Close

Major changes for bio supply forecast in 2018 by bioLIVE

Note* - All images used are for editorial and illustrative purposes only and may not originate from the original news provider or associated company.

Related stories

When to Bring in Outside Help for FDA Cybersecurity Compliance (and What to Look For)

Medical device cybersecurity has become too important to treat...

Billerud Introduces New Pharmaceutical Packaging Option

Billerud has officially introduced PharmaKraft, a specialized fibre-based packaging...

AstraZeneca Advances AI Drug Discovery Deal with insitro

AstraZeneca has inked a billion-dollar AI drug discovery partnership...
- Advertisement -

Industry experts from bioLIVE – the new UBM biomanufacturing and bioprocessing event taking place next year in Madrid (October 9-11).

Predict that 2018 will usher in a new age of increased integration and collaboration across the large and small molecule supply chain. Additionally, next year will also see a continued rise in the European bioprocessing and biomanufacturing sectors, along with a resurgence in European biotechs.

Experts at UBM have been studying market developments ahead of the new event’s launch, and one of the key factors identified is the relative states of maturity of the supply chains. The small molecule space has nearly 50 years of history behind it, coupled with a highly mature contract services sector, whereas for newer biologicals, such as cell and gene therapies, the potential development and commercialisation challenges that lie ahead are only starting to emerge.

“One of the consistent problems in bio for the last year has been getting the right level of skilled workers, as well as building a global and stable partners base. This is an area that small and large molecule will likely collide in 2018 – particularly as more CDMOs, and pharma companies begin to diversify their capabilities,” commented Rutger Oudejans, Brand Director Pharma at UBM.

Overall, the biologics market in Europe is experiencing fairly robust growth and there is a resurgence of activity in the European bio hubs, but the supply chain will be a key area of focus to ensure that products make it to market quickly and securely. Another consideration is that, at present, the USA and Europe dominate manufacturing, but China and India are widely acknowledged to be fast growing bio markets albeit from a small base. As seen with small molecules 30 years ago, biosimilars development will gradually move East. However, this will happen on an even faster timeline due to the greater sizes of the domestic markets here now – which are far more developed than when the generics industry was evolving.

UBM research amongst the potential supplier base is showing that 2018 will be a critical year for the bio industry. There is a clear duality in the market as the industry tries to incorporate increasing demand for biosimilars (often large mammalian capacity demand), coupled with the unique development challenges of the newer smaller cohort drugs – single-use tech is another major growth area. Collectively, this means there are potentially two distinct types of supply chain developing – and in multiple geographic locations. And that is without considering the differences in upstream and downstream processing.

Next year there is likely to be an increased internationalisation of the market as Asian companies will move to work with more western partners, and in- and out- licensing of newer more efficient technologies will proliferate in order to help lower overall costs.
 
“In the past few years we have seen the supply chains of bio and small molecule coming together, particularly as you have seen more and more CDMOs transferring their skills into bio. There is a growing issue of availability of resource, and undoubtedly there are learnings and contacts that can be shared, since there is a global shortage of skills and manufacturing. For bioLIVE, this is a significant opportunity. We will need to pull in our global partners from China and India to next year’s event, but also centralise the European and USA bio markets, which are still somewhat disparate. By mirroring what has already been achieved for small molecules we will create a hub greater than the sum of its parts, as we connect across geographies and bring together companies from both the processing and manufacturing supply chain. It’s a very exciting time for the industry, as next year we foresee a more mature supply chain beginning to take hold,” added Oudejans.

In Europe, contract manufacturing organisations (CMOs) are predicted to align their strategies to not only address capacity, but also the greater complexity of products, supplier risk and the adoption of advanced biomanufacturing technologies.

Finally, 2018 – as highlighted by the CPhI Annual Report – could also be the year we see the development of new, bio specific excipients. These new excipients are likely to be developed in conjunction with a bio active and there will be a focus on characterising excipients by surface interaction. However, biosimilars are not predicted to drive down costs of these new excipients for biologics, since biologics will still have superior pharmaceutical equivalence.

About bioLIVE
bioLIVE is a new event with an exhibition and a live content stage, focusing on large molecule Biopharma and more specifically on manufacturing and processing. A unique platform connecting biotechs, big pharma and service providers across the large molecule value chain. bioLIVE runs adjacent to CPhI Worldwide, bringing small and large molecule worlds together, creating a unique platform where both industries can learn from each other, connect and forge partnerships.

For more information visit: www.bio.live

The UBM annual schedule of Pharmaceutical events includes: Pharmapack Europe (7-8 February, 2018 at the Paris Expo, Porte de Versailles – Paris, France); CPhI, P-MEC and Innopack South East Asia (27-29 March, 2018 at the Jakarta International Expo – Jakarta, Indonesia); CPhI, ICSE, P-MEC, BioPh and InnoPack Japan (18-20 April, 2018 at the Big Sight Exhibition Centre – Tokyo, Japan); CPhI, ICSE, FDF and InnoPack North America (24-26 April, 2018 at the Pennsylvania Convention Center – Philadelphia, USA); CPhI and P-MEC China (20 – 22 June, 2018 at SNIEC – Shanghai, China); CPhI Korea (28-30 August 2018, COEX, Seoul, Korea); CPhI Middle East & Africa (3-5 September, 2018 at the ADNEC – Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates). BioLIVE (9-11 October, 2018 in Madrid, Spain); CPhI, ICSE, P-MEC, FDF and InnoPack Worldwide (9-11 October, 2018 at the IFEMA, Feria de Madrid – Madrid, Spain); CPhI & P-MEC India (3–6 December 2018 at BEC and BKC Exhibition and Convention Centres – Mumbai, India).

About UBM
UBM is the largest pure-play B2B Events organizer in the world. Our 3,750+ people, based in more than 20 countries, serve more than 50 different sectors. Our deep knowledge and passion for these sectors allow us to create valuable experiences which enable our customers to succeed. Please visit www.ubm.com for the latest news and information about UBM.

For media enquiries, please contact:
Alex Heeley or Alex Allsop
De Facto Communications
T: +44 (0) 203 735 8168
E: a.heeley@defacto.com/ a.allsop@defacto.com

Never miss a pharmaceutical headline

The pharmaceutical industry moves fast – stay on top of it with our must - read briefings.

  • The top pharma and life sciences stories, straight to your inbox
  • The biggest news, features, interviews, and analysis
  • Dedicated coverage of the key developments driving the global pharmaceutical sector

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access the Media Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Latest stories

Related stories

When to Bring in Outside Help for FDA Cybersecurity Compliance (and What to Look For)

Medical device cybersecurity has become too important to treat...

Billerud Introduces New Pharmaceutical Packaging Option

Billerud has officially introduced PharmaKraft, a specialized fibre-based packaging...

AstraZeneca Advances AI Drug Discovery Deal with insitro

AstraZeneca has inked a billion-dollar AI drug discovery partnership...

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access theMedia Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Translate »