Validation Challenges Facing Advanced Single-Use Technologies

WEBVTT
00:00:17.359 --> 00:00:21.679
Hello and welcome back to Better Biopharma, the official podcast of Bioprocess Online.
00:00:21.760 --> 00:00:32.399
I'm your host, Tyler Minachello, and on this episode, we're going to be continuing our conversation from April's Bioprocess Online live event on closing the adoption gap for advanced single use technologies.
00:00:32.640 --> 00:00:38.560
Joining me are my three panelists from that event, Katrina Cordovado, the Director of Research at Bioplan Associates, Dr.
00:00:38.640 --> 00:00:48.560
Joshua Nelson, a senior material qualification specialist at Decata, and Paul Prieb, a consultant, single use expert, and member of the ASME, BPE, and the BPSA.
00:00:48.960 --> 00:00:53.679
Katrina, Josh, and Paul, thank you all so much for agreeing to come on the pod to continue our discussion.
00:00:54.399 --> 00:00:55.119
Thanks for having us.
00:00:55.920 --> 00:00:56.159
Thank you.
00:00:56.479 --> 00:00:57.200
Of course.
00:00:57.520 --> 00:00:57.920
Of course.
00:00:58.079 --> 00:01:00.079
I'm very, I'm very excited to continue doing this.
00:01:00.240 --> 00:01:10.159
And um, you know, most of the discussion when we were live a couple weeks ago was centered around defining advanced single use technologies and the impediments to their adoption.
00:01:10.319 --> 00:01:16.480
And we unfortunately didn't have enough time in that hour to really dive into the validation challenges facing single use.
00:01:16.799 --> 00:01:19.599
So I'm hoping that that's where we could start here and dig in.
00:01:19.680 --> 00:01:27.200
Um to our audience, if you're listening and you haven't already, go over to Bioprocess Online and listen to the full recording of our live event.
00:01:27.280 --> 00:01:33.519
Uh, there's also chapterized segments there that'll give you a good, a good level set for where we're going to pick up and continue today.
00:01:33.680 --> 00:01:35.760
Um, so we'll just jump right into it.
00:01:35.920 --> 00:01:37.439
Uh, Paul, we'll start with you here.
00:01:37.519 --> 00:01:47.439
I'm curious if you can, from your point of view, outline what you think the most consistent pain points are in validating new single-use technologies, and we'll we'll go around the the horn there.
00:01:47.920 --> 00:01:59.680
Well, I think um one of the tricks uh over the past 20 years, uh, which is made much easier today, is the whole extractables question question.
00:01:59.920 --> 00:02:17.280
Um, you know, it's here we are on May 5th, uh, 2026, recording this, and the uh USP 665 went uh became official on uh May 1st, so just a few days ago.
00:02:17.439 --> 00:02:34.719
And it's been uh I mean it's it's sort of a long journey that's more than 10 years to get to this point, but I think it's now pretty well accepted uh that this is the way to um to go with extractables.
00:02:35.039 --> 00:02:45.199
Um so while it's easier, it makes rationalizing what you should do and how you should report it and all of that.
00:02:45.360 --> 00:03:00.479
Um there's still a risk assessment which um sort of puts a little complexity to it, but at least really defending yourself if you're a supplier about what you did for extractables is is really a thing of the past.
00:03:01.439 --> 00:03:05.520
It doesn't make it um less expensive.
00:03:05.599 --> 00:03:09.120
Uh it's certainly a costly exercise for the suppliers.
00:03:09.280 --> 00:03:27.360
Um, and so they have to sort of choose the right moment in time in the maturation of their um uh their product offering, uh, whether they think they're gonna be iterating, you know, they would you shouldn't do all this um data generation with an early version of a product, right?
00:03:27.439 --> 00:03:38.960
You've got to uh sort of be in pursuit of GMP relevant applications before you spend that that uh that money.
00:03:39.199 --> 00:04:01.759
But you know, I think that that, you know, the shift has gone from defending how, why, when, and uh and with what solvents you did extractables to now deciding when the right time to do it is uh based on sort of you know the the maturity of of a product offering where it is in the product development lifecycle.
00:04:02.639 --> 00:04:04.400
So that's gotten easier.
00:04:05.039 --> 00:04:05.680
Good news.
00:04:05.840 --> 00:04:06.800
Thank you, Paul.
00:04:07.039 --> 00:04:07.919
Thank you, Josh.
00:04:08.080 --> 00:04:13.439
How about what do you think are the most uh consistent pain points in validating these technologies?
00:04:14.400 --> 00:04:28.720
I mean, it's extractables and leachables is both more straightforward and also the asks has become larger and larger and larger over time, and now also how these asks have been morphing over time.
00:04:28.959 --> 00:04:49.600
And of course, as I was saying during the live event, just data for everything in general, just getting all the information that we need up front and having a full picture of what the material we're going to implement is before you know it's too late to make a change if we actually have to, or if something isn't really compatible with our systems.
00:04:50.639 --> 00:04:51.279
Yeah.
00:04:51.680 --> 00:04:52.160
Yeah.
00:04:52.560 --> 00:04:54.480
Katrina, you agree?
00:04:54.959 --> 00:04:55.360
Yeah.
00:04:55.600 --> 00:04:58.399
I mean, there's a lot that goes into it, a lot of planning.
00:04:58.480 --> 00:05:17.360
And and I'm thinking of, you know, the end user side of things and how sometimes what they really want is that real world validation and and knowing that it's actually going to work in a real facility, but to get that, to get someone to try it out even, do an early beta test, like you need time to do that.
00:05:17.600 --> 00:05:31.759
And it's hard to find you know, facilities that even have the time to do that, and even to look at the data sometimes and go through all the data um for something new at any point of time, whether they're testing it out or buying it.
00:05:31.920 --> 00:05:33.199
Um, they need the time.
00:05:33.360 --> 00:05:46.720
And and I've we've seen a lot of new companies even the last few years, and a lot of growth maybe in the small players, and that that can be a challenge of you know, finding the time to test out all these things.
00:05:46.800 --> 00:05:58.879
And if you're just getting bombarded with all these requests to use this new thing and that new thing, and it's it's never an easy thing to sift through all of that and decide what you're even going to use.
00:05:59.040 --> 00:06:05.199
Uh, especially, you know, the big companies, everyone knows them, everyone wants to ask them to use their product.
00:06:05.519 --> 00:06:20.399
But I guess if you're small, I wouldn't necessarily recommend starting with like the the big pharma that may not have the time, or they may have everyone asking them um to be part of the process.
00:06:20.639 --> 00:06:37.279
Um, but you know, you need that that real data in whatever way you get it, whether you get it from a small tester or whatever other lab or academic or whatever you choose, like you need that data to even be considered sometimes.
00:06:38.240 --> 00:06:38.720
Thank you.
00:06:38.879 --> 00:06:40.319
Yeah, time is money, right?
00:06:40.399 --> 00:06:44.560
So any any burden that you put onto the the sponsor side.
00:06:44.639 --> 00:06:51.360
When I say sponsor, I mean the drug developer side to to that gap, it's gonna be a big ask.
00:06:51.439 --> 00:07:02.800
And in fact, when we polled our audience live, we had some responses there that kind of are reflecting what you guys are saying, where we we asked the people in attendance, where do you think adoption gets stuck?
00:07:02.879 --> 00:07:04.720
And we had pretty close.
00:07:04.879 --> 00:07:09.519
30% said validation burden, um, you know, those comparability studies you guys are talking about.
00:07:09.600 --> 00:07:20.319
And then 33% uh said that insufficient vendor data or documentation is is a big part of that, that stalling of these technologies from advancing.
00:07:20.480 --> 00:07:25.839
And I'm curious, and we'll just kind of swing back the swing back over or go through all of you guys.
00:07:25.920 --> 00:07:35.759
Katrina, starting with you, where do you think vendors are dropping the ball in terms of providing these comprehensive data packages and you know, data on extractables or leachables?
00:07:36.000 --> 00:07:40.319
And um, I know Josh, this is like where you operate into the day-to-day.
00:07:40.399 --> 00:07:42.000
So we're I know we're all keen to hear from you.
00:07:42.079 --> 00:07:43.519
But Katrina, we'll start with you.
00:07:43.600 --> 00:07:46.160
Um, where do you think vendors are dropping the ball?
00:07:46.639 --> 00:07:59.600
Yeah, I mean, not to sound critical, but I think there are some vendors maybe that don't know everything that the facilities are expecting the them to give them at at the point of when they're developing something.
00:07:59.839 --> 00:08:02.079
They may not have to be time to be critical.
00:08:02.560 --> 00:08:10.319
Um they may not have done all the testing or or get it gotten their their um data yet on on certain things.
