 2016. Learn more about BPI West.

The compiled results of this survey will be distributed as a detailed infographic reportt, depicting the current state and future directions of the biopharmaceutical industry.

We truly value the information you have provided and thank you in advance for taking the time out of your busy day to participate in our survey.

*Offer is not valid for existing or pending registrations, and cannot be retroactively applied. IBC USA & BPI West are not responsible for any hotel or travel costs.


Share this article with your social network, just click below to share now!


Monday, February 1, 2016

[Interview] K.V. Subramaniam, Chief Executive Officer of Reliance Life Sciences

In this interview, K.V. Subramaniam, MBA, Chief Executive Officer of Reliance Life Sciences, discusses the history of Reliance Life Sciences and their companies evolution over their 13 year history. With K.V.'s extensive knowledge in emerging markets, he discusses what it takes to gain traction in India and other emerging markets... more specifically, he discusses the innovation imperatives for India and other emerging markets; in regards to where he sees needs, and the opportunities for technology and product solutions. On top of that, K.V. discusses how the market itself has changed over the years and what it will look like moving into 2016 and beyond.


Interested in learning more? Join us at BPI West - March 14-17 in Oakland, CA. Register before 2/19 with the code BPIWEST16BL and save $300!


Share this article with your social network, just click below to share now!


Wednesday, January 20, 2016

8 Reasons Why You Can't Miss BPI West | Plus! Register by Friday, 1/22 and Save $400


8 Reasons Why You Can't Afford to Miss BPI West:
1. First and only phase-based format event that fosters the collective sharing ideas, strategies and solutions across departments to improve speed, cost and quality at every stage of development
2. Breakdown the barriers and collaborate across stages of development to achieve end-to-end integration
3. Discover the latest breakthroughs on successfully implementing continuous processes and linking them together to achieve fully continuous processing from cell culture through to drug substance
4. Accelerate the design and development of novel drug substances for next generation therapeutics by integrating candidate selection and early development
5. Develop strategies for fast tracking early stage biologics and managing the life cycle of a break through therapy designated product
6. Speed up and streamline the transition into development by utilizing manufacturability assessments, automation, and QbD in late stage discovery and R&D
7. Implement disruptive technologies and achieve operational excellence to drive manufacturing efficiencies and minimize costs
8. Uncover the future of single-use systems and next generation facility design, modelling and management in current and emerging markets

Want to learn more about the event? Download the brochure.

Register by this Friday, January 22nd and receive up to $400 in savings - Use the code BPIWEST16BL to save.




Share this article with your social network, just click below to share now!


Monday, January 11, 2016

[Podcast] Disposable Membrane Chromatography Systems for mAb Purification




While around 75% of therapies in the market are based on antibodies and the classical way of purifying them in the bed chromatography approach. This method of purification is only good for a product with a long shelf-life or is in high demand. What about the products with low demand or are only for therapeutic and clinical use?

Siddhartha Shrivastava, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Downstream Process Development, Patheon says “if the product has got a long shelf-life, a long demand, that makes sense for us to invest in it and create a good infrastructure, a good footprint and bear the high operational and capital expenditure. But, if the product is in the development phase and you need to have some quick lots of drugs so that we can try clinically, that does not make sense. And, by moving to the disposable technology we are also reducing the chances of cross contamination.”

In this podcast interview, Dr. Siddhartha Shrivastava explains:
• The importance of disposable membrane chromatography systems for mAb purification
• Why disposable technology is more appealing compared to conventional technology
• The cost effectiveness of disposable technology
• Large scale testing of disposable membrane chromatography systems

Listen to the podcast or download a transcript here!

Editor’s note: Interested in learning more about the importance of disposable membrane chromatography systems for mAb purification? Then join us for BPI West, March 14-17th in Oakland, CA.

Download the event agenda or visit the event website.

Save $400 - Register with the code BPIWEST16BL




Share this article with your social network, just click below to share now!


Tuesday, December 15, 2015

BPI West Brochure is Now Available for Download | Save $500 Now, Rates Increase Friday

Break down the barriers between departments and stages of development at BPI West - the industry's first and only phase-based format event! 



BPI West is one-of-a-kind phase-based format is designed to capitalize on the latest approaches and technologies to help move the pipeline of next generation drug candidates closer to approval. Collectively share ideas, strategies and solutions to improve speed, cost and quality from basic research to commercial manufacturing.

Top 3 Reason Why You Can’t Miss BPI West:
  1. Learn how to streamline and accelerate the development to approval process by collaborating at the interfaces of discovery, R&D, process development, and manufacturing
  2. Discover the latest tools, technologies, and strategic approaches to increase efficiency, productivity, and cost savings at every stage of development
  3. Foster the cross-fertilization of new ideas and perspectives to reach new levels of clinical and commercial success

This new format will bring together experts from every discipline and stage of development to achieve the common goals of optimizing speed, reducing cost, and improving quality from basic research to commercialization. Benchmark best practices, hear exclusive case studies and new data presentations at BPI West in Oakland, CA.

Don't forget! This Friday, December 18th is your last chance to save up to $500! Use the code BPIWEST16BL to save - Register here.



Share this article with your social network, just click below to share now!


