Technical and Economical Evaluation of Downstream Processing Options for Monoclonal Antibody (Mab) Production - Updated downstream processes can pave the way for increased productivity, now and in the


Technical and Economical Evaluation of Downstream Processing Options for Monoclonal Antibody (Mab) Production
Updated downstream processes can pave the way for increased productivity, now and in the future.

BioPharm International

Downstream process design can increase facility output through improved overall process yield or higher batch capacity in mass and volume. Higher yields enable the production of more drug product or a reduction in the number of batches required to satisfy the market need. Combining these changes could make room for production of additional products in the same facility. Use of recent technology as well as state-of-the-art process engineering will be necessary to achieve significant improvement in both of these categories.

Table 1. Importance of using recent technology in cost of use estimates: The most recent technology offers the best long-term cost of use at slightly higher initial raw material investment combined with re-use and improved mass and volume capacity (from ref.9).
The single most effective improvement of drug manufacturing costs comes from resin and filter re-use optimization, in spite of cleaning and validation costs that need to be considered as a result. This view is particularly valid for the Protein A step, but also applies to ion exchangers in large-scale production with high batch frequency. A scenario comparing a single-use membrane adsorber with re-use column chromatography was recently published.9 This paper discusses the cost comparison in great detail and includes all related costs in the evaluation, yet it uses an old ion exchange resin as the point of reference. Table 1 represents the main conclusion derived from this study as a cost comparison for 10 years of use together with a calculation based on a modern anion exchanger. Data were obtained following the same approach and using the raw data supplied in this comparison.9

Other incremental improvements of a process step, either through optimization of process parameters or exchange of one resin for another or for a membrane, will only produce small cost reductions unless any of the following items can be achieved:

  • Overall process productivity improvements or time savings (satisfying higher product needs in an existing plant),
  • Sizeable reallocation of facility capacity for other productive purposes,
  • Reduced number of failed batches through improved robustness and lower production risk.

Figure 5. Large-scale Chromaflow columns are typically used in the downstream processing of recombinant proteins.
An example in line with the priority ranking shown in Figure 3 would be doubling cell culture titre and binding capacity for all steps in the purifications sequence, which could cut in half the number of batches required to meet market needs, thus releasing the remaining capacity for other manufacturing or alternatively to double the output of one product. Comparing capacities for first generation resins and recently introduced products makes it clear that such improvement is achievable when moving from old resins to new. A novel cation exchange resin has binding capacity of 80–120 g/L IgG at residence times of 2 to 6 min and typical pH and conductivity values for the feed stream. This represents twice the amount of useful capacity for SP Sepharose Fast Flow in a typical first generation process (Figures 2,5).

The Protein A step (in good company with virus removal filtration) is often considered the most cost-intensive step in current platform downstream processes. Even this step, however, represents only about 3% of total manufacturing costs. Replacing Protein A with a less costly resin will reduce the raw material cost, but will have little impact on the total product cost because of resulting productivity losses. There is a risk that such a small cost improvement will be accompanied by lower process performance of the new step; the benchmark would be tough: 95–97% yield and >99% purity. Similar constraints of improvement options would hold true for subsequent downstream steps.

blog comments powered by Disqus



USP Awards Analytical Research
August 15, 2014
FDA Warns about Fraudulent Ebola Treatments
August 15, 2014
Guilty Plea to Importing Illegal Cancer Drugs
August 15, 2014
Amgen Recalls Aranesp Prefilled Syringes
August 15, 2014
Report Predicts Generics Production Return to US
August 15, 2014
Author Guidelines
Source: BioPharm International,
Click here