Cargando…

Automation of cellular therapy product manufacturing: results of a split validation comparing CD34 selection of peripheral blood stem cell apheresis product with a semi-manual vs. an automatic procedure

BACKGROUND: Automation of cell therapy manufacturing promises higher productivity of cell factories, more economical use of highly-trained (and costly) manufacturing staff, facilitation of processes requiring manufacturing steps at inconvenient hours, improved consistency of processing steps and oth...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hümmer, Christiane, Poppe, Carolin, Bunos, Milica, Stock, Belinda, Wingenfeld, Eva, Huppert, Volker, Stuth, Juliane, Reck, Kristina, Essl, Mike, Seifried, Erhard, Bonig, Halvard
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4793541/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26983643
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12967-016-0826-8
_version_ 1782421400694292480
author Hümmer, Christiane
Poppe, Carolin
Bunos, Milica
Stock, Belinda
Wingenfeld, Eva
Huppert, Volker
Stuth, Juliane
Reck, Kristina
Essl, Mike
Seifried, Erhard
Bonig, Halvard
author_facet Hümmer, Christiane
Poppe, Carolin
Bunos, Milica
Stock, Belinda
Wingenfeld, Eva
Huppert, Volker
Stuth, Juliane
Reck, Kristina
Essl, Mike
Seifried, Erhard
Bonig, Halvard
author_sort Hümmer, Christiane
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Automation of cell therapy manufacturing promises higher productivity of cell factories, more economical use of highly-trained (and costly) manufacturing staff, facilitation of processes requiring manufacturing steps at inconvenient hours, improved consistency of processing steps and other benefits. One of the most broadly disseminated engineered cell therapy products is immunomagnetically selected CD34+ hematopoietic “stem” cells (HSCs). METHODS: As the clinical GMP-compliant automat CliniMACS Prodigy is being programmed to perform ever more complex sequential manufacturing steps, we developed a CD34+ selection module for comparison with the standard semi-automatic CD34 “normal scale” selection process on CliniMACS Plus, applicable for 600 × 10(6) target cells out of 60 × 10(9) total cells. Three split-validation processings with healthy donor G-CSF-mobilized apheresis products were performed; feasibility, time consumption and product quality were assessed. RESULTS: All processes proceeded uneventfully. Prodigy runs took about 1 h longer than CliniMACS Plus runs, albeit with markedly less hands-on operator time and therefore also suitable for less experienced operators. Recovery of target cells was the same for both technologies. Although impurities, specifically T- and B-cells, were 5 ± 1.6-fold and 4 ± 0.4-fold higher in the Prodigy products (p = ns and p = 0.013 for T and B cell depletion, respectively), T cell contents per kg of a virtual recipient receiving 4 × 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg was below 10 × 10(3)/kg even in the worst Prodigy product and thus more than fivefold below the specification of CD34+ selected mismatched-donor stem cell products. The products’ theoretical clinical usability is thus confirmed. CONCLUSIONS: This split validation exercise of a relatively short and simple process exemplifies the potential of automatic cell manufacturing. Automation will further gain in attractiveness when applied to more complex processes, requiring frequent interventions or handling at unfavourable working hours, such as re-targeting of T-cells.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4793541
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47935412016-03-16 Automation of cellular therapy product manufacturing: results of a split validation comparing CD34 selection of peripheral blood stem cell apheresis product with a semi-manual vs. an automatic procedure Hümmer, Christiane Poppe, Carolin Bunos, Milica Stock, Belinda Wingenfeld, Eva Huppert, Volker Stuth, Juliane Reck, Kristina Essl, Mike Seifried, Erhard Bonig, Halvard J Transl Med Research BACKGROUND: Automation of cell therapy manufacturing promises higher productivity of cell factories, more economical use of highly-trained (and costly) manufacturing staff, facilitation of processes requiring manufacturing steps at inconvenient hours, improved consistency of processing steps and other benefits. One of the most broadly disseminated engineered cell therapy products is immunomagnetically selected CD34+ hematopoietic “stem” cells (HSCs). METHODS: As the clinical GMP-compliant automat CliniMACS Prodigy is being programmed to perform ever more complex sequential manufacturing steps, we developed a CD34+ selection module for comparison with the standard semi-automatic CD34 “normal scale” selection process on CliniMACS Plus, applicable for 600 × 10(6) target cells out of 60 × 10(9) total cells. Three split-validation processings with healthy donor G-CSF-mobilized apheresis products were performed; feasibility, time consumption and product quality were assessed. RESULTS: All processes proceeded uneventfully. Prodigy runs took about 1 h longer than CliniMACS Plus runs, albeit with markedly less