Got animal-derived materials? Part 2

By Ray Nims

As part of a formal animal-derived materials program, biopharma companies must assess the viral and TSE risk associated with materials derived from animals or which have been in contact with animal-derived materials at some point. We have addressed the viral risk within a previous blog installment. Now let’s consider the TSE risk.

TSEs (transmissible spongiform encephalopathies) are fatal diseases believed to result from exposure of a few animal species (including various ruminants, cervids, ungulates, cats, minks, and humans) to “infectious” prion proteins. The infectious proteins (PrP^Sc) are capable of interacting with and altering the normal prion proteins (PrP^c) within the brain and spinal cord, changing the normal proteins to the abnormal form. Since humans have contracted prion disease as a result of consuming tissues from cattle with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease), there is concern about the use of bovine materials and materials from other “relevant species” in the manufacture of biopharmaceuticals.

The EMEA has provided a guidance document (EMEA/410/01 Rev. 2 October 2003; http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/bwp/TSE%20NFG%20410-rev2.pdf) describing the requirements for the use of animal-derived materials from relevant animal species (cattle, sheep, goats, and other animals which are naturally susceptible to TSEs but not including humans or non-human primates) in the manufacture of medicinal or veterinary products. The guidance applies to active substances, excipients and adjuvants, raw and starting materials and reagents, and materials which come into contact with products or equipment used to make product. The major point of the guidance is that TSE risk can be minimized, but in many cases not entirely eliminated. Where TSE risk cannot be avoided through elimination of animal-derived materials completely, the guidance provides principles for the minimization of TSE risk which include: the use of low-risk (non-relevant) animal species, the geographical sourcing of relevant species from low-risk regions, the use of low-risk tissues, the use of appropriate slaughter techniques to reduce potential for contamination of low-risk tissues with high-risk tissues, the appropriate oversight of manufacture of the animal products through Quality Assurance and self and external auditing and Quality Control testing, and the implementation of process designs to remove or inactivate the abnormal prion proteins.

Biopharma companies using animal-derived materials are instructed to perform risk assessments on those materials, which take into account the factors described above. The risk assessments must be completed as part of a formalized animal-derived materials program, documented procedurally and executed by staff that are experienced and trained to conduct such assessments. EMEA inspectors will expect to see this formal program in place. Risk assessments for individual raw materials may then be rolled up into a risk assessment for the biopharma product. The rolled up risk assessment may also consider manufacturing steps at the biopharma which may remove or inactivate the abnormal prion proteins, though these, if cited, may need to be validated. Finally, it is expected that companies will conduct a benefit/risk evaluation to assure that any benefits realized by the patient taking the product will outweigh and justify the risk associated with the use of materials derived from relevant animal species.

Got Animal Derived Materials?

By Ray Nims

Most biopharma manufacturing processes utilize a few raw materials (including cell substrates, excipients, materials which come into contact with the product, etc.) derived from animals or which have been in contact with animal-derived materials at some point. As part of a formal animal-derived materials program, the biopharma must assess the viral and TSE risk associated with such materials. Let’s consider the viral risk first. From a viral safety standpoint, it is important for each biopharma to consider such ingredients and to be aware of the inherent risk of transmitting virus into the product via the materials. Why? As Genzyme discovered in the spring of 2009 (http://www.genzyme.com/corp/media/GENZ%20PR-061609.asp), viruses can infect the upstream manufacturing processes with results devastating to both the biopharma and to the patients its products are intended to treat. Viral risk mitigation, and regulatory guidance (e.g., EP Chapter 5.1.7: Viral Safety), require that viral risk assessments be performed for animal-derived materials used to manufacture biologics. In this context, raw materials include also excipients, growth media, column packing resins, and cell substrates.


For each product, manufacturers should list the animal-derived materials utilized, and should perform a viral risk assessment for those materials. This assessment considers the animal species and tissue, the processes used to manufacture the raw material, the quality control testing performed on the raw material, and in some cases, the manufacturing process in which the raw material is to be used at the biopharma. Inspectors from the EMEA will not only expect the risk assessments to have been performed and documented, but will expect that the assessment process be formalized into a business practice or standard operating procedure. The staff performing the assessments should be qualified for this task and the assessment team should include staff knowledgeable in virology, viral inactivation and removal, and the manufacturing and purification processes employed for the specific product at the biopharma.

Viral risk assessments completed for individual raw materials may eventually be rolled up into a viral safety assessment for the product per EP Chapter 5.1.7. This product evaluation will also consider other factors, such as the patient profile and route of administration, the cell substrate, the types and pathogenicities of viral contaminants found in the cell substrate and the manufacturing process, the amount of bulk material required for a human dose, and the viral inactivation and removal capabilities of the manufacturing downstream processes.

Outsource it, and fuggedaboutit?

By Ray Nims

Much has been written about the rationales and advantages for outsourcing of manufacturing and/or testing services; about the selection of outsourcing partners; and about the optimization of the pharma/contractor relationship. In any pharma/contractor relationship, there are responsibilities associated with the pharma as well as contractor responsibilities. These include both business as well as compliance responsibilities. The business realities and regulatory expectations associated with the use, by a pharma company, of a contract testing organization must be considered when the decision is made to outsource. A contract testing organization desiring to provide services for a pharmaceutical must be aware of the expectations and responsibilities associated with such a partnership. The optimal and most defensible programs will be those in which the various practices to be described below are formalized within internal Quality Systems, policies, and/or standard operating procedures as well as Quality Agreements.