00:08:10.399 --> 00:08:24.319
And and maybe that is like as Paul was saying, you don't want to do all of that too soon and waste your resources on it, but it's it's striking that balance of being informed of the right phase-appropriate approach there.
00:08:25.759 --> 00:08:27.120
Thanks, Katrina.
00:08:28.079 --> 00:08:29.040
Absolutely.
00:08:29.279 --> 00:08:38.960
Uh we've also seen some of our suppliers or some of our materials that are introducing a next generation, so they call it, of a bag film or any single-use component.
00:08:39.120 --> 00:08:57.519
And when you start looking at the data, it doesn't truly offer an improved performance in some regards, or something that's been a pain point for me is the extractables profile is worse, or the quality of the data they're providing for the new generation film is worse quality than the original generation film.
00:08:57.919 --> 00:09:08.559
So it leaves us having to pay a higher price point for this new material itself, and then also have to spend money to generate additional data on top of it.
00:09:08.879 --> 00:09:17.120
I'd say another part that becomes really challenging here is sometimes some suppliers are really good about it, but other suppliers are just unresponsive at best.
00:09:17.360 --> 00:09:33.840
Uh, and for a massive pharmaceutical company of like where I work, we spend significant sums of money and we expect a certain level of customer service when you're paying through the nose to get what is supposed to be top-of-the-line best in class materials.
00:09:34.559 --> 00:09:44.720
But we do have some suppliers who sometimes it feels like they must be awake looking at their email 24-7 because they respond so quickly and they're so helpful.
00:09:44.879 --> 00:09:53.600
Uh I would say it's in the minority of suppliers that are reluctant to respond that cause the most problems for me.
00:09:54.480 --> 00:10:06.639
And I yeah, I don't want you to give away too much, but I'm just out of my own curiosity, when you it's obviously no secret that the these studies, the comparability studies, and um kind of completing that data package cost money, like you said.
00:10:06.720 --> 00:10:16.000
Do we is there like a rough dollar amount that will could kind of quantify or put into perspective just how much of a burden this is on the on the end user side?
00:10:16.399 --> 00:10:24.240
I mean, an extractable study, we've historically estimated it at about$30,000 to$40,000 per material.
00:10:24.639 --> 00:10:28.799
Uh so it's not inconsequential.
00:10:28.879 --> 00:10:30.639
It depends on who the testing lab is.
00:10:30.720 --> 00:10:33.200
Also, that's or if you're testing it in-house.
00:10:33.360 --> 00:10:38.240
Some uh companies do a lot of their own extractables testing in-house, and I'm very jealous of them.
00:10:38.320 --> 00:10:42.639
We do not have that capability within our organization anymore.
00:10:42.879 --> 00:10:48.480
Um so you're paying quite a bit of money, and then there's it's gotten a lot better now.
00:10:48.720 --> 00:10:55.279
But five years ago, if you think all the delays and lead times due to COVID, all of the restrictions that happened.
00:10:55.440 --> 00:11:00.879
So we were looking often at six to nine months before we could even get a sample into a lab to start testing.
00:11:01.120 --> 00:11:08.720
We could do some of the paperwork by generating a protocol up front, but you're looking at at least a six-month delay just to even begin your testing.
00:11:08.960 --> 00:11:12.320
So the timelines were just all over the place.
00:11:12.720 --> 00:11:13.279
Yeah.
00:11:13.600 --> 00:11:18.639
Yeah, that definitely throws a wrench in what's already a kind of tightrope of uh of timelines.
00:11:18.720 --> 00:11:20.159
It's a timeline game to begin with, right?
00:11:20.320 --> 00:11:22.320
Drug development, though, the entirety of it.
00:11:22.480 --> 00:11:27.120
Um, Josh, I'm gonna give you a chance now to say to vendors what you've always wanted to say.
00:11:27.279 --> 00:11:34.240
You're the you're on the you're like the equivalent on the sponsor side of you're qualifying the materials that these vendors are selling.
00:11:34.399 --> 00:11:37.279
If there's one message you could give to these vendors, what would it be?
00:11:37.519 --> 00:11:38.879
Now's your chance.
00:11:39.600 --> 00:11:52.639
Give us the data up front in a simple tabular format, no fussy formatting, no fussy anything, plain English or plain language or the geography you're selling the thing to.
00:11:52.799 --> 00:11:57.200
Um and be responsive and ready to answer questions.
00:11:57.519 --> 00:12:03.679
And we're not usually looking to find have an aha, we found a trick moment or found something wrong.
00:12:03.840 --> 00:12:17.279
We really just want to understand what's going on and we want to understand what we're using so that way we can best represent that information and present it to regulators and just move on with our lives and get our medications to the patients.
00:12:18.080 --> 00:12:18.639
Amen.
00:12:18.799 --> 00:12:19.679
Amen, brother.
00:12:19.840 --> 00:12:20.480
No more fuss.
00:12:20.559 --> 00:12:23.759
I'm sick of the fussing too, and I don't even deal with this kind of stuff.
00:12:25.120 --> 00:12:29.840
Paul, anything to add there on the you know, the kind of position that this is.
00:12:30.159 --> 00:12:36.480
I want to pick up uh on something Josh said and then and then reflect uh on some things Katrina shared.
00:12:36.559 --> 00:13:01.120
Um, so you know, one of the tricks, of course, with um despite the fact that extractables has been standardized uh through USP 665, the data are not directly comparable, even you know, from lab to lab, or even uh, you know, we these are screening studies, they're they lack authentic reference compounds.
00:13:01.279 --> 00:13:06.000
Um, so response factors are it's all semi-quantitative.
00:13:06.320 --> 00:13:27.279
So, you know, to Josh's point, if you're going to either do a change control or seek to convert business, whatever the the data package is supposed to support, I think it's relevant to talk about the data with an expert opinion.
00:13:27.519 --> 00:13:37.600
Um, oftentimes you've got folks who might look at these numbers and think that they can compare a five to a 10, and the 10 is greater than the five.
00:13:37.919 --> 00:13:40.399
And in fact, that's not supported, right?
00:13:40.639 --> 00:13:53.200
So it's important that uh an expert who understands response factors, the the closeness of the reference standard and all the analytical chemistry, black magic.
00:13:53.440 --> 00:13:57.440
I call it black magic because I'm a stupid engineer, I don't understand it.
00:13:57.679 --> 00:14:18.159
Um, you know, it it deserves somebody saying those two numbers are consistent with the levels being the same, even though one says 25 and one says five or whatever the numbers are, you know the you still need opinion on top of the semi-quant data, right?
00:14:18.399 --> 00:14:20.399
It it it is not directly comparable.
00:14:20.559 --> 00:14:34.639
So I it and I think that that's a frustration, you know, that maybe Josh was sharing is it's just kind of vomited onto a uh maybe not even a table where it's side by side, it's two different, differently formatted tables.
00:14:34.720 --> 00:14:40.720
So now it takes a little well, now we have AI to do a lot of this grunt work for us.
00:14:41.279 --> 00:14:54.320
But like in the you know, the old days, two years ago, before we had AI at our fingertips, somebody literally had to take two tables side by side and recreate a new table that had comparison side by side.
00:14:54.399 --> 00:15:01.600
But then the really the expert opinion that needs to say whether these numbers are comparable or not has to be right there.
00:15:01.679 --> 00:15:05.360
So that's my two cents on comparability guides.
00:15:05.519 --> 00:15:07.919
They really need that expert opinion piece.
00:15:08.159 --> 00:15:21.759
Um, but to Katrina's point, now I'll get over to the other side and say, you know, if I'm if I'm a supplier, yes, for sure this still remains a struggle.
00:15:21.919 --> 00:15:25.440
What's the appropriate, let's say, ticket?
00:15:25.600 --> 00:15:28.879
I call it sort of tickets to the dance data package, right?
00:15:29.039 --> 00:15:45.279
You don't get past the door to get in to discuss things unless you've you've prepared a minimum viable package of uh proving that you're relevant for the market space for the applications.
00:15:46.159 --> 00:15:54.639
That's let's say not the most complicated thing in the world, but some people don't know what the right package is.
00:15:54.799 --> 00:16:00.159
Um and certainly I help suppliers in that space in my consulting uh life.
00:16:00.879 --> 00:16:20.799
But I think the harder bit is the functional, and we talked about this during the during the um online uh the live event, you know, finding uh appropriate beta partners to generate relevant case study type data early on in a product lifestyle, uh lifestyle, life cycle.
00:16:21.360 --> 00:16:22.879
That's a weird slip.
00:16:23.120 --> 00:16:28.720
Um that I think that uh many many suppliers struggle with that.
00:16:28.879 --> 00:16:36.639
And so depending on again, that you talk about the cost of extractables, that could pale in comparison.
