Sepax-2 cell processing device: a study assessing reproducibility of concentrating thawed hematopoietic progenitor cells.
Cell therapy product
DMSO
Hematopoietic progenitor cells
Reproducibility
Sepax-2
Journal
Journal of translational medicine
ISSN: 1479-5876
Titre abrégé: J Transl Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190741
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 11 2022
03 11 2022
Historique:
received:
28
07
2022
accepted:
11
10
2022
revised:
10
10
2022
entrez:
4
11
2022
pubmed:
5
11
2022
medline:
8
11
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Autologous hematopoietic progenitor cell (HPC) transplantation is currently the standard of care for a fraction of patients with newly diagnosed myelomas and relapsed or refractory lymphomas. After high-dose chemotherapy, cryopreserved HPC are either infused directly after bedside thawing or washed and concentrated before infusion. We previously reported on the comparability of washing/concentrating HPC post-thaw vs. infusion without manipulation in terms of hematopoietic engraftment, yet settled for the prior favoring cell debris and DMSO removal. For almost two decades, automation of this critical step of washing/concentrating cells has been feasible. As part of continuous process verification, we aim to evaluate reproducibility of this procedure by assessing intra-batch and inter-batch variability upon concentration of thawed HPC products using the Sepax 2 S-100 cell separation system. Autologous HPC collected from the same patient were thawed and washed either in two batches processed within a 3-4 h interval and immediately infused on the same day (intra-batch, n = 45), or in two batches on different days (inter-batch, n = 49) for those patients requiring 2 or more high-dose chemotherapy cycles. Quality attributes assessed were CD34+ cell recovery, viability and CD45+ viability; CFU assay was only performed for allogeneic grafts. Intra-batch and inter-batch median CD34+ cell recovery was comparable (75% vs. 73% and 77% vs. 77%, respectively). Similarly, intra-batch and inter-batch median CD45+ cell viability was comparable (79% vs. 80% and 79% vs. 78%, respectively). Bland-Altman analysis describing agreement between batches per patient revealed a bias close to 0%. Additionally, lower HPC recoveries noted in batch 1 were noted as well in batch 2, regardless of the CD34+ cell dose before cryopreservation, both intra- and inter-batch, suggesting that the quality of the collected product plays an important role in downstream recovery. Intrinsic (high mature and immature granulocyte content) and extrinsic (delay between apheresis and cryopreservation) variables of the collected product resulted in a significantly lower CD45+ viability and CD34+ cell recovery upon thawing/washing. Automated post-thaw HPC concentration provides reproducible cell recoveries and viabilities between different batches. Implications of this work go beyond HPC to concentrate cell suspension/products during manufacturing of cell and gene therapy products.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Autologous hematopoietic progenitor cell (HPC) transplantation is currently the standard of care for a fraction of patients with newly diagnosed myelomas and relapsed or refractory lymphomas. After high-dose chemotherapy, cryopreserved HPC are either infused directly after bedside thawing or washed and concentrated before infusion. We previously reported on the comparability of washing/concentrating HPC post-thaw vs. infusion without manipulation in terms of hematopoietic engraftment, yet settled for the prior favoring cell debris and DMSO removal. For almost two decades, automation of this critical step of washing/concentrating cells has been feasible. As part of continuous process verification, we aim to evaluate reproducibility of this procedure by assessing intra-batch and inter-batch variability upon concentration of thawed HPC products using the Sepax 2 S-100 cell separation system.
METHODS
Autologous HPC collected from the same patient were thawed and washed either in two batches processed within a 3-4 h interval and immediately infused on the same day (intra-batch, n = 45), or in two batches on different days (inter-batch, n = 49) for those patients requiring 2 or more high-dose chemotherapy cycles. Quality attributes assessed were CD34+ cell recovery, viability and CD45+ viability; CFU assay was only performed for allogeneic grafts.
RESULTS
Intra-batch and inter-batch median CD34+ cell recovery was comparable (75% vs. 73% and 77% vs. 77%, respectively). Similarly, intra-batch and inter-batch median CD45+ cell viability was comparable (79% vs. 80% and 79% vs. 78%, respectively). Bland-Altman analysis describing agreement between batches per patient revealed a bias close to 0%. Additionally, lower HPC recoveries noted in batch 1 were noted as well in batch 2, regardless of the CD34+ cell dose before cryopreservation, both intra- and inter-batch, suggesting that the quality of the collected product plays an important role in downstream recovery. Intrinsic (high mature and immature granulocyte content) and extrinsic (delay between apheresis and cryopreservation) variables of the collected product resulted in a significantly lower CD45+ viability and CD34+ cell recovery upon thawing/washing.
CONCLUSIONS
Automated post-thaw HPC concentration provides reproducible cell recoveries and viabilities between different batches. Implications of this work go beyond HPC to concentrate cell suspension/products during manufacturing of cell and gene therapy products.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36329460
doi: 10.1186/s12967-022-03703-1
pii: 10.1186/s12967-022-03703-1
pmc: PMC9632571
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antigens, CD34
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
503Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Cytotherapy. 2021 Sep;23(9):774-786
pubmed: 34052112
Tissue Eng Part C Methods. 2012 Aug;18(8):575-82
pubmed: 22372873
Vox Sang. 2017 May;112(4):367-378
pubmed: 28337763
Bone Marrow Transplant. 2014 Apr;49(4):469-76
pubmed: 24076548
Cytotherapy. 2003;5(1):55-65
pubmed: 12745591
Transfusion. 2012 Nov;52(11):2382-6
pubmed: 22404870
Cells. 2021 Jul 15;10(7):
pubmed: 34359966
Cytotherapy. 2007;9(4):348-55
pubmed: 17573610
Bone Marrow Transplant. 2014 Aug;49(8):1127-8
pubmed: 24887385
J Blood Med. 2019 Jan 03;10:37-46
pubmed: 30655711
Cytotherapy. 2020 May;22(5):239-246
pubmed: 32199724
Transfusion. 2020 Jul;60(7):1529-1535
pubmed: 32488938
Bone Marrow Transplant. 2021 Aug;56(8):2013-2015
pubmed: 33846562
Cytometry B Clin Cytom. 2012 Jan;82(1):9-17
pubmed: 21915992
Bone Marrow Transplant. 2019 Oct;54(10):1525-1552
pubmed: 30953028
Cytometry. 2001 Aug 15;46(4):254-61
pubmed: 11514960
Transfus Med. 2011 Dec;21(6):402-7
pubmed: 22032614
Cytotherapy. 2018 Apr;20(4):592-599
pubmed: 29452894
Transfus Med Hemother. 2019 Jun;46(3):188-196
pubmed: 31244587
Transfusion. 2007 Jul;47(7):1268-75
pubmed: 17581163
Cytotherapy. 2019 Aug;21(8):820-823
pubmed: 31257121
Transplant Cell Ther. 2021 Mar;27(3):270.e1-270.e6
pubmed: 33781537
Transfusion. 2021 Aug;61(8):2430-2438
pubmed: 34197635