The International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) Q8(R2), Q9, and Q10 guidelines provide the foundation for implementing
Quality by Design (QbD). Applying those concepts to the manufacture of biotech products, however, involves some nuances and
complexities. Therefore, this paper offers guidance and interpretation for implementing QbD for biopharmaceuticals, from early-phase
development steps such as identifying critical quality attributes and setting specifications, followed by the development
of the design space and establishing the process control strategy; to later stages, including incorporating QbD into a regulatory
filing and facilitating efficient commercial processes and manufacturing change flexibility post licensure.
Eli Lilly and Company
Quality by Design (QbD) is a concept applied to the design and development of biopharmaceutical molecules and manufacturing
that entails building quality into the process and product in a systematic, science- and risk-based manner. The QbD concepts
outlined in the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) Q8(R2), Q9, and Q10 guidelines provide the foundation for
implementing QbD during specific stages of product development.1–3 A critical component of QbD is understanding the needs of the patient and the specific quality attributes of the product
that are linked to safety and efficacy. Thus, to implement QbD, it is critical to have a fundamental understanding of the
functional relationships between patient needs, product quality attributes, analytical capabilities, and the manufacturing
process.
Pharmaceutical product sponsors begin by identifying product requirements to meet patient needs and then determine the quality
target product profile (QTPP) and the critical quality attributes (CQAs) required to meet those patient needs. Based on this
information, the sponsor then designs the molecule, the manufacturing process, and the control strategy to ensure that the
desired product quality is met consistently.
The QbD approach can be maintained throughout the lifecycle of the product to facilitate innovation and continuous improvement
based on expanded knowledge and new technologies. This knowledge is gained during development and grows with more manufacturing
experience through process characterization, scale-up, technology transfer, and manufacture, as well as through increased
patient exposure to the product. This approach encourages incorporating prior process and product knowledge and experience-based
methodologies (i.e., platform knowledge) into manufacturing throughout the life of the product.
The QbD approach was introduced into the US Food and Drug Administration's chemistry, manufacturing, and controls (CMC) review
process in 2004 with the aim of enhancing and modernizing the regulation of pharmaceutical manufacturing and product quality.4 The goal of QbD is to develop robust, well-understood processes that 1) deliver a product meeting the QTPP and 2) are controlled
by defined steps within the manufacturing process and that allow for manufacturing process changes within an established design
space of input variables and operating parameters without negatively affecting process attributes or identified CQAs. When
a product is developed using a QbD approach, the impact of raw and starting materials and process parameters on product quality
are well understood and the sources of process and product variability are well-known and controlled. In contrast, traditional
pharmaceutical manufacturing relies heavily on end-product testing and the process typically lacks the flexibility needed
to respond to variables encountered during manufacturing. The outcome is often "quality by conformance" and a rigid, static
manufacturing operation that is more susceptible to multiple manufacturing changes post licensure, thus requiring continuous
updating of the application through burdensome global regulatory supplements, variations, or amendments.
This paper focuses on the factors to consider when applying the QbD concepts outlined in ICH Q8(R2), Q9, and Q10 to biotechnology
products. The paper is intended to capture and reflect both the current and future state of QbD implementation. Therefore,
new tools and terminology (e.g., expanded change protocol and the post-approval management plan) have been included with an
expectation that the paper will be revised in the future based on new information and experiences, such as the mock biotech
common technical document (CTD) sections being developed by the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations
(EFPIA) and the CMC Biotech Working Group (formerly Conformia), and the US FDA's CMC Biotech Pilot Program.
This position paper begins by addressing patient needs and product quality attributes, followed by a discussion of characterization
development studies and the development of the design space and control strategies. It then addresses how to incorporate QbD
into a regulatory filing and finally, how to facilitate efficient, cost-effective commercial processes and manufacturing change
flexibility post licensure. Although biologic and biotechnology products often present a higher level of complexity than small
molecules in terms of manufacturing process or product structure, the concepts of QbD are the same as those for small molecules.
This paper describes the nuances and complexities involved in implementing QbD in the manufacture of biotech products and
offers guidance and interpretation for doing so. The scope of this paper is limited to well-characterized protein products,
in which the natural molecular heterogeneity, impurity profile, and potency can be defined with a high degree of confidence.
Anurag S. Rathore, PhD, is a consultant, Biotech CMC Issues, and a member of the faculty in the department of chemical engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology. Rathore is also a member of BioPharm International's Editorial Advisory Board.
Articles by Anurag S. Rathore, PhD
John Towns is the senior director of global CMC regulatory affairs at Eli Lilly and Company. Towns is also the chair of the Quality by Design Working Group of the PhRMA Biologics and Biotechnology Leadership Committee
Articles by John Towns
Rate this page
Would you recommend this page to a friend?
Your original vote has been tallied and is included in the ratings results.