00:16:36.799 --> 00:17:03.679
Let's say you need to do hundreds of cell culture runs at a you know, even a bench top scale to generate relevant data for the function of your um technology that you're bringing to market, that's wildly more expensive than sending some bits of plastic out to a lab to to have them uh perform an extractable study on.
00:17:04.559 --> 00:17:19.839
So um access to those resources, whether it be in academia or with development partners who have PD labs, that uh, you know, that's part of their remit is to do technology evaluation.
00:17:20.079 --> 00:17:25.039
So finding those, um, you know, that's that's not easy.
00:17:25.119 --> 00:17:37.680
And and defining the problem statement and really generating relevant data is something that I think a lot of suppliers of novel technologies uh struggle with.
00:17:39.119 --> 00:17:40.240
Yeah, thank you guys.
00:17:40.319 --> 00:17:42.880
That's great responses all around there.
00:17:43.039 --> 00:17:45.200
Um Paul, you you raised a good point.
00:17:45.279 --> 00:17:48.799
I just kind of been it's it's setting in the kind of diversity of backgrounds we have.
00:17:48.880 --> 00:17:50.400
Like you said, you're an engineer, Josh.
00:17:50.480 --> 00:17:52.079
Your backgrounds in chemistry, right?
00:17:52.160 --> 00:17:54.640
And Katrina, how would you describe your background?
00:17:54.960 --> 00:18:16.480
Statistics if you're director of research, or is it biochemistry or uh I guess more of the commercialization for for biotech, bioprocessing side, um, like market research and and more on the business side, technical and business kind of combination.
00:18:16.960 --> 00:18:17.359
Nice.
00:18:17.519 --> 00:18:20.400
And I'm an editor, so how how well rounded of us.
00:18:21.200 --> 00:18:23.920
What a what a balanced podcast.
00:18:24.960 --> 00:18:27.440
Um, so thank you guys again.
00:18:27.519 --> 00:18:47.599
And I I know you uh Josh, you had a great message to vendors out there, but I want to go around the horn and have you guys share your message to sponsors and end users that, you know, ultimately, yes, it would be great if vendors would just provide all the necessary data, extractables, leachables, data up front in these data packages.
00:18:47.759 --> 00:18:57.279
But until we get to a point where that's homogenous and happening across the space, what would your advice be to end users in the meantime?
00:18:59.279 --> 00:19:00.400
Oh, we'll start with you.
00:19:02.000 --> 00:19:02.559
No, no, go ahead.
00:19:14.000 --> 00:19:25.680
If you've never heard of a type of testing before, don't try and ask 100,000 questions of a supplier of material about that area.
00:19:25.920 --> 00:19:32.720
Find somebody in your organization or somebody you can bounce the idea of to be informed before you start asking all of these questions.
00:19:33.599 --> 00:19:33.920
Yeah.
00:19:34.160 --> 00:19:43.759
I you know, I I wasn't thinking of that, Josh, but uh, you know, in case I mean my background is, you know, on supply side.
00:19:43.920 --> 00:19:47.359
So of course I was at Sertorius for almost 18 years.
00:19:47.440 --> 00:19:49.599
So, you know, one of the big suppliers.
00:19:49.839 --> 00:20:04.880
Um and I wasn't thinking of this story, Josh, but for sure, a lot of times some something, some topic, and I'll talk about back in um, let's see, what's my favorite one?
00:20:05.119 --> 00:20:09.599
Let's say um animal-derived uh ADCF, right?
00:20:10.319 --> 00:20:15.599
Back in uh, I think it was 2012-ish, something like that.
00:20:15.839 --> 00:20:23.759
All of a sudden we're getting a lot of questions about um animal-derived uh materials in our products.
00:20:24.240 --> 00:20:27.759
Um it seems like it must go back further than 2012.
00:20:27.839 --> 00:20:29.119
Maybe it was 07.
00:20:29.519 --> 00:20:31.759
Uh uh anyway, it was a long time ago.
00:20:32.000 --> 00:20:43.759
But by the time the question was transferred from the end user to the supplier, it was being asked through a non-technical uh person.
00:20:44.559 --> 00:20:52.720
And to some extent, I think they kind of played the telephone game before the question was transmitted over.
00:20:53.039 --> 00:20:58.319
Same thing with um, I don't know if you remember white tank rings, right?
00:20:58.480 --> 00:21:17.440
So there was there was some uh um oleamide or ruchamide used as a slip agent in some um dry powder packaging, and it bloomed to the surface, and it happened repeatedly, was used for buffer prep or media prep tank.
00:21:17.519 --> 00:21:41.200
Uh, and there was a white tank ring, and there was a big investigation, and somebody figured out that the fatty acids that uh were used for slip agents for this plastic bags used to package um these dry powders, eventually got into the dry powder, got into the tank, floated to the surface, and you got a white tank ring, and everybody freaked out.
00:21:41.359 --> 00:21:44.720
And then it came from above on the end user side.
00:21:44.960 --> 00:21:51.599
Thou shalt not have a ruchamide or uh oleomide in the packaging materials.
00:21:52.240 --> 00:21:59.599
And then it wasn't just packaging materials for dry powder, media, salts, buffers, etc.
00:22:00.640 --> 00:22:05.519
It was packaging for anything they bought.
00:22:06.319 --> 00:22:09.759
And it wasn't, you know, then the question comes across.
00:22:09.839 --> 00:22:28.000
So it goes from purchasing to uh, you know, the order management folks on the supplier side, then it bubbles up maybe through quality, eventually ends up in my case on my desk, where I started asking, well, what the heck is this really about?
00:22:28.160 --> 00:22:29.759
Why are they asking this question?
00:22:30.079 --> 00:22:32.000
Peel the onion, peel the onion.
00:22:32.240 --> 00:22:37.440
A year later, we find out why that question came about in the first place.
00:22:37.519 --> 00:22:56.000
And then we do a risk assessment and say, well, the risk of a plastic bag containing this slip agent going through the single-use system to the inside of the single-use system and contaminating the fluid path and coming out.
00:22:56.400 --> 00:23:07.200
Of course, they just wanted to know we don't have olemide or rigmide in our as a slip, or no, we don't have any slip agents, I think, in our packaging.
00:23:07.279 --> 00:23:11.599
Well, you need slip agents because otherwise you get saran wrapped.
00:23:11.839 --> 00:23:18.160
But um in any event, that's so sorry to talk so long about that.
00:23:18.240 --> 00:23:27.440
But Josh, that's a perfect example of what you're saying is the person asking the question had no idea what they were asking for.
00:23:28.160 --> 00:23:32.240
And then the person receiving the question had no idea how to answer it.
00:23:32.480 --> 00:23:36.480
And so a lot of inefficiency baked into the relationship, right?
00:23:38.000 --> 00:23:38.319
Yep.
00:23:38.480 --> 00:23:44.559
I often offer to my colleagues, I'll join whatever meeting with whatever testing lab you need.
00:23:44.720 --> 00:23:57.119
I will write the email, I will do the first contact, uh, and then let them take over the relationship once I've established kind of what are the boundaries of this uh to try and minimize some of those issues.
00:23:58.240 --> 00:24:06.480
And hopefully the person who hosted that meeting, they incrementally gain uh some subject matter expertise.
00:24:06.559 --> 00:24:09.200
So the next time you don't have to go to that meeting, right?
00:24:09.599 --> 00:24:12.880
Um so yeah, exactly.
00:24:14.079 --> 00:24:14.720
Great.
00:24:14.960 --> 00:24:23.599
Uh could before we keep going, Katrina, did you have any advice to end users, sponsors, manufacturers using these advanced single-use technologies?
00:24:24.079 --> 00:24:45.359
Yeah, I mean, I'm just thinking in general, like looking at our industry, not to generalize too much, but I think we always hear about the hesitation to try anything new in our industry in general, um, and the kind of like fear that something's gonna go wrong if you use something new that is different than what's been being used for the last decades.
00:24:45.839 --> 00:25:04.240
Um so so in general, I feel that it it would be maybe helpful if if sponsors were a little bit more open to just seeing what's out there and I mean within the the time and resources that they have to play around with things.
00:25:05.519 --> 00:25:15.920
But um that hesitation sometimes maybe can be stopping them from using something that could actually be saving them money or something like that.
00:25:16.240 --> 00:25:16.880
Yeah.
00:25:17.279 --> 00:25:18.799
Yeah, no, that's a good point.
00:25:19.039 --> 00:25:28.240
I do think to play devil's advocate, I'd say that they have good reason to be yeah, apprehensive to try these new things with how how highly regulated the industry is.
00:25:28.400 --> 00:25:31.440
But again, I think it circles back to vendors.
00:25:31.599 --> 00:25:37.200
If you're out there listening, we're talking to you, get the data packages together so people will will use it.
