Integration of Regulatory Guidelines into Protein Drug Product Development

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Wang W.,
   2. Sing S.,
   3. Zeng D. L.,
   4. King K.,
   5. Nema S.

   Antibody structure, instability, and formulation. J. Pharm. Sci. 2007, 96 (1), 1–26.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Uchiyama S.

   Liquid formulation for antibody drugs. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2014, 1844 (11), 2041–2052.

   OpenUrl
3. 3.↵
   ICH. Harmonised Tripartite Guideline—Pharmaceutical Development Q8(R2). 2009, www.ich.org.
4. 4.↵
   1. Yu L. X.,
   2. Amidon G.,
   3. Khan M. A.,
   4. Hoag S. W.,
   5. Polli J.,
   6. Raju G. K.,
   7. Woodcock J.

   Understanding pharmaceutical quality by design. AAPS J. 2014, 16 (4), 771–783.

   OpenUrl
5. 5.↵
   1. Pisano R.,
   2. Fissore D.,
   3. Barresi A. A.,
   4. Rastelli M.

   Quality by design: scale-up of freeze-drying cycles in pharmaceutical industry. AAPS PharmSciTech 2013, 14 (3), 1137–1149.

   OpenUrl
6. 6.↵
   1. Newcombe A. R.

   The evolution of quality by design (QbD) for biologics. PDA J. Pharm. Sci. Technol. 2014, 68 (4), 320–322.

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
7. 7.↵
   1. Lambert W. J.

   Considerations in developing a target product profile for parenteral pharmaceutical products. AAPS PharmSciTech 2010, 11 (3), 1476–1481.

   OpenUrlPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Wang W.

   Instability, stabilization, and formulation of liquid protein pharmaceuticals. Int. J. Pharm. 1999, 185 (2), 129–188.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
9. 9.↵
   1. Rosas J. G.,
   2. Blanco M.,
   3. González J. M.,
   4. Alcalà M.

   Real-time determination of critical quality attributes using near-infrared spectroscopy: a contribution for Process Analytical Technology (PAT). Talanta 2012, 97, 163–170.

   OpenUrlPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Maltesen M. J.,
    2. van de Weert M.,
    3. Grohganz H.

    Design of experiments-based monitoring of critical quality attributes for the spray-drying process of insulin by NIR spectroscopy. AAPS PharmSciTech 2012, 13 (3), 747–755.

    OpenUrlPubMed
11. 11.↵
    ICH. Harmonised Tripartite Guideline—Development and Manufacture of Drug Substances (Chemical Entities and Biotechnological/Biological Entities) Q11. 2012, www.ich.org.
12. 12.↵
    ICH. ICH Topic Q6B—Specifications: Test Procedures and Acceptance Criteria for Biotechnological/Biological Products. 1999, www.emea.eu.
13. 13.↵
    ICH. Harmonised Tripartite Guideline—The Common Technical Document for the Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use: Quality—M4q(R1); Quality Overall Summary of Module 2; Module 3: Quality. 2002, www.ich.org.
14. 14.↵
    FDA. Guidance for Industry—Container Closure Systems for Packaging Human Drugs and Biologics. 1999, www.fda.gov.
15. 15.↵
    1. Patel J.,
    2. Mulhall B.,
    3. Wolf H.,
    4. Klohr S.,
    5. Guazzo D. M.

    Vacuum decay container closure integrity leak test method development and validation for a lyophilized product–package system. PDA J. Pharm. Sci. Technol. 2011, 65 (5), 486–505.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
16. 16.↵
    1. Zuleger B.,
    2. Werner U.,
    3. Kort A.,
    4. Glowienka R.,
    5. Wehnes E.,
    6. Duncan D.

    Container/closure integrity testing and the identification of a suitable vial/stopper combination for low-temperature storage at –80 °C. PDA J. Pharm. Sci. Technol. 2012, 66 (5), 453–465.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
17. 17.↵
    1. Yoon S. Y.,
    2. Sagi H.,
    3. Goldhammer C.,
    4. Li L.

    Mass extraction container closure integrity physical testing method development for parenteral container closure systems. PDA J. Pharm. Sci. Technol. 2012, 66 (5), 403–419.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
18. 18.↵
    1. Stults C. L.,
    2. Mikl J.,
    3. Whelehan O.,
    4. Morrical B.,
    5. Duffield W.,
    6. Nagao L. M.

