19th Annual
J.P Morgan H&Q Healthcare Conference
On the road for
Info.Resource, publisher of BritishColumbiaLifeScience.com
Manufacturing Biologics: production capacity as investment criteria
By Lorraine Ruff and David Gabrilska,
Partners
Milestones, the critical thinking company
Seattle, WA
Theres a serious shortage of bioprocess capacity in the United States and abroad thats
affecting large and small companies alike. The issue is exacerbated by stepped up activity
in drug submissions and approvals and the reluctance of management to invest too soon in
the high cost of building plants: an average of $200 million and up to five years to
design, build, validate and qualify a typical plant consisting of six 5,000-liter custom
engineered reactors that yield hundreds of kilograms on a batch or continuous process before
they know for sure a drug will pass rigorous regulatory hurdles.
| Bioprocess plants, whether microbial or mammalian
take on average three-to-five years and $200 million to build six 5000-liter bioprocess
vessels that yield 100s of kilograms of recombinant protein. |
| Construction phase
(design, site selection and permits, stick or skid design) |
2
years |
| Start-up phase |
1
year |
| Validate facilities
and processes that will evolve |
1
year |
| Operations
qualification Make material process batch to
demonstrate reproducibility and write filings for regulatory review and approval
Regulatory review and approval |
1
year |
Its a game of chicken that is not
necessarily alleviated by small companies making manufacturing deals with larger
companies. Some larger companies sell excess capacity, but theres just not that much
of it. The largest bioprocess capacity in the world is the Boehringer Ingelheim
100,000-liter facility in Europe. Genentech has similar capacity in its US operations, but
after that it falls off precipitously.
Contract manufacturing organizations (CMO) market their capacities to the smaller companies working on their initial drugs with 100- to
1000-liter needs, but they arent much help to more developed companies with multiple
products or drug candidates requiring larger commercial quantities of material.
"Years ago when CMOs could have addressed
what was to become burgeoning need, they didnt have the vision or the needed capital
to build large scale reactors," said Morris Rosenberg, Eli Lilly. There are also the
issues of highly specialized needs and the propriety nature of bioprocess yields. "If
a company hasnt contracted for its needs during 2001 and 2002, its out of
luck," Rosenberg said.
Some companies have begun to evaluate alternative
bioprocess systems: E. coli, mammalian cell culture, monoclonal antibodies,
immunofusion, CHO, transgenic strategies utilizing milk and egg, and plants as production
vessels. Drug from plant production is on the distant horizon and commercial grade
transgenic bioprocess systems wont deliver commercial levels of drug until 2003,
according to Sandra Lehrman, MD, chief executive officer of Genzyme Transgenics. While the
panelists predict more design and construction of multiple product facilities to spread
risk across several products, this strategy adds burdensome time, complexity issues and
stringent cleaning requirements of multi-process validation.
From dosing trials requiring pilot plant
production to commercial production, companies are often off several fold in their
typically low estimations of how much drug will really be needed for a commercial
formulation, explained Lehrman. During time, operators are learning processes as well as
attempting to adjust and optimize the process. The task is daunting.
For each company and product there will be a
manufacturing strategy that is defined by the end volume needed and a calculation of
needed resources. The strategy needs to anticipate the fluidity of the process and build
in a framework for change, including new methods development and bridging strategies.
While easing somewhat from a 1980s regulatory
prospective when companies had to invest in and qualify bioprocess plants beginning in
Phase III, companies are reluctant to "bet the store" on drug candidates that
could (and have) failed during late-stage clinical trials that left companies and
investors with costly white elephants. Instead they are hedging their bets, holding off on
large capital expenditures for manufacturing facilities until they are assured they have
demonstrable commercial product.
"What were seeing now is a pendulum
that has swung back too far," said Lehrman. "We needed and received more
flexibility in the regulatory process and relief from early investments in manufacturing
plants that resulted in white elephants."
The real issue is whether biopharmaceutical
companies will have the time they need to plan and build bioprocess facilities. Its
an opportunity waiting for a massive infusion of capital that will require patience on the
part of investors: not a good combination. Investors will be wise to add "production
capacity" to their selection criteria checklists when making investment picks.
Back to J.P.
Morgan H&Q Healthcare Conference Archive
|