QbD/DoE in the Development, Production and Approval … · QbD/DoE in the Development, Production...

25
1 QbD/DoE in the Development, Production and Approval of Potent Antibiotic Ceftolozane September 12, 2016 David L. Waller, Ph.D. Cubist Manufacturing Process Development Merck Chemical Commercialization & Technical Operations

Transcript of QbD/DoE in the Development, Production and Approval … · QbD/DoE in the Development, Production...

1

QbD/DoE in the Development, Production and

Approval of Potent Antibiotic Ceftolozane

September 12, 2016

David L. Waller, Ph.D.

Cubist Manufacturing Process Development

Merck Chemical Commercialization & Technical Operations

2

What Chemists Do

3

Raw Materials Drug Substance Drug Product

Drug Substance vs. Drug Product

4

Drug Substance

What Process Chemists Do

Manufacturing facility, Milan, Italy

5

Commercial Launch

Pre-clinical/ Toxicology

Phase I Clinical

Phase II Clinical

Phase III Clinical

Increasing demand in every dimension

QbD/DoE in Process Chemistry

Optimization Regulatory

QbD/DoE serve dual roles in development

Use phase-appropriately, but always with the other(s) in mind

Ceftolozane Sulfate

6

Fifth generation cephalosporin antibiotic

Treatment of resistant gram-negative infections

-abdominal, urinary tract, pneumonia

Dose: 6 – 8 grams/day over 14 days

30-40 metric tons/year demand @ peak

22 synthetic steps embedded in ceftolozane

7

Amine

Acid

Chloride

TFA Salt Drug Substance

UreaAcid

Stage 1

Stage 2 Stage 3

Stage 1A

7 steps

9 steps

2 steps

90%

90%

50% 74%

-Specialized-High capacity-Unalterable

-Key coupling-Low yield

-Low capacity-5 day cycle time

GMP

Global Process Evaluation

Need for cost of goods reduction

Need for capacity improvement

Stage 2 was a clear target for improvement

-Ceftolozane was acquired in Phase II clinical trials

8

Right half (ratio)

Solvent (volume)

Potassium Iodide (ratio)

Base (ratio)

Temperature (C)

Agitation rate (rpm) Eliminated by experimentation

Parameters in DoE study

coupling

Left half Right half Complete drug

Ceftolozane Key Coupling: Parameter Selection

9

Final Coupling DoE Parameter Evaluation

Parameter Low High Responses Analytical Method

Right half 1.0 1.4

-Yield-Purity (overall)-Individual impurities-Reaction rate-Downstream effects

-In-situ yield assay-Purity assay(s)-Downstream methods

Solvent 5 7

Potassium Iodide (ratio)

1.6 2.4

Base (ratio) 2.6 4.6

Temperature (C) 23 34

With range setting, go wide.....wider.

Fight the urge to control the outcome.

10

Final Coupling DoE Parameter Evaluation

Parameter Low High Responses Analytical Method

Right half 1.0 1.4

-Yield-Purity (overall)-Individual impurities-Reaction rate-Downstream effects

-In-situ yield assay-Purity assay(s)-Downstream methods

Solvent 5 7

Potassium Iodide (ratio)

1.6 2.4

Base (ratio) 2.6 4.6

Temperature (C) 23 34

½ Factorial Design (resolution V) workhorse for chemical processes

One-way and two-way effects are not aliased

Nearly always achieve high quality outcomes

16 design experiments + 4 center points = 20 experiments

11

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value

Model 11 2041.48 185.589 66.31

Linear 5 1820.12 364.023 130.07

Potassium Iodide 1 379.62 379.619 135.64

Right Hand Fragment 1 287.67 287.671 102.79

Solvent 1 17.61 17.608 6.29

Base 1 245.82 245.818 87.84

Reaction Temperature 1 889.40 889.400 317.80

2-Way Interactions 5 220.54 44.108 15.76

Right Hand Fragment*Solvent 1 6.47 6.472 2.31

Right Hand Fragment*Base 1 14.65 14.645 5.23

Right Hand Fragment*Reaction Temperature 1 86.11 86.108 30.77

Solvent*Base 1 77.92 77.922 27.84

Solvent*Reaction Temperature 1 35.39 35.392 12.65

Curvature 1 0.83 0.827 0.30

Error 8 22.39 2.799

Lack-of-Fit 5 10.49 2.097 0.53

Pure Error 3 11.90 3.967

Total 19 2063.87

Model Summary

S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred)

1.67291 98.92% 97.42% 93.77%

Source P-Value

Model 0.000

Linear 0.000

Potassium Iodide 0.000

Right Hand Fragment 0.000

Solvent 0.036

Base 0.000

Reaction Temperature 0.000

2-Way Interactions 0.001

Right Hand Fragment*Solvent 0.167

Right Hand Fragment*Base 0.051

Right Hand Fragment*Reaction Temperature 0.001

Solvent*Base 0.001

Solvent*Reaction Temperature 0.007

Curvature 0.601

Error

Lack-of-Fit 0.751

Pure Error

Total

Coupling DoE Execution: Chemical Yield

What we look for:

