Wednesday, January 9, 2013

BVDV in commercial bovine serum...still?

by Dr. Ray Nims

One of the animal-derived materials (ADM) most commonly utilized for cell culture and for production of biologicals manufactured using cell cultures is bovine serum (most typically calf serum or fetal bovine serum). There is an inherent risk of introduction of adventitious contaminants (viruses and molllicutes) associated with the use of culture media containing serum. In fact, most of the viral contaminants that have been isolated from biologics bulk harvests (including REO type 2, Cache Valley virus, epizootic hemorrhagic disease virus, and vesivirus 2117) are believed to have been introduced via contaminated bovine serum. Another potential contaminant that may be introduced via bovine serum is the pestivirus bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV).
BVDV is a medium-sized (40-70 nm), enveloped, single-stranded RNA virus of the Flavivirus family. The regulatory requirements pertaining to the use of bovine materials for manufacturing biologics (9CFR113.47) contain specific instructions related to the detection of BVDV contamination. EMEA regulations require not only the testing of bovine sera for infectious BVDV, but also assessment of the presence of antibodies to BVDV. Neutralizing antibodies for BVDV are of concern since their presence could theoretically interfere with the detection of the virus in testing done for release of the serum. Although testing of bovine serum to be used for manufacturing biologicals is a regulatory expectation, experience has indicated that such testing is fraught with  false negative results. The relatively large volumes of serum that comprise a given batch are obtained by pooling large numbers of individal serum draws, and there is a chance of non-homogeneous contamination from a limited number of BVDV-infected draws.
How frequently has infectious BVDV been detected in commercially available bovine serum? What percentage of serum lots has been found to contain neutralizing antibodies to BVDV? Has BVDV genomic RNA invariably been found in bovine serum when tested by RT-PCR? These questions have been addressed by various authors over the past four decades.

Infectious BVDV continues to be detected in fetal bovine serum samples up to the present time. This reflects the fact that BVDV is distributed in cattle worldwide, subclinical infections with non-cytopathic BVDV are common in herds, and large serum pools are likely to be non-homogeneously contaminated with BVDV-infected serum. Over the past four decades, 667 lots of commercial fetal bovine serum have been examined for the presence of infectious BVDV in studies reported in the literature. Positive results have been reported for 29% of the lots examined, although the variability in frequency of detection has been quite large, as indicated by the range in the values that have been obtained in the various studies. The percentage of isolates comprising non-cytopathic BVDV has ranged from 98-100%, reflecting the continuing predominance of this variant over the cytopathic strains in cattle herds.
The frequency of detection of neutralizing anti-BVDV antibodies has ranged from 61% to 98% of fetal bovine serum lots. The overall number of commercial fetal bovine serum lots that have been evaluated for neutralizing antibodies to BVDV is 182, with antibodies being detected in 70% of these lots. 
Genomic RNA for BVDV has been detected in 79% of the 155 commercial fetal bovine serum lots that have been evaluated since 1996, when the RT-PCR methodology was initially applied to this question.

The risk of introducing infectious BVDV through contaminated FBS may be mitigated through gamma-irradiation of the FBS. BVDV is relatively sensitive to inactivation by this treatment. It is therefore unusual to detect infectious BVDV in gamma-irradiated serum, though in one case in the literature, a single lot of irradiated serum out of 9 lots tested contained infectious BVDV. This inactivation strategy used to mitigate risk of introducing infectious BVDV is not expected to reduce the frequency of detecting neturalizing anti-BVDV antibodies or genomic RNA for BVDV in the treated serum lots.

See Nims and Plavsic. The Pervasiveness of bovine viral diarrhea virus in commercial bovine serum.  BioProcessing Journal Winter 2012 /2013, 19-26 for the individual study results used to prepare the table shown above.
 

Monday, December 10, 2012

The Cost of Pharmaceutical Facilities



By Dr. Scott Rudge

How many of you are trying to scratch up the coin to give your kids a pharmaceutical facility this Christmas?  Yeah, me neither.  But I had a recent project that required me to come up with an estimate for facility costs, if only to calculate the cost of ownership for a Contract Manufacturing Organization.  This can be an important aspect of the cost of goods, as someone has to pay for the construction, operation and maintenance of a pharmaceutical plant. 

As you might expect, this cost is highly dependent on the type of facility that gets constructed, its purpose, what it was before, and a host of other factors.  Each project is undoubtedly unique but some value can be derived by knowing the range of costs, and some factors that can affect your cost.

