An Industry Perspective on Compatibility Assessment of Closed System Drug-Transfer Devices for Biologics

Drug Product Development and Case Studies for User Centric Pediatric Protein-Based Therapeutics

The user of a pediatric drug includes not only the patient, but also their caregiver and healthcare provider, including nurses, doctors, and pharmacists. Therefore, adopting a patient-centric approach that focuses on all users is critical for the development of pediatric drug products. This article outlines the quality target product profile parameters and a patient-centric approach for the development of pediatric proteinbased therapies. The use environment, formulation design, and preparation and in use stability considerations are described. An acceptability profile for the various routes of parenteral administration is described with a focus on pediatric age groups. Furthermore, a risk assessment approach is presented for the selection of excipients to be utilized in pediatric protein-based biopharmaceuticals. Several case studies are included which illustrate the selection of drug product parameters such as formulation, dose volume, and route of administration with the pediatric user in mind.

Impact of Closed System Transfer Device (CSTD) Handling Procedure for Low-Transfer-Volume Dose Preparation of Biologic Drug Products

Many challenges have been identified for ensuring compatibility of closed system transfer devices (CSTDs) with biologic drug products. One challenge is large hold-up volumes (HUVs) of CSTD components, which can be especially problematic with early-stage biologics when low transfer volumes smaller than the nominal fill volume may be used to achieve a wide range of doses with a single drug product configuration. Here, we identified possible CSTD handling techniques during dose preparation of a drug product requiring small volume transfers during reconstitution, intermediate dilution, and dilution in an IV bag, and systematically evaluated the impact of these handling procedures on the ability to deliver an accurate dose to the next step. We show that small changes to CSTD procedures can have a major impact on dose accuracy, depending on both CSTD HUVs and drug product-specific transfer volumes. We demonstrate that it is possible to craft CSTD instructions for use to mitigate these issues, and that the dose accuracy for specific drug product/CSTD combinations can be estimated using theoretical equations. Finally, we explored potential downsides of these mitigations. Our results emphasize key factors for consideration by both drug and CSTD manufacturers when assessing compatibility and providing CSTD instructions for use with biologics requiring low transfer volumes during dose preparation.

Impact on Quality during In-Use Preparation of an Antibody Drug Conjugate with Eight Different Closed System Transfer Device Brands

The aim of this study was to investigate the in-use compatibility of eight commercially available closed system transfer device brands (CSTDs) with a formulated model antibody drug conjugate (ADC). Overall, in-use simulated dosing preparation applying the CSTD systems investigated raised concerns for several product quality attributes. The incompatibilities observed were mainly associated with increased visible and subvisible particles formation as well as significant changes in holdup volumes. Visible and subvisible particles contained heterogeneous mixtures of particle classes, with the majority of subvisible particles associated with silicone oil leaching from CSTD systems during simulated dose preparation upon contact with the ADC formulation. These observations demonstrate that CSTD use may adversely impact product quality and delivered dose which could potentially lead to safety and efficacy concerns during administration. Other product quality attributes measured including turbidity, color, ADC recovery, and purity by size exclusion HPLC, did not show relevant changes. It is therefore strongly recommended to test and screen the compatibility of CSTDs with the respective ADC, in a representative in-use simulated administration setting, during early CMC development, i.e., well before the start of clinical studies, to include information about compatibility and to ensure that the CSTD listed in the manuals of preparation for clinical handling has been thoroughly assessed before human use.

A Survey on Handling and Administration of Therapeutic Protein Products in German and Swiss Hospitals

Protein products in hospitals often have to be compounded before administration to the patient. This may comprise reconstitution of lyophilizates, dilution, storage, and transport. However, the operations for compounding and administration in the hospital may lead to changes in product quality and possibly even impact patient safety. We surveyed healthcare practitioners from three clinical units using a questionnaire and open dialogue to document common procedures and their justification and to document differences in handling procedures. The survey covered dose compounding, transportation, storage and administration. One key observation was that drug vial optimization procedures were used for some products, e.g., use of one single-use vial for several patients. This included the use of spikes and needles or closed system transfer devices (CSTDs). Filters or light protection aids were used only when specified by the manufacturer. A further observation was a different handling of the overfill in pre-filled infusion containers, possibly impacting total dose. Lastly, we documented the complexity of infusion administration setups for administration of multiple drugs. In this case, flushing procedures or the placement and use of filters in the setup vary. Our study has revealed important differences in handling and administration practice. We propose that drug developers and hospitals should collaborate to establish unified handling procedures.