00:25:37.440 --> 00:25:53.359
I mean, we had almost 70%, 68.4% of our our audience the other day said that they would be somewhat confident uh that the data packages provided by vendors would be comprehensive and um would not require a supplementation.
00:25:53.599 --> 00:26:01.920
So the people will trust you if you put the if you put the packages together and again lower that risk threshold, like you're like you're saying, Katrina.
00:26:02.400 --> 00:26:03.359
That's great, guys.
00:26:03.519 --> 00:26:19.119
Well, I want to move ahead into kind of how we could move the industry overall or how you in a perfect world, how you'd like to see it uh progressing towards more or less risk-averse in in the way of adopting these technologies and kind of moving that needle forward.
00:26:19.200 --> 00:26:40.559
So I'm curious to go around the horn and hear what role you think industry standards can play in accelerating adoption, um, and specifically what the role of, as we call them, the alphabet organizations, the BPSAs, ISPEs, ASMEs, bioforums of the world are doing to drive harmonization and interchangeability, what their role is there.
00:26:40.720 --> 00:26:45.200
Um, Katrina, we'll start with you since you're on my screen and then we'll just swing back the other way.
00:26:46.000 --> 00:26:53.920
I mean, what's coming to mind for me at least is that there's an opportunity maybe for these standards to help clear up a little bit of that hesitation.
00:26:54.079 --> 00:27:08.079
Like if you can say that we've already been approved and have passed certain requirements and standards, there may be a little bit less fear and a little bit less of a need to recheck everything from an end user.
00:27:08.319 --> 00:27:18.960
Um like we already have certain grades, materials, and you know, like that are used typically, and and that's not really a big question when you use those things.
00:27:19.119 --> 00:27:25.200
Um, so if if that was very much across the board, that could maybe simplify things even more.
00:27:26.400 --> 00:27:27.839
Thank you, Katrina.
00:27:28.079 --> 00:27:28.720
Josh.
00:27:30.160 --> 00:27:45.519
Yeah, I mean, part of what these organizations can do is also provide education for regulators, education for um sponsors, so that way you understand the technical aspects of what is being done and what you need to do.
00:27:45.680 --> 00:27:54.000
So you people can do things with more confidence and hopefully understand the information presented in front of them correctly.
00:27:56.079 --> 00:27:57.039
Thank you.
00:27:57.759 --> 00:28:08.160
Well, I mean uh you know, one of the things about the alphabet soup is there's there's a hierarchy um, you know, within it.
00:28:08.319 --> 00:28:19.119
Um, and certainly your regulations are on top, that's law, and then compendia below that, and then uh consensus, uh, voluntary consensus standards below that.
00:28:19.200 --> 00:28:30.640
And then you've got sort of the we always call them stimulus bodies, um, that's like BPSA, bioforum, um, potentially ISPE in there.
00:28:30.799 --> 00:28:37.200
And that's where they sort of can write, let's say, best practice guides or or things of that nature.
00:28:37.519 --> 00:28:49.440
Um, my uh personally, I've recently come to appreciate that even the lowest level of that hierarchy can bring value.
00:28:49.599 --> 00:29:00.640
Um, you know, the these can these best practices or consensus um, you know, this is how we do things type documents, white papers, etc.
00:29:01.200 --> 00:29:15.279
Um, at least the drug sponsors, the you know, the people who are seeking regulatory approval, um, can say that they're not the only ones doing it this way, right?
00:29:15.440 --> 00:29:35.039
There's there's strength in numbers that these I'm just trying to think of, you know, whether it be dealing with, let's say, particulates or, you know, a validation strategy or whatever, whatever the case may be, um, there's safety in numbers to some extent.
00:29:35.279 --> 00:29:45.920
Um it's certainly not as powerful as a voluntary consensus standard compendia or you know, law above all.
00:29:46.160 --> 00:29:56.960
Um uh, but yeah, there's there's still value to those uh those publications coming out of um BPSA I SPE bioform.
00:29:57.440 --> 00:30:04.240
Uh they do bring a lot of value still, just because it's nobody feels alone in the in their wilderness.
00:30:04.319 --> 00:30:09.920
The the the the lone flag bearer running up the hill getting the spear in the chest, you know.
00:30:10.160 --> 00:30:12.559
So to make it very graphic.
00:30:12.880 --> 00:30:13.200
Yeah.
00:30:13.359 --> 00:30:16.079
Everybody, and it might be the thumbnail for this podcast.
00:30:16.480 --> 00:30:18.640
Somebody run up the hill getting spear.
00:30:19.440 --> 00:30:25.440
That's what it feels like sometimes to be uh just a to add on to what Paul was saying very briefly.
00:30:25.599 --> 00:30:40.640
Uh a lot of these lower level organizations, as you call them, the members of them are also people that are providing the comments to USP and those compendia, and also the ones that are writing the provisions and updating them.
00:30:40.880 --> 00:30:45.200
So those voices can trickle up and come together in that way.
00:30:46.160 --> 00:30:48.480
Yeah, Josh, thanks for reminding me of that.
00:30:48.559 --> 00:30:53.599
It I think it's a well, this there's multiple versions of what you're talking about.
00:30:53.839 --> 00:31:16.960
One is most of the um energy going into standards writing bodies, whether it be the ASTM E55 uh subcommittee for uh biopharmaceutical manufacturing, um, the ASME BPE, uh ISO um working groups that are appropriate around uh biopharmaceutical manufacturing.
00:31:17.200 --> 00:31:21.920
A lot of the same people participate at the lowest level organizations.
00:31:22.000 --> 00:31:26.559
These are the where there's sort of the ideation for, hey, we need a standard here.
00:31:27.359 --> 00:31:41.680
Um that's they then take that energy into a standards writing process, go through the process, it um with the appropriate structure, it can become a standard, internationally recognized standard.
00:31:41.759 --> 00:31:43.440
So that's that's one thing.
00:31:43.680 --> 00:32:05.599
Um in addition, um, the alphabet soup organizations at the bottom are uh typically commenters on during public comment period, whether it be uh an ICH uh guidance, so the Scientific Advisory Council of BPSA, we submitted IC uh comments to ICHQ3E.
00:32:06.240 --> 00:32:19.680
Um we submitted comments to the USP and uh wrote a position statement supporting the BPE's stance on the evolution of the bio uh biological reactivity standards.
00:32:19.920 --> 00:32:31.680
So there's it's all sort of trying to create this critical mass where everywhere you look, things are all pointing in the right direction and pulling on the rope in the in the right direction, you know, together.
00:32:33.519 --> 00:32:34.880
That's awesome.
00:32:35.119 --> 00:32:36.000
Thank you, guys.
00:32:36.160 --> 00:32:36.880
Thank you.
00:32:37.200 --> 00:32:43.039
Um, and taking a bit of a step back here, I meant to ask this during our our event, but of course we we ran out of time.
00:32:43.200 --> 00:32:56.400
Um, if we could kind of trace back, I'm sure there's always been more of more or less a push for standardization, but specifically, I want to know how how you guys see COVID-19, the pandemic as the impact on supply chains.
00:32:56.480 --> 00:33:05.920
How do you think that accelerated this conversation around material interchangeability and the long-term benefits of innovation in single-use technologies?
00:33:07.519 --> 00:33:09.119
Got to start with Josh on that one.
00:33:09.200 --> 00:33:16.559
He probably uh spent a fair amount of his uh sleeping and and uh waking hours on this.
00:33:17.440 --> 00:33:24.000
Well, it's an interesting time frame because I joined Takeda September of 2020.
00:33:24.319 --> 00:33:29.519
So I joined remotely uh from quarantines, basically.
00:33:29.680 --> 00:33:33.519
So that was an interesting experience, but it was extremely challenging.
00:33:33.759 --> 00:33:57.599
So being such a large organization spanning the globe, uh, but also at many locations across the US, there was a bit of an endeavor to also prioritize which drug products would get the resources and have strategic procurement to actually get the materials they need to continue to manufacture and get product out the door uh so patients could continue to get their care.
00:33:58.000 --> 00:34:02.960
Um and then there were rescheduling of manufacturing batches.
00:34:03.119 --> 00:34:10.079
So it was a lot of effort on the logistics side to avoid having to qualify alternates when possible.
00:34:10.400 --> 00:34:17.280
Um but yeah, that supply chain nightmare was not fun.
00:34:18.000 --> 00:34:21.519
Um quite challenging.
00:34:21.760 --> 00:34:24.960
And a lot of it also the huge delays and timelines.
00:34:25.039 --> 00:34:38.639
Um, so I don't know if it really helped to speed up adoption of interchangeability or anything, but it did slow down um a lot of other work because it's just there was no availability of resource to do some of the things.
00:34:40.320 --> 00:34:41.440
Yeah, thank you, Josh.
00:34:41.599 --> 00:34:47.760
Anyone else want to speak to their experiences during that uh unspeakable time?