For data, I used the Facility of the Year winners in all categories since 2007, when the ISPE/Interphex started to publish this data.  Again, the facilities evaluated in this “category” of facilities are highly divergent in scope and purpose.  Furthermore, to be a winner, it is not necessary to have the most highly finished, modern facility.  There are a few categories, such as Sustainability, Project Integration and Technology that do not focus on the facility itself, but on other aspects that make the project unique.  Here then, is the raw data:



Company
 Cost
 Sq. ft.
 cost/s.f.
purpose
location
Year
Chiesi
 $   117,480,000
236,806
 $ 496.10
R&D Center
Italy
2012
Eisai
 $    41,000,000
2,180,189
 $ 18.81
small molecules
India
2012
Merck
 $   315,000,000
214,000
 $ 1,471.96
vaccines
USA
2012
Rentschler
 $     9,900,000
9,800
 $ 1,010.20
biologics api
Germany
2012
Roche
 $   209,871,400
161,458
 $ 1,299.85
R&D labs
Germany
2012
Irish Government
 $    46,400,000
69,965
 $ 663.19
biologics api
Ireland
2012
MedImmune
 $   588,389,000
337,000
 $ 1,745.96
biologics api
USA
2011
Merck
 $   216,000,000
240,666
 $ 897.51
small molecules
USA
2011
Novartis
 $   242,000,000
257,042
 $ 941.48
vaccines
Germany
2011
Pfizer
 $    42,300,000
173,837
 $ 243.33
small molecules
Germany
2011
Pfizer
 $   188,700,000
54,465
 $ 3,464.61
biologics api
Sweden
2011
Hoffman LaRoche
 $    11,891,102
3,444
 $ 3,452.70
fill/finish
Switzerland
2011
Shire
 $   230,000,000
200,000
 $ 1,150.00
biologics api
USA
2011
Biogen Idec
 $    39,100,000
50,000
 $ 782.00
biologics api
USA
2010
Genentech
 $   194,000,000
102,000
 $ 1,901.96
biologics api
Singapore
2010
MannKind
 $   163,100,000
251,876
 $ 647.54
inhalers
USA
2010
Pfizer
 $   189,613,542
133,000
 $ 1,425.67
biologics api
Ireland
2010
Pfizer
 $   254,674,792
177,066
 $ 1,438.30
fill/finish
Ireland
2010
Aseptic Technologies
 $     4,980,000
12,917
 $ 385.54
fill/finish
Belgium
2009
Centocor
 $   586,000,000
264,000
 $ 2,219.70
biologics api
Ireland
2009
Centocor
 $    24,900,000
7,219
 $ 3,449.23
fill/finish
Switzerland
2009
hameln
 $    44,500,000
99,028
 $ 449.37
fill/finish
Germany
2009
Orchid
 $    35,720,000
107,642
 $ 331.84
small molecules
India
2009
Roche
 $   370,000,000
209,896
 $ 1,762.78
biologics api
Switzerland
2009
GSK
 $     6,300,000
150,695
 $ 41.81
fill/finish
Italy
2009
Pfizer
 $    55,000,000
83,958
 $ 655.09
solids
Germany
2008
BI
 $    64,700,000
95,357
 $ 678.50
R&D labs
Germany
2008
BMS
 $    90,687,000
132,410
 $ 684.90
solids
USA
2008
IDT Biologika
 $    37,470,000
50,568
 $ 740.98
vaccines
Germany
2008
Hoffman LaRoche
 $   460,000,000
355,209
 $ 1,295.01
biologics api
Germany
2008
Cook
 $    70,000,000
124,000
 $ 564.52
biologics api
USA
2007
Genentech
 $   375,000,000
500,000
 $ 750.00
biologics api
USA
2007
Roche
 $    16,640,000
22,604
 $ 736.15
small molecules
China
2007
Taiyo
 $    38,580,000
126,411
 $ 305.19
fill/finish
Japan
2007
Vetter
 $   134,000,000
172,223
 $ 778.06
fill/finish
Germany
2007

What can we make of this data?  The statistics aren’t incredibly helpful for total cost.  The range of costs are approximately $5MM to $500MM, the median is just under $91MM.  The distribution of data is heavily skewed to the lower budget, as shown below:

 The cost per square foot is a little more normally distributed, with a few outliers above $3000/s.f., but most around the mean of $1111/s.f., as shown below:

Is there inflation in the data, represented by an increasing cost per square foot year over year?  The statistics show an average increase of just over $100/s.f., which would be an inflation rate of 9% against the mean cost.  However, the statistical evidence is very weak and heavily influenced by the two facilities that cost more than $3000/s.f.  The regression is shown below:

Finally, although the country data are interesting, there does not appear to be a great correlation between these data and the location of the facility.  While India does have the absolutely cheapest cost/s.f. for a facility, the next three cheapest are Germany, Italy and Japan.  The only country that sticks out is Switzerland, for its extremely high cost.

The data don’t give a lot of hope for predicting the cost of your facility, they are heavily project dependent.  However, they do suggest a range of costs and budgets that might influence your thinking and cost of goods calculations, at least as a first estimate.