Viral clearance validation studies evaluate the efficacy of upstream or downstream process steps for clearing (inactivating or removing) potential viral contaminants from biologics process streams. Inactivation steps are designed to render viruses non-infectious, while removal steps achieve actual physical removal of viruses from the process stream. During validation, the efficacy of viral clearance steps is challenged through evaluation of inactivation and removal capacity, both for viruses known to be capable of infecting the manufacturing process (relevant viruses) as well as for worst-case model viruses (i.e., those believed to be most resistant to removal or inactivation). Worst-case viruses are used to challenge the process steps in order to assure that unknown or novel viruses that may be present in the process stream will be adequately cleared. Historically, the parvoviruses have been used as worst-case models for viral clearance studies due to their small size and lack of a lipid envelope. These characteristics are known to challenge removal by viral filtration and inactivation by a variety of physical and chemical means. In the present paper, we examine the literature on removal of viruses by filtration, and inactivation of viruses by heat, ultraviolet light, and gamma radiation. We conclude that for viral filtration, as well as ultraviolet and gamma irradiation, the use of a parvovirus as a worst-case model virus may not adequately assure that all types of viruses will be cleared using these steps…
Tag: <span>complex therapeutics</span>
This article proposes a “design space” structure for using Quality by Design (QbD) to develop processes and control strategies for developing and manufacturing biopharmaceuticals…
The cell therapy industry is positioned to make major changes in healthcare and disease treatment. The Alliance for Regenerative Medicine (ARM) recently reported on the robust state of the industry and identified that revenue from cell therapy products grew from $460 million in 2010 to $1.3 billion in 2013. There are currently more than 40 commercially available cell therapy products with indications ranging from cardiovascular to cancer and non-healing wounds. The pipeline for these therapies is also expanding. ARM reports nearly 270 trials underway (Phase 1 through Phase 3). Another 58 projects are in the research stage and 245 in pre-clinical. Adding to this total, there are 77 industry-sponsored cell-based immunotherapy trials. Cell therapy represents a very different approach to treatment when compared to small molecules or many biologics. As such, regulatory authorities are evolving and adapting their approach to help ensure patient safety and efficacy of these innovative and complex therapeutics. A recent decision by regulatory authorities in Japan allows for an accelerated pathway for approval. This presents a tremendous opportunity for the industry, but at the same time, exerts tremendous pressure on developers to rapidly and efficiently characterize their products and processes in order to take advantage of such accelerated pathways. This article provides an overview of current regulations for cell-based therapies in the United States (US), European Union (EU), and Japan, and considerations for working successfully within these frameworks. It also describes a structured approach to process development that can help achieve accelerated timelines…