Risk assessment for biopharmaceutical single-use manufacturing: A case study of upstream continuous processing

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Takao ITO , Hui Wang , Soon-Hwa Hwang , Bin Wang , Lizhi Wang , Somasundaram G
{"title":"Risk assessment for biopharmaceutical single-use manufacturing: A case study of upstream continuous processing","authors":"Takao ITO ,&nbsp;Hui Wang ,&nbsp;Soon-Hwa Hwang ,&nbsp;Bin Wang ,&nbsp;Lizhi Wang ,&nbsp;Somasundaram G","doi":"10.1016/j.biologicals.2023.101713","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In the current transition to intensified upstream processing, the risks of adopting traditional single-use systems for high-titer, long-duration perfusion cultures, have thus far not been considered. This case study uses the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) method to evaluate the risks associated with implementing upstream single-use technology. The simulated model process was used to compare the risk level of single-use technology for a traditional fed-batch cell culture with that for perfusion culture, under the same annual protein production conditions. To provide a reasonable source of potential risk for FMEA, all single-use upstream operations for both fed-batch and perfusion processes were investigated using an analytical method developed to quantify the impact of process parameters and operating conditions on single-use system specifications and to ensure objectivity. Many of the risks and their levels, were similar in long-duration perfusion cultures and fed-batch cultures. However, differences were observed for high-risk components such as daily sampling and installation. The result of this analysis indicates that the reasons for risk are different for fed-batch cultures and perfusion cultures such as larger bioreactors in fed-batch and longer runs in perfusion, respectively. This risk assessment method could identify additional control measures and be part of a holistic contamination control strategy and help visualize their effectiveness.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1045105623000519","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the current transition to intensified upstream processing, the risks of adopting traditional single-use systems for high-titer, long-duration perfusion cultures, have thus far not been considered. This case study uses the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) method to evaluate the risks associated with implementing upstream single-use technology. The simulated model process was used to compare the risk level of single-use technology for a traditional fed-batch cell culture with that for perfusion culture, under the same annual protein production conditions. To provide a reasonable source of potential risk for FMEA, all single-use upstream operations for both fed-batch and perfusion processes were investigated using an analytical method developed to quantify the impact of process parameters and operating conditions on single-use system specifications and to ensure objectivity. Many of the risks and their levels, were similar in long-duration perfusion cultures and fed-batch cultures. However, differences were observed for high-risk components such as daily sampling and installation. The result of this analysis indicates that the reasons for risk are different for fed-batch cultures and perfusion cultures such as larger bioreactors in fed-batch and longer runs in perfusion, respectively. This risk assessment method could identify additional control measures and be part of a holistic contamination control strategy and help visualize their effectiveness.

生物制药一次性生产的风险评估:上游连续加工的案例研究。
在目前向强化上游处理的过渡中,迄今为止尚未考虑采用传统的一次性系统进行高滴度、长时间灌注培养的风险。本案例研究使用失效模式和影响分析(FMEA)方法来评估与实施上游一次性技术相关的风险。模拟模型过程用于比较在相同的年度蛋白质生产条件下,传统补料分批细胞培养与灌注培养的一次性技术的风险水平。为了为FMEA提供合理的潜在风险来源,使用分析方法对补料分批和灌注工艺的所有一次性上游操作进行了调查,该分析方法旨在量化工艺参数和操作条件对一次性系统规范的影响,并确保客观性。许多风险及其水平在长期灌注培养和补料分批培养中是相似的。然而,在日常采样和安装等高风险组件方面观察到了差异。该分析的结果表明,补料分批培养和灌注培养的风险原因不同,例如补料分批中的较大生物反应器和灌注中的较长运行时间。这种风险评估方法可以确定额外的控制措施,成为整体污染控制战略的一部分,并有助于可视化其有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信