    A risk-based approach to management of leachables utilizing statistical analysis of extractables. AAPS PharmSciTech 2014, 16 (2), 315–326.

    OpenUrl
19. 19.↵
    1. Jenke D. R.

    Extractables and leachables considerations for prefilled syringes. Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 2014, 11 (10), 1591–1600.

    OpenUrl
20. 20.↵
    1. Paskiet D.,
    2. Jenke D.,
    3. Ball D.,
    4. Houston C.,
    5. Norwood D. L.,
    6. Markovic I.

    The Product Quality Research Institute (PQRI) Leachables and Extractables Working Group Initiatives for Parenteral and Ophthalmic Drug Product (PODP). PDA J. Pharm. Sci. Technol. 2013, 67 (5), 430–447.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
21. 21.↵
    ICH. Harmonised Tripartite Guideline—Quality Risk Management Q9. 2005, www.ich.org.
22. 22.↵
    1. Selen A.,
    2. Dickinson P. A.,
    3. Mullertz A.,
    4. Crison J. R.,
    5. Mistry H. B.,
    6. Cruanes M. T.,
    7. Martinez M. N.,
    8. Lennernas H.,
    9. Wigal T. L.,
    10. Swinney D. C.,
    11. Polli J. E.,
    12. Serajuddin A. T.,
    13. Cook J. A.,
    14. Dressman J. B.

    The biopharmaceutics risk assessment roadmap for optimizing clinical drug product performance. J. Pharm. Sci. 2014, 103 (11), 3377–3397.

    OpenUrl
23. 23.↵
    1. Zimmermann H. F.,
    2. Hentschel N.

    Proposal on how to conduct a biopharmaceutical process failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) as a risk assessment tool. PDA J. Pharm. Sci. Technol. 2011, 65 (5), 506–512.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
24. 24.↵
    1. Martin-Moe S.,
    2. Ellis J.,
    3. Coan M.,
    4. Victor R.,
    5. Savage J.,
    6. Bogren N.,
    7. Leng B.,
    8. Lee C.,
    9. Burnett M.,
    10. Montgomery P.

    Validation of critical process input parameters in the production of protein pharmaceutical products: a strategy for validating new processes or revalidating existing processes. PDA J. Pharm. Sci. Technol. 2000, 54 (4), 315–319.

    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
25. 25.↵
    EMA. Guideline on Process Validation (draft). 2012, www.ema.europa.eu/ema/.
26. 26.↵
    ICH. Harmonised Tripartite Guideline—Pharmaceutical Quality System Q10. 2008, www.ich.org.
27. 27.↵
    1. van Beers M. M.,
    2. Bardor M.

    Minimizing immunogenicity of biopharmaceuticals by controlling critical quality attributes of proteins. Biotechnol. J. 2012, 7 (12), 1473–1484.

    OpenUrlPubMed
28. 28.↵
    FDA=. Points to Consider in the Manufacture and Testing of Monoclonal Antibody Products for Human Use. 1997, www.fda.gov.
29. 29.↵
    ICH. Harmonised Tripartite Guideline—Evaluation For Stability Data Q1E. 2003, www.ich.org.
30. 30.↵
    ICH. Quality of Biotechnological Products: Stability Testing Of Biotechnological/Biological Products Q5C. 1995, www.ich.org.
31. 31.↵
    ICH. Harmonised Tripartite Guideline—Bracketing and Matrixing Designs for Stability Testing of New Drug Substances and Products Q1D. 2002, www.ich.org.
32. 32.↵
    ICH. Harmonised Tripartite Guideline—Stability Testing: Photostability Testing of New Drug Substances and Products Q1B. 1996, www.ich.org.
33. 33.↵
    1. Wang W.,
    2. Roberts C. J.

    Non-Arrhenius protein aggregation. AAPS J. 2013, 15 (3), 840–851.

    OpenUrl
34. 34.↵
    1. Dong X.,
    2. Tsong Y.,
    3. Shen M.

    Statistical considerations in setting product specifications. J. Biopharm. Stat. 2015, 25 (2), 280–294.

    OpenUrl
35. 35.↵
    1. Seamon K. B.

    Specifications for biotechnology-derived protein drugs. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 1998, 9 (3), 319–325.

    OpenUrlPubMed
36. 36.↵
    1. Roberts C. J.

    Therapeutic protein aggregation: mechanisms, design, and control. Trends Biotechnol. 2014, 32 (7), 372–380.