Characterization of Silicone from Closed System Transfer Devices and its Migration into Pharmaceutical Drug Products

Closed System Transfer Devices (CSTDs) are increasingly used in healthcare settings to facilitate compounding of hazardous drugs but increasingly also therapeutic proteins. However, their use may significantly impact the quality of the sterile product. For example, contamination of the product solution may occur by leaching of silicone or particulates from the CSTDs. It was therefore the aim of the present study to identify and quantify the types of silicone oil in a panel of typically used CSTDs. Particles found after simulated CSTD compounding processes were evaluated using Light Obscuration and Micro-Flow Imaging and were confirmed to be silicone oil particles. The number of particulates shed from CTSDs was in single cases exceeding pharmacopeial limits for a final parenteral product. Using X-ray microtomography, lubrication was shown to be primarily applied at connecting parts of the CSTD. Quantitative and qualitative analysis by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) revealed a total released amount between 0.8 and 16 mg per CSTD of polydimethylsiloxane or polymethyltrifluoropropylsiloxane per CSTD. While pronounced differences in total silicone content between CSTDs were observed, it did not fully correlate with particle contamination in the test solutions, potentially due to variations in CSTD design. The impact of typical surfactants in biological formulations on silicone migration into product was additionally evaluated. We conclude that CSTDs may compromise final product quality, as (different types of) silicone oil may be released from these devices and contaminate the administered product.

Roadmap for Drug Product Development and Manufacturing of Biologics

Therapeutic biology encompasses different modalities, and their manufacturing processes may be vastly different. However, there are many similarities that run across the different modalities during the drug product (DP) development process and manufacturing. Similarities include the need for Quality Target Product Profile (QTTP), analytical development, formulation development, container/closure studies, drug product process development, manufacturing and technical requirements set out by numerous regulatory documents such as the FDA, EMA, and ICH for pharmaceuticals for human use and other country specific requirements. While there is a plethora of knowledge on studies needed for development of a drug product, there is no specific guidance set out in a phase dependent manner delineating what studies should be completed in alignment with the different phases of clinical development from pre-clinical through commercialization. Because of this reason, we assembled a high-level drug product development and manufacturing roadmap. The roadmap is applicable across the different modalities with the intention of providing a unified framework from early phase development to commercialization of biologic drug products.

Industry perspective on a holistic container closure integrity approach to parenteral combination products

Biologics are being developed more and more as parenteral combination products with drug delivery devices. The maintenance of sterility is imperative for such medical devices throughout their life cycle. Therefore, the container closure integrity (CCI) should, preferably, be built into the overall process, and not just demonstrated during the final testing of the combination product. The integrity is an important Critical Quality Attribute (CQA) and in the scope of specific considerations and studies during the combination product life cycle i.e., design robustness, assembly processes, storage (to end of shelf life), and shipping prior to patient use. The goal of this paper is to summarize an industry holistic approach to ensure CCI, for a combination product, and to build a scientifically based justification that Quality (in terms of CCI) is built into the overall process. Current analytical approaches used for characterization or Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) CCI testing during combination product development will be described. However, the use of quality by design (QbD) during product development can reduce or eliminate routine batch level or stability testing of the combination product.

Developing a flowchart to evaluate the use of Closed System Drug-Transfer Devices with monoclonal antibodies: Focus on the clinical trial setting

OBJECTIVE

Available guidelines are ambiguous about safe handling monoclonal antibodies (MABs) and whether or not to use a Closed System Drug-Transfer Device (CSTD). In this article we want to describe a standardized working method on handling MABs in a clinical trial setting.

DATA SOURCES

The current workflow at the clinical trial unit of the Ghent University Hospital was critically analyzed, after which an extensive literature review was performed using the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Working Group guidelines and the database PubMed (Keywords: monoclonal antibodies, closed system transfer devices, safety guidelines, safe handling, management, administration, (bio)compatibility, volume loss, contamination, clinical trial unit. Period: 2020-2022).

DATA SUMMARY

Literature data are ambiguous. CSTDs can reduce cross-contamination and minimize exposure to potential hazardous drugs for healthcare professionals. However, in recent years more questions have been raised about their in-use compatibility and their impact on final product quality. This makes the debate on implementing CSTDs a hot topic in daily pharmacy practice and demands a holistic and standardized approach when deciding whether or not to use a CSTD when handling MABs. In a clinical trial setting, where safety data are frequently not available and the compatibility of CSTDs and investigational product is often unknown, this poses additional challenges that need to be taken into account.

CONCLUSION

We developed a flowchart which standardizes the use of a CSTD when handling MABs. It allows other healthcare professionals and clinical trial sponsors to define and evaluate the necessary criteria when standardizing the position of a CSTD in their safe handling procedures.