Monday, December 14, 2015

BioProcess International Conference 2015 - An Overview for Anyone Who Missed It!

by Brandy Sargent

Introduction
While attending this year’s BioProcess International Conference (BPI) in Boston last month, I was excited because it seemed to be a larger turnout then I’d remembered from previous years. BPI recently confirmed that it was in fact the largest attendance in BPI’s twelve-year history. In addition to the larger turnout, the content felt fresher and very relevant to the current challenges and potential solutions facing the industry. BPI provides talks focused on improving the manufacturing process for biopharmaceuticals, enables industry networking opportunities, and the chance to see the latest products and technologies.

Conference Highlights
For me one of the biggest highlights of the conference was the keynote, “Amgen’s Next-Generation Biomanufacturing Facility by Kimball Hall, Vice President Manufacturing, Amgen Singapore Manufacturing Pte. Ltd. In the talk Ms. Hall describes the 200 million dollar next generation manufacturing facility Amgen built in Singapore. The facility was built in less than two years, half the time of a more traditional facility, and is state of the art in terms of innovative technologies. One of the enabling technologies used in the facility is single-use technology. The facility is over 90% single-use, in fact they only need one autoclave. The facility also incorporates continuous processes and relies on the concept of closed system manufacturing.

Ms. Hall describes how they have implemented a closed system approach to allow for a central manufacturing suite where upstream and downstream can be conducted in the same room. They are using smaller, single-use bioreactors coupled with continuous processes in downstream and real time quality analysis to ensure both an efficient process and a closed system. Ms. Hall states that using this manufacturing approach, they have been able to achieve improvements in yield and reduction in cost per gram.

In addition this closed system approach also permits their solution prep area to operate for both media and buffer prep with closed raw material bags, anti-static powder transfer sleeves and connections to 5,000 L single-use mixing vessels ensuring material stays closed within its equipment. To move solutions from the prep room to manufacturing, they have built openings in the walls, which allow solutions to be pumped through this opening into the other room. Material can also be pumped from the central manufacturing suite through an opening in the wall into the final purification room.

Ms. Hall addresses possible environmental impact concerns about the amount of single-use materials by walking through the environmental impact. First, they use less water for heating, cooling and cleaning. The facility overall has a smaller footprint with lower air quality classifications, thus reducing energy consumption and lowering emissions. They have can achieve solid waste reduction due to the smaller reactor size and they are working on recycling the bags and are with a group developing a way to incinerate them for biofuel.

Responding to a question about perceived regulatory risk for this next generation facility, Ms. Hall said that they have met with regulatory bodies along the way, who have been positive but have always said “we’ll have to see on inspection”. They would like it to be licensed as is but have risk mitigation plans in place for how to accommodate any required changes.

One thing that Ms. Hall also makes clear is that the relationships with suppliers have been critical. The suppliers are deeply embedded in this process and she even remarked that there were employees from the supplier companies sitting in her cafeteria during performance lot runs, waiting to help solve any problems that might arise. With the increasing complexity of these technologies, it is key that the relationships with suppliers be strong and that there is trust. Specifications and product details must be shared back and forth so that the best process can be developed and if any problems arise they can be addressed quickly.

As the question and answer session began, one person stood up to ask a question, I’m sorry I didn’t catch her name, but she called the building of this facility “Brave.” Initially it struck me that she used that that term to describe the building of this facility, but upon further reflection I understand why. In building this facility, Amgen has really committed to changing the biomanufacturing paradigm. They have invested incredible amounts of time and resources into a project that has no absolute assurance of regulatory licensing and have shared these details publically as a guide for others. For the industry to evolve it takes a company to embrace new technology and to “go first” to prove that it is feasible and that it can receive approval from the regulatory bodies. The first or firsts must pave the way before others feel comfortable to do it as well. To some in the industry who have been considering this kind of manufacturing platform, but have been waiting to see what will happen, I can see how this move may be considered brave. For a person who has been covering these innovative technologies and was able through Ms. Hall’s talk to see it all put together into one facility, for me it was inspiring.

Another really interesting talk was the keynote on “What is the Future of Continuous Processing – What is the Time Frame for Implementing Fully Continuous Processing in Commercial Production?” by Konstantin Kostantinov, Ph.D., Vice President, Technology Development, Genzyme. Genzyme has long been a proponent and pioneer for continuous processes in biomanufacturing. At the BDP conference earlier this year, there was a wonderful talk given by Dr. Veena Warikoo, Director, Purification Development, Genzyme on their concept of the bioprocessing facility of the future. Please see, “Continuous Bioprocessing – The Biomanufacturing Model of the Future?” for more details.

