Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26983643›Full record

ArticleJournal of translational medicine2016

Automation of cellular therapy product manufacturing: results of a split validation comparing CD34 selection of peripheral blood stem cell apheresis product with a semi-manual vs. an automatic procedure.

Christiane Hümmer, Carolin Poppe, Milica Bunos, Belinda Stock, Eva Wingenfeld, Volker Huppert, Juliane Stuth, Kristina Reck, Mike Essl, Erhard Seifried and 1 more

Abstract readComparative StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of translational medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Towards Automated Manufacturing for Cell Therapies.Current hematologic malignancy reports · 2019
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Genetic Engineering and Manufacturing of Hematopoietic Stem Cells.Molecular therapy. Methods & clinical development · 2017
    Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Christiane HümmerDepartment of Cellular Therapeutics (GMP), German Red Cross Blood Service Baden-Württemberg-Hesse, Institute Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
Carolin PoppeDepartment of Cellular Therapeutics (GMP), German Red Cross Blood Service Baden-Württemberg-Hesse, Institute Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
Milica BunosDepartment of Cellular Therapeutics (GMP), German Red Cross Blood Service Baden-Württemberg-Hesse, Institute Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
Belinda StockDepartment of Cellular Therapeutics (GMP), German Red Cross Blood Service Baden-Württemberg-Hesse, Institute Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
Eva WingenfeldDepartment of Cellular Therapeutics (GMP), German Red Cross Blood Service Baden-Württemberg-Hesse, Institute Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
Volker HuppertMiltenyi Biotec GmbH, Bergisch-Gladbach, Germany.
Juliane StuthMiltenyi Biotec GmbH, Bergisch-Gladbach, Germany.
Kristina ReckMiltenyi Biotec GmbH, Bergisch-Gladbach, Germany.
Mike EsslMiltenyi Biotec GmbH, Bergisch-Gladbach, Germany.
Erhard SeifriedDepartment of Cellular Therapeutics (GMP), German Red Cross Blood Service Baden-Württemberg-Hesse, Institute Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
Halvard BonigDepartment of Cellular Therapeutics (GMP), German Red Cross Blood Service Baden-Württemberg-Hesse, Institute Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany. hbonig@uw.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAutomation of cell therapy manufacturing promises higher productivity of cell factories, more economical use of highly-trained (and costly) manufacturing staff, facilitation of processes requiring manufacturing steps at inconvenient hours, improved consistency of processing steps and other benefits. One of the most broadly disseminated engineered cell therapy products is immunomagnetically selected CD34+ hematopoietic "stem" cells (HSCs).

methodsAs the clinical GMP-compliant automat CliniMACS Prodigy is being programmed to perform ever more complex sequential manufacturing steps, we developed a CD34+ selection module for comparison with the standard semi-automatic CD34 "normal scale" selection process on CliniMACS Plus, applicable for 600 × 10(6) target cells out of 60 × 10(9) total cells. Three split-validation processings with healthy donor G-CSF-mobilized apheresis products were performed; feasibility, time consumption and product quality were assessed.

resultsAll processes proceeded uneventfully. Prodigy runs took about 1 h longer than CliniMACS Plus runs, albeit with markedly less hands-on operator time and therefore also suitable for less experienced operators. Recovery of target cells was the same for both technologies. Although impurities, specifically T- and B-cells, were 5 ± 1.6-fold and 4 ± 0.4-fold higher in the Prodigy products (p = ns and p = 0.013 for T and B cell depletion, respectively), T cell contents per kg of a virtual recipient receiving 4 × 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg was below 10 × 10(3)/kg even in the worst Prodigy product and thus more than fivefold below the specification of CD34+ selected mismatched-donor stem cell products. The products' theoretical clinical usability is thus confirmed.

conclusionsThis split validation exercise of a relatively short and simple process exemplifies the potential of automatic cell manufacturing. Automation will further gain in attractiveness when applied to more complex processes, requiring frequent interventions or handling at unfavourable working hours, such as re-targeting of T-cells.

Indexed as

AutomationCell- and Tissue-Based TherapyAntigens, CD34Blood Component RemovalFlow CytometryHematopoietic Stem CellsHumansReproducibility of ResultsAntigens, CD34AllogeneicAutomationCD34Cell therapyClean roomCliniMACSGood manufacturing practiceHaplo-identicalImmunomagneticProdigyStem cell transplantation

Identifiers

PMID26983643
PMCPMC4793541

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.