| Literature DB >> 34986854 |
Rosaria Giordano1, Tiziana Montemurro2, Cristiana Lavazza1, Silvia Budelli1, Elisa Montelatici1, Mariele Viganò1, Francesca Ulbar3,4, Lucia Catani4, Marta Giulia Cannone1, Sara Savelli1, Elisa Groppelli1, Lorenza Lazzari1, Roberto M Lemoli5,6, Matteo Cescon7,8, Gaetano La Manna9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A growing number of clinical trials have shown that regulatory T (Treg) cell transfer may have a favorable effect on the maintenance of self-tolerance and immune homeostasis in different conditions such as graft-versus-host disease (GvHD), solid organ transplantation, type 1 diabetes, and others. In this context, the availability of a robust manufacturing protocol that is able to produce a sufficient number of functional Treg cells represents a fundamental prerequisite for the success of a cell therapy clinical protocol. However, extended workflow guidelines for nonprofit manufacturers are currently lacking. Despite the fact that different successful manufacturing procedures and cell products with excellent safety profiles have been reported from early clinical trials, the selection and expansion protocols for Treg cells vary a lot. The objective of this study was to validate a Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP)-compliant protocol for the production of Treg cells that approaches the whole process with a risk-management methodology, from process design to completion of final product development. High emphasis was given to the description of the quality control (QC) methodologies used for the in-process and release tests (sterility, endotoxin test, mycoplasma, and immunophenotype).Entities:
Keywords: ATMP; GMP process development; Process validation
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 34986854 PMCID: PMC8729072 DOI: 10.1186/s12967-021-03200-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Transl Med ISSN: 1479-5876 Impact factor: 5.531
Fig. 1Overview of the manufacturing of expanded Treg cells with in-process tests. Each step of the process validation for Treg cell manufacturing was performed in accordance with GMP guidelines, with the aim of providing documented evidence that the process, performed following specific written procedures, is feasible and reproducible and produces an ATMP that meets predefined quality parameters. The process includes (0) receipt and control of the raw material after confirmation of patient eligibility, (1) depletion of CD8+ cells from a fresh leukapheresis unit, (2) enrichment of CD25+ cells from CD8-depleted fraction, (3) expansion of CD25+ cells for 21 days, (4) bead depletion, (5) cryopreservation of the finished product, and (6) final characterizations of the ATMP and QC testing. Multiple in-process samples (shown on the right) were taken at different stages of the process and submitted for relevant testing. Further details on GMP compliance can be found in the “Process validation design” section in the “Methods” section. Created with BioRender.com [56]
The potential failures, scores, and proposed mitigation approaches identified by PHA
The risk score was calculated as [Severity × Likelihood of recurrence], where Likelihood = (Occurrence × Detection), the Severity ranking was assigned based on the severity of the consequences of failure, the Occurrence ranking rates the probability of a failure occurring, and the Detection ranking indicates the chances of detecting a failure before it occurs using customized ranking scales as a guide (Additional file 1: Table S1)
SOP standard operating procedure, QC quality control, ISO International Organization for Standardization, GMP good manufacturing practice, CAPA corrective and preventive actions, GLP good laboratory practice
Patients’ characteristics and inclusion criteria
| Parameter | Inclusion criteria | Patients [validation run] | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KD1 [#01] | KD2 [#02] | LD1 [#03] | LD2 [#04] | ||
| Age | ≥ 18 years | 47 years | 62 years | 61 years | 60 years |
| Gender | Unconcerned | Male | Female | Male | Male |
| Medical condition | End-stage disease | End-stage kidney disease | End-stage kidney disease | End-stage liver disease (alcoholic cirrhosis) | End-liver liver disease |