Other conference highlights this year included:

  • Keynote presentations from Merck, Novartis, and the Duke Human Vaccine Institute
  • A pre-conference symposium that had an entire track dedicated to Cell Therapy
  • Ask the Regulators Open Forum
  • Bioprocessing Problem-Solving Moderated Discussions
  • Town Hall Forums
  • BPI Theater Panel discussions on “Accelerating Biopharmaceutical Development and Manufacturing” and “CMO Panel Discussion on Perspectives and Lessons Learned on Overcoming Challenges with Tech Transfers and Biomanufacturing,”


Different Discussions by Conference Track
There were some overall themes this year that I felt were a continuation of many great discussions that were presented at the BDP Conference earlier this year including continuous processing in both upstream and downstream and implementation of closed systems. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but some highlights of the talks I attended by track include:

Cell Culture
  • Perfusion and continuous processes continue to be a hot topic
  • Several talks on novel approaches to cell line development including talks on CRISPR/Cas9 technology and how this can be applied to cell line development and production.
  • Good discussion surrounding glycolsylation and how to achieve consistentcy. This included discussions around how media is involved in that process and predicting glycosylation profiles using metabolic data.
  • Media improvements and using high throughput approaches to process development and media screening.

Recovery and purification
  • In downstream, just as in upstream, implementation of continuous processes was a hot topic.
  • Several discussions around using new recovery and purification technologies to improve overall efficiency and purification
  • Looking at non-chromatographic purification of proteins
  • High throughput process development strategies.

Manufacturing strategy

  • Facility design incorporating the ballroom suite or central manufacturing suite approach.
  • Closed systems as a way to enable more flexible facilities, see “Closed Systems in Biomanufacturing Offer A Variety of Benefits,” for more information.
  • Continued process verification (CPV) strategies
  • How to utilize facility design, single-use technologies and bioprocess automation in BRIC countries.
  • Data collection, data management and bioprocess automation.

Drug Product Manufacturing and Fill-Finish Processing

  • Implementing PAT tools and applying QbD
  • Streamlining and integrating drug substance and final drug product manufacturing
  • New strategies for aseptic filling
  • Several talks on particulates and appropriate approaches

Analytical, Formulation and Quality
  • Talks on integrating critical quality attribute monitoring and multi-attribute monitoring and control.
  • High throughput analytical assays for process development support and quality control
  • Many talks on biosimilars and product quality, characterization and comparability.
  • Good discussion on supplier relationships and ensuring raw material tracking and control.

I will cover several of these areas in more detail in the coming weeks – stay tuned. In 2016 …

A new BPI West will make its debut March 14-17, 2016 in Oakland, CA and will be the West Coast compliment to BPI in Boston October 4-7, 2016. Register with the code BPIWEST16BL and save $100 off the current rate.


This overview of BPI was contributed by Brandy Sargent, Editor of Cell Culture Dish. View the original post in its entirety here. 



Share this article with your social network, just click below to share now!


Tuesday, November 17, 2015

BPI is Paradise for an Old Technologist

By: Frank Corden

As I was driving in this morning to the Hynes Convention Center, I was thinking about how lucky we are to have an international meeting of this caliber in Boston.  I just love BPI. It’s such a great mix of presentations; the breadth of discussions from the applied science around cell engineering to the underlying business drivers that will carry us into the next decade is amazing.  The organizers successfully execute this daunting task with seeming ease, though I’m sure in the background their little duck feet are paddling away.


Those of you who know me have heard the story of how I became a scientist.  As a kid growing up in the sixties and early seventies, my interests in science and technology were birthed from watching Jacques Cousteau television specials and the race to the moon.  In the years since, I’ve had the pleasure of seeing first hand that those fish on the coral reef are really all those beautiful colors and that NASA used proven technology, kerosene and liquid oxygen (aka Rocket Propellant No. 1) to get our astronauts into space.  Fortunately, my interest in all cool things science hasn’t waned with age and that’s why I love BPI.

Yesterday afternoon, I was sitting in on the presentation “Raising the Bar: Advanced Analytics in Upstream Bioprocess Development.”  Much of the discussion focused on the use of Liquid Chromatography coupled with Tandem Mass Spectroscopy (LC-MS/MS) to identify and quantitate attributes of various cell culture processes.  Without getting overly technical, the technique can be used to map the amino acid sequence of a drug substance as well as the pattern of added sugars (glycosylation) that are bound to an intact monoclonal antibody molecule. 

LC-MS/MS works by very accurately measuring the mass of the peptide fragments created from the proteins in the sample during the sample preparation process.  By accurately measuring the mass, the LC-MS/MS can identify the amino acid composition of each fragment.  This composition and the mix of the fragments, especially unique fragments specific to the proteins of interest, enable the instrumentation to identify with a very high certainty the presence and relative concentration of different proteins in the sample.

In the data shown, the presenter, Chris Yu, demonstrated the practical power of the LC-MS/MS method to characterize drug substance.  Data showed that LC-MS/MS could identify and quantitate host cell proteins and, further, could give positive confirmation of glycosylation patterns.  But what was most interesting to me was a more basic discovery…

As part of the effort to characterize a particular drug substance, the team identified a low percentage of peptides which differed from the expected amino acid composition, often a swap between serine and asparagine.  Initially the thought was that the DNA sequence for a fraction of the cells was different, as a result of either spontaneous mutations or by misincorporation of the DNA sequence during cell engineering.  Surprising neither of these possible errors was the root cause.

It turns out that there is a natural error rate for misincorporation of amino acids into the primary sequence of proteins.  The authors presented data that showed the error rate was in the same range for both mammalian cells and E. coli.  The error rate could also be influenced by the relative availability of the amino acids in the cell culture.  Restrict the availability of the intended amino acid relative to the incorrect amino acid and you get higher substitution.  Provide a plentiful source of the intended amino acid and the error rate decreases.