00:34:48.559 --> 00:35:00.400
Well, I mean, from from my side, um, you know, at the end of the day, it proved anything is possible with regard to demonstrating comparability.
00:35:00.639 --> 00:35:02.800
You just have to be motivated enough.
00:35:03.519 --> 00:35:19.760
Um and you know, the certain impenetrable barriers to adoption were penetrated because top management said you're gonna run the process, figure out a way to do it.
00:35:20.480 --> 00:35:34.639
Well, you know, in different times, the top management says you don't get resources to adopt the new material because we're we're in cash cow status on this drug product and and it we're not investing in it, you know.
00:35:35.199 --> 00:35:50.800
So um, but you know, it's possible and for sure there's been some continued momentum in the standards writing um organizations to uh talk about interchangeability.
00:35:51.199 --> 00:36:11.760
Um you know it's a it's a tough topic because GMPs are written so um conceptually that each drug manufacturer's approach toward qualifying a material and validating it defies a standard approach toward interchanging them.
00:36:12.559 --> 00:36:21.039
You've got it, it's if you use a risk-based approach, you're gonna end up with a different strategy from process to process to process.
00:36:21.360 --> 00:36:29.440
So I think um I'm a big proponent of um sort of minimum viable data packages.
00:36:29.920 --> 00:36:44.320
And so uh at least everyone should if if two suppliers are offering comparable products, uh or uh let's say two films, just to keep a very easy example.
00:36:44.559 --> 00:37:08.320
Well, the data package should include all of these things, be reported according in these units and this you know way and you know, if and it's from and this is sort of pre-AI, but you take two validation guides from two suppliers, they both are offering their best information.
00:37:08.480 --> 00:37:28.480
It would take a week of a decent, you know, decently motivated and trained engineer to take those two and create something that compares them side by side, find the exceptions, focus on the exceptions, and then get to the point where I say yes, they're the same and can be comparable.
00:37:28.880 --> 00:37:38.880
But I think I said this during the online thing, and the at the end 211.65 says beyond the official um specifications.
00:37:39.039 --> 00:37:47.599
Well, years of um years of stability data is hard to accelerate.
00:37:48.800 --> 00:37:58.719
Yeah, and Josh, I'm I'm looking right at you when I you know how did you live without years of data to say they're the same, right?
00:37:58.880 --> 00:38:04.960
If you did go through a comparability and interchangeability assessment, just cry.
00:38:08.000 --> 00:38:09.360
When in doubt, cry it out.
00:38:09.440 --> 00:38:10.079
That's my motto.
00:38:10.320 --> 00:38:19.360
I mean, I mean the sad reality is at a certain point, you can't release until you have all the information you need to verify that everything's appropriate.
00:38:19.519 --> 00:38:21.760
So you can continue to manufacture.
00:38:22.079 --> 00:38:26.639
And there's some things where you could consider it a business risk if you manufacture it.
00:38:26.800 --> 00:38:29.840
Uh and let's say you can't qualify it.
00:38:30.079 --> 00:38:35.360
And depending on what it is, the chances of failure are low.
00:38:35.519 --> 00:38:41.199
Uh, other times you're taking an unnecessary patient safety risk um while you're sitting on it.
00:38:41.280 --> 00:38:46.800
And then it that of course also has a double-down business risk.
00:38:46.880 --> 00:38:57.199
So if you manufacture something that you can't sell because it's unsafe for patients, and you don't know until way too late it's a huge problem.
00:38:57.519 --> 00:39:00.800
Um, I'm usually unlike unwilling, yeah.
00:39:00.880 --> 00:39:04.960
I shouldn't say usually, I'm always unwilling to take risks where it comes to patient safety.
00:39:05.119 --> 00:39:09.119
There are some things where I say, you know, this is technically a business risk, but I don't think it's gonna fail.
00:39:09.280 --> 00:39:17.039
So we can move forward and we can generate information in parallel with production, um, and it should be fine.
00:39:17.199 --> 00:39:19.199
And so far, so good.
00:39:19.599 --> 00:39:23.760
Um, I haven't caused any business failures and I don't plan to.
00:39:23.920 --> 00:39:27.840
So yeah, but with with good technical due diligence, right?
00:39:27.920 --> 00:39:35.920
You follow down, you make sure your CMC is adequate to to assess if there is a difference between two different materials.
00:39:36.559 --> 00:39:44.000
Um, but but I mean at the end, yeah, if there's a patient risk, then then it's a no-fly zone.
00:39:45.199 --> 00:40:02.639
And if you're listening to this and you're in a leadership position, um, and you you work with material qualifications or supply chains experts that were were working during during the pandemic, I'd say stop by, give them a hug, take them off for a drink, lunch, care package, do something, right, Josh?
00:40:02.880 --> 00:40:04.000
I'd take a raise.
00:40:04.239 --> 00:40:06.000
A raise would be great as well.
00:40:06.239 --> 00:40:12.559
Hey, Tyler, I'd like to pivot and and see what Katrina's take is it and take is on this.
00:40:12.719 --> 00:40:21.440
I mean, uh, bioplan does a lot of benchmarking of people's attitudes uh toward new and different and everything else.
00:40:21.679 --> 00:40:32.159
It now we're you know, I guess the is the the 26th version is um in production now, right?
00:40:32.320 --> 00:40:34.320
So you've got survey responses.
00:40:34.639 --> 00:40:39.119
I'm sorry, only 23, not 26th version.
00:40:40.159 --> 00:40:41.679
2023.
00:40:42.239 --> 00:40:44.000
No, the 23rd version.
00:40:45.039 --> 00:40:46.559
Oh, 23rd version, yes, yes.
00:40:47.199 --> 00:40:51.519
Yes, so so you've we've had enough time since COVID.
00:40:51.679 --> 00:41:02.960
Like uh do the data, I I don't know which questions I would lean on specifically, having listened to Eric present uh every year at the BPSA event.
00:41:03.119 --> 00:41:09.119
Uh I'm always fascinated by what by uh plans hearing from the survey respondents.
00:41:09.280 --> 00:41:10.880
I I'm sorry to put you on the spot.
00:41:11.039 --> 00:41:30.239
Do you have any tidbits along this subject matter questions that you might pull out about people's either retained attitudes post-COVID or rebounded or anything with regard to interchangeability, new technologies, supply chain stuff?
00:41:30.639 --> 00:41:31.840
Good question, Paul.
00:41:32.159 --> 00:41:40.800
Sorry, it's uh I know it could go anywhere, and you need to I have something prepared in mind, but I don't know if it's exactly what you're thinking of.
00:41:42.159 --> 00:42:03.599
And while you were talking, I was really thinking of you know how we did see a little bit of a blip of that single-use use after COVID, and then it kind of plateaued out, and and now we see maybe almost 90% of all facilities are using single use, maybe in at least some capacity in their processes, somewhere in their facility.
00:42:03.840 --> 00:42:21.280
Um, and so it's almost like we feel it feels like it's reached almost like everything is full, everyone who's using it is gonna use it, and and like maybe it's not gonna go up much more, um, but it's gonna still be used because the value has been seen.
00:42:21.440 --> 00:42:26.639
Um but there is, you know, still that hesitation maybe around the supply chain.
00:42:26.960 --> 00:42:46.800
Like even in 2023 and and still a little bit now, um, but up until 2023, we were seeing like 85% of the vendors saying that they had to still keep fielding questions from users about supply chain and and concerns that they had, whether or not that's founded or not.
00:42:46.960 --> 00:43:00.880
Um the vendors feel that they're making a lot spending a lot of time having to field those questions and reassure people that supply chain may no longer be an issue now, like it was five years ago.
00:43:01.039 --> 00:43:03.280
Um until the next pandemic.
00:43:03.519 --> 00:43:04.000
Yeah.
00:43:04.239 --> 00:43:08.960
Whether or not it is a among other things that could be happening globally.
00:43:09.199 --> 00:43:14.000
Um supply chain PTSD, if you will.
00:43:14.880 --> 00:43:16.400
Can't fault anybody for that.
00:43:16.639 --> 00:43:17.519
Sorry, Katrina.
00:43:17.679 --> 00:43:18.239
Did you have more?
00:43:18.800 --> 00:43:25.920
Yeah, no, and and like you said, it's almost like something that maybe it's never really going to fully go away as a concern in people's mind.
00:43:26.000 --> 00:43:27.119
And and rightly so.
00:43:27.280 --> 00:43:42.880
I mean, you don't want to run into an issue, you want to be prepared for every eventuality and not lose your you know, clinical or or uh patient material because of all of a sudden running out of something and not being able to get more.
00:43:43.280 --> 00:43:47.920
Um so so it is obviously a fair question.
