We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.
Many companies knowingly use inefficient spray-dried formulations to quickly enter Phase 1 trials, deferring major manufacturing and volumetric challenges until later development stages. This "good enough for now" approach often necessitates a complete, costly reformulation later on.
A Complete Response Letter (CRL) from the FDA due to manufacturing issues can destroy a biotech. CEO Ron Cooper warns leaders to invest heavily in Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls (CMC) early, even when the cost exceeds the clinical trial spend. This early investment in professionalizing CMC is critical to de-risk the company's future.
Failing to conduct comprehensive screening for strain selection and media development at the project's start creates issues that become significantly more difficult and expensive to resolve later. Small, early-stage problems can derail downstream processing and scale-up efforts entirely.
Spray drying requires post-processing like secondary drying and roller compaction. These steps necessitate adding external excipients, leading to two distinct dilution phases that increase final tablet size and patient pill burden, a frequently overlooked drawback compared to denser technologies.
For early-stage biotech companies, saving money by limiting initial drug substance characterization is a false economy. A comprehensive, state-of-the-art characterization before Phase 1 is essential to de-risk the program by identifying molecular issues before they become catastrophic problems in late-stage development.
Pharma teams often fear changing formulations late in development due to perceived regulatory hurdles. However, the path, which involves a relative bioavailability study to bridge the old and new formulations, is a well-established and manageable process if key safety and efficacy metrics are maintained.
Instead of immediately scaling up the manufacturing process between clinical Phase 1 and 2, it is strategically better to produce more batches using the established Phase 1 process. This approach builds critical knowledge about process parameters and CQAs through repetition and increased clinical exposure.
To ensure a smooth transition from development to production, an operations or manufacturing SME must be part of the design process from the start. Otherwise, products are developed without manufacturability in mind, leading to expensive, reactive fixes and subjective quality control during scale-up.
Early CMC decisions for Phase 1 clinical supply are foundational. Certain errors made at this stage, such as failing to prove cell bank clonality, are irreversible and can jeopardize the entire development program, similar to a faulty foundation in a house.
A 'healthy tension' exists between research teams, who want to continually iterate on a therapy's design, and manufacturing teams, who need a finalized process to scale production for trials. Knowing precisely when to 'lock down' the design is a critical, yet difficult, decision point for successful commercialization.
Resolution Therapeutics' CEO warns that manufacturing process changes cannot wait for pivotal trials in cell therapy. The drug product used in a Phase 1/2 study must be highly comparable to the final commercial version to avoid extremely costly delays and extensive comparability studies later in development.