On reflection, it’s not surprising that some low level error rate should be expected.  After all, these biological processes are driven by chemistry.  You can have a preference for a given binding affinity or reaction path, but it’s just a preference even when it’s a very strong preference.  As an analogy, byproduct production in a chemical reaction is common and even if the reaction is very strongly directed for a particular outcome, in all but the simplest reactions, some byproducts are created.  So, you can view the amino acid substitutions as byproducts. 

Whether the protein with the substitution is functionally different than the desired product is unknown.  What we do know is that the LC-MS/MS can measure the error rate and that process conditions affect the error rate. So if the error rate turns out to be a critical quality attribute (CQA) of the protein that is the drug substance, we can monitor it and control it.  Neither the deeper insight gained about misincorporation nor the understanding of the ability to control the rate of amino acid substitution would have occurred without the applied research of Dr. Yu’s team and the advanced capabilities of the LC-MS/MS instruments. 

Gaining that insight into how biology really works is the 21st century equivalent of rocket science -  that’s why I love this meeting.


Share this article with your social network, just click below to share now!


Wednesday, October 28, 2015

BPI 2015: Day One Recap

The 12th annual Bioprocess International (BPI) Conference & Exposition began with a series of technical sessions, many of which broke new ground. BPI 2015 also proved to be an invaluable forum for scientists and engineers with its poster presentations and product announcements, as well as keynote talks from industry leaders. Here are some highlights of Day 1.

Keynote Addresses
Market leaders from Merck & Co., Novartis Pharma, and the Duke School of Medicine gave compelling and insightful keynote presentations on Tuesday at BPI 2015. And it is fitting that in Boston, one of the keynote speakers noted that there is a “revolution” underway in fighting cancer.

By: LSPR

Innovating mAb Production to Support the Immunotherapy Revolution was given by David J. Pollard, PhD, Executive Director, BioProcess Development, Merck & Co., Inc.  Dr. Pollard began the keynote session by stating it was an “exciting time in immunotherapy” and that a revolution is now underway in cancer treatment. To be successful in this revolution, the industry needs to be agile and flexible so it can quickly adapt to change.

To that point, Dr. Pollard emphasized the importance of there being a “collaboration between suppliers and end users” to help lower costs and increase throughput. “Working as a community we can help create a facility of the future,” he stated.

Such a “facility of the future” will create a tremendous opportunity to lower the cost of manufacturing while also being able to handle increased capacities, according to Dr. Pollard. He explained that a modular approach will be taken to develop these facilities so they can easily be built out as needed.

Dr. Pollard stated this next-generation manufacturing approach will improve acceleration to clinical trials and that technology will be used to de-bottleneck activities. This will create high-throughput workflows using enabled formulations from cell line development, process development (both upstream and downstream), and formulation.

Another challenge during this revolution is to create a bridge from IV to subcutaneous. The goal is to achieve the necessary high concentration of >150 mg/mL while also addressing viscosity issues. Dr. Pollard stated that, while it is early proof of concept, Merck has done research in which novel excipients have been added to meet this challenge. 


Next to speak was Spencer Fisk, Global Head, Biologics Process, R&D, Novartis Pharma, AG who spoke of Innovative Process Development Strategies to Drive the Rapid Clinical Introduction of Emerging Biologics. Fisk challenged the industry go beyond the “heavily walked path” and push boundaries to speed drug development and improve efficacy.

Fisk’s approach to accelerating drug development was for his colleagues to not avoid taking risks. He suggested to “use data to guide us” so scientists and engineers can approach the “edge of the cliff.” Using data, risk levels can be determined and comfort levels established with the end result of more quickly selecting the proper candidate for development.  

Choosing the best candidate requires evaluating all the variables such as the biology and the ability to develop the candidate. Each variable has its own elements. For example, in the case of biology, binding, potency and efficacy need to be assessed. In terms of development there are a number of aspects, including stability, that need to be determined.

Risk factors not only need to be established, they should be classified as critical (red), moderate (yellow), and low (green), suggested Fisk. If the risks are predominantly low, then the candidate should be moved ahead. “Green means go,” stated Fisk. The results will be favorable the majority of the time.

“If we get it right >80% of the time, we have significant time savings. In many cases, the 20% that does not work is simply due to the fact that more time is needed,” said Fisk.

Taking this approach will create a cycle that will benefit the market, as well as society. Once scientists have “walked to the edge” and realized it was not as close as they originally believed they will push the boundaries further, creating a continuum of accelerating drug development, according to Fisk.

The final keynote, Novel Approach to Developing and Producing Human Experimental Vaccines for HIV, was given by Michael Anthony, M.D., Chief Medical Officer, Associate Professor of Pediatrics, Duke Human Vaccine Institute, Duke School of Medicine. Dr. Moody emphasized that because HIV is a unique and challenging virus it poses many challenges. Vaccines that are developed and aim to be effective must deal with an incredible diversity of circulating strains.

“By locating and neutralizing antibodies we can prevent disease but this is not an easy task. Antibodies at a sufficient level can target many strains of HIV1,” said Dr. Moody.