00:43:48.000 --> 00:43:57.840
Um, not that it shouldn't be shouldn't be addressed, but uh there could be perhaps maybe more worry than there needs to be at this point in time.
00:43:58.400 --> 00:44:02.079
Well, I'm gonna I'm gonna Um I'm taking over, Tyler.
00:44:02.239 --> 00:44:06.079
We're gonna do a uh bioplan survey N equals one.
00:44:06.719 --> 00:44:09.360
Josh, that's the solo responded.
00:44:09.599 --> 00:44:19.360
Um, were there permanent changes to the uh onboarding techniques within your business?
00:44:19.599 --> 00:44:40.000
Meaning, were you qualifying more than one source of something on a new uh system by by um you know top-down directive that this is now the way of doing business that we're going to sort of protect ourselves in the in the post-COVID supply?
00:44:40.480 --> 00:44:41.599
I want to say yes.
00:44:41.840 --> 00:44:45.039
I want to say yes, but I can't really say yes.
00:44:45.280 --> 00:44:48.159
Um it also really depends on what the material is.
00:44:48.239 --> 00:44:54.480
Some materials it's just so trivial to find alternate suppliers and alternate supply chains like sodium chloride, just trivial.
00:44:54.639 --> 00:45:03.760
Um, but other things where we would potentially classify it not by SOP by but by like what I feel in my heart as a more critical material.
00:45:04.000 --> 00:45:06.960
Well, you don't really have many alternates for it.
00:45:07.119 --> 00:45:32.320
But there are other things where we have directives for ways in which we do not want to be sourcing materials as an organization, um, just because of potentially geopolitical issues or just risks to material quality where there's low quality of that what we'd be receiving and ended up rejecting lots and just waste a lot of time and energy um in doing things like that.
00:45:32.559 --> 00:45:46.000
Uh so yes, but also oftentimes once something gets implemented, the cost you know of bringing another material on board is usually kind of a lot in the scheme of things.
00:45:46.159 --> 00:45:52.079
Uh sometimes something seems so trivial, but it's actually a lot of effort to and a lot of time to bring that on board.
00:45:52.159 --> 00:45:54.880
And we're constantly being asked to do more with less.
00:45:55.039 --> 00:46:00.960
Uh they're never saying, oh, we want you to build up a secondary supply chain for this drug product.
00:46:01.199 --> 00:46:03.280
Here's another FTE to do it.
00:46:03.519 --> 00:46:13.280
They'll say, We have restrained your resources and now we still want you to do everything, but now we really have to prioritize and focus our energy.
00:46:13.360 --> 00:46:24.639
And so something that would be nice to have, like an alternate supply chain for something, kind of falls by the wayside because we're still getting constant notifications of change from our suppliers.
00:46:24.800 --> 00:46:33.840
We're doing tech transfers, bringing in our pipeline products, uh, and focusing on other things to also, you know, secure the future of the organization.
00:46:34.159 --> 00:46:47.599
This is definitely going to go a little bit off topic, but many of the major pharmaceutical company players are facing patent cliffs where their blockbuster drugs are coming off patent in the next five or so years.
00:46:47.840 --> 00:46:57.519
And you need to be prepared to continue to maintain your revenue streams through the challenges from all of the generics that'll be coming online.
00:46:57.760 --> 00:47:12.239
So thinking there's just so many different things that are coming into play that sometimes these topics fall by the wayside, or we struggle to find the resource to actually address them.
00:47:12.719 --> 00:47:19.920
I'm actually we're starting up a team within our organization trying to tackle some of our supply chain questions.
00:47:20.159 --> 00:47:28.239
Where can we find opportunities to potentially improve cost, improve material quality, improve uh vendor relationships?
00:47:28.480 --> 00:47:31.679
Um we're seeing what we can accomplish with that.
00:47:31.920 --> 00:47:36.400
Again, we're resource constrained, uh, and we have a lot to do still.
00:47:36.800 --> 00:47:41.679
Um, and Josh, I had a question specifically for you here as it relates to materials and qualification.
00:47:42.079 --> 00:47:53.039
If you wouldn't mind explaining for me and our audience uh the transition away from USP 88 and the impact of evolving biocompatibility standards on material adoption.
00:47:53.280 --> 00:47:56.800
I meant to ask you this during the event and we just didn't have time.
00:47:58.559 --> 00:48:03.119
Yeah, um I'm not sure it's really that big of an issue, in my opinion.
00:48:03.280 --> 00:48:14.239
There's still vendors that are no longer, it's not really a requirement anymore, uh, but vendors are still providing certifications with it because you know the materials have met USP 88.
00:48:14.320 --> 00:48:18.320
So they're just gonna keep leaving it on their technical documents.
00:48:18.559 --> 00:48:22.960
Uh, there is kind of some question sometimes about like, oh, what are we supposed to do in place?
00:48:23.360 --> 00:48:28.559
But if we're being overly honest, you can do a quick Google search of like, what do I do instead of USP 88?
00:48:28.719 --> 00:48:30.880
And a pretty good response has come out.
00:48:31.039 --> 00:48:35.280
So replacing with you know extractable and mutual testing, there's ISO standards.
00:48:35.360 --> 00:48:39.199
Uh so just seeing what are the other options that are out there.
00:48:39.519 --> 00:48:44.079
Josh, I'm gonna ask a follow-on question because that's what I do, Tyler, you know.
00:48:44.320 --> 00:48:46.079
Um good cohesion.
00:48:46.239 --> 00:48:49.519
Um just did you go through?
00:48:49.679 --> 00:49:02.559
I don't know what you the Takeda's standard sort of baseline requirement set is for um process contact materials, but did it reference 88 class six in the past?
00:49:02.639 --> 00:49:07.920
And did you go through a global change control to remove it from specification?
00:49:08.960 --> 00:49:14.159
It has, to my knowledge, it hasn't been part of our specification that hasn't been part of our procedures.
00:49:14.400 --> 00:49:24.880
However, when we're really thinking about this from the extractables, bleachables perspective, you go through the risk-based approach, low, medium, high risk, however you end up there.
00:49:25.039 --> 00:49:31.599
And then our minimum requirement for things that are low risk is that it's a well-characterized material otherwise.
00:49:31.679 --> 00:49:41.280
And something like USP 88, USP class six would be demonstration of a certain level of quality of that material, and it would satisfy some of that requirement.
00:49:41.519 --> 00:49:54.800
Things that have medium or higher risk, we would then go through the gambit as you know, extractables, leachables testing, depending on how appropriate whatever, and what the material happened to be and full on assessment.
00:49:54.880 --> 00:50:00.719
And we have honestly a very mature extractables, leachables program at Takeda.
00:50:00.880 --> 00:50:03.039
So it hasn't really been an issue for us.
00:50:03.199 --> 00:50:12.079
There's been many a times um where I've seen in some of these alphabet super organizations where people are concerned about, oh, this has changed.
00:50:12.159 --> 00:50:12.880
They're asking us for this.
00:50:13.039 --> 00:50:15.039
I'm like, oh, we've been doing that.
00:50:15.280 --> 00:50:16.559
We've been doing it anyway.
00:50:16.719 --> 00:50:18.320
So it's not an ask for us.
00:50:18.480 --> 00:50:27.119
We're we've been a bit of out of the curve, and now we're probably at curve for a lot of things, just because that's where the organ the world has moved to.
00:50:27.360 --> 00:50:30.239
So not a problem for us.
00:50:31.199 --> 00:50:32.400
It's good to hear.
00:50:32.480 --> 00:50:52.800
Um, because I'm I sort of see this endless loop of somebody doesn't design it out of their spec, ask for it, supplier supplies it, and and it just sort of a self-perpetuating cycle because the suppliers don't want to have long conversations about this either.
00:50:52.960 --> 00:50:55.760
And if somebody asks for it, they're just gonna give it.
00:50:56.079 --> 00:51:07.840
Um, and just you know, between the BPSA and the ASMA BPE, there uh certainly some writings around this topic.
00:51:08.880 --> 00:51:20.320
88 is uh not supported, and that's you know, uh it it the history is in case people don't know, it's you know, this is non-value-added animal testing, right?
00:51:20.719 --> 00:51:42.960
Um so the the baseline that's expected and this is supported in both the BPE and and BPSA um has written a position statement on this baseline is uh 10998 ISO 10993-5, or the equivalent USP 87 um in vitro cytotoxicity assay, right?
00:51:43.119 --> 00:51:53.519
So 87's revised now that 88's going away with um, or I shouldn't say 88's going away, class six is going away.
00:51:53.679 --> 00:52:02.320
Um, there's two new chapters in 87, but the baseline is just the cytotoxicity um assay.
00:52:02.639 --> 00:52:09.440
So um, you know, that plus extractables data really gets you there, right?
