Cell Culture Influenza Vaccines: The current status - WHO

Cell Culture Influenza Vaccines: The current status Han van den Bosch, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 7th WHO Meeting on Influenza Vaccine Technology...

6 downloads 542 Views 5MB Size
Cell Culture Influenza Vaccines: The current status Han van den Bosch, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

7th WHO Meeting on Influenza Vaccine Technology Transfer to Developing Country Manufacturers. Dubai, 25-26 March 2014

Statement • The presentation contains publicly available information only, • The presentation gives a limited overview of the subject, and does not intend to be complete in every detail and in all options, • Examples given about production systems and issues do not provide a guarantee about the performance of a certain system.

Advantages of cell-culture-derived influenza vaccines (1) • • • • • • •

Permits growth of all influenza viruses H3N2 strains are difficult to isolate in eggs No need for egg adapted High Growth Reassortants Available on short notice during any season Lead time shorter as compared to egg supply No need for embryonated chicken eggs from biosecure flocks Not enough chickens may be available in case of avian flu outbreak • Easier logistics • Less waste disposal • Maintained in aseptic closed environment during upstream and downstream

Advantages of cell-culture-derived influenza vaccines (2) • • • • • • • •

Reduced risk of contamination during production More controlled and consistent production process Higher purity of starting material Safe whole virus vaccines feasible Animal-component-free production feasible Reduces vaccine production time Might provide broader immunity to influenza variants Egg passaging might induce adaptive changes for growth in eggs • Safe for individuals with allergy to eggs • Allows for multipurpose facility use (other vaccines, MAbs and other therapeutic proteins) • W.P. Glezen (2011), The Lancet 377: 698-700 • P.D. Minor et al (2009), Vaccine 27: 2907-2913

Marketing Authorization of cell-culture seasonal IIV • 2001: Influvac TC, Solvay / Abbott, MDCK-a, EU – Discontinued after acquisition by Abbott • 2007: Optaflu, Novartis, MDCK-s, EU • 2012: Flucelvax, Novartis, MDCK-s, USA • 2010: Preflucel, Baxter, Vero, EU • 2013: FluBlok, Protein Sciences, rec.HA in Baculo / SF9 (insect cells), USA • Multiple (Pre-)Pandemic versions

Ongoing cell culture (P)IIV developments • GSK (EB66, Valneva / Vivalis) • Kaketsuken (+GSK) • Sanofi Pasteur (discontinued PerC6) • Crucell / J&J (PerC6) • Takeda (+Baxter, Vero) • Kitasato Daiichi Sankyo (MDCK)

Cell culture (P)LAIV developments • MedImmune / AstraZeneca (MDCK) – Halted after FDA requirements? (Wendy Wolfson, Nature Biotechnology 28, 115 (2010)

• Nobilon / Merck (MDCK, NOBI) – Discontinued after acquisition by Merck (2010) • Green Hills Biotech (Vero) – Ongoing • Others at earlier pre-clinical stages of development?

WHO Tables on clinical evaluation of influenza vaccines Number (%) of trials mentioned: VACCINE

SUBSTRATE EGGS

SUBSTRATE CELLS

IIV

178

15 (8%)

LAIV

47

0 (0%)

PIIV

279

38 (12%)

PLAIV

25

3 (11%)

http://www.who.int/immunization/diseases/influenza/clinical_evaluation_tables/en/

Barriers / Challenges for cell culture influenza vaccines • Regulatory • Technical / Manufacturing – Cell choice – Production system – Purification – Yields – Reproducibility & Repeatibility – Stability of Product – Timelines • Financial – Development costs – Investments and Cost of Goods (CoG)

Regulatory WHO Guidelines for National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs)

Regulatory: Guidelines, Directives, Guidance

Regulatory: important cell aspects to consider • • • • • • • • • •

Mammalian or avian Suspension or adherent Source and record / passage history (TSE) Adventitious agents Animal Component Free (incl. trypsin and benzonase) Stability at passaging (end-of-production passage) Suitability for production Tumorgenicity (living cells) Oncogenicity (host cell DNA remnants) Risk assessment

Technical / Manufacturing aspects • • • • • • •

Cell choice Production system (“upstream”, USP) Purification (“downstream”, DSP) Yields Reproducibility & Repeatibility (multiple virus strains) Stability of Product / Formulation Timelines

Cell choice • • • • •

MDCK, Vero, PerC6, EB66, or Other / New………

• Adherent, or • Suspension – Suspension cells easier, higher yields, higher purity, lower CoG

• Seed production (MCB, WCB), • Characterization and Sanitation: – Tumorgenicity, Oncogenicity, Adventitious Agents, Identity, Stability

Virus seed preparation,

HA titer

adaptation from egg to cell substrate may be necessary for wildtype viruses, HGRs and LAIV reassortants:

0

14

eggs

TC

Passages

Production System; Roller bottle

RollerCell40

Bioreactor Steel (Multi-Use, Fixed Piping) Modes: Suspension cells, Microcarrier, Perfusion

