Baxter Supports New Study Showing Blood Purification with Oxiris Filter Set Can Play a Role in the Management of Severely Ill COVID-19 Patients

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

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. ...

State of API & Peptide CDMO Capacity

Pharmaceutical companies planning peptide or complex small-molecule launches are...

Improving Therapeutic Development with Female Clinical Endpoints

The pharmaceutical industry faces growing pressure to refine how...
- Advertisement -

Baxter International Inc., a global leader in acute care, recognizes the findings of a prospective, multicenter, observational study on data from the OxirisNet Registry evaluating severely ill patients with COVID-19 in Italy treated with extracorporeal (outside the body) blood purification (EBP) using the company’s Oxiris filter set. From the study, recently published in Critical Care, the investigators reported that patients experienced a significant reduction in serum IL-6 (a pro-inflammatory cytokine) levels, improvement in indicators of organ dysfunction and reduction in expected intensive care unit (ICU) mortality rate as compared to a historical control. Due to the study design, the results do not provide evidence of a causal relationship between EBP treatment with Oxiris and these outcomes. The results do, however, support the feasibility of the use of Oxiris with severely ill COVID-19 patients and provide new insights for clinicians treating this vulnerable patient population.

Systemic inflammation in COVID-19 can lead to multiple organ failure, including acute kidney injury (AKI). COVID-19 patients may also develop a cytokine storm, which occurs when high levels of inflammatory mediators circulate in the blood as an intense immune reaction to the virus. Up to 67% of severely ill patients with pneumonia-caused COVID-19 may present with additional organ dysfunction syndromes that could be induced by a high level of circulating cytokines.1 A cytokine storm can be life-threatening and requires intervention. EBP techniques have been shown to remove cytokines, damage-associated molecular patterns and pathogen-associated molecular patterns, including endotoxins and circulating viral particles, in critically ill patients with COVID-19.2

“In our study population, all patients showed significant IL-6 reduction and associated improvement in multiorgan dysfunction, particularly for short-term outcomes such as hemodynamic stability and oxygenation index,” said Gianluca Villa, M.D., assistant professor of anesthesiology, intensive care and pain medicine at the University of Florence, Italy and primary investigator of the study. “These findings provide a strong foundation for further research on EBP in COVID-19 patients and may have a long-term impact on best practices in caring for these patients.”

The study, which was supported by Baxter through an investigator-initiated research grant, evaluated 37 patients at four hospitals based on data from the OxirisNet Registry. The patients had a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19, were admitted to the ICU between February and April 2020 and received treatment with Oxiris on Baxter’s Prismaflex system for immunomodulation and/or support of renal function during AKI. Clinical parameters were reported at baseline and at 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours post-treatment initiation. Patients received antimicrobials, blood purification, mechanical ventilation and other supportive treatments in accordance with the clinical judgment of the treating center.

Levels of IL-6 decreased over time from a baseline of 1230 pg/ml (IQR 895) during the first 72 hours of treatment (p < 0.001 Kruskal-Wallis test), with a significant decrease in the first 24 hours (p = 0.001). The reduction in serum IL-6 concentrations correlated with the improvement in organ function, as measured in the decrease of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (rho = 0.48, p = 0.0003). Median baseline SOFA was 13 (IQR 6) and decreased significantly over time (p < 0.001 at Kruskal-Wallis test) during the first 72 hours of the treatment, with a significant decrease at 48 hours (median 8 IQR 5, p = 0.001). Compared to the expected mortality rate, as calculated by the Acute Physiologic Assessment and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE IV) score, the mean observed rate was 8.3% lower after treatment. The greatest improvement in mortality rate appeared to be in patients receiving EBP early on during the ICU stay. Because the study design does not allow for conclusions to be drawn on causality, the investigators note that further controlled studies would be necessary in order to establish the efficacy of EBP in improving patient outcomes such as organ dysfunction and ICU mortality, or the optimal time for initiating EBP.

“Baxter supported the development of the OxirisNet Registry with the goal of continuously advancing research that will contribute to scientific understanding of the role of EBP in treating critically ill patients,” said Kai Harenski, global medical lead for Baxter’s Acute Therapies business. “We remain focused on gathering high-quality data throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, while also expanding access to Oxiris and other products to help address patient needs around the world.”

During blood purification therapy, the patient’s blood passes through the Oxiris filter set, where it then removes cytokines, endotoxin, fluid and uremic toxins simultaneously, before returning the patient’s blood to the body. Oxiris is currently registered in more than 50 countries worldwide and has been used for more than 10 years to treat thousands of patients. Baxter received emergency use authorization (EUA) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Oxiris in April 2020. The FDA has not cleared or approved the Oxiris filter set; rather, the EUA authorizes the use of Oxiris during the COVID-19 pandemic. Oxiris is the only filter set currently available in the U.S. to reduce pro-inflammatory cytokine levels in the blood, including for use in continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), for confirmed COVID-19 cases admitted to the ICU with confirmed or imminent respiratory failure who require blood purification.

Oxiris has been validated for use with Baxter’s leading PrisMax and Prismaflex systems. PrisMax, which was launched in Europe in 2018 and the U.S. in 2019, is the company’s next-generation blood purification platform that helps simplify therapy delivery, while providing hospitals the flexibility to meet the unique demands of the ICU.

About Baxter
Every day, millions of patients and caregivers rely on Baxter’s leading portfolio of critical care, nutrition, renal, hospital and surgical products. For more than 85 years, we’ve been operating at the critical intersection where innovations that save and sustain lives meet the healthcare providers that make it happen. With products, technologies and therapies available in more than 100 countries, Baxter’s employees worldwide are now building upon the company’s rich heritage of medical breakthroughs to advance the next generation of transformative healthcare innovations.

>>>

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

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. ...

State of API & Peptide CDMO Capacity

Pharmaceutical companies planning peptide or complex small-molecule launches are...

Improving Therapeutic Development with Female Clinical Endpoints

The pharmaceutical industry faces growing pressure to refine how...

What Goes Into Synthetic Urine? The Chemistry Behind Replicating a Biological Fluid

Synthetic urine sounds simple until you look closely at...

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 »