One question posed by Dr. Moody during his session was if information gathered from those patients who are infected can be used to make antibodies. “But it’s not that simple. There are many changes to the immunosystem that we may need to mimic with adjuvants to be successful,” he explained.

Novel adjuvants will need to be developed, according to Dr. Moody. Human trials are in the planning stages but there is no guarantee that the answers will be found. There is a paradox in the bnAb development – mutations develop. As a result, Phase I human testing is required. Within that context, two important elements are needed:
·         Targeting of multiple lineages
·         Multiple immunogens, likely in sequence

“Industry, academia and government will need to come together, as one of these alone cannot muster the resources needed to be successful,” emphasized Dr. Moody.

Technical Session Highlights
New Data on Continuous Manufacture in Downstream Process: In the Recovery and Purification technical track, Michael Bavand, PhD, Chairman and CEO of ChromaCon AG, released new data during his presentation entitled Data Based Comparison of Capture and Polishing Steps in a Continuous Mab Process.

Dr. Bavand spoke of a study conducted in which four resins were compared using batch mode, dynamic flow load, and continuous chromatography. The experiment evaluated five outputs – recovery percentage, high molecular rate (HMW%), productivity, host cell protein, and 0.1M NaOH tolerance. The results revealed:
·         Very little difference in recovery percentage, as all the conditions were > 90%
·         Slight reduction in HMW% in the continuous condition
·         Host cell protein (ng/mg) was equivalent or better in continuous condition
·         All DBC levels were > 90% initially after 100 cycles; resin 4 showed reduction in DBC after first measurement

A model was generated with all the productivity data. Validation cost estimates, lab scale system purchase, GMP system purchase, FTE estimates, and the number of new molecules arriving in a plant annually were all accounted for by the model. The model was used to estimate return on investment across the number of new molecules to come into a pilot plant every 12 months. Using a baseline of two new molecules per year, the initial estimates were that cost savings would be realized after three years.

Dr. Bavand also discussed a second part of the experiment that studied a process using MCSGP with a membrane adsorber to determine if it would have equivalent or better outputs than a cation exchange (CEX) resin step in terms of recovery, productivity, and impurity levels. Through the experiment, a Flow Through MCSGP was demonstrated to have equivalent purity and recovery with significant higher productivity levels than batch mode.

As revealed by the results, higher productivity and large cost savings are possible using a continuous chromatography system for both capture and polishing steps. Additional verification of these processes is needed before they can be implemented into a pilot plant concluded Dr. Bavand.

Poster Highlight
Essential Pharmaceuticals’ poster entitled Novel Lipid Based Supplement Increases Protein Yield in Single Use Bioreactor presented the use of a lipid supplement using various strategies to improve protein yield.

The poster stated that by adding the lipid supplements at the beginning of the culture, the yield in titer antibody protein production increased 30% from CHO cells without increasing proliferation. Further, when the metabolic profile was examined, it was discovered that there were no differences in any of the metabolites.

The poster also stated that the supplement was used as a feed and there were two notable effects: 1) increasing the titer yield by 25% and 2) extending the window for peak protein production from one day to two. These results show that there are windows for further optimization of protein production using lipids. It is possible the use of lipids reduces the energy requirement for new cell formation and, therefore, can be used for protein production. 

Product Highlight 
Pall Life Sciences is showcasing key components of its biopharmaceutical portfolio in its booth (#309). A host of updated and new portfolio products will be on display, with particular emphasis on continuous solutions Pall has available for downstream processing support.

Included in the BPI 2015 booth will be:
  • The disruptive Acoustic Wave Separation technology for cell-culture clarification in either fed-batch or perfusion applications
  • A preview of Pall’s latest advance in depth filtration: Stax™ Depth Filters with Hyperion Flow technology, for direct mammalian cell harvest with a new filter to remove cells and cellular debris effectively and efficiently
  • The award-winning Cadence™ Inline Concentrator single-pass tangential flow filtration system for direct flow-through and in-process volume reduction in an integrated or stand-alone format
  • The recently introduced BioSMB® System for single-use or multicolumn continuous chromatography featuring a disposable flow path with a proprietary integrated valve cassette to service up to 16 columns or devices.




Share this article with your social network, just click below to share now!


Friday, October 23, 2015

Rising from the Historical Grave

By: Frank Corden is the Senior Director of Growth Services for New England Controls

Well it’s almost Halloween.  So a story about data rising from the dead seemed an appropriate theme.  Let’s start with a little background.

Data historians are a staple of the manufacturing control infrastructure at most, if not all, biotech manufacturing facilities.  Whether provided as a component of the distributed control system (DCS) offered by Honeywell, Siemens, Emerson, or other DCS suppliers, or integrated as standalone software, such as offered by AspenTech, the historian is the go-to data source for the time-sequenced record of what has occurred on the manufacturing floor.  When combined with an enterprise- or site-wide historian such as OSISoft’s PI Historian, the manufacturing data, the building control system data, and data from other selected sources can be combined in a single repository.  Although these historians may be used in batch reporting, as well as for conducting investigations of process deviations, much of the data remains buried, unused, and unloved.  As one of my colleagues put it, “they’re just data graveyards.”