Responsibilities falling upon the pharmaceutical partner include: 1) the selection of the contract testing lab; 2) commissioning and providing test samples of raw materials and products for method verification (compendial methods) and method qualification (non-compendial methods); 3) instituting of a Quality Agreements, business agreement, and/or confidentiality agreement with the contractor; 4) scheduling and shipping of test samples in accordance with the requirements of the testing lab and the test system; 5) providing in-life guidance and oversight of investigations of unexpected and out of specification results; and 6) ongoing monitoring of the performance of the contract lab and its methods.

Responsibilities primarily falling upon the testing lab include: 1) attaining and maintaining GLP or GMP compliance as appropriate for the intended use of the method; 2) providing assurance that the methods offered will be available to the client over the long term; 3) responsiveness to the sponsoring pharma and adherence to the terms of the Quality and/or business agreements; 4) method validation, verification, and or qualification as appropriate for the intended use of the method; 5) control of reagent, raw material, control, and standard inventory and quality; 6) assuring secure and retrievable data archiving; and 7) retention of staff possessing the appropriate expertise for direction of operators and the methods.

Do You Use Risk Assessments in Auditing?

Audits are a critical component of quality systems, but are they guided by formal assessments of risk to your products? In this world of ICH Q9, can you offer even a semi-quantitative justification for your audit priorities? We have spoken to many people in the industry, and almost all mention a risk assessment being undertaken prior to an audit. But we have not found many people that formalize that risk assessment, or keep it updated from audit to audit. Even fewer communicate their scoring of risk to either their internal clients or the vendor that has been audited.

A new trend in auditing is to use a form of risk assessment both before and after the audit. A popular form is the Failure Modes and Effects Assessment, or FMEA (see, for example, http://www.sre.org/pubs/Mil-Std-1629A.pdf). In a traditional FMEA, risks of failure are identified in a detailed fashion, and scored in three categories related to the failure’s probability, detectability and severity. Scoring is done on a semi-quantitative or relative basis using an arbitrary scale such as 1-10. For an audit, you might use the same categories as they relate to a particular vendor's (or department's) ability to deliver a product or service, failure free. You could organize your FMEA according to the critical quality attributes of the product or service being delivered or according to a list of requirements from a guideline or the CFR's. Your FMEA should receive input from affected departments, and should be used for prioritization of audit items. You should have the FMEA in mind as you conduct your audit, and remember why various items received high prioritization. You may change ratings for probability or detectability based on what you observe. If instead, you confirm your evaluation, you should probe remediations that decrease your firm's primary concern. A remediation that addresses detectability, when the issue was probability, likely won’t mitigate the risk of failure.
When you return from your audit, rescore the FMEA with assessments based on your observations and data that you collected. Make sure that you share your analysis with the stakeholders. And monitor the performance of the vendor until the next audit; the data will help inform your next FMEA.

Do you already use FMEA's in audit preparation and reporting? Let us know your practices.

Why is Quality by Design so heavy with statistics?

Why is the literature on Quality by Design so laden with statistics and experimental design space jargon? After all, the definition of the term “design” doesn't seem to include the analysis of messy data leading to rough correlations with results that are valid only over a limited range. So what gives?

The idea behind QbD was to use mathematical, predictive models to predict process outcomes. This concept can be applied directly to simple unit operations, such as drying, distilling, heating and cooling. However, unlike in the petrochemical business, the thermodynamic properties of most active pharmaceutical ingredients are not known and are difficult to measure. The unit operations used to manufacture common biotechnology products, such as cell culture, chromatography and fermentation have been modeled, but the models are very sensitive to unknown or unmeasureable adjustable parameters. The batch nature of these operations also makes their control difficult, as classical control theory relies on the measurement of an output to make an adjustment to an input to correct the output back towards the design specification.

Since there does not appear to be a clear path to using models, an approach has been chosen that emphasizes getting as much phenomenological information from as few experiments as possible. This is the Design of Experiments approach, where input conditions or operating parameters are systematically varied over a range and the process outputs measured, with statistics used to deconvolute the results. The combined ranges tested become the “design space”, and the process performance outputs with the variations closest to the process failure limit become the critical performance parameters. The results are useful, but only within the design space, and only with the certainty that the statistics report. Also, since the results are phenomenological, the effect of scale is often unknown.

The statistical approach is acceptable, and for the immediate future it's probably the best that we can expect. But the focus on this approach seems to drown out the more pressing need for good process models and physical properties data. These are the elements that allowed the petrochemical and commodity chemicals industries to scale up processes with assurance that quality specifications would be met. There are countless models available for bioprocessing's more complicated unit operations, but they have parameters that we don't know and can't calculate from first principles. There is no question that we need to find ways to collect this data, and a commitment to publish or share it. There are also simpler unit operations that we can model, scale up and scale down with complete assurance. These include operations such as mixing and storing solutions, filtration, diafiltration, centrifugation and some reactions. We shouldn't let the more complicated operations that still require statistical DOE approaches prevent us from applying the true principles of QbD to our simpler unit operations.