    OpenUrl
37. 37.↵
    1. Mahler H. C.,
    2. Friess W.,
    3. Grauschopf U.,
    4. Kiese S.

    Protein aggregation: pathways, induction factors and analysis. J. Pharm. Sci. 2009, 98 (9), 2909–2934.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
38. 38.↵
    1. Wang W.,
    2. Nema S.,
    3. Teagarden D.

    Protein aggregation—pathways and influencing factors. Int. J. Pharm. 2010, 390 (2), 89–99.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
39. 39.↵
    FDA. Guidance for Industry—Immunogenicity Assessment for Therapeutic Protein Products. 2014, www.fda.gov.
40. 40.↵
    1. Hermeling S.,
    2. Crommelin D. J.,
    3. Schellekens H.,
    4. Jiskoot W.

    Structure–immunogenicity relationships of therapeutic proteins. Pharm. Res. 2004, 21 (6), 897–903.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
41. 41.↵
    1. Sauerborn M.,
    2. Brinks V.,
    3. Jiskoot W.,
    4. Schellekens H.

    Immunological mechanism underlying the immune response to recombinant human protein therapeutics. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2010, 31 (2), 53–59.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
42. 42.↵
    1. Rosenberg A. S.

    Effects of protein aggregates: an immunologic perspective. AAPS J. 2006, 8 (3), E501–E507.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
43. 43.↵
    1. Buttel I. C.,
    2. Chamberlain P.,
    3. Chowers Y.,
    4. Ehmann F.,
    5. Greinacher A.,
    6. Jefferis R.,
    7. Kramer D.,
    8. Kropshofer H.,
    9. Lloyd P.,
    10. Lubiniecki A.,
    11. Krause R.,
    12. Mire-Sluis A.,
    13. Platts-Mills T.,
    14. Ragheb J. A.,
    15. Reipert B. M.,
    16. Schellekens H.,
    17. Seitz R.,
    18. Stas P.,
    19. Subramanyam M.,
    20. Thorpe R.,
    21. Trouvin J. H.,
    22. Weise M.,
    23. Windisch J.,
    24. Schneider C. K.

    Taking immunogenicity assessment of therapeutic proteins to the next level. Biologicals 2011, 39 (2), 100–9.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
44. 44.↵
    1. Carpenter J. F.,
    2. Randolph T. W.,
    3. Jiskoot W.,
    4. Crommelin D. J.,
    5. Middaugh C. R.,
    6. Winter G.,
    7. Fan Y. X.,
    8. Kirshner S.,
    9. Verthelyi D.,
    10. Kozlowski S.,
    11. Clouse K. A.,
    12. Swann P. G.,
    13. Rosenberg A.,
    14. Cherney B.

    Overlooking subvisible particles in therapeutic protein products: gaps that may compromise product quality. J. Pharm. Sci. 2009, 98 (4), 1201–1205.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
45. 45.↵
    1. Wang W.,
    2. Singh S. K.,
    3. Li N.,
    4. Toler M. R.,
    5. King K. R.,
    6. Nema S.

    Immunogenicity of protein aggregates—concerns and realities. Int. J. Pharm. 2012, 431 (1), 1–11.

    OpenUrlPubMed
46. 46.↵
    1. Kirshner S. L.

    Regulatory expectations for analysis of aggregates and particles. 2012, www.fda.gov.
47. 47.↵
    FDA. Guidance for Industry—Changes to an Approved NDA or ANDA. 2004, www.fda.gov.
48. 48.↵
    1. Sam T.

    Regulatory implications of excipient changes in medicinal products. Drug Information Journal 2000, 34 (3), 875–894.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
49. 49.↵
    1. Xu G.,
    2. Sunada H.

    Influence of formulation change on drug release kinetics from hydroxypropylmethylcellulose matrix tablets. Chem. Pharm. Bull. (Tokyo) 1995, 43 (3), 483–487.

    OpenUrlPubMed
50. 50.↵
    1. Caucino J. A.,
    2. Armenaka M.,
    3. Rosenstreich D. L.

    Anaphylaxis associated with a change in premarin dye formulation. Ann. Allergy 1994, 72 (1), 33–35.

    OpenUrlPubMed
51. 51.↵
    ICH. ICH Topic Q5E—Comparability of Biotechnological/Biological Products. 2005, www.emea.eu.