Biotech manufacturers actively have been expanding their enterprise historians and adding capabilities using various data analytics software packages, including Biovia Discoverant, Dell Statistica, and Bio-G, to name a few.  These systems enable manufacturers to integrate data sets not only from one or more data historians, but also from the Laboratory Information Management Systems (LIMS), the Enterprise Resource and Planning systems (ERP), the Learning Management Systems (LMS), the Product Lifecycle Management systems (PLM) and others.  The objectives of the analytics system installation vary from company to company but there are common themes.  These software systems enable more efficient and timely creation of reports, charts, and graphs to support:  1) routine generation of control charts and other process views, 2) operational excellence initiatives including but not limited to overall equipment effectiveness ( OEE), 3) investigations of process events, and 4) process development / tech transfer. In a few instances, the systems even come full circle with Quality by Design (QbD).

In the process development (PD) labs, the environment and the data challenge is very different from manufacturing.  In any PD lab you can find a range of equipment from various manufacturers, all of which have control systems and collect data, but not many of these systems communicate with each other or to a central data repository.  So in PD, the data lies buried in these islands.

Although the PD labs are comfortable with data analytics and use the tools routinely, the challenge lies in aggregating the data to make it available to them and extracting the data from these islands of automation. 

To address this disparate data nightmare, one PD lab, has embarked on an ambitious program to integrate all their lab scale units to an OSI PI historian.  By doing so, much more of the data is readily accessible without the manual transcription, creation, and distribution of spreadsheets that we often see in laboratories.  One goal of the program is to enable the lab to generate their routine data analyses with greater automation and free their scientists to spend more time doing the experimental and analytics work they are trained for.  By combining automated data aggregation with a historian and applying the newest analytics tools that also automate routine data analyses, we can liberate the data and bring to life the knowledge that is trapped within it.  And that is a happy ending to our Halloween story.

Happy Halloween!


About the Author: Frank Corden is the Senior Director of Growth Services for New England Controls, the leading supplier of process automation equipment and related services in the New England region. Frank has 20 years of experience in the Life Sciences industry.  He has served as a Director for Decision Management International, PerkinElmer, and Emerson Process Management in operational, research and development as well as quality leadership roles. In his current position, Frank is responsible for managing an expanding team of engineers and technicians that deliver software products and services to industrial and life science customers throughout New England. 


Share this article with your social network, just click below to share now!


Wednesday, September 23, 2015

Bioprocessing Cell Therapy Products Demands Greater Automation

Cell therapy bioprocessing is undergoing significant developments at the moment. Bioprocess engineers that have developed their skills on vaccine or recombinant protein production will recognise the types of challenges experienced by those attempting to manufacture cell therapies, namely, process development, innovation, operations and process transfer, process characterization and the setting of specifications.

Finding solutions to process and technology cell therapy bottlenecks is the topic of a presentation at the Cell Therapy Bioprocessing BPI Boston, Pre-Conference Symposium from invited speaker Nick Timmins. Nick has previously co-authored a review of cell therapy bioprocessing in BioProcess International 12(3) March 2014 entitled ‘Cell Therapy Bioprocessing Technologies and Indicators of Technological Convergence’.

Increased Sensitivity to the Bioprocess Environment

In the review the authors describe how cells in cell therapy bioprocesses are “biologically dynamic” and highly sensitive to the bioprocess environment in which they are produced. This will have a direct impact on a cell therapies critical quality attributes. In contrast, industrial cell lines that are typically used to produce recombinant proteins are more stable during processing and the final protein product are less directly dependent on the culture and processing environment.

Bioprocess automation mitigates risks in patient-specific therapy production

Bioprocessing technologies used for cell therapy manufacture typically require a higher level of automation which allows for a greater level of control of the bioproduction environment which can impact product CQAs, however it also enables operators to run multiple upstream and downstream protocols simultaneously to produce, what could be, patient-specific therapies. The patient-specific nature of some cell therapies adds in an additional layer of complexity to the processing requirements, not typically found in biomanufacturing, driven by the need to prevent the mishandling or cross contamination of patient tissues. Process automation can help mitigate against some of these risks through ensuring the rigorous control and identification of biological materials as they are produced. More manual process interventions increase the opportunities for errors, contaminations and even abuse.  

The BioProcess International Conference and Exposition will be held on October 26-29, 2015 in Boston and the Cell Therapy Pre-Conference Symposium is scheduled to take place on October 26th.

Join me at #BPIconf
Contact me at nick.hutchinson@parker.com


Dr Nick Hutchinson has a Masters and Doctorate in Biochemical Engineering from University College London, UK where he focused on laboratory tools for rapid bioprocess development and characterization. He then worked at Lonza Biologics in an R&D function investigating novel methods for large-scale antibody purification before moving to an operational role scaling-up and transferring manufacturing processes between Lonza sites in the UK, Spain and USA. Nick now works in Market Development at Parker domnick hunter where his focus is in bringing Parker's strengths in Motion & Control to Bioprocessing. This will enable customers to improve the quality and deliverability of existing and future biopharmaceuticals.


Share this article with your social network, just click below to share now!