A Practical Tool for Risk-Based In-use Compatibility Assessments

In drug development, in-use compatibility studies are crucial steps to ensure that the critical quality attributes of the drug product are maintained when in contact with administration components. But once the drug is in clinical trials, unanticipated variations in these components can stretch limited resources and lengthen timelines to market, as these changes must be assessed and approved to ensure continued patient safety. It's desirable to use a science-based risk evaluation to determine the extent of data and testing needed in these situations, but there is no standard for how such evaluations are done. We have developed an Excel™-based semi-quantitative risk assessment tool to determine whether in-use testing is needed when drug delivery sites or components are changed during a clinical trial. We developed the tool based on our multi-company experience with compatibility studies for many types of drug products targeted for various geographic regions. We have employed the tool as a means to expedite decision-making and, if appropriate, reduce testing in low-risk situations. The tool can save significant time and effort (our estimate is approximately at least 6-9 months off the development cycle) and can minimize pitfalls in clinical administration. While we have designed the tool for our drug products and for use with parenteral dosing regimens, the tool can be adapted for other situations as needed. It will be especially useful for companies with more limited resources.

Examination of the Protein Drug Supply Chain in a Swedish University Hospital: Focus on Handling Risks and Mitigation Measures

Protein drugs, such as monoclonal antibodies, have proved successful in treating cancer and immune system diseases. The structural complexity of these molecules requires careful handling to ensure integrity and stability of the drug. In this study, a failure mode and effects analysis was performed based on a Gemba Walk method in a Swedish University Hospital. The Gemba Walk is focused on pharmacists observing the actual supply process steps from distributor, pharmacy cleanroom to patient administration. Relevant protein drugs are chosen based on sales statistics within the hospital and the corresponding wards were observed. Further is the Double Diamond design method used to identify major risks and deliver mitigation strategies. The study identified potential stress factors such as temperature, shock by impact, shaking, vibration and light exposure. There were also risks associated with porters' and healthcare professionals' lack of awareness and access to information. These risk factors may cause loss of efficacy and quality of the protein drug, potentially leading to patient safety concerns. In this study, a simulation is also performed to list measures that theoretically should be in place to ensure the quality of the protein drug, for example validated and protocol-based compounding in cleanroom, training and validated transports.

Current Industry Best Practice on in-use Stability and Compatibility Studies for Biological Products

Evaluating the in-use stability of a biological product including its compatibility with administration components allows to define handling instructions and potential hold times that retain product quality during dose preparation and administration. The intended drug product usage may involve the dilution of drug formulation into admixtures for infusion and exposure to new interfaces of administration components like intravenous (iv) bags, syringes, and tubing. In-use studies assess the potential impact on product quality by simulating drug handling throughout the defined in-use period. Considering the wide range of in-use conditions and administration components available globally, only limited guidance is available from regulators on expected in-use stability data. A working group reviewed and consolidated industry approaches to assess physicochemical stability of traditional protein-based biological products during clinical development and for commercial use. The insights compiled in this review article can be leveraged across the industry and encompass topics such as representative drug product material and administration components, testing conditions, quality attributes evaluated and respective acceptance criteria, applied quality standards, and regulatory requirements. These practices may help companies in the study design, and they may inform discussions with global regulators.

Part I: Significant reduction of lyophilization process times by using novel matrix based scaffolds

To improve the long-term stability of drugs with limited stability (e.g., biologicals such as monoclonal antibodies, antibody drug conjugates or peptides), some pharmaceuticals endure a lengthy and cost-intensive process called lyophilization. While the shelf life of lyophilized drugs may be prolonged compared to their liquid form, the drawbacks come in the form of intensified manufacturing, preparation, and dosing efforts. The use of glass vials as the primary container unit for lyophilized products hinders their complication-free, fast and flexible use, as they require a skilled healthcare professional and an aseptic environment in which to prepare them. The feasibility of substituting glass vials with novel container designs offering the complete transfer of the lyophilizate cake into modern administration devices, while reducing the economic footprint of the lyophilization process, was investigated. The lyophilization process of a monoclonal antibody solution was studied by assessing primary drying conditions, homogeneity of the drying process, and critical quality attributes after successful lyophilization. The creation of novel container designs utilized vacuum-forming to generate confined containers with removable bottoms and rapid prototyping, including subtractive and additive manufacturing methods, to generate porous 3D structures for drug housing. The novel container designs generated lyophilizates twice as fast and achieved a threefold faster reconstitution compared to their vial counterparts, without adaptation of the processing conditions. We conclude that the use of intermediate process containers offers significant relief for healthcare professionals in terms of reduced probability of handling errors, while drug manufacturers benefit from the accelerated processing times, increased batch homogeneity, and sustainability.