hands-on operator time and therefore also suitable for less experienced operators. Recovery of target cells was the same for both technologies. Although impurities, specifically T- and B-cells, were 5 ± 1.6-fold and 4 ± 0.4-fold higher in the Prodigy products (p = ns and p = 0.013 for T and B cell depletion, respectively), T cell contents per kg of a virtual recipient receiving 4 × 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg was below 10 × 10(3)/kg even in the worst Prodigy product and thus more than fivefold below the specification of CD34+ selected mismatched-donor stem cell products. The products’ theoretical clinical usability is thus confirmed. CONCLUSIONS: This split validation exercise of a relatively short and simple process exemplifies the potential of automatic cell manufacturing. Automation will further gain in attractiveness when applied to more complex processes, requiring frequent interventions or handling at unfavourable working hours, such as re-targeting of T-cells. BioMed Central 2016-03-16 /pmc/articles/PMC4793541/ /pubmed/26983643 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12967-016-0826-8 Text en © Hümmer et al. 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Hümmer, Christiane
Poppe, Carolin
Bunos, Milica
Stock, Belinda
Wingenfeld, Eva
Huppert, Volker
Stuth, Juliane
Reck, Kristina
Essl, Mike
Seifried, Erhard
Bonig, Halvard
Automation of cellular therapy product manufacturing: results of a split validation comparing CD34 selection of peripheral blood stem cell apheresis product with a semi-manual vs. an automatic procedure
title Automation of cellular therapy product manufacturing: results of a split validation comparing CD34 selection of peripheral blood stem cell apheresis product with a semi-manual vs. an automatic procedure
title_full Automation of cellular therapy product manufacturing: results of a split validation comparing CD34 selection of peripheral blood stem cell apheresis product with a semi-manual vs. an automatic procedure
title_fullStr Automation of cellular therapy product manufacturing: results of a split validation comparing CD34 selection of peripheral blood stem cell apheresis product with a semi-manual vs. an automatic procedure
title_full_unstemmed Automation of cellular therapy product manufacturing: results of a split validation comparing CD34 selection of peripheral blood stem cell apheresis product with a semi-manual vs. an automatic procedure
title_short Automation of cellular therapy product manufacturing: results of a split validation comparing CD34 selection of peripheral blood stem cell apheresis product with a semi-manual vs. an automatic procedure
title_sort automation of cellular therapy product manufacturing: results of a split validation comparing cd34 selection of peripheral blood stem cell apheresis product with a semi-manual vs. an automatic procedure
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4793541/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26983643
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12967-016-0826-8
work_keys_str_mv AT hummerchristiane automationofcellulartherapyproductmanufacturingresultsofasplitvalidationcomparingcd34selectionofperipheralbloodstemcellapheresisproductwithasemimanualvsanautomaticprocedure
AT poppecarolin automationofcellulartherapyproductmanufacturingresultsofasplitvalidationcomparingcd34selectionofperipheralbloodstemcellapheresisproductwithasemimanualvsanautomaticprocedure
AT bunosmilica automationofcellulartherapyproductmanufacturingresultsofasplitvalidationcomparingcd34selectionofperipheralbloodstemcellapheresisproductwithasemimanualvsanautomaticprocedure
AT stockbelinda automationofcellulartherapyproductmanufacturingresultsofasplitvalidationcomparingcd34selectionofperipheralbloodstemcellapheresisproductwithasemimanualvsanautomaticprocedure
AT wingenfeldeva automationofcellulartherapyproductmanufacturingresultsofasplitvalidationcomparingcd34selectionofperipheralbloodstemcellapheresisproductwithasemimanualvsanautomaticprocedure
AT huppertvolker automationofcellulartherapyproductmanufacturingresultsofasplitvalidationcomparingcd34selectionofperipheralbloodstemcellapheresisproductwithasemimanualvsanautomaticprocedure
AT stuthjuliane automationofcellulartherapyproductmanufacturingresultsofasplitvalidationcomparingcd34selectionofperipheralbloodstemcellapheresisproductwithasemimanualvsanautomaticprocedure
AT reckkristina automationofcellulartherapyproductmanufacturingresultsofasplitvalidationcomparingcd34selectionofperipheralbloodstemcellapheresisproductwithasemimanualvsanautomaticprocedure
AT esslmike automationofcellulartherapyproductmanufacturingresultsofasplitvalidationcomparingcd34selectionofperipheralbloodstemcellapheresisproductwithasemimanualvsanautomaticprocedure
AT seifriederhard automationofcellulartherapyproductmanufacturingresultsofasplitvalidationcomparingcd34selectionofperipheralbloodstemcellapheresisproductwithasemimanualvsanautomaticprocedure
AT bonighalvard automationofcellulartherapyproductmanufacturingresultsofasplitvalidationcomparingcd34selectionofperipheralbloodstemcellapheresisproductwithasemimanualvsanautomaticprocedure