Monday, September 21, 2015

Closed Systems in Biomanufacturing Offer a Variety of Benefits


I recently attended IBC’s Biopharmaceutical Development and Production week (BDP) and was pleased to find talks focused on single-use technologies, flexible facilities, closed systems and continuous processing. These subjects are sometimes referred to as “biomanufacturing of the future,” because they represent a change in paradigm from traditional biomanufacturing. While we have covered single-use and continuous bioprocessing extensively on Cell Culture Dish in the past, we have not dedicated much time covering the benefits and opportunities associated with closed systems. This blog will attempt to provide a high-level review of some of the topics associated with closed systems and will provide several outside resources for readers who want to explore the topic in more detail.

Traditional Biopharmaceutical Manufacturing

Traditional biopharmaceutical manufacturing has mainly consisted of fed-batch stainless steel bioreactor runs in a fixed facility with an open system. This paradigm, while serving the biopharmaceutical industry well for many years, has faced increasing pressure as single product 20,000L scale manufacturing has begun to lose ground to smaller volume, multi-product manufacturing. This shift has occurred for several reasons, some include:

·         Increases in productivity have reduced the need for very large scale manufacturing vessels and dedicated facilities.
·         Fewer blockbuster drugs with high volumes have reduced the need for large-scale dedicated facilities.
·         Single-use technologies have enabled the implementation of smaller, more flexible manufacturing.
·         Companies have begun to embrace the idea of more flexible, multi-product facilities that can easily be scaled up or down to meet changing product demand.

As a result of the changing landscape, the traditional biomanufacturing paradigm has been challenged by new models including flexible facilities, single-use systems and continuous processes that can create a more flexible and in many cases more cost effective process. Biomanufacturing of the future incorporates technologies like single-use and models like closed systems and continuous processing to move the industry forward.

Closed and Functionally Closed Systems

There have been several definitions of what makes a closed or functionally closed system in biomanufacturing. All the definitions are similar, but I like the definitions used in the BioPharm International article “Challenging the Cleanroom Paradigm for Biopharmaceutical Manufacturing of Bulk Drug Substances.” The article provides the following definitions:
  • Closed system: A process system with equipment designed and operated such that the product is not exposed to the room environment. Materials may be introduced to a closed system, but the addition must be done in such a way to avoid exposure of the product to the room environment (e.g., by 0.2 μm filtration).
  • Functionally closed system: A process system that may be routinely opened (e.g., to install a filter or make a connection), but is returned to a closed state through a sanitization or sterilization step prior to process use. It is the owner’s responsibility to define and validate the sanitization or sterilization process required to return an opened system to a functionally closed system
Benefits of a Closed or Functionally Closed System

Reduced Risk of Contamination
One of the biggest and most easily attained benefits of implementing a closed system, whether in research, pilot or large scale, is in reducing the risk of contamination by viruses or other adventitious agents. Open systems naturally provide more opportunities for contamination because the process is open to the room environment and handling by operators. There are also safety concerns associated with breeches of product containment. Operations like fluid transfer present a much higher risk in an open system where splashing and lost media can occur. A closed system, by design, provides physical barriers to reduce the risk of contamination and contain the product.

This is important because contamination can be extremely costly, not only in product loss, but also facility shut downs, cleaning and validation.

Reduced Process Time
The use of a closed system can reduce operating time. A closed system relies on less operator handling and fewer overall steps. Another time saving factor is that many of the closed system components are plug and play meaning that they come pre-assembled, designed for the job they are intended. This reduces the time it takes to set up and launch a manufacturing system significantly.

If single use technologies are employed as part of the closed system, then more time savings can be achieved. Over the course of several talks, the use of single use technologies were reported to save anywhere from a couple of days to a couple of weeks. These times savings were reported in areas including:
  • Reduced cleaning and validation time
  • Reduced set-up time
  • Reduced time to operate or oversee equipment
Examples of Benefits
One example where there is a benefit to time savings and risk reduction is in media preparation. To enable a closed system, instead of mixing and adding media, one might purchase a pre-filled media bag with a connector that is complimentary to a single use bioreactor. This creates a closed portion of the process and saves operator time of mixing media. This method also reduces risk of contamination because the media isn’t exposed to the room environment and there is reduced risk of spilling and loss of media. Aseptic transfer of large volumes of sterile media and solution can be a big challenge.

Another example was provided in a talk at BDP, titled “Processes of the Future: Single Use, Closed and Continuous for Faster, Cheaper and Safer Manufacturing,” given by Sébastien Ribault, Ph.D., Director Biotechnology/Life Science, Head of BioDevelpment Center, EMD Millipore. BDP. In Dr. Ribault’s facility, his team is operating a closed system in one of their manufacturing areas. The group needed to close the cell seeding process, so instead of banking cells in vials, they banked the cells in bags. They then thawed the bags in a water bath and seeded directly in the lab without laminar flow. This saved them time and they reported similar growth and viability to the process using cells banked in vials.