A review of medical devices used for safe chemotherapy applications: Focus on ONCOERA® IV GROUP products

OBJECTIVE

The healthcare workers and the workers in the manufacturing industry of chemotherapy drugs are exposed to the "hazardous" effects of these drugs during production, transportation, distribution, administration, and disposal. In order to be protected from these harmful effects, personal protective equipment and medical devices providing safe applications are used. The aim of the present article is to review of medical devices used for safe chemotherapy applications in line with the information obtained from the literature.

DATA SOURCES

The international and national reliable sources, were used in the literature review for data analysis by using the keywords including chemotherapy, chemotherapy drugs, antineoplastic drugs, cytotoxic drugs, hazardous drugs, exposure to chemotherapy drugs, side effects of chemotherapy drugs, closed-system drug transfer devices, healthcare staff, needle-free devices, needle-free connectors, surface contamination, and phthalates.

DATA SUMMARY

In order to minimize cytotoxic drug exposure, international standards were developed in the mid-1980s stating that all cytotoxic drugs should be prepared preferably in a ventilated biological safety cabinet, nurses dealing with the use of these drugs should use appropriate personal protective equipment, and in case of cytotoxic drug spillage, predefined cleaning and decontamination protocols should be followed. Although the risk of acute and long-term toxic effects in healthcare workers has decreased in recent years with these applications in the preparation and administration of cancer drugs, measurable contamination occurs in the workplace. A large number of medical devices have been developed for minimizing this type of contamination with chemotherapy drugs. In this article, these medical devices have been reviewed in detail under subtitles of closed system transfer devices, needle-free devices, and valve technology.

CONCLUSIONS

Until the results of the evaluations to be made in new studies prove the opposite, the use of these devices with additional protection measures taken, especially during the application of dangerous drugs, is of great importance in terms of patient and employee safety.

A Systematic Approach to Evaluating Closed System Drug-Transfer Devices during Drug Product Development

The use of Closed System Drug-Transfer Devices (CSTDs) has increased significantly in recent years due to NIOSH and USP recommendations to use them during preparation of hazardous drugs. Mechanistic and material differences between CSTDs and traditional in-use components warrant an assessment of their impact on product quality and dosing accuracy. Using a combination of prevalent CSTDs with biologic molecules, we performed an extensive assessment of the effect of using CSTDs for dose preparation and observed no negative impact on product quality attributes. Additionally, we found that the CSTD hold-up volume is 2 to 4-fold higher than conventional in-use components and exhibited a strong dependence on the CSTD brand used. We also found that the CSTD brand and dosing volume have a major influence on dosing accuracy with suboptimal protein recovery at very low dosing volumes. We identified entrapment of product in the CSTD spike as the root cause for this sub-optimal recovery and found that flushing the CSTD spike with a brand-new syringe and not the dosing syringe aided in complete protein recovery. Taken together we present a systematic approach to evaluate the risks and impact of CSTD to drug product quality, dose preparation, and dosing accuracy.

Closed-system transfer device use with oncology biologics: A survey of Canadian healthcare practitioners

Introduction

Closed-system transfer devices (CSTDs) were introduced into clinical practice to protect healthcare practitioners (HCPs) from exposure to hazardous drugs. However, ambiguous guidelines have led to confusion as to when CSTD use is required, as institutes are instructed to maintain their own hazardous drug lists and determine the appropriate level of personal protective equipment for their staff. This study seeks to understand the current use of CSTDs by Canadian oncology HCPs, the influence of various stakeholders on their use and the challenges faced by HCPs surrounding the use of these medical devices.

Methods

The researchers compiled a set of questions to inform on the current use of CSTDs in clinical practice and administered an online survey to oncology HCPs across Canada.

Results

The results indicate that though CSTD use is common in Canadian oncology practice settings, there is variation in the extent of the use of these devices across provinces and with which products these devices are used. The survey results also show that the top challenges with the use of CSTDs include cost, lack of information on the compatibility of a CSTD with a drug product, and CSTD impact on drug quality. Many respondents are aligned that regulatory bodies are more likely to influence the use of CSTDs with specific drug products than drug manufacturers.

Conclusion

Guidelines for the application of CSTDs in clinical practice vary and are often ambiguous. Regulatory bodies are uniquely positioned to provide healthcare institutions with more clarity on when CSTD use is appropriate.

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.