scholarly journals 4324 Phase 1 Sterile Product Formulation and Manufacturing at Academic Medical Centers: An Introduction for Translational Researchers

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (s1) ◽  
pp. 42-43
Author(s):  
Robert Bruce MacArthur ◽  
Kenneth Rockwell ◽  
Amber Johnson ◽  
Roger Vaughan ◽  
Barry S. Coller

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: To facilitate the development of innovative injection products by providing translational researchers with a regulatory and manufacturing road map for producing small batch sterile products for Phase 1 research use. To leverage recent AMC investments in facility improvements and pharmacy training in the areas of sterile product production, testing, and environmental controls, that can be used to support production of phase 1 clinical trial supplies METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Searching and organizing relevant data and information from web portals and databases in the following: areas: FDA, EMA, USP regulations, regulatory science, pharmaceutical formulation and analytics, supply vendors, analytical testing laboratories, and product testing laboratories. Present the information using a user friendly format including flow charts and development timelines, taking the perspective of the translational investigator. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Choosing AMC resources vs outside consultants and vendors, leveraging local resources where possibleQualifying and monitoring suppliers, testing laboratories, in-house departments, and Contract Drug Manufacturing Organizations (CDMO)Bringing together the deliverables for the IND CMC sectionWhere and how to leverage available products and science to simplify safe and reliable productionDISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Use and utility of injectable drug products, both small molecule and biologics, is growing rapidly, and is projected to continue to escalate well into the next decade. This is due not only to advances in medicine, but also to improvements in AMC-based sterile product production, and a better understanding of small batch manufacturing methods. All three trends align in academic medical centers (AMC) and can be utilized by translational researchers, if they can understand the potential and regulatory requirements.

Hand ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 155894471989881 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taylor M. Pong ◽  
Wouter F. van Leeuwen ◽  
Kamil Oflazoglu ◽  
Philip E. Blazar ◽  
Neal Chen

Background: Total wrist arthroplasty (TWA) is a treatment option for many debilitating wrist conditions. With recent improvements in implant design, indications for TWA have broadened. However, despite these improvements, there are still complications associated with TWA, such as unplanned reoperation and eventual implant removal. The goal of this study was to identify risk factors for an unplanned reoperation or implant revision after a TWA at 2 academic medical centers between 2002 and 2015. Methods: In this retrospective study, 24 consecutive TWAs were identified using CPT codes. Medical records were manually reviewed to identify demographic, patient- or disease-related, and surgery-related risk factors for reoperation and implant removal after a primary TWA. Results: Forty-six percent of wrists (11 of 24 TWAs performed) had a reoperation after a median of 3.4 years, while 29% (7 of 24) underwent implant revision after a median of 5 years. Two patients had wrist surgery prior to their TWA, both eventually had their implant removed ( P = .08). There were no risk factors associated with reoperation or implant removal. Conclusion: Unplanned reoperation and implant removal after a primary TWA are common. Approximately 1 in 3 wrists are likely to undergo revision surgery. We found no factors associated with reoperation or implant removal; however, prior wrist surgery showed a trend toward risk of implant removal after TWA.


2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer S. Myers ◽  
Anjala V. Tess ◽  
Katherine McKinney ◽  
Glenn Rosenbluth ◽  
Vineet M. Arora ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document