Standard error magnitude

R2 value

Significance of curvature

Regulatory implications

Chemical mechanism change

12

Coupling DoE Execution: Chemical Yield

13

Coupling DoE Execution: Chemical Yield

14

Right half (ratio)

Solvent (volume)

Potassium Iodide (ratio)

Base (ratio)

Temperature (C)

Agitation rate (rpm) Eliminated by experimentation

Parameters in DoE study

coupling

Left half Right half Complete drug

Ceftolozane Key Coupling: Parameter Selection

15

Potassium Iodide 2.4

Solvent 6

Base 3.6

Hold Values

Right Hand Fragment

Reacti

on

Tem

pera

ture

1 .41 .31 .21 .11 .0

34

32

30

28

26

24

>

<

72 74

74 76

76

56

56 58

58 60

60 62

62 64

64 66

66 68

68 70

70 72

Yield (%)

Chemical

Chemical Yield: Reaction Temperature vs. Right Hand Fragment

Coupling DoE Execution: Chemical Yield

Phase II conditions Residual right

hand fragment not purgeable

Optimum conditions

16

Commercial Launch

Pre-clinical/ Toxicology

Phase I Clinical

Phase II Clinical

Phase III Clinical

Increasing demand in every dimension

QbD/DoE in Process Chemistry

Optimization Regulatory

QbD/DoE serve dual roles in development

Use phase-appropriately, but always with the other(s) in mind

Quality By Design at Regulatory Agencies

“quality should be built into a product with a thorough understanding of the product and process”

“a knowledge of the risks involved in manufacturing the product and how best to mitigate those risks”

Pharmaceutical Quality for the 21st Century, US FDA, 2007

“Firms must continue to move from a compliance mindset to quality by design”

Pharmaceutical cGMPs for the 21st Century, US FDA, 2003Manufacturing facility, Milan, Italy

-What came before QbD?

"quality by QC“ or "quality after design"

Pharmaceutical cGMPs for the 21st Century, US FDA, 2003

Restricted flexibility in the manufacturing process

End product testing

Quality By Design at Regulatory Agencies

Quality assured by understanding and controlling manufacturing variables

Vision for pharmaceutical QbD

CQAs of product Process parameters Risk assessment – Likelihood of impacting quality of

product?

Design and implement a control space/strategy

Raw material attributes(purity, particle size, etc.)

Probe operation space via DoE

Quality By Design at Regulatory Agencies

All QbD is upstream of the product’s critical quality attributes (CQAs)

The Regulatory PAR and NOR = Design Space

Normal Operating Range (NOR)-specifications met; low risk

Proven Acceptable Range (PAR)-specifications met; risk high

Knowledge space

21

Amine

Acid

Chloride

TFA Salt Drug Substance

UreaAcid

Stage 1

Stage 2 Stage 3

Stage 1A

7 steps

9 steps

2 steps

GMP

Regulatory Hurdles Toward Approval

One major section of new drug applications:

Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls (CMC)

Task: Establish relationships (PAR/NOR) for all CQAs and all process variables

22

Amine

Acid

Chloride

TFA Salt Drug Substance

UreaAcid

Stage 1

Stage 2 Stage 3

Stage 1A

7 steps

9 steps

2 steps

GMP

Regulatory Hurdles Toward Approval

Approach:

1. Divide manufacturing stages into sub-stages (unit operations)

2. Evaluate each parameter for quality impact

3. Design/execute DoE studies

4. Establish NORs/PARs

5. Validate at commercial production scale

5

5

7 5

23

Age Time 3

Temperature 1 0

Hold Values

Acid amount

So

luti

on

Co

ncen

trati

on

3.53.02.52.01 .5

1 00

90

80

70

60

>

<

97.9 98.2

98.2 98.5

98.5

96.7

96.7 96.8

96.8 96.9

96.9 97.0

97.0 97.1

97.1 97.2

97.2 97.3

97.3 97.6

97.6 97.9

Purity

Purity: Solution Concentration vs Acid Amount

>97.6% cutoff

Setting NOR and PAR values

Subtract error(3x )

PAR ranges

NOR ranges

24

Putting It All Together

Assembling your regulatory filings:

-Clear description of the approach

-How/why was the study designed?

-Establish comparability to manufacturing outcomes

-Detail your knowledge space (where do excursions lead?)

-Laboratory references

25

Putting It All Together

Assembling your regulatory filings:

-Clear description of the approach

-NORs/PARs and relevant controls

Global supporting controlled document

Included in New Drug Application

• 1.5 years• 10 people• 800 pages of supporting reports• 1 regulatory section• 6 manufacturers in 3 countries• >50 approvals worldwide

US FDA: “One of the best applications of DoE/QbD we have seen”