Shifting to automated, closed modular manufacturing systems is growing increasingly crucial for biopharmaceutical production.
In the course of the significant transformation of the biopharmaceutical industry, modular manufacturing emerges as a game-changing approach to fluid management. This innovative methodology is reshaping how pharmaceutical companies and contract development and manufacturing organizations (CDMOs) produce and handle biopharmaceuticals, offering unprecedented flexibility, efficiency, and scalability.
Modular manufacturing in biopharmaceutical fluid management (Figure 1) is crucial for the following reasons:
The latter is true when technologies provide better control and traceability throughout the manufacturing process. The integration of modular systems with manufacturing execution systems (MES) helps ensure seamless operations, real-time monitoring, and data-driven decision-making.
Overall, the approach to add modularity is particularly valuable when dealing with diverse product portfolios, varying batch sizes, and the potential need for quick scale-up or scale-out capabilities.
In today’s dynamic biopharmaceutical landscape, process flexibility is not just an advantage—it’s a necessity. CDMOs, in particular, face the challenge of producing a wide array of products with different specifications, volumes, and handling requirements.
One of the primary drivers for process flexibility is the diverse nature of biopharmaceutical products. From monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to cell and gene therapies, each product may require unique processing conditions, volumes, and handling protocols. Such a volatile demand necessitates rapid scalability.
Will the COVID-19 pandemic remain unique? Uncertain. However, it has prompted manufacturers to be more prepared for potential further outbreaks, such as monkeypox. With pandemic preparedness comes the importance of being able to scale up production swiftly. Modular manufacturing systems provide the agility needed to respond to such sudden surges in demand. They also allow CDMOs to quickly reconfigure their production lines to accommodate these varying needs without significant downtime or retooling or alternatively piling equipment for all possible events and scales.
Why would CDMOs invest in a full set of multiple technologies when they can have one modular system for many scenarios?
Fluid management is all about transferring liquids in biopharmaceutical manufacturing between different process steps. This can be the case in upstream, downstream, fill/finish, or in between. The industry is witnessing a transition from manual, open handling to automated closed systems, in large part due to Annex 1 of the European Commission’s guidelines, which favors closed systems. This regulatory requirement has been effective in shifting the interest of manufacturers and CDMOs to automated closed systems (1). The shift in attitude is primarily driven by the need for increased sterility, reduced contamination risks, and improved process control. Even for aliquoting small volumes into single-use bags, closed systems are increasingly being used (see Figure 2).
Why would a manufacturer or CDMO want to close the fluid path system? Responses to this question include the following:
Despite the advancements in fluid management processes, several challenges persist in the biopharmaceutical industry.
Only limited scalability. Many current systems struggle to accommodate varying production volumes efficiently. So many aspects can change, be it the batch volume or the size of the primary packaging. Does the manufacturer fill 100 L of antibody-drug conjugates into five single-use bags of 20 L? Or does the manufacturer dispense 20 L of viral vectors into 40 single-use bags of 500 mL? Do mAbs even need to be filled into 20 1-L bottles?Scaling up, down, or out often requires significant changes to equipment or processes, leading to increased costs and downtime.
Vendor-dependent ecosystems. There is one closed system that CDMOs do not like—the closed ecosystem of technologies. A vendor lock-in and the resulting incompatibilities can restrict flexibility and increase costs for manufacturers. If Solution Provider A only accepts its own single-use assemblies, single-use bags, and sometimes even platform systems and not those of Vendor B or C, it limits both the drive for optimization and productivity and simply prevents CDMOs from following suit with their customers’ mandatory equipment.
Footprint availability. The need for different systems to handle various scales of production leads to increased capital expenditure, larger footprints, and more complex training requirements for operators, even more when platform systems are not modular. Adding a number of technologies does not necessarily equal scalability. More equipment is just a problem with regards to footprint in manufacturing suites.
Filling accuracy for small volumes. As the industry moves toward advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) and personalized medicines, the need for precise handling of small volumes becomes critical. Many existing systems lack the required accuracy for these applications into single-use bags. In most cases, scales are integrated to measure larger filling quantities, while flow sensors are used to aliquot smaller volumes.
