Patient-Centric Product Development: A Summary of Select Regulatory CMC and Device Considerations.

Patient-centric drug development describes the systematic approach to incorporating the patient's perspectives and preferences into the design, assessment, and production of a therapeutic product. While a patient centric approach can be applied at any stage of the drug development lifecycle, an integrated end-to-end strategy is often most effective to create an optimized product for the patient at the earliest possible timepoint. The importance of patient centricity is well recognized by health authorities and biopharmaceutical organizations which have established toolsets, guidances, and methodologies for incorporating patient input during the clinical stage of development. However, in addition to clinical research, there are other significant aspects of product development that profoundly impact the patient experience. Specifically, chemistry, manufacturing, and control (CMC) and device aspects must also be acknowledged and addressed as part of a cohesive patient-centric development strategy. This review explores current applications and regulatory considerations for patient-centric approaches across the product lifecycle, including R&D, early product development, clinical development, device and combination product development, and post-approval change management. Specific topics of discussion include the contributions of product modality, formulation, and devices to the patient experience; usage of the Quality Target Product Profile (QTPP) as a patient-centered design tool; and post-approval product optimization. Future advancements in regulatory data management and information exchange are also explored as potential enablers of patient engagement which support enhanced communication and interconnectivity between stakeholders. Multidisciplinary collaboration between patients, health authorities, health care providers, and the biopharmaceutical industry is ultimately necessary for ensuring that medicinal products, and their corresponding regulatory processes, take on a patient-first mindset that prioritizes patient needs, values, and preferences.

Emerging Challenges and Innovations in Surfactant-mediated Stabilization of Biologic Formulations.

Biologics may be subjected to various destabilizing conditions during manufacturing, transportation, storage, and use. Therefore, biologics must be appropriately formulated to meet their desired quality target product profiles. In the formulations of protein-based biologics, one critical component is surfactant. Polysorbate 80 and Polysorbate 20 remain the most commonly used surfactants. Surfactants can stabilize proteins through different mechanisms and help the proteins withstand destabilization stresses. However, the challenges associated with surfactants, for instance, impurities, degradation, and potential triggering of adverse immune responses, have been encountered. Therefore, there are continued efforts to develop novel surfactants to overcome these challenges associated with traditional surfactants. Meanwhile, surfactants have also found their use in formulations of newer and novel modalities, namely, antibody-drug conjugates, bispecific antibodies, and adeno-associated viruses (AAV). This review provides an updated in-depth discussion of surfactants in the above-mentioned areas, namely mechanism of action of surfactants, a critical review of challenges with surfactants and current mitigation approaches, and emerging technologies to develop novel surfactants. In addition, gaps, current mitigations, and future directions have been presented to trigger further discussion and research to facilitate the use and development of novel surfactants.

Re-Envisioning Pharmaceutical Manufacturing: Increasing Agility for Global Patient Access.

The traditional paradigm for pharmaceutical manufacturing is focused primarily upon centralized facilities that enable mass production and distribution. While this system reliably maintains high product quality and reproducibility, its rigidity imposes limitations upon new manufacturing innovations that could improve efficiency and support supply chain resiliency. Agile manufacturing methodologies, which leverage flexibility through portability and decentralization, allow manufacturers to respond to patient needs on demand and present a potential solution to enable timely access to critical medicines. Agile approaches are particularly applicable to the production of small-batch, personalized therapies, which must be customized for each individual patient close to the point-of-care. However, despite significant progress in the advancement of agile-enabling technologies across several different industries, there are substantial global regulatory challenges that encumber the adoption of agile manufacturing techniques in the pharmaceutical industry. This review provides an overview of regulatory barriers as well as emerging opportunities to facilitate the use of agile manufacturing for the production of pharmaceutical products. Future-oriented approaches for incorporating agile methodologies within the global regulatory framework are also proposed. Collaboration between regulators and manufacturers to cohesively navigate the regulatory waters is ultimately needed to best serve patients in the rapidly-changing healthcare environment.

End-to-End Approach to Surfactant Selection, Risk Mitigation, and Control Strategies for Protein-Based Therapeutics.

A survey performed by the AAPS Drug Product Handling community revealed a general, mostly consensus, approach to the strategy for the selection of surfactant type and level for biopharmaceutical products. Discussing and building on the survey results, this article describes the common approach for surfactant selection and control strategy for protein-based therapeutics and focuses on key studies, common issues, mitigations, and rationale. Where relevant, each section is prefaced by survey responses from the 22 anonymized respondents. The article format consists of an overview of surfactant stabilization, followed by a strategy for the selection of surfactant level, and then discussions regarding risk identification, mitigation, and control strategy. Since surfactants that are commonly used in biologic formulations are known to undergo various forms of degradation, an effective control strategy for the chosen surfactant focuses on understanding and controlling the design space of the surfactant material attributes to ensure that the desired material quality is used consistently in DS/DP manufacturing. The material attributes of a surfactant added in the final DP formulation can influence DP performance (e.g., protein stability). Mitigation strategies are described that encompass risks from host cell proteins (HCP), DS/DP manufacturing processes, long-term storage, as well as during in-use conditions.