| HIV1/2 (Ag/Abs)§ | Negative | Negative (4/4 patients) | |||
| Anti-HCV Abs§ | Negative | Negative (4/4 patients) | |||
| HBs Ag§ | Negative | Negative (4/4 patients) | |||
| Anti-HBc Abs§ | Negative | Negative (4/4 patients) | |||
| Anti-VDRL Abs§ | Negative | Negative (4/4 patients) | |||
| Informed consent | Signed | Signed (4/4 patients) | |||
KD patient with kidney disease, LD patient with liver disease, Ag antigen, Abs antibodies
§Chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA)
Predefined and final specification for the starting material
| Pre-acceptance controls | Pre-defined specification | Validation run | Final specification | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #01 | #02 | #03 | #04 | ||||
| Accompanying documents | Present | Present (4/4 batches) | C | ||||
| Bag identificative | Anonym, univocal code | Anonym, univocal code (4/4 batches) | C | ||||
| Volume harvested | To be set | 58 mL | 71 mL | 54 mL | 58 mL | ≥ 50 mL | |
| Transportation mean temperature [range] | To be set (transport at controlled temperature in refrigerated container with ice packs and validated data logger) | Not available | 0.4 °C [− 3.9–13.1] | 5.3 °C [4.0–24.6] | 3.1 °C [2.2–6.7] | 2–8 °C | |
| Time from harvesting | Up to 12 h from the completion of collection to receipt at the manipulation site | 06h53 | 03h59 | 04h51 | 04h08 | ≤ 12 h | |
| State of the collection bag | Intact and appropriately sealed | Intact and appropriately sealed (4/4 batches) | C | ||||
| BacT/ALERT aerobic | Sterile | Sterile (4/4 batches) | C | ||||
| BacT/ALERT anaerobic | Sterile | Sterile (4/4 batches) | C | ||||
C compliant with predefined specifications
Characterization and enumeration of Treg cells before and after enrichment procedures
| Parameter | Validation run | KD patients | LD patients | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #01 [KD1] | #02 [KD2] | #03 [LD1] | #04 [LD2] | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | ||
| Starting material | Viable CD45+ cells (%) | 99.4 | 99.8 | 99.8 | 99.9 | 99.6 ± 0.3 | 99.9 ± 0.1 |
| Apheresis’ processed volume (mL) | 54.4 | 69.2 | 50.8 | 54.8 | 61.8 ± 10.5 | 52.8 ± 2.8 | |
| WBC concentration (× 106/mL) | 194.0 | 129.5 | 116.0 | 44.5 | 161.8 ± 45.6 | 80.3 ± 50.6 | |
| Treg cells concentration (× 106/mL) | 6.32 | 3.04 | 1.98 | 0.82 | 4.7 ± 2.3 | 1.4 ± 0.8 | |
| Treg cell absolute numbers (× 106) | 343.6 | 210.3 | 100.6 | 44.9 | 277.0 ± 94.3 | 72.8 ± 39.4 | |
| Treg cells (%) | 2.6 | 1.8 | 1.3 | 1.6 | 2.2 ± 0.6 | 1.5 ± 0.2 | |
| CD127− Treg cells (%) | na | 1.7 | 2.0 | 2.1 | 1.7 na | 2.1 ± 0.1 | |
| CD45+CD8+ cells (%) | 27.2 | 34.3 | 22.2 | 25.0 | 30.8 ± 5.0 | 23.6 ± 2.0 | |
| Post-enrichment fraction | Treg cells absolute numbers (× 106) | 116.7 | 91.1 | 54.4 | 41.1 | 103.8 ± 18.0 | 47.8 ± 9.4 |
| Treg cells purity (%) | 84.9 | 81.3 | 53.9 | 70.6 | 83.1 ± 2.5 | 62.3 ± 11.8 | |
| CD127− Treg cells (%) | 65.6 | 70.1 | 47.1 | 66.8 | 67.9 ± 3.2 | 57.0 ± 13.9 | |
| FoxP3+ Treg cells (%) | 84.9 | 54.1 | 47.0 | 59.9 | 69.5 ± 21.8 | 53.5 ± 9.1 | |
| CD127− FoxP3+ Treg cells (%) | 65.4 | 51.6 | 45.3 | 58.9 | 58.5 ± 9.8 | 52.1 ± 9.6 | |
| CD45+ CD8+ cells (%) | 0.8 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 0.5 ± 0.5 | 0.4 ± 0.4 | |
| Recovery (%) | 33.9 | 43.3 | 54.1 | 91.5 | 38.6 ± 6.6 | 72.8 ± 26.5 | |
All data are presented as viable cells
SD standard deviation, na not available
Fig. 2Flow cytometric analysis of Treg cells along the manufacturing process. Whole blood (starting material) or in-process samples (postdepletion, postenrichment, and postexpansion) were stained with fluorochrome-conjugated antibodies against surface markers CD45, CD4, CD25, and CD127 in TruCOUNT tubes and analyzed according to the lyse-no wash method. A gating strategy for Treg cell enumeration in whole apheretic samples. A (step 6) to D Treg cell purity quantification along the manufacturing process: starting material (A step 6), postdepletion (B), postenrichment (C), and postexpansion (D) fractions. In detail: Trucounts for absolute cell counts were identified by the intersection of events gated based on standard light scattering characteristics