The Biopharmaceutical Manufacturing Survey - Pharmaceutical Technology

Latest Issue

Latest Issue
PharmTech Europe

The Biopharmaceutical Manufacturing Survey
A Pharmaceutical Technology report looks at trends in biopharmaceutical manufacturing. This article contains bonus online-exclusive material.

Pharmaceutical Technology
Volume 33, Issue 7


Table I: Purification technologies used for protein-based drugs (multiple responses allowed).
We were especially curious to learn how manufacturers were purifying their protein-based products. We learned that 72% use ion-exchange chromatography, 62% use membrane-based filters, and 52% use Protein-A-based chromatography, often thought of as the standard for mAb purification (see Table I).

There has been an ongoing debate among equipment vendors about the merits of disposable, often plastic, versus stainless-steel equipment for biopharmaceutical manufacturing. Vendors tend to cite cost, ease of use, and reduced opportunities for contamination as advantages of disposable equipment.

Figure 5: Stainless-steel versus disposable equipment use.
We thought it would be interesting to learn what equipment people are actually using and their attitudes about the equipment classes they're not using. The results were illuminating. Only 7.5% are using all disposable equipment, 19% are using all stainless steel, and the vast majority—74%—use a combination of stainless-steel and disposable equipment (see Figure 5).

Table II: Type of equipment used to manufacture biopharmaceuticals.
Next, we wondered whether equipment classes in any way followed the type of product manufactured. For instance, do protein manufacturers have a preference for a particular equipment class compared with manufacturers of nucleic-acid-based drugs. We found that regardless of product type, the choice of equipment used tracked very closely to the group as a whole. Eighty-one percent of mAb producers use a combination of stainless-steel and disposable equipment; 4.2% use all disposable equipment; and 15% use all stainless-steel equipment. Among producers of proteins other than mAbs, the results were similar: 80% used a combination; 5% used all disposable; and 15% used all stainless steel. All-disposable use was highest among manufacturers of nucleic-acid-based drugs (10%) (see Table II).

Figure 5A: Perceived advantages of disposables (all biopharmaceutical manufacturers, regardless of equipment used). Total exceeds 100% because multple responses were allowed.
Interestingly, users of stainless-steel equipment are most inclined to switch to disposables and not the other way around. Of those currently using all stainless-steel equipment, 21% are considering switching to disposable equipment, and 52% are not. Yet, among those using all disposable equipment, 65% report that they will not go back to stainless-steel equipment, while the remaining 35% do not know.

Table III: Perceived advantages of using disposable equipment.
We noted some marked disparities in perceptions and realities about various types of equipment, depending on what manufacturers are currently using (see Figure 5A). Specifically, the perceptions of disposable equipment among users of stainless-steel equipment were more negative than among those who actually use disposable equipment. For example, among manufacturers using all stainless-steel equipment, only 7.3% think that process reproducibility could be an advantage to all disposable equipment. In contrast, 53% of those using all disposable equipment cite process reproducibility as an advantage. Only 68% of those who use stainless-steel equipment believe that contamination could be reduced by using all disposable equipment, versus 82% of those who actually use all disposable equipment (see Table III). Only 39% of stainless-steel equipment users think disposables would be easy to use, as opposed to 71% who use disposables and find them easy to use. Only 10% of stainless-steel equipment users think it would be easy to incorporate process analytics into a disposable-only facility; 24% of those who actually use disposables say that it's easy to incorporate process analytics into their facilities. Finally, about 20% of stainless-steel users believe regulatory bodies will accept the use of disposables; 35% of those that actually use disposables cite regulatory acceptance as an advantage.

Table IV: Perceived challenges to using disposable equipment.
It also happens that stainless-steel equipment users underestimate some of the challenges inherent in disposable use. Among those who use all disposable equipment, 44% cite leaching of disposable components into cell-culture medium as a challenge, compared with 28% of all-stainless-steel users. A higher percent of disposable users—38%—find inadequate bioreactor volumes a challenge, versus 26% of stainless-steel users (see Table IV).


blog comments powered by Disqus
LCGC E-mail Newsletters

Subscribe: Click to learn more about the newsletter
| Weekly
| Monthly
| Weekly

What role should the US government play in the current Ebola outbreak?
Finance development of drugs to treat/prevent disease.
Oversee medical treatment of patients in the US.
Provide treatment for patients globally.
All of the above.
No government involvement in patient treatment or drug development.
Finance development of drugs to treat/prevent disease.
Oversee medical treatment of patients in the US.
Provide treatment for patients globally.
All of the above.
No government involvement in patient treatment or drug development.
Jim Miller Outsourcing Outlook Jim MillerOutside Looking In
Cynthia Challener, PhD Ingredients Insider Cynthia ChallenerAdvances in Large-Scale Heterocyclic Synthesis
Jill Wechsler Regulatory Watch Jill Wechsler New Era for Generic Drugs
Sean Milmo European Regulatory WatchSean MilmoTackling Drug Shortages
New Congress to Tackle Health Reform, Biomedical Innovation, Tax Policy
Combination Products Challenge Biopharma Manufacturers
Seven Steps to Solving Tabletting and Tooling ProblemsStep 1: Clean
Legislators Urge Added Incentives for Ebola Drug Development
FDA Reorganization to Promote Drug Quality
Source: Pharmaceutical Technology,
Click here