Adopting a Risk Based Approach to Manufacturing Classifications
One hot topic in the discussion around closed systems is the idea of adopting a risk-based approach when it comes to the manufacturing classifications required with closed systems. If a system is closed, or functionally closed, then a barrier already exists between the product and its environment. Therefore, is there really a need for these operations to be conducted in a Classified environment with extensive gowning and airlocks, or would it be more feasible to conduct these operations in a Controlled Non-Classified (CNC) space? The benefits associated with this type of change in classification would provide many manufacturing benefits.

At BDP, Kenneth Green, Ph.D., Head of Manufacturing Science and Technology, Shire, gave an excellent talk titled, “Pushing the Controlled Non-Classified (CNC) Envelope with the Application of Single-Use Systems for Bioprocessing.” In the talk, Dr. Green discussed the debate around whether a closed system or functionally closed system could be proved to regulators, with satisfaction, so that manufacturing could occur in a controlled non-classified environment.

If so, operating in a Controlled Non Classified (CNC) space would open up many more benefits including:
  • Enabling a truly flexible facility – by reducing the classified area requirements you could also reduce the amount of segregation in a facility and increase flexibility. There are many benefits associated with flexible manufacturing, including:
    • Smaller facilities with a simpler design that can be duplicated in multiple locations
    • Multiple products can be manufactured in the same facility or space
    • Less segregation
    • Equipment can be moved around on skids as needed to meet product demand in multiple production lines.
    • Personnel can also move more easily throughout the facility
  • Reduced operating costs include:
    • Energy savings by reducing the environmental monitoring needed and the air handling requirements
    • Removing or reducing gowning requirements reduce cost of both gown materials and provide time savings for the gowning/de-gowning processes.
The idea of employing a risk-based approach in classification requirements is a very interesting topic that could be a blog entirely on its own; however for the purposes of this article, I am only providing a high level overview. There are a number of excellent articles that cover this topic in more detail including:



Challenges to Implementation of a Closed System

Employee Training
While most of these systems are fairly easy to use, there are some major differences between stainless steel systems and single-use. Employees should be trained in maintaining the closed or functionally closed system, proper use of equipment to prevent breakage or tears and employees need to be comfortable using the tubing and connectors.

Breaking New Ground
Completely closed systems represent relatively new technologies. Ensuring all parts of your system are closed may require a good deal of ingenuity and determination particularly when using components from several suppliers. There may not be an off the shelf component that works for you and you may need to work with suppliers to create systems that work for your process.

One example of this ingenuity and determination appeared in Dr. Veena Warikoo’s talk at BDP. Dr. Warikoo, Director, Purification Development, Genzyme, gave a talk titled “Integrated and Fully Continuous Processing of Recombinant Therapeutic Proteins – From Cell Culture Media to Purified Drug Substance.” In the talk she described how Genzyme developed a closed, continuous model system for manufacturing both mAbs and non-mAbs. They had been using a continuous system upstream but needed to also close the downstream process. There wasn’t an off the shelf solution available at the time, so they partnered with GE Healthcare to develop a functionally closed periodic counter-current chromatography continuous process. She showed a picture of the system they used, then stated that GE Healthcare now offers an off the shelf version in their AKTA system.

Demonstrating to Regulators that Systems are Closed and Adopting Risk Based Approach in Classification for Closed Systems
In order to fully gain all of the benefits mentioned above, the industry must work with regulators to demonstrate that CNC manufacturing space is appropriate. BioPhorum Operations Group (BPOG) is currently working to help interpret regulatory guidance and quality expectations and prepare responses that incorporate a risk based approach.

Is a closed system right for your process? – How to navigate a transition
I was able to speak with Erika Hanley-Onken and John Shyu at Corning Life Sciences about their experiences helping customers’ transition to closed systems. They said that they like to conduct a walk through with customers to understand on a technical level the customer’s current system and how that system will transition into a new closed system. They also work with multiple vendors to create a system designed to meet customer needs and goals. Lastly, they train the company on using the new system and they will work with customers to help validate the new system. When asked what customers are most surprised by when deciding to transition they said “how long it takes, it can take weeks to months to develop the system and test it, but we provide a full quality package and we want to ensure that the customer can achieve full and consistent results.”

Goals
First it is important to consider what is the primary goal in moving to a closed system. Some examples below:
  • Designing a new facility and want to incorporate flexible manufacturing principals
  • Quality control concerns and are interested in reducing risk of contamination
  • Process improvements with desire to reduce production time or cost
Design and Implementation of a Closed System
In determining the design and implementation of your closed system it is critical to truly understand your existing process needs, strengths and weaknesses. These factors can be very helpful when working with a vendor or vendors to establish your system. It is also important to understand your current cost of goods and net present value analysis, particularly if cost is a driving factor for change. This will allow you to compare your current system against the proposed system once you have a scale model running.

It is imperative to find a partner that you can work well with. Several talks stressed the keys to a good partnership, and I have included some of them below:
  • It is important for companies to understand their process and share this with supply partners.
  • Choose a supplier you trust and can work with. They have to know what your concerns and goals are so they can build a system that works for you.
  • A supplier should have a quality package and service to help with validating the new system.
Supply partners can be a single vendor who will work to design a process using theirs and complimentary products. A company may also choose a supply partner that has the capability to utilize multiple product vendors to put together a system that is compatible.
This blog was first published on CellCultureDish.com




Share this article with your social network, just click below to share now!