Innovation in pharmaceutical analysis received moderate recognition. Nearly 19% of respondents said the level of innovation
in pharmaceutical analysis during the past year was high, 43% said it was medium, and nearly 22% said it was low (see Figure
1). Looking at specific analytical techniques, innovation in high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) was ranked the
highest. Nearly 32% of respondents said that innovation in HPLC was very important, and 43% said it was somewhat important.
Respondents rated improvement in instrument design or application as very important in mass spectrometry (25%), and near-infrared
(NIR) spectroscopy (24%), and 46% rated innovation as somewhat important in mass spectrometry and 47% for NIR. Seventeen percent
rated innovation as very important for nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) and also for Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy,
and 14% did so for Raman spectroscopy. Respondents rated innovation as somewhat important for NMR (46%), FTIR (44%), and Raman
Although innovation for green chemistry in API synthesis and manufacturing was considered important by respondents, the degree
of implementation of green chemistry was mixed. Thirteen percent of respondents said that using green chemistry in API synthesis
and manufacture was extremely important, 34% said it was very important, and 29% said it was important.
The most frequently cited greenchemistry approaches used by respondents were reduction or prevention of waste (75%) and reduction,
replacement, or elimination of solvents (61%). Other green-chemistry approaches in API synthesis and manufacturing were used
less frequently. Nearly one-quarter of respondents increased energy efficiency by running reactions at ambient pressures and
temperature. Roughly one-fifth of respondents either used renewable raw materials or analyzed a synthesis in realtime to minimize
or reduce byproducts. Nearly 14% maximized atom economy in a synthesis to reduce waste and byproducts or used a structured
mechanism to measure implementation of green chemistry. Roughly 12% eliminated stoichiometric reagents by using catalysts
instead, and 7% used biocatalysts instead of chemical catalysts.
Disposables in bioprocessing
The survey also examined the prevalence and importance of disposable components in biologics manufacturing. Respondents' companies
use disposable manufacturing components for bioprocessing for an average of 20% of their production. Breaking this number
down, nearly 25% of respondents said that they do not use disposables. Nearly 40% said that disposables accounted for between
1 and 20% of their production, and roughly 20% said disposables accounted for between 21 and 40% of their production. Ten
percent said disposables accounted for between 41 and 60% of their production, and 5% said disposables accounted for between
61 and 80% of their production.
Figure 3 Question: Are you or your company working on a project that incorporates quality by design?
For those respondents that do not use disposable components for bioprocessing, 24% say they are not considering their use,
and 7% said they are considering disposables. The vast majority of respondents that do not use disposables, however, are undecided
as to whether they will use them in the future. Sixty-nine percent say they do not know whether they will use disposables
Figure 4 Question: For which of the following areas are you or your company working on a project in quality by design?
Quality by design
More than half of the respondents said that they or their companies were working on projects that incorporated QbD initiatives
and nearly one quarter are not (see Figure 3). Respondents who say they or their companies are working on QbD-related projects
are most frequently doing so for the manufacturing of solid-dosage products (47%) and small-molecule drug substances (42%)
(see Figure 4). A lower number of respondents are working on QbD projects in biologic drug substances (32%) and parenteral
drug products (27%) (see Figure 4).
Figure 5 Question: What is the importance of quality by design for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of pharmaceutical
The survey examined how important QbD is for improving manufacturing efficiency and effectiveness (see Figure 5). Nearly 60%
said QbD is either extremely or very important in doing so, and 28% said it was important. Following a similar trend, 65%
of respondents say that implementing PAT was either extremely or very important, and 30% said it was important (see Figure
Figure 6 Question: How important is process analytical technology (PAT) in advancing pharmaceutical manufacturing?
Reasons for innovation
The survey found that innovation was a critical tool for bettering human-resource development and for achieving cost efficiencies
in manufacturing. Respondents most frequently rated innovation very important in finding skilled technicians and scientists
to carry out process development and manufacture (48%), in improving cost efficiency in manufacturing and development (48%),
and achieving greater predictability of biological processes, including improved scale-up and reproducibility (37%). Thirty-one
percent said innovation was very important for improving product characteristics and reducing product heterogeneity. Twentyeight
percent said innovation was very important for reducing bottlenecks in downstream processing or purification.
Figure 7 Question: Rate the importance of innovation in dosage-form manufacturing for the following during the next five
Tools for innovation
Respondents also rated what was important to achieve innovation. Respondents most frequently rated management support (76%)
and cross-functional teams (55%) as very important in realizing innovation. Team consensus, metrics, and reward systems were
also considered. Forty-three percent said that team consensus was very important, and more than one-third said that both metrics
to measure innovation and a reward system recognizing innovation were important.
The survey examined the barriers to innovation. Almost three-fourths of respondents said that they have encountered a lack
of financial support, and 61% have experienced a lack of management support. Forty-six percent said that they do not have
a structured mechanism to measure innovation, and 37% said they do not have a reward system in place. Other barriers to innovation
encountered by respondents are an inability to build team consensus (30%), an inability to create cross-functional teams (29%),
and an inability to access team members in locations outside a respondent's immediate workplace (22%).
For measuring innovation, respondents most frequently rated internal metrics designed by a project or department 50%) and
peer recognition or awards 43%) as extremely or very useful. Respondents rated the number of publications (41%) and industry-wide
metrics such as a balanced scorecard (32%) as useful. Only 22% rated the number of publications as extremely or very useful,
and only 35% ranked industry-wide metrics as extremely or very useful in measuring innovation.
What's ahead in manufacturing
The survey examined the importance of innovation for certain manufacturing technologies or approaches during the next five
years (see Figure 7). Respondents most frequently rated innovation during the next five years as very important in addressing
implementation of QbD (47%) and adoption of lean manufacturing (41%). Nearly one-third said innovation was very important
in the adoption of continuous processing and for implementing process simulation and predictive modeling.
Innovation for robotics, automation, and wireless technology was not given high priority during the next five years (see Figure
7). Only 20% said that innovation in robotics and automation was very important, and 15% said it was not important. Fourteen
percent said innovation in wireless technology for pharmaceutical manufacturing was important, and nearly 19% said it was
Patricia Van Arnum is a senior editor at Pharmaceutical Technology, 485 Route One South, Bldg F, First Floor, Iselin, NJ 08830 tel. 732.346.3072,