Cooling liquids before aliquotation. Some biopharmaceuticals, particularly cell-based products, always require precise temperature control. Otherwise, inaccurate temperatures reduce cell viability, such as when cells are held too warm for too long. Most current systems struggle to maintain optimal temperatures in process steps before the cooling process.
Wasting residual volume. Most existing systems often leave significant residual volumes in tubing and containers, leading to product waste and reduced yield. This waste can be limited by draining single-use assemblies post filling with negative pressure.
All of the mentioned pain points are issues that every manufacturer would want to be solved. But do all these pain points make sense for a specific manufacturer’s production? These points are of importance when biopharmaceutical manufacturers and CDMOs carefully consider their project criteria and priorities when selecting or designing fluid management systems.
What are the key project criteria, and in what order should these criteria be prioritized? Answering these questions helps a manufacturer find the most suitable filling platform and allows them to make trade-offs between some options. Examples are illustrated in Figure 3; if it is important to fill small volumes (e.g., ATMPs) as accurately as possible, then speed of filling might not be the biggest priority. If it is the speed that counts, then the speed may reduce the accuracy and the option to homogenize drugs before the filling process to ensure aliquot-to-aliquot consistent product quality throughout.
Advanced filling platform systems adapting to criteria. Modular, adaptable platform systems are more likely to meet manufacturers’ defined criteria and priorities. Most innovative automated aseptic filling platforms offer several key features, such as:
Modular manufacturing in biopharmaceutical fluid management marks a significant advancement in the industry, offering a multitude of benefits that are essential for modern production demands. One of the most compelling advantages is increased flexibility, which allows manufacturers and CDMOs to swiftly adapt to varying product requirements and batch sizes. This adaptability is crucial in a landscape where market needs can change rapidly.
Moreover, these modular systems contribute to improved efficiency by reducing setup times and facilitating easier changeovers between products, ultimately leading to higher overall equipment effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness of modular platforms cannot be overstated; by consolidating multiple dedicated systems into a single, versatile platform, companies can significantly lower capital expenditures and optimize their manufacturing footprint.
Quality control is enhanced through the implementation of closed, automated systems that minimize human error and contamination risks, ensuring consistent product quality. Additionally, the integrated data management and traceability features simplify regulatory compliance, making it easier for manufacturers to meet stringent industry standards.
As the biopharmaceutical landscape evolves, the adaptability of modular systems provides a vital degree of future proofing, allowing facilities to upgrade or expand as new technologies and regulations emerge. Furthermore, the ability to quickly scale up production can substantially shorten the time required to bring new products to market, giving companies a competitive edge.
In fact, those who embrace modular manufacturing will be well positioned to navigate the complexities of the biopharmaceutical industry, respond to changing demands, and thrive in an increasingly competitive environment. The future of biopharmaceutical manufacturing lies in modularity.
1. European Commission. The Rules Governing Medicinal Products in the European Union Volume 4 EU Guidelines for Good Manufacturing Practice for Medicinal Products for Human and Veterinary Use. 8.127 of Annex 1 (2022).
2. Moloney, B. Homogenization of Cells & Aliquotation in Single-use Bags. susupport.com/knowledge, Aug. 9, 2023.
Jonathan Haider, j.haider@susupport.com, is product line manager at Single Use Support.
Pharmaceutical Technology®
Vol. 48, No. 11
November 2024
Pages: 17–19, 30
When referring to this article, please cite it as Haider, J. Automate Aseptic Filling: Closing the System at Full Modularity. Pharmaceutical Technology 2024, 48 (11), 17–19, 30.
Drug Solutions Podcast: Gliding Through the Ins and Outs of the Pharma Supply Chain
November 14th 2023In this episode of the Drug Solutions podcast, Jill Murphy, former editor, speaks with Bourji Mourad, partnership director at ThermoSafe, about the supply chain in the pharmaceutical industry, specifically related to packaging, pharma air freight, and the pressure on suppliers with post-COVID-19 changes on delivery.
Legal and Regulatory Perspectives on 3D Printing: Drug Compounding Applications
December 10th 2024This paper explores the legal and regulatory framework around 3D drug printing, particularly for personalized medicine, considering regulatory compliance, business concerns, and intellectual property rights.