00:52:09.519 --> 00:52:20.400
There's no reason to sacrifice a bunch of laboratory animals if you're doing extractables anyway, which can lead to an actual, you know, value-added tox assessment.
00:52:20.559 --> 00:52:27.679
Um, you know, so um, yeah, that's that's the way to go there.
00:52:29.440 --> 00:52:30.159
Right on.
00:52:30.320 --> 00:52:31.360
Thank you guys.
00:52:31.599 --> 00:52:42.239
Um I had uh really quick before we before we wrap up, I wanted to ask you some some audience questions we didn't have the opportunity to get to during our hour, our live hour.
00:52:42.400 --> 00:52:45.599
There's really two that I think are worth asking on the show.
00:52:45.760 --> 00:52:49.199
Um, and the first one, I'll just lob up whoever wants to answer it.
00:52:49.280 --> 00:53:01.280
It's about how can regulatory affairs involvement during development help address the going back to our vendor data gaps and validation expectations uh before these become submission blockers.
00:53:01.519 --> 00:53:03.280
And I was asked by Ivtisem.
00:53:04.000 --> 00:53:06.719
Ivtasem, I hope I'm pronouncing your name right.
00:53:06.880 --> 00:53:08.960
Um, but Josh, maybe we'll hear from you.
00:53:09.039 --> 00:53:16.960
How do you how do you think, at least maybe at Takeda, how how involved our regulatory affairs appears?
00:53:17.440 --> 00:53:24.719
Yeah, um, as far as on the development side, I don't know uh exactly what that relationship looks like.
00:53:24.800 --> 00:53:26.159
So I'm in the commercial space.
00:53:26.320 --> 00:53:34.800
However, I do know when we want to change things in the commercial space, and that's an elective change, not necessarily something that's kind of being forced upon us.
00:53:34.960 --> 00:53:40.079
You know, if if something is discontinued as a supply, we have no choice.
00:53:40.159 --> 00:53:40.719
We have to change it.
00:53:40.800 --> 00:53:42.719
You kind of have to accept that there's a change.
00:53:42.800 --> 00:53:57.519
Uh, but if we're doing something more elective, really getting regulatory on board for the strategy and making sure they're prepared to support that change up front definitely facilitates the whole process for us.
00:53:57.679 --> 00:54:10.639
But it's more of um an internal streamlining of the process instead of getting up to the regulatory stage and them saying, no, this is we're not gonna accept this, this can't go out the door.
00:54:10.800 --> 00:54:15.360
And it doesn't really have as much of an impact for us on getting data from the vendors.
00:54:15.440 --> 00:54:22.079
It's uh more so a willingness from regulatory in that way or an understanding.
00:54:22.320 --> 00:54:34.000
But it's it's just really a communication thing and making sure pe your stakeholders are kept in the loop up front and you have a unified path forward before you spend all the money on trying to accomplish something.
00:54:35.840 --> 00:54:36.800
Thanks, Josh.
00:54:37.679 --> 00:54:40.559
Oh, Katrina, any any two cents to add there?
00:54:44.559 --> 00:54:52.880
Um I don't have direct experience here, but I I infer uh and and maybe Josh, you can weigh in.
00:54:53.519 --> 00:55:02.800
You know, the the reality is that um well, particularly early stage clinical, you know, you have a high attrition rate.
00:55:03.039 --> 00:55:16.719
So does regulatory have the time and energy to consult on a bunch of molecules that may never make it to the point where their input's actually relevant.
00:55:16.880 --> 00:55:24.639
Um and so they're resource constrained, and so they're like, Yeah, call me in five years when this is something I need to worry about.
00:55:25.440 --> 00:55:38.559
And so it's you know, there's a certain pragmatism that that conflicts with the ideal state of everybody being, you know, holistically involved, all stakeholders at every step of the way.
00:55:38.800 --> 00:55:47.199
Um, you sort of keep the small, agile team, minimum bunch of uh, I don't know.
00:55:47.280 --> 00:55:51.440
I I again I haven't lived that life, but I see Josh smiling.
00:55:51.679 --> 00:55:56.159
I mean, it's probably uh uh not that far from the truth.
00:55:56.320 --> 00:56:05.119
You you they just don't have the time and and resources to participate before their input's really needed.
00:56:05.280 --> 00:56:05.599
Yeah.
00:56:05.920 --> 00:56:07.760
Yeah, absolutely on that front.
00:56:07.920 --> 00:56:10.000
I do want to refine one of the points I made.
00:56:10.079 --> 00:56:21.920
It's not that regulatory is unwilling to change things with us or submit the change we're making, but more often they are the ones directly interacting with the agencies.
00:56:22.159 --> 00:56:31.039
And it's very helpful to make sure we're getting kind of like the pulse of the regulators, making sure what we're doing is satisfying that.
00:56:31.119 --> 00:56:33.679
And they're the ones who will often be seeing that.
00:56:33.840 --> 00:56:41.679
Um so if we don't get their input earlier on, we might be missing the mark a little bit in whatever we're trying to accomplish.
00:56:43.280 --> 00:56:44.239
Makes sense.
00:56:44.480 --> 00:56:45.199
Thank you.
00:56:45.440 --> 00:56:47.679
Um, and one last audience question here.
00:56:47.840 --> 00:56:59.599
Um, I'll throw this up to any of you, but is there a database to test data for USP class six and extractables and leachables for commonly used plastics?
00:57:00.239 --> 00:57:07.519
These I seem these seem to just be Josh questions, and I apologize for that, but uh I think they office hours with Josh.
00:57:07.760 --> 00:57:08.159
Yeah.
00:57:08.400 --> 00:57:10.480
Um the short answer is no.
00:57:10.800 --> 00:57:13.599
Um the long answer is kind of.
00:57:13.840 --> 00:57:20.000
Um so it depend it's challenging to share this type of data.
00:57:20.239 --> 00:57:30.559
Vendors are often or suppliers who are performing this time testing on their own materials will share it with their end user, sometimes for a fee, sometimes free of charge.
00:57:30.639 --> 00:57:34.320
Uh, but they're not necessarily willing to dump it into just a generic database.
00:57:34.480 --> 00:57:42.480
Um, and then I've been part, I am part of an industry working group where they're asking the member organization to donate their extractables data.
00:57:42.639 --> 00:57:47.440
However, at Takeda, we have a very mature extractables program.
00:57:47.519 --> 00:57:54.320
We have contracted out tons and tons and tons of testing, and we have the ability to access much of the vendor data that we want.
00:57:54.480 --> 00:57:58.400
So we didn't really get any value back if we were going to donate some of our data in.
00:57:58.800 --> 00:58:06.079
But then part of the purpose of sharing the data would ultimately be to make generic material profiles.
00:58:06.159 --> 00:58:09.199
So, as a simple example, platinum-cured silicone tubing.
00:58:09.360 --> 00:58:15.920
Presumably, they're all going to have, regardless of for the manufacturers, a relatively similar extractables profile.
00:58:16.000 --> 00:58:19.760
Because at the end of the day, it's some kind of siloxane that we have going on.
00:58:21.599 --> 00:58:25.119
But so you have this general profile, generic profile.
00:58:25.280 --> 00:58:33.760
But now is a regulator going to accept that you performed your evaluation on some generic data set?
00:58:33.920 --> 00:58:36.800
Is it actually representative of your process?
00:58:36.960 --> 00:58:44.480
And with the push for constantly add having more authentic data on your actual use case materials?
00:58:45.360 --> 00:58:49.039
What value are you really getting out of that common database?
00:58:49.440 --> 00:59:01.760
But part of that common database that I am referencing, part of the value is that they're also trying to combine all of the mass spectra for the extractables profiles for these different materials.
00:59:01.920 --> 00:59:07.840
So then you can also start seeing oh, this specific compound is coming out of this type of material.
00:59:08.079 --> 00:59:20.639
So we can start using it as a research tool to do some better data matching, data evaluation for people performing new extractables testing on other materials so they can help get better matches locked away.
00:59:22.000 --> 00:59:22.559
Got it.
00:59:22.800 --> 00:59:24.320
Thank you for explaining that, Josh.
00:59:24.400 --> 00:59:28.880
And I think office hours with Josh should be a show of itself, honestly.
00:59:28.960 --> 00:59:31.840
I think I think that could do numbers on bioprocess online.
00:59:33.119 --> 00:59:34.719
We'll we'll hit you up.
00:59:35.760 --> 00:59:37.199
You know, I try.
00:59:37.920 --> 00:59:38.239
Amen.
00:59:38.719 --> 00:59:39.760
Sorry, Paul, go ahead.
00:59:40.000 --> 01:00:00.159
I was just gonna say, you know, Josh, I'm sure you've read enough extractables reports um that you know, the quality of the work performed by the contract labs and sort of the way it's reported and and um is a wide variety out there.
