1
|
Vitharana S, Stillahn JM, Katayama DS, Henry CS, Manning MC. Application of Formulation Principles to Stability Issues Encountered During Processing, Manufacturing, and Storage of Drug Substance and Drug Product Protein Therapeutics. J Pharm Sci 2023; 112:2724-2751. [PMID: 37572779 DOI: 10.1016/j.xphs.2023.08.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/14/2022] [Revised: 07/24/2023] [Accepted: 08/07/2023] [Indexed: 08/14/2023]
Abstract
The field of formulation and stabilization of protein therapeutics has become rather extensive. However, most of the focus has been on stabilization of the final drug product. Yet, proteins experience stress and degradation through the manufacturing process, starting with fermentaition. This review describes how formulation principles can be applied to stabilize biopharmaceutical proteins during bioprocessing and manufacturing, considering each unit operation involved in prepration of the drug substance. In addition, the impact of the container on stabilty is discussed as well.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Joshua M Stillahn
- Legacy BioDesign LLC, Johnstown, CO 80534, USA; Department of Chemistry, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA
| | | | - Charles S Henry
- Department of Chemistry, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA
| | - Mark Cornell Manning
- Legacy BioDesign LLC, Johnstown, CO 80534, USA; Department of Chemistry, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Morales AM, Sreedhara A, Buecheler J, Brosig S, Chou D, Christian T, Das T, de Jong I, Fast J, Jagannathan B, Moussa EM, Nejadnik MR, Prajapati I, Radwick A, Rahman Y, Singh S. End-to-End Approach to Surfactant Selection, Risk Mitigation, and Control Strategies for Protein-Based Therapeutics. AAPS J 2022; 25:6. [PMID: 36471030 DOI: 10.1208/s12248-022-00773-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/01/2022] [Accepted: 10/31/2022] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Annette Medina Morales
- Dosage Form Design and Development, BioPharmaceuticals Development, R&D, AstraZeneca, 1 Medimmune Way, Gaithersburg, Maryland, 20878, USA.
| | - Alavattam Sreedhara
- Genentech, Pharmaceutical Development, South San Francisco, California, 94080, USA
| | - Jakob Buecheler
- Technical Research and Development, Novartis Pharma AG, 4002, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Sebastian Brosig
- Technical Research and Development, Novartis Pharma AG, 4002, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Danny Chou
- Compassion BioSolution, LLC, Lomita, California, 90717, USA
| | | | - Tapan Das
- Analytical Development and Attribute Sciences, Bristol Myers Squibb, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA
| | - Isabella de Jong
- Genentech, Pharmaceutical Development, South San Francisco, California, 94080, USA
| | - Jonas Fast
- Pharmaceutical Development, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, CH-4070, Basel, Switzerland
| | | | - Ehab M Moussa
- Drug Product Development, AbbVie, North Chicago, Illinios, 60064, USA
| | - M Reza Nejadnik
- Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences & Experimental Therapeutics, College of Pharmacy, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, 52242, USA
| | - Indira Prajapati
- Dosage Form Design and Development, BioPharmaceuticals Development, R&D, AstraZeneca, 1 Medimmune Way, Gaithersburg, Maryland, 20878, USA
| | | | - Yusra Rahman
- Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences & Experimental Therapeutics, College of Pharmacy, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, 52242, USA
| | - Shubhadra Singh
- GlaxoSmithKline R&D, Biopharmaceutical Product Sciences, Collegeville, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19426, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Das TK, Sreedhara A, Colandene JD, Chou DK, Filipe V, Grapentin C, Searles J, Christian TR, Narhi LO, Jiskoot W. Stress Factors in Protein Drug Product Manufacturing and Their Impact on Product Quality. J Pharm Sci 2021; 111:868-886. [PMID: 34563537 DOI: 10.1016/j.xphs.2021.09.030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/24/2021] [Revised: 09/21/2021] [Accepted: 09/21/2021] [Indexed: 01/22/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tapan K Das
- Bristol Myers Squibb, Biologics Development, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903, USA.
| | | | - James D Colandene
- GlaxoSmithKline, Biopharmaceutical Product Sciences, 1250 S Collegeville Road, Collegeville, PA 19425, USA
| | - Danny K Chou
- Compassion BioSolution, LLC, Lomita, CA 90717, USA
| | | | - Christoph Grapentin
- Lonza AG, Drug Product Services, Hochbergerstrasse 60G, 4057 Basel, Switzerland
| | - Jim Searles
- Pfizer Inc., Biotherapeutics Pharmaceutical Sciences Research and Development, 875 Chesterfield Pkwy W, Chesterfield, MO 63017 USA
| | | | | | - Wim Jiskoot
- Leiden University, Division of BioTherapeutics, Leiden Academic Centre for Drug Research, Leiden, the Netherlands; Coriolis Pharma, Martinsried, Germany
| |
Collapse
|