When weighing the operational and product constraints — batch size, container throughput, cost per unit, equipment utilization, facility footprint, cost per square foot, etc. — it is important to consider all of the options available to provide the most effective processing approach for the product manufacturer and, importantly, the best quality product for patients.
Since last year's feature article celebrating Samsung Bioepis' fifth anniversary, the company has seen a number of approvals and launches and has established a novel biologics development partnership. As such, I jumped on the opportunity to learn more about the company's ongoing efforts to realize a lower COGS, speed production, and manage risk in biosimilar and biologics development.
Biopharma executives have warned they need more biologics development and manufacturing capacities, particularly in North America. They haven’t been howling at the moon. Four announcements – within two days of each other – offer a sign of relief. And Amgen has provided Outsourced Pharma with its first public estimate of costs for one of those facilities.
There has not been much discussion about how biosimilars contribute to or will impact innovation — outside of helping the healthcare system afford costly novel therapies. I found my interest in this question sparked upon reading a recent headline, "Biosimilars: The Cure for Sky-High Drug Prices Or A Stake In The Heart Of Innovation?"
Last week, I published the first installment of a three-part roundtable discussion highlighting which 2017 trends/occurrences were most notable to the members of Biosimilar Development’s editorial advisory board. In addition to discussing 2017’s impact on the future of the industry, these experts also shared their thoughts on what to expect in 2018.
These top five events reflect the steps the numerous industry stakeholders are taking to build what they hope will be a biosimilar friendly framework in the U.S. Though a number of these developments could bring positive implications for the biosimilar industry moving forward, several of these have raised a number of questions and concerns.
When weighing the operational and product constraints — batch size, container throughput, cost per unit, equipment utilization, facility footprint, cost per square foot, etc. — it is important to consider all of the options available to provide the most effective processing approach for the product manufacturer and, importantly, the best quality product for patients.
Cell and gene therapies are finally becoming a reality, with hundreds of clinical trials underway and some major therapeutic breakthroughs already reaching the market. In the past year alone, the FDA approved its first gene therapy, Spark’s Luxturna for the treatment of a rare form of vision loss, as well as the first two CAR T-cell therapies, Novartis’s Kymriah and Gilead’s Yescarta, for certain forms of blood cancer. While this certainly marks the beginning of an exciting period in the development of cell and gene therapies — the culmination of decades of development — the future impact of cell and gene therapies is uncertain.
When looking at most job descriptions in GMP companies, they now require a college degree. This leads to the question: Are we overvaluing educational degrees and undervaluing experience in our hiring practices and position expectations?
The FDA recently issued six draft guidance documents intended to serve as part of a modern, comprehensive framework for how CBER will help advance the field of gene therapy. This is the final article in a six-part series summarizing each of the draft guidance documents. It will discuss the guidance Human Gene Therapy for Hemophilia.
Proposals for the use of visual inspection (VI) as an analytical method for cleaning validation have been rising for several years now.1 This article discusses regulatory views on the use of VI as a sole criterion in cleaning validation, presents a case study on how inspectors can be qualified for VI, recommends the use of statistical techniques, and suggests how VI could be implemented as part of a control strategy in a cleaning validation program based on the level of risk.
A discussion on the risks related to bioburden downstream processing and ways to mitigate them. Topics covered include improvements in raw material, equipment design, and chromatography resin properties.
Experts share some key considerations to help biopharmaceutical companies successfully advance a molecule from the laboratory to the clinic as quickly as possible without sacrificing product quality, process efficiency, or patient safety.
With few potential blockbuster drugs in the pharma pipeline right now, drug companies are increasingly looking at other options to meet the needs of patients and increase revenue in the oral solid dosage arena.
The adoption of disposable bioprocessing equipment has already been widespread for small-scale applications at the development and clinical manufacturing stages.
In the recent Economist Intelligence Unit survey on biopharma’s present and future, biopharma industry leaders expressed excitement and some uncertainty about the emerging markets of the Middle East and Africa. Respondents saw great opportunity in these regions, but also cited potential risks in relation to regulatory questions and stability issues. We spoke with Bert de Vet, Head of Commercial EMEA Process Solutions at MilliporeSigma, about his take on growth in the region and some of the ways companies entering these regions can mitigate risk.
Fragment antigen binding domains, or F(ab) fragments, are derived from the upper branches of the ‘Y’-shaped antibody molecule. They form the antigen binding interfaces of intact antibodies.
QbD starts with an understanding of the quality target product profile. This allows potential critical quality attributes (CQAs) to be established and a risk assessment performed.