and those gated based on fluorescence, as shown in a PE vs. FITC plot with both plots showing all acquired events (step 1). Cell aggregates and debris were excluded on an FSC-A vs. FSC-H dot plot (step 2), followed by CD45+ cell identification on an APC-H7 vs. SSC-A dot plot (step 3). Among CD45+ cells, viable cells were gated based on negativity for 7-AAD staining (step 4). Within viable CD45+ cells, cells expressing CD4 or CD8 were detected in a PE vs. FITC plot (step 5), whereas CD4+CD25+ Treg cells were identified in a FITC vs. APC plot (step 6). Finally, among Treg cells, CD127− cells were gated on a PE-Cy7 vs. APC dot plot (step 7). For samples with a higher content of Treg cells (postenrichment and postexpansion), twin samples were stained for a surface marker in FACS tubes and then fixed and permeabilized for intracytoplasmic staining of FoxP3, which was detected among CD127− Treg cells on a PE vs. APC dot plot (step 8). Representative images of samples from patient KD2 are shown. The negative control for FoxP3 staining is shown in Additional file 1: Fig. S1
Fig. 3Ex vivo Treg cell expansion. Isolated CD8−CD25+ cells derived from KD and LD patients were expanded in vitro in gas-permeable culture bags for 3 weeks in complete medium. A Kinetics of proliferation at a clinical scale. B Day-21 expression of discriminating markers CD127 and FoxP3; C frequency of contaminating populations. Treg expanded after thawing (n = 1, run #04 LD2, diamond shape) displayed no relevant differences as compared to freshly expanded Treg (all other symbols). D The mean achievable absolute number of cells in relevant subpopulations. Frequencies were expressed as percentage of viable cells; absolute numbers were normalized over seeded cells
Expansion of Treg cells
| Culture day | Freshly expanded | Recovered after thawing | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #01 [KD1] | #02 [KD2] | #03 [LD1] | #04 [LD2] | ||
| Total cells fold expansion | 0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| 7 | 3.8 | 2.9 | 3.2 | 3.5 | |
| 14 | 26.0 | 28.6 | 30.0 | 28.2 | |
| 21 | 107.1 | 134.9 | 115.2 | 196.1 | |
| Treg cells fold expansion | 0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| 7 | Nd | 2.9 | 3.0 | 4.6 | |
| 14 | 27.9 | 32.0 | 44.8 | 39.0 | |
| 21 | 124.0 | 162.0 | 190.6 | 271.9 | |
| Number of Treg cells (normalized over seeded cells) (× 106) | 0 | 34.0 | 32.5 | 21.6 | 28.2 |
| 7 | Nd | 94.1 | 63.8 | 131.0 | |
| 14 | 948.2 | 1041.2 | 965.3 | 1102.4 | |
| 21 | 4211.7 | 5268.3 | 4110.2 | 7678.8 | |
On day 0, 7, 14, 21 expanding cells were phenotyped for Treg markers and enumerated by flow cytometry with a single platform (Trucount)
Release criteria for the finished product and quality controls performed on the target fraction during the validation process
| Parameter | Validation run | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #01 [KD1] | #02 [KD2] | #03 [LD1] | #04 [LD2] | ||
| TNC viability | nd | 97.9% | 98.3% | 98.9% | ≥ 90% |
| Purity | 98.3% | 97.6% | 89.2% | 97.9% | > 80% |
| CD127− Treg cells (%) | 94.7% | 96.5% | 88.9% | 97.6% | > 80% |
| FoxP3+Treg cells (%) | 91.1% | 96.5% | 84.6% | 88.8% | > 80% |
| CD127−FoxP3+ (%) | 79.2% | 96.1% | 84.4% | 88.6% | > 80% |
| CD45+CD19+ (%) | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | < 2% |
| CD45+CD56+ (%) | 0.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | < 2% |
| CD45+CD8+ (%) | 0.5% | 1.5% | 0.7% | 0.5% | < 2% |
| Residual beads count§ | na | 405 | 397 | 156 | < 1000 |
| Microbial growth (sterility)# | Sterile (4/4 batches) | Sterile (no growth) | |||
| Mycoplasma | No growth | No growth | |||
| Endotoxin | < 0.3 EU/mL (4/4 batches) | ≤ 0.3 EU/mL | |||
All data refers to viable cells
na not available
§Absolute number/30 × 106 TNC target fraction
#After 10 days
Fig. 4Functional properties of thawed Treg from KD (dark gray) and LD (grey) patients. The suppressive function of expanded Treg was analyzed by measuring the proliferation of CFSE-stained CD8−CD25− cells primed with anti-CD3/CD28 beads in co-culture with expanded Treg cells for 5 days. Percentages of suppression are presented as mean values; bars represent standard deviations of 2 independent experiments