蒲公英 - 制药技术的传播者 GMP理论的实践者

搜索
查看: 1000|回复: 6
收起左侧

[行业动态] 有了QbD,更应该深入发展DbD(development by design)

[复制链接]
药士
发表于 2018-5-16 16:08:46 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式

欢迎您注册蒲公英

您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有帐号?立即注册

x

Is It Time to Ditch QbD for Development by Design?

Is It Time to Ditch QbD for Development by Design? Questions From a QbD Cheerleader
QbD doesn't address key business issues such as COGS, sustainability and scaleability
Since FDA introduced the concept of Quality by Design (QbD) to the pharma industry, pharma's reaction has been interesting to watch. I was a keen observer, boring many people to tears over the years with detailed reports and commentaries.
There were, and are, so many good reasons to embrace QbD, as articulated by former OPS director Helen Winkle in this 2007 presentation, one of many we have seen from FDA leaders and industry zealots over the years.  Years after the QbD guidance was published, the same questions remain:  Will pharma modernize the way it handles drug development and manufacturing? Will it take a more holistic and modern approach, as other industries do, to improve R&D success and profitability?   Can it take this approach, given the sensitive and patient-variable safety issues surrounding drugs?

Pharma's response to QbD has been mainly positive, moving in phases, from the initial stage of confusion when QbD followed so closely after the guidance on process analytical technology (PAT), the methods and technologies underlying QbD, and necessary for monitoring and control. Then came the  “Pollyanna” stage, where everyone seemed to agree that QbD was the greatest thing, but many interpreted its underlying concepts differently.  For example, some said they were doing QbD without PAT.  Others had their own definitions of design space and critical quality parameters.  Then there was that minority that insisted they’d always used these principles and there was no need for labels, or new guidances.
Pharma's response to QbD seemed to reach a “grounded,” more realistic phase when FDA made core QbD concepts part of Question-based Review. More companies, including those in developing markets, seemed to take QbD concepts to heart.  FDA’s Office of Pharmaceutical Quality continues to advance these efforts.
But QbD has been around a while.  Not to add any more confusion or introduce another three-letter acronym, but shouldn't the concept be broadened to address, holistically, the quality, scientific and business challenges of drug development? Could this approach help companies address, from the earliest stages, the reasons why so many drugs fail during clinical trials, regulatory review, or commercial stages?  
Robert Preti, Chief Scientific Officer and President of NeoStem, a cell therapy specialist with a contract development and manufacturing organization (CDMO) division, Progenitor Cell Therapy (PCT), explained his company’s approach recently in an interviewin <i>Pharmaceutical Technology’s</i> February outsourcing supplement. The company has expanded QbD to “Development by Design” so that some of the factors critical to market success are also considered from the earliest conceptual stages, such as:
·      Cost of goods
·      Sustainability of the process
·      Scalability
·      Regulatory compliance costs (e.g., the potential savings from examining comparability requirements to optimize timing for process changes,  or by using new technologies, for instance,  installing new IT system for batch records that would enable “release by exception” and reduce validation and documentation requirements)
With "DbD," Brian Hampson, VP of manufacturing has said, the product profile becomes an essential, and evolving document, from the start of product planning.  Contrast that approach with current practices at many companies when the document is started late in the process, once people "have all the answers."
Cell therapy is a challenging area that magnifies some of the issues that developers of any pharmaceutical face.  But, cell therapies have the same needs as any area of pharma: product quality, reasonable cost, and processes that will meet demand.
Could Development by Design be the way to go beyond QbD to ensure product value, quality and profitability?  Are any of you out there already formally taking this approach, even if you call it something else?  Please write to me at ashanley@advanstar.com and let our editorial team know.
This general topic, and others concerning cell therapies, will be discussed in a special session at Interphex 2015in New York City on April 22 that Pharmaceutical Technology and Biopharm International are sponsoring, on the topic of Moving Cell Therapies Beyond R&D and into Manufacturing.
On the program will be Eytan Abraham, who heads up Lonza’s cell therapy R&D efforts, and had worked in this area for years at Pluristem, who will discuss commercialization roadblocks and the way ahead.  (An interview with him also appears in February’s <i>Pharm Tech</i> supplement). Robert Preti will share insights into the DbD approach, while Richard Grant, VP at Invetech will talk about equipment design, Harvey Brandwein, with Pall Corp. will discuss allogeneic therapy issues, examining recent research from University College, London, and Phil Vanek, general manager of cell therapy technologies, at GE Healthcare, will also share insights into the topic.
I hope to see you there!

回复

使用道具 举报

药士
 楼主| 发表于 2018-5-16 16:10:55 | 显示全部楼层
概念真多啊!DbD不仅包括质量,还包括:
·      Cost of goods
·      Sustainability of the process
·      Scalability
·      Regulatory compliance costs
回复

使用道具 举报

药徒
发表于 2018-5-16 16:30:07 | 显示全部楼层
QbD还停留在表面,DbD是啥都不知道
回复

使用道具 举报

药士
 楼主| 发表于 2018-5-16 17:31:58 | 显示全部楼层
星辰碧落 发表于 2018-5-16 16:59
如果楼主能多一点实践经验少一些纯理论的学习就好了

理念需跟上,看到方向,然后脚踏实地。
回复

使用道具 举报

药士
 楼主| 发表于 2018-5-16 17:56:27 | 显示全部楼层
星辰碧落 发表于 2018-5-16 16:59
如果楼主能多一点实践经验少一些纯理论的学习就好了

后期还望多多指导!
回复

使用道具 举报

药徒
发表于 2018-5-17 09:20:58 | 显示全部楼层
对我来说是新理念,希望能有进一步的认识和认知
回复

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

本版积分规则

×发帖声明
1、本站为技术交流论坛,发帖的内容具有互动属性。您在本站发布的内容:
①在无人回复的情况下,可以通过自助删帖功能随时删除(自助删帖功能关闭期间,可以联系管理员微信:8542508 处理。)
②在有人回复和讨论的情况下,主题帖和回复内容已构成一个不可分割的整体,您将不能直接删除该帖。
2、禁止发布任何涉政、涉黄赌毒及其他违反国家相关法律、法规、及本站版规的内容,详情请参阅《蒲公英论坛总版规》。
3、您在本站发表、转载的任何作品仅代表您个人观点,不代表本站观点。不要盗用有版权要求的作品,转贴请注明来源,否则文责自负。
4、请认真阅读上述条款,您发帖即代表接受上述条款。

QQ|手机版|蒲公英|ouryao|蒲公英 ( (京)-非经营性-2014-0058 京ICP证150354号 京ICP备14042168号-1 )

GMT+8, 2024-3-28 17:44

Powered by Discuz! X3.4运维单位:苏州豚鼠科技有限公司

Copyright © 2001-2020, Tencent Cloud.

声明:蒲公英网站所涉及的原创文章、文字内容、视频图片及首发资料,版权归作者及蒲公英网站所有,转载要在显著位置标明来源“蒲公英”;禁止任何形式的商业用途。违反上述声明的,本站及作者将追究法律责任。
快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表