Disposable Bioreactors (Single-Use)

Xcellerex XDR (101000L)

WAVE (0.5-500L

CellSTACK® / Cell-Factory™

Disposable (Single-Use)

iCELLis® : fixed-bed, high cell-density, perfusion bioreactor (Single-Use, disposable)

4RB

20RB

100RB

4RB

20RB

40L

4RB

20RB

600RB

3000RB

200L

1000L

iCELLis 500

STAINLESS STEEL VS SINGLE USE INVESTMENT VS OPERATIONAL COSTS INVESTMENT

COGS/DOSE

300

Stainless Steel facility

200

20 Single Use facility

HVM

LVM

PRODUCTION CAPACITY / YEAR

Level of investment iCELLis system similar to single-use approach, BUT increase of production capacity Reduction of CoGS enabling affordability of biologics

SU facility Univercells facility

LVM

HVM

UNIVERCELLS

Typical USP+DSP production process IIV (whole virion, suspension MDCK) Grow cells in fermentor (2-3 days) Virus inoculation Virus harvest (3-5 days) Clarification by low speed centrifugation Filtration Inactivation by BPL DNA removal Ultra Filtration Removal of debris by precipitation Sucrose gradient Sterile filtration Concentration/Dialysis Adding stabilizer Blend vaccine

J.G.M. Heldens. Mammalian cells for influenza vaccine production; comparison of various systems. Visiongain, London UK, May 21. 2010.

• • •

Gradient from 0 – 55% Amount of virus determined per batch Separation of

HA

> Sucrose gradient

– virus at 42 % sucrose, and – MDCK host cell protein at 30% sucrose

60.0

30

50.0

25

40.0

20

30.0

15

20.0

10

10.0

5

0.0

sucrose

Challenges:

sucrose % HA

0 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

fraction 18000

Particle size:

• Virus 150nm • Others 500 – 1500 nm

16000 protein concentration

> Sterile filtration (220nm)

14000 12000

total protein concentration (µg/ml)

10000 8000

MDCK protein concentration (µg/ml)

6000 4000 2000 0 1

6

11

16

21

26

fraction

Antigen recovery over the whole process only 2- 6% • 50% antigen loss on sucrose gradient, and • 50% loss on sterile filtration

Process adaptations IIV (whole virion) Grow cells in fermentor (2-3 days) Virus inoculation

Adapted Grow cells in fermentor (2-3 days) Virus inoculation

Virus harvest (3-5 days) Clarification by low speed centrifugation

Virus harvest (3-5 days)

Filtration

Clarification by high speed centrifugation

Inactivation by BPL

Inactivation by BPL

DNA removal

DNA removal

Ultra Filtration Removal of debris by precipitation

Filtration

Sucrose gradient

Sterile filtration

Sterile filtration

Concentration/Dialysis

Concentration/Dialysis

Adding stabilizer

Adding stabilizer

Blend vaccine

Blend vaccine

Summary adapted production IIV (whole virion, MDCK suspension, NIBRG14/H5N1 example) Robust scalable process HA yield between 8 and 10 > 95% removal total protein > 90% removal host cell protein > 90% removal DNA Antigen / 2000L NIBRG14 Batch 1

4.46 gram

NIBRG14 Batch 2

5.15 gram

NIBRG14 Batch 3

4.64 gram

NIBRG14 Antigen recovery 50 % 4.5 – 5 gram antigen / 2000L

LAIV upstream production on adherent MDCK cells Wild type / high growth reassortant vs. cold adapted reassortant

Typical production process LAIV on adherent MDCK cells Production wt virus seeds, reassortment Reassortant virus seeds Grow cells on cell cube (2-3 days) Virus inoculation Virus harvest (3-5 days)

DNA removal Concentration/Dialysis Adding stabilizer Blend vaccine

1 day

Clarification by filtration

Example production LAIV on adherent MDCK cells

Human Influenza

Human Influenza

Human Influenza

A44/Brisbane/59/2007 (H1N1)

A44/Brisbane/10/2007 (H3N2)

B56/Brisbane/60/2008

Infectious Titer expressed in log10 TCID50/ml

Infectious titer Viral Harvest

6.3

6.5

6.2

8.2

9.5

8.5

Infectious titer Concentrate

> Yield critical ! > 98% removal total protein > 90% removal DNA

MedImmune LAIV-MDCK meeting VRBPAC (2008) (Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, FDA)

MedImmune LAIV-MDCK meeting VRBPAC (2008)

Summary, Cell Culture Influenza Vaccines • Regulatory requirements and pathway should be clear for cell characterization (EMA, FDA, NRA) • Use existing approved cell line if feasible (costs, time, IP) • Suspension cells prefered over adherent cells – Easier process, higher yield and purity of harvest, lower cost • Different virus substrates require different DSP procedures • Different virus strains may require adapted process parameters • Production system hardware: – “steel” (higher investment, lower exploitation costs) or – “disposable” (lower investment, higher exploitation costs; increased flexibility) • Need for not-egg-passaged vaccine seed viruses • THANKS