Stress Factors in Primary Packaging, Transportation and Handling of Protein Drug Products and Their Impact on Product Quality.

Protein-based biologic drugs encounter a variety of stress factors during drug substance (DS) and drug product (DP) manufacturing, and the subsequent steps that result in clinical administration by the end user. This article is the third in a series of commentaries on these stress factors and their effects on biotherapeutics. It focuses on assessing the potential negative impact from primary packaging, transportation, and handling on the quality of the DP. The risk factors include ingress of hazardous materials such as oxidizing residuals from the sterilization process, delamination- or rubber stopper-derived particles, silicone oil droplets, and leachables into the formulation, as well as surface interactions between the protein and packaging materials, all of which may cause protein degradation. The type of primary packaging container used (such as vials and prefilled syringes) may substantially influence the impact of transportation and handling stresses on DP Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs). Mitigations via process development and robustness studies as well as control strategies for DP CQAs are discussed, along with current industry best practices for scale-down and in-use stability studies. We conclude that more research is needed on postproduction transportation and handling practices and their implications for protein DP quality.

Stress Factors in Protein Drug Product Manufacturing and Their Impact on Product Quality.

Injectable protein-based medicinal products (drug products, or DPs) must be produced by using sterile manufacturing processes to ensure product safety. In DP manufacturing the protein drug substance, in a suitable final formulation, is combined with the desired primary packaging (e.g., syringe, cartridge, or vial) that guarantees product integrity and enables transportation, storage, handling and clinical administration. The protein DP is exposed to several stress conditions during each of the unit operations in DP manufacturing, some of which can be detrimental to product quality. For example, particles, aggregates and chemically-modified proteins can form during manufacturing, and excessive amounts of these undesired variants might cause an impact on potency or immunogenicity. Therefore, DP manufacturing process development should include identification of critical quality attributes (CQAs) and comprehensive risk assessment of potential protein modifications in process steps, and the relevant steps must be characterized and controlled. In this commentary article we focus on the major unit operations in protein DP manufacturing, and critically evaluate each process step for stress factors involved and their potential effects on DP CQAs. Moreover, we discuss the current industry trends for risk mitigation, process control including analytical monitoring, and recommendations for formulation and process development studies, including scaled-down runs.

An Industry Perspective on the Challenges of Using Closed System Transfer Devices with Biologics and Communication Guidance to Healthcare Professionals.

Closed system transfer devices (CSTDs) have been used with hazardous drugs for several decades. The goal of this whitepaper is to increase awareness among healthcare professionals, device manufacturers, regulators, and pharmaceutical/biotech companies on the potential issues around the use of CSTDs with biologic drug products to allow their informed use in clinics. Specifically, we discuss the key topics related to the use of CSTDs with biologics products, including components and materials of construction, a breakdown of regulatory, technical, clinical site-related risks and challenges associated with the use of CSTDs with biological products, gathered from stakeholder discussion at the IQ CSTD workshop, and considerations on current testing requirements and communication strategies to drive further dialog on the appropriate use of CSTDs. Given the technical challenges of using CSTDs with biologics, coupled with the current regulations surrounding CSTD approval and proper use, as well as a need for alignment and standardization to enable a consistent strategy for compatibility testing and communication of incompatibilities, it is recommended that global health authorities and other stakeholders seek to understand these issues, in order to alleviate these problems and keep healthcare workers and patients safe from harm.

The Confluence of Innovation in Therapeutics and Regulation: Recent CMC Considerations.

The field of human therapeutics has expanded tremendously from small molecules to complex biological modalities, and this trend has accelerated in the last two decades with a greater diversity in the types and applications of novel modalities, accompanied by increasing sophistication in drug delivery technology. These innovations have led to a corresponding increase in the number of therapies seeking regulatory approval, and as the industry continues to evolve regulations will need to adapt to the ever-changing landscape. The growth in this field thus represents a challenge for regulatory authorities as well as for sponsors. This review provides a brief description of novel biologics, including innovative antibody therapeutics, genetic modification technologies, new developments in vaccines, and multifunctional modalities. It also describes a few pertinent drug delivery mechanisms such as nanoparticles, liposomes, coformulation, recombinant human hyaluronidase for subcutaneous delivery, pulmonary delivery, and 3D printing. In addition, it provides an overview of the current CMC regulatory challenges and discusses potential methods of accelerating regulatory mechanisms for more efficient approvals. Finally, we look at the future of biotherapeutics and emphasize the need to bring these modalities to the forefront of patient care from a global perspective as effectively as possible.

