We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.
A process that seems simple in a development lab is often not viable in a strict GMP manufacturing environment. To create truly manufacturable therapies, process development scientists need direct, hands-on exposure to GMP constraints and workflows to avoid significant rework and delays.
Scaling up a bioprocess from lab to production fundamentally alters physical properties like oxygen transfer (KLA). This change in physics, not necessarily a procedural mistake, is often the root cause of failure at scale, leading to different cell growth and product quality.
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.
The belief that bioprocess development must take a long time becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Professor Waranyoo Phoolcharoen argues that integrating manufacturing, scalability, and downstream constraints from day one can significantly shorten timelines, challenging the industry's traditional, sluggish mindset.
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.
The manufacturing process fundamentally alters a cell therapy's properties. This creates a conundrum: starting with expensive, fully-automated systems is often unfeasible for early trials, but switching to automation later is risky. The high burden of proving the new process yields an equivalent product can stall late-stage development.
A common error is screening strains or media in a simple batch mode when the final process will be fed-batch. This mismatch leads to incorrect candidate ranking and selection, forcing teams to restart the development process once the error becomes apparent during scale-up.
Unlike most biotechs that start with researchers, CRISPR prioritized hiring manufacturing and process development experts early. This 'backwards' approach was crucial for solving the challenge of scaling cell editing from lab to GMP, which they identified as a primary risk.
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.
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.