Close

Integrated Solutions to Facilitate the Manufacturing of Gene Therapies

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

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. ...
- Advertisement -

The efficacy and safety of approved viral vector-based COVID-19 vaccines will not only stimulate further development in this area but also spotlights the importance of robust and scalable manufacturing solutions that can fully meet the demands for the clinical and commercial production of viral vectors.

Speed plays an important role in the fight against COVID-19, and it is no less important for gene therapy. Unlike vaccines, however, being first to market is essential for most gene therapies. Early development stages are dominated by scientific discovery and laboratory scale investigations, but when accelerating the journey to clinical production, robust process development, de-risked scale-up, and efficient project management are needed to quickly enable a cost-effective manufacturing process.

Identifying fit-for-purpose technologies and the right implementation strategy from the outset are essential if the vision of the full-scale process is to be realized swiftly and without excessive risk. Critical to this vision are the operation of the hardware systems and how the individual unit operations will interconnect to ensure an optimal fluid flow path for the entire process. Supply chain and budgetary constraints are also very important considerations early in the project. To successfully address all these critical aspects of manufacturing start-up, it is imperative that the right solution is generated based on a clear understanding of the full process and project objectives. This is where the benefits of an integrated approach can apply.

Setting Projects Up for Success

Delivering a process on time and on budget that can also achieve and maintain the quality standards that are essential is complex, and experience in these areas is critical. Working with a project management team that has extensive experience managing and successfully completing many different projects in the biotech and gene therapy space helps to ensure success. These experts should have a track record of establishing and implementing successful manufacturing strategies, including process optimization, equipment selection and scale-up, and the industrialization of processes for goods manufacturing practices (GMP) production. They should be able to support the full project scope including equipment and platform selection, fabrication, and delivery, along with scheduling of equipment commissioning and training of operators, as well as being rapidly adaptable to project change orders, all the while maintaining the established budget and timeline.

Selecting single-use (SU) equipment platforms can also accelerate and de-risk the process start-up through standardization of complete hardware and consumables solutions. For viral vector production, standard platforms can offer flexible common designs that include self-contained manifolds, which can be adjusted depending on the requirements of the unit operation.

Standardized platforms with strong off-the-shelf validation packages also reduce the need for additional validation and simplifies the supply chain. Implementing these established designs composed of preferred components with comprehensive testing results and documented quality further accelerates the process and shortens lead times. The result is greater speed in equipment selection and implementation, and the design of fit-for-purpose processes.

Engineering Excellence

An integrated solutions partner can also offer a team of highly skilled and experienced engineers that understand all factors impacting the scale-up of manufacturing. The process basis starts from the mass balance that, with the in-depth application and technology knowledge, establishes equipment selection and sizing. Next, a full process and equipment map can be used to leverage existing consumables and standard designs. A team with a deep knowledge of both equipment and facility layout requirements can then ensure optimal connectivity between hardware and consumables across the entire upstream and downstream process. This would include solutions for preparative applications, liquid handling, and a strategy for automation to maximize productivity and quality. These aspects are easily overlooked but have a big impact upon the final process and facility designs. When combined with a strong project management focus, these otherwise highly complex tasks can be simplified.

Specific Challenges in Gene Therapy Manufacturing

Technology that is successful at small-scale is not always a useful model for a full-scale counterpart. Many early-phase gene therapy processes are performed in roller bottles or cell stacks and rely on bench-scale processes such as ultracentrifugation. These approaches are effective in the laboratory but are neither robust, nor effective, when scaling towards large-scale GMP manufacturing.

Most of the viral vectors today are produced using transient transfection, a step that is notoriously difficult to scale, with yields in the lab rarely reproduced at a large-scale. Downstream purification, particularly chromatographic removal of empty viral vector capsids, also remains a difficult step. The fact that gene therapy processes involve the use of costly raw materials such as DNA plasmids only increases the challenge. The high per-batch costs allow a very low margin for error. Regulatory guidelines are still evolving too, creating another level of uncertainty.

With patients waiting and hoping for the potential cures offered by gene therapies, there is tremendous pressure to rapidly scale and commercialize manufacturing processes despite these challenges. Little time is allotted for process development, requiring good decisions to be made from the outset. Making the right choices can be difficult, and the lack of technology and equipment designed specifically for gene therapy production and a shortage of qualified and knowledgeable operators does not help.

Despite these challenges, an experienced and knowledgeable integrated solutions partner can mitigate the risks and be invaluable to biotech and gene therapy manufacturers. With a focus on process, suitable technologies, and effective project execution, scale-up and manufacturing start-up can be facilitated and accelerated with peace of mind.

Author Details: –

Name: Matt Niloff

Details: Matt heads up our Integrated Solutions program in the Americas. He began his career at MIT working on The Human Genome Project and went on to leading roles in the commercialization of single use technologies.

Name: Kristin Feerst

Details: Kristin is the Commercial Development Manager for Gene Therapy in the Americas. She started her career at Merck in viral vaccine process development and manufacturing, holding various roles focused on process.

Department: Pall Biotech

Website: https://www.pall.com/en/biotech.html

About Pall Corporation: 

Pall Corporation is a filtration, separation and purification leader providing solutions to meet the critical fluid management needs of customers across the broad spectrum of life sciences and industry. Pall works with customers to advance health, safety and environmentally responsible technologies. The Company’s engineered products enable process and product innovation and minimize emissions and waste.

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

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. ...

State of API & Peptide CDMO Capacity

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

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 »