Challenges of Using Closed System Transfer Devices With Biological Drug Products: An Industry Perspective.

Hazardous drug is a common term used by the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH) to classify medications that may induce adverse mutagenic and reproductive responses in health care personnel. NIOSH publishes a list of drugs it defines as hazardous where it may be appropriate for health care workers to take protective measures to reduce the potential for occupational exposure. Recent updates and proposed updates to this list have included large molecule biological products with oncology indications. Both NIOSH and USP <800> recommend the use of closed system transfer devices (CSTDs) during compounding. CSTDs are required for administration of prepared solution in NIOSH. However, USP has suggested that the principles of <800> are broadly applicable to hazardous drug handling activities across all facility types. USP encourages the widespread adoption and use of <800> across all health care settings, which many health care workers have interpreted beyond compounding to include administration and preparation of conventionally manufactured sterile products per approved labeling. Although the use of CSTDs may reduce exposure of health care personnel to chemotherapy agents in health care setting, the impact of CSTDs on quality of biologic drug products, including monoclonal antibodies and other proteins, is not fully understood. To complicate this issue further, there are several commercially available CSTDs in the market which have different fluid paths and material of construction that comes in contact with the drug. Testing every combination of CSTD and drug product for potential incompatibilities can be a labor intensive and impractical approach and cause delay in getting essential drugs to patients. A panel discussion was held at a recent American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2018 PharmSci 360 conference to discuss the impact of CSTDs on biologics. Impact on subvisible and visible particulates and impact to other product quality attributes such as high molecular weight species formation upon contact with CSTDs were reported in American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists meeting. Impact to deliverable dose, holdup volumes of various CSTDs, and stopper coring were also reported that has significant impact to patient safety. Given the fact that USP chapter <800> will be implemented in December 2019, feedback from health authorities regarding the use of CSTDs for biological drug products is needed to provide an appropriate risk/benefit balance to ensure patient safety and quality of the biologic drug product while also protecting the health care worker and the environment. The purpose of this commentary is to provide an industry perspective on the challenges during the use of CSTDs for biologic drug products and is intended to raise caution and awareness on the benefits and shortcomings of these devices.

Characterization of Subvisible Particles in Biotherapeutic Prefilled Syringes: The Role of Polysorbate and Protein on the Formation of Silicone Oil and Protein Subvisible Particles After Drop Shock.

Subvisible particles (SbVPs) are a critical quality attribute for biotherapeutics. Particle content in prefilled syringes (PFSs) of a biotherapeutic can include protein particles and silicone oil particles (SiOP). Here, a real-world protein therapeutic PFS shows that although polysorbate is effective in preventing protein particle formation, it also leads to the formation of SiOP. PFSs of protein and buffer formulations in the presence and absence of polysorbate are subjected to a drop shock to generate SbVP and the effect of polysorbate and protein in generating SbVP is investigated. Particle characterization by light obscuration and flow imaging shows that polysorbate prevents protein particle formation as intended, but the presence of polysorbate substantially increases the formation of SiOP. The protein itself also acts as a surfactant and leads to increased SiOP, but to a lesser degree compared to polysorbate. In a separate companion study by Joh et al., the risk of immunogenicity was assessed using in vivo and in vitro models. Flow imaging distinguishes between SiOP and protein particles and enables risk assessment of the natures of different SbVP in PFSs.

Silicone Oil Particles in Prefilled Syringes With Human Monoclonal Antibody, Representative of Real-World Drug Products, Did Not Increase Immunogenicity in In Vivo and In Vitro Model Systems.

Silicone oil is a lubricant for prefilled syringes (PFS), a common primary container for biotherapeutics. Silicone oil particles (SiOP) shed from PFS are a concern for patients due to their potential for increased immunogenicity and therefore also of regulatory concern. To address the safety concern in a context of manufacturing and distribution of drug product (DP), SiOP was increased (up to ∼25,000 particles/mL) in PFS filled with mAb1, a fully human antibody drug, by simulated handling of DP mimicked by drop shock. These samples are characterized in a companion report (Jiao N et al. J Pharm Sci. 2020). The risk of immunogenicity was then assessed using in vitro and in vivo immune model systems. The impact of a common DP excipient, polysorbate 80, on both the formation and biological consequences of SiOP was also tested. SiOP was found associated with (1) minimal cytokine secretion from human peripheral blood mononuclear cells, (2) no response in cell lines that report NF-κB/AP-1 signaling, and (3) no antidrug antibodies or significant cytokine production in transgenic Xeno-het mice, whether or not mAb1 or polysorbate 80 was present. These results suggest that SiOP in mAb1, representative of real-world DP in PFS, poses no increased risk of immunogenicity.