Applying the Quality by Design to Robust Optimization and Design Space Define for Erythropoietin Cell Culture Process

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study is aimed to identify the process characterization of the cell culture of the biopharmaceutical erythropoietin alpha. In biopharmaceutical manufacturing, ensuring safety and efficacy should always be target qualities. The ?quality by design? initiative provides guidance on pharmaceutical development to facilitate design of products and processes that maximizes the product?s efficacy and safety profile while enhancing product manufacturability. Fundamental to this approach is an understanding of the relationship between the quality attributes of the product and their impact on safety and efficacy. The DoE approach focuses on quality-by-design (QbD). To implement QbD, we report on a case regarding the production of erythropoietin alpha using cultured Chinese hamster ovary cells. Changes in the four critical process parameters (CPPs) of RPM, pH, dissolved oxygen, and temperature were evaluated. To evaluate the DoE, the three CQAs of Z-value (N-glycan score), host cell protein content, and erythropoietin alpha concentration (titer) were monitored and analyzed. Multivariate regression analysis between CPPs and CQAs were used to identify the design space needed to satisfy the targeted CQAs. We used QbD techniques and found optimal conditions for the cell culture process of erythropoietin alpha. Monte Carlo simulation was used under the optimized conditions and the set points were verified. As a result, it was confirmed that the optimal operational range was RPM 191.1?209.0, bioreactor temperature 32?34 °C, pH 7.0?7.2, and dissolved oxygen 24.9?35.1. This scientific understanding facilitates establishment of an expanded design space. In these situations, opportunities exist to develop more flexible regulatory approaches.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 P. Hermentin, 6 : 217-, 1996

2 R. Puskeiler, 5 : 4-, 2011

3 J. Fogle, 1225 : 70-, 2012

4 J. Canping, 107 : 985-, 2010

5 E. Ratcliffe, 8 : 39-, 2013

6 H. Nagashima, 102 : 4274-, 2013

7 I. Papantoniou, 19 : 596-, 2012

8 C. J. Potter, 4 : 4-, 2009

9 Y. Chen, 17 : 1211-, 2011

10 S. F. Abu-Absi, 106 : 894-, 2010

11 M. Looby, 27 : 1718-, 2011

12 B. Horvath, 45 : 203-, 2010

13 A. Eon-Duval, 101 : 3604-, 2012

14 Y. Rouiller, 81 : 426-, 2012

15 R. Legmann, 104 : 1107-, 2009

16 Mire-Sluis, A., "Quality by design: The next phase" 2009

17 Kozlowski, S., "QbD for biologics" 2012

18 Food and Drug Administration, "Pharmaceutical CGMPs for the 21s Century - A Risk-Based Approach"

19 ICH Expert Working Group, "ICH Quality Risk Management Q9. ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline"

20 ICH, "ICH Q8(R2) Pharmaceutical Development"

21 "ICH Q11. ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline Deveopment and Manufacture of Drug Substances Q11"

22 Pogány, J., "ICH Pharmaceutical Quality System Q10"

23 Calcott, P. H., "How QbD and the FDA process validation guidance affect product development and operations, part2" 2011

24 The CMC Biotech Working Group, "Casss, 2"