Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35279374›Full record

ArticleCytotherapy2022

Assessment of the LOVO device for final harvest of novel cell therapies: a Production Assistance for Cellular Therapies multi-center study.

Laarni Ibenana, Robert Anderson, Adrian Gee, Margaret Gilbert, Cheryl Cox, Joshua M Hare, Adriana Brooks, Linda Kelley, Aisha Khan, Natalia Lapteva and 5 more

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cytotherapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

15 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Laarni IbenanaThe Emmes Company, LLC, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Robert AndersonThe Emmes Company, LLC, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Adrian GeeCenter for Cell and Gene Therapy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.
Margaret GilbertCenter for Cell and Gene Therapy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.
Cheryl CoxMoffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, USA.
Joshua M HareInterdisciplinary Stem Cell Institute, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, USA.
Adriana BrooksInterdisciplinary Stem Cell Institute, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, USA.
Linda KelleyMoffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, USA.
Aisha KhanInterdisciplinary Stem Cell Institute, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, USA.
Natalia LaptevaCenter for Cell and Gene Therapy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.
Aaron OrozcoCenter for Cell and Gene Therapy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.
David StyersThe Emmes Company, LLC, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Darin SumstadMolecular and Cellular Therapeutics, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA.
Ibekwe UgochiCenter for Cell and Gene Therapy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.
David H McKennaMolecular and Cellular Therapeutics, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA. Electronic address: mcken020@umn.edu.
Baylor College of Medicine · USEmmes (United States) · USUniversity of Miami · USMoffitt Cancer Center · USUniversity of Minnesota · US

Funding

NHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201000007CNHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201000008CNHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201600011CNHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201600012CNHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201600013CNHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201600014CNHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201600020C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND

aimsThe final harvest or wash of a cell therapy product is an important step in manufacturing, as viable cell recovery is critical to the overall success of a cell therapy. Most harvest/wash approaches in the clinical lab involve centrifugation, which can lead to loss of cells and decreased viability of the final product. Here the authors report on a multi-center assessment of the LOVO Cell Processing System (Fresenius Kabi, Bad Homburg, Germany), a cell processing device that uses a spinning filtration membrane instead of centrifugation.

methodsFour National Institutes of Health Production Assistance for Cellular Therapies cell processing facilities (CPFs) assessed the LOVO Cell Processing System for final harvest and/or wash of the following three different cell products: activated T cells (ATCs), tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs). Each site compared their current in-house, routinely used method of final cell harvest and/or wash with that of the LOVO device.

resultsFinal harvest and/or wash of ATCs, TILs and MSCs using the LOVO system resulted in satisfactory cell viability and recovery with some substantial improvement over the in-house methods of CPFs. Processing time was variable among cell types/facilities.

conclusionsThe LOVO Cell Processing System provides an alternative to centrifuge-based technologies. The system employs a spinning membrane filter, exposing cells to minimal g-forces compared with centrifugation, and is automated and closed. This small multi-center study demonstrated the ability of the LOVO device to yield satisfactory cell viability and recovery of T cells and MSCs.

Indexed as

Cell- and Tissue-Based TherapyMesenchymal Stem CellsCentrifugationCell CultureHarvestMesenchymal Stromal CellsRecoveryT CellsViability

Identifiers

PMID35279374
PMCPMC9232931
OpenAlexW4220871184

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.