01:00:00.400 --> 01:00:04.320
And and just throwing it all into a clearinghouse.
01:00:04.400 --> 01:00:08.639
I mean, I think there's definitely a lot of folks are in a protective mode, right?
01:00:08.880 --> 01:00:16.800
The suppliers don't want to willy-nilly spray it all over because they think that they've got some magic sauce and they don't want to give that away, right?
01:00:17.199 --> 01:00:25.920
Um, or they think that there will be competitive positioning against them by their by their competitors uh based on extractables data.
01:00:26.000 --> 01:00:30.079
So there's a lot of fear there is a big investment.
01:00:30.320 --> 01:00:37.840
Um uh and on the end user side, you're like, I spent the money on created value for my business here.
01:00:38.480 --> 01:00:46.400
Am I enabling a generic competitor to come in and implement that material in their product at a lower cost?
01:00:46.800 --> 01:00:49.119
You know, why what's in it for me?
01:00:49.280 --> 01:01:01.280
So I think there's a lot of what's in it for me, um, protectionism around this idea um that'll persist for a long time.
01:01:01.760 --> 01:01:04.960
Um certainly around the extractable stuff.
01:01:05.039 --> 01:01:10.960
Uh, with regard to the biological reactivity, it's a much lower cost.
01:01:12.000 --> 01:01:17.760
And every and it should be not a material but a finished article too, right?
01:01:17.920 --> 01:01:20.159
Because manufacturing matters.
01:01:20.320 --> 01:01:26.400
Uh uh and certainly especially and post-treatment as well, right?
01:01:26.480 --> 01:01:38.880
So if you're going to supply something steamed or gamma radiated or sterilized by ethylene oxide, that's what you need to test because the polymers change, right?
01:01:39.599 --> 01:01:40.880
Oh, absolutely.
01:01:41.119 --> 01:01:42.000
Absolutely.
01:01:42.239 --> 01:01:52.000
And then also the other part that you kind of lose is any control over the data quality when you're pulling it out of some, you know, cloud data source.
01:01:52.079 --> 01:01:55.920
Uh, and it depends on what is readily available for that data source.
01:01:56.079 --> 01:02:04.800
Are you getting the source data packages, the protocols, all of that fun stuff where you could do the deep dive if you have the expertise or desire to do so?
01:02:05.039 --> 01:02:16.159
Or are you going to get your run-of-the-mill AI slop evaluation of this data set and have people drawing wildly incorrect conclusions?
01:02:16.320 --> 01:02:36.480
So as much as I believe in accessible data and everything, uh, you do want informed, educated individuals doing the evaluation of the data that's in front of them to make the appropriate assessments to draw the correct conclusions, or again, ultimately, what is the safety of our patients out of this?
01:02:38.480 --> 01:02:39.440
For sure.
01:02:40.079 --> 01:02:40.559
For sure.
01:02:40.719 --> 01:02:41.840
Thank you guys.
01:02:42.079 --> 01:02:46.079
Um and you know, wrapping up here, I just have two more questions.
01:02:46.239 --> 01:03:00.079
Um one of which being, we look into the future, the next couple of years, three to five years from now, what do you hope to see change as it relates to single-use standardization, adoption, validation?
01:03:00.400 --> 01:03:07.840
I, for one, after this sequence of conversations, I hope uh vendors start putting together more comprehensive data packages.
01:03:08.079 --> 01:03:11.599
And I didn't even realize how big of a problem that was before we started talking about this.
01:03:11.760 --> 01:03:16.880
So I'm curious to hear from all of you what you hope to see change in the next three to five years.
01:03:19.119 --> 01:03:20.880
I guess uh I'll start us off.
01:03:20.960 --> 01:03:31.920
I'm just thinking of what I think I shared during the live event about the demand for better single use and improved single use innovation from Cell and Gene, especially as a sector.
01:03:32.079 --> 01:03:39.199
Like I think we are getting there and and um cell and gene in general is is progressing fast.
01:03:39.840 --> 01:03:47.280
Um, but uh if single use can can keep up with the needs of of that industry, which is really, I think maybe I'm biased.
01:03:47.360 --> 01:03:55.199
Um, but uh I think it's a a modality that is really has a high potential for a lot of patients.
01:03:56.639 --> 01:03:57.920
I agree, Katrina.
01:03:58.079 --> 01:03:58.880
Thank you.
01:04:02.400 --> 01:04:03.760
Josh, Paul?
01:04:05.199 --> 01:04:13.360
Well, uh um you know, I'm encouraged by uh USP 665.
01:04:13.519 --> 01:04:26.159
It's a significant milestone in and when I talk about standardization, I talk about standardizing, let's say, test and evaluation methodologies.
01:04:26.320 --> 01:04:33.760
We're not ready really for standardization of technology itself, uh, because that can hamper innovation if not done right.
01:04:34.000 --> 01:04:48.960
And I think um that we can create interchangeability if that's really the goal of standardization by qualifying the materials according to standard methods.
01:04:49.280 --> 01:04:54.480
USP665, they just sent out a call for experts for the next revision.
01:04:54.559 --> 01:05:05.840
I mean, before May 1st, uh, I think it was a week or two before May 1st when it was going live, they're already saying, hey, come join the party uh to uh rewrite this thing.
01:05:06.000 --> 01:05:08.800
Um, but there's you know, it's not just extractables.
01:05:08.960 --> 01:05:13.199
I think particulates remain um a bugaboo.
01:05:13.440 --> 01:05:17.360
Um there's no easy answers there.
01:05:17.599 --> 01:05:30.559
How much is okay, how much is not okay, how to assess, how do you even test methods are in development within ACM, but not complete uh yet.
01:05:30.719 --> 01:05:33.760
Uh so articulates integrity.
01:05:34.000 --> 01:05:38.719
Um uh I think sterilization is pretty solid.
01:05:38.960 --> 01:05:41.840
Um compatibility is pretty solid.
01:05:42.079 --> 01:05:54.079
So uh, you know, particulates and integrity, I would say, are areas that uh could use some standardization to facilitate adoption.
01:05:55.920 --> 01:05:56.239
Great.
01:05:56.480 --> 01:05:57.199
Thank you.
01:05:57.519 --> 01:06:02.159
And last but not least, I will ask you guys the hallmark question of this show.
01:06:02.239 --> 01:06:09.119
I ask every guest, and that is in your opinion, big, small, broad niche, how do you think we can better biopharma?
01:06:09.760 --> 01:06:34.000
You know what I I think that the the best way, you know, if if both sides of the supplier and end user community can look at the other side with a greater degree of respect we can create a a better bunch of relationships that bring value.
01:06:34.159 --> 01:06:43.280
It's when it's you know there's it's it's the transactional or bully approach um either direction, right?
01:06:43.360 --> 01:06:44.639
It can go both ways, right?
01:06:44.719 --> 01:06:48.559
The big supplier is like I'm the big supplier you shall buy for me.
01:06:48.719 --> 01:06:53.280
And then but I'm a top 10 biopharma I'm gonna tell you what to do.
01:06:54.159 --> 01:07:55.199
Both are businesses with their own needs uh one serving patients uh both serving stockholders uh you know they need to figure out how to get along and and to have a a a good a more value added relationship that's sort of behind the stuff I mean that's very Pollyanish of me that's a good answer Paul thank you Josh curious to hear your thoughts and Katrina I mean I I do feel that I often talk to suppliers and the other side of things because I'm not afraid to just pick up the phone and just start calling people and I think we kind of need to bring that back bring the human element back to this you think about this industry as much as it's run by capitalism at the end of the day it's all about the patients and bringing care and life saving medications to patients and Corb is the people so we need to behave like people and treat each other with dignity and sometimes it's just nice to I have a basement office here.
01:07:55.360 --> 01:08:21.359
I don't see the light a day very much it's nice to hear a voice other than the one inside my head yeah amen amen Josh Katrina how do you think we get better bioparamo I mean I really am on the perspective that we have the potential to use biomanufacturing innovation to really enable global health and and access for everyone to to medications that they need.
01:08:21.520 --> 01:08:47.520
And um I think the technologies exist they're out there and and if we find the best ways to use that and improve yields and and bring down costs that can really enable us to you know dose more patients or or make it things affordable for LMICs and and um I I know that's the the desire of a lot of people in the industry and I I don't think it's an impossible aim at all by any means that's great.
01:08:47.760 --> 01:09:04.560
Thank you all uh for your for your great answers to that question Paul Josh Katrina thank you so much for joining me on this episode of Better Biopharma the official podcast of Bioprocesson if you'd like to watch the full live event that these three were featured on some time ago head on over to Bioprocess Online.
01:09:04.640 --> 01:09:12.319
The link is in the description and stay tuned for new episodes of Better Biopharma every other week I'm Tyler Manichello and I'll see you next time.