Objective / Agenda
Provide an overview and comparison between traditional
and flexible aseptic manufacturing, the impact to facility,
operations, and cost.
• Industry Trends & General Requirements
• Traditional Aseptic Processing Overview
• Flexible Aseptic Processing Overview
• Comparison Between Tradition and Flexible
Approaches
• Operational Differences
• Cost & Savings
Trends & General Requirements
• Small scale, high value, patient
focused
• Fast turnaround time and clinic
responsiveness becoming more
critical
• New products are highly potent
at the filling stage
• Leaner, modular, simpler
• Superior flexibility – multi-format,
multi-product, multiple dosing
options
CNC CNCCNC/Grade D Grade C
Traditional Aseptic Processing
DepyroWash Fill
Comp
Prep
Capping
VialsCartridge
Comp
Prep
Wash Depyro
Stopper
LineSeal
Capping
Fill
Insert
Plunger
Syringes
Comp
Prep
De-
Bag
Tub
Decon
Lid/Liner
Removal
De-Tub
Fill
Insert
Plunger
Re-Tub
Traditional Aseptic Processing
• Dedicated fill-finish capabilities for a specific
container type or “format”
• Adding additional container filling capabilities is a
significant investment in facilities, time and
equipment
• Processing challenges include glass on glass
contact, machine jams, broken containers, etc.
• Very efficient for high volume dedicated products
where flexibility is not necessary
Flexible Aseptic Processing
• Integrates best in industry
technologies
• Simplifies the manufacturing
process
• Ability to fill multiple container
formats & sizes
• Common facility with reduced
floor space and utilities
• Increased asset utilization
Flexibility is the
antidote to uncertainty
Enabling Technologies
• Ready-To-Fill Containers
• Vials, Syringes, Cartridges
and Infusion Bags
• WFI Washed, <1
EU/Container, EtO Sterilized
• Cartridges have line seal &
crimp cap placed, and
oriented like a pre-filled
syringe
• No glass on glass contact
• Ready-To-Use
Components
Enabling Technologies
• Isolator Barrier
Technology + Robotics
• Provides full separation
between the operator and
the process
• Compatible with VHP bio-
decontamination
• Recipe driven operation
• Maximum flexibility and
functionality
• Negligible particle
generation
“Automation of other
process steps, including
the use of technologies
such as robotics, can
further reduce risk to the
product.”
Guidance for Industry: Sterile Drug Products
Produced by Aseptic Processing — Current
Good Manufacturing Practice (Pg.10)
Flexible Aseptic Processing
CNCGrade D or C
• Consolidated manufacturing process that allows
multiple container formats to be filled and finished on a
single system.
• Interchangeable robot tooling specific to container
Capping
Rapid
Decon
Chamber
Comp
Prep
Lid/Liner
Removal
De-Tub
Fill
Stopper/
Plunger
Re-Tub
Ready-To-
Fill
Containers
Criteria Isolator Flexible
Glove Testing Visual / Automatic
(Qty)
Visual / Automatic –
(Qty - Minimal)
Training / SOPs Aseptic Technique /
Transfer
Limited Operator
interface during set up
Component Prep Varies No Wash / Depyro
Change Over Operator Set Up Programmed with
integrated tooling
Utilization Depends on Set Up,
Change Out and
Reduced process steps
– Increased Up Time
Product Path Cleaning / Steam In
Place
Single Use Assembly
Operational Differences
Criteria Isolator Flexible
Receipt of
Materials
Packed Glass Tub / Tray RTU
Component Prep Unwrap / Wash Unwrap / Stage
Waste Packaging
Discarded
Trays / Tubs utilized
through capping
Sterilization /
Decontamination
Time
Low Driven lower with smaller
environment and isolated
decontamination
Operators Required for setup,
changeover
Automated – setup,
changeover
Operational Differences
* Component prep area is included in the overall area of
vial filling & capping.
Area Isolator (SF/SM) Flexible (SF/SM)
Vial Filling & Capping 2100 / 195 900 / 84
Gowning 120 / 11 120 / 11
Degowning 80 / 8 80 / 8
