Variations in novel cellular therapy products manufacturing.

BACKGROUND AIMS: At the frontier of transfusion medicine and transplantation, the field of cellular therapy is emerging. Most novel cellular therapy products are produced under investigational protocols with no clear standardization across cell processing centers. Thus, the purpose of this study was to uncover any variations in manufacturing practices for similar cellular therapy products across different cell processing laboratories worldwide. METHODS: An exploratory survey that was designed to identify variations in manufacturing practices in novel cellular therapy products was sent to cell processing laboratory directors worldwide. The questionnaire focused on the manufacturing life cycle of different cell therapies (i.e., collection, purification, in vitro expansion, freezing and storage, and thawing and washing), as well as the level of regulations followed to process each product type. RESULTS: The majority of the centers processed hematopoietic progenitor cells (HPCs) from peripheral blood (n = 18), bone marrow (n = 16) or cord blood (n = 19), making HPCs the most commonly processed cells. The next most commonly produced cellular therapies were lymphocytes (n = 19) followed by mesenchymal stromal cells (n = 14), dendritic cells (n = 9) and natural killer (NK) cells (n = 9). A minority of centers (<5) processed pancreatic islet cells (n = 4), neural cells (n = 3) and induced-pluripotent stem cells (n = 3). Thirty-two laboratories processed products under an investigational status, for either phase I/II (n = 27) or phase III (n = 17) clinical trials. If purification methods were used, these varied for the type of product processed and by institution. Environmental monitoring methods also varied by product type and institution. CONCLUSION: This exploratory survey shows a wide variation in cellular therapy manufacturing practices across different cell processing laboratories. A better understanding of the effect of these variations on the quality of these cell-based therapies will be important to assess for further process evaluation and development.

Current practices for viability testing of cryopreserved cord blood products: an international survey by the cellular therapy team of the Biomedical Excellence for Safer Transfusion (BEST) Collaborative.

BACKGROUND: Viability testing is a common practice in laboratories. The goal of this study was to ascertain current laboratory practices internationally for performing viability testing for cryopreserved cord blood (CB) products and glean information about how to standardize the method to improve interlaboratory reproducibility. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A survey to evaluate current laboratory practices for viability testing was designed and distributed internationally. The question topics included sampling and testing methods, responses to unexpected results, and the rating of the reliability of the CB quality tests, together with expectations for standardization. RESULTS: There were 32 respondents to the survey, of whom 28 responded to the more detailed questionnaire about viability methods. Overall, responses indicated that various stains were used among the laboratories, and when multiple sites used the same viability stain the methods differed. The majority of the respondents were in favor of standardizing the viability testing methods. A wide variety of preferences were communicated about how to standardize the method, but a majority did advocate the use of 7-aminoactinomycin D (7-AAD) with flow cytometry. CONCLUSIONS: The survey results revealed a variety of tests and inconsistent interlaboratory practices for performing the viability assay. Flow cytometry with a 7-AAD dye was suggested as a first step toward standardization.

Current practices and prospects for standardization of the hematopoietic colony-forming unit assay: a report by the cellular therapy team of the Biomedical Excellence for Safer Transfusion (BEST) Collaborative.

BACKGROUND AIMS: Wide acceptance of the colony-forming unit (CFU) assay as a reliable potency test for stem cell products is hindered by poor inter-laboratory reproducibility. The goal of this study was to ascertain current laboratory practices for performing the CFU assay with an eye towards identifying practices that could be standardized to improve overall reproducibility. METHODS: A survey to evaluate current laboratory practices for performing CFU assays was designed and internationally distributed. RESULTS: There were 105 respondents to the survey, of whom 68% performed CFU assays. Most survey recipients specified that an automated rather than a manual cell count was performed on pre-diluted aliquots of stem cell products. Viability testing methods employed various stains, and when multiple sites used the same viability stain, the methods differed. Cell phenotype used to prepare working cell suspensions for inoculating the CFU assay differed among sites. Most respondents scored CFU assays at 14-16 days of incubation, but culture plates were read with various microscopes. Of 57 respondents, 42% had not performed a validation study or established assay linearity. Only 63% of laboratories had criteria for determining if a plate was overgrown with colonies. CONCLUSIONS: Survey results revealed inconsistent inter-laboratory practices for performing the CFU assay. The relatively low number of centers with validated CFU assays raises concerns about assay accuracy and emphasizes a need to establish central standards. The survey results shed light on numerous steps of the methodology that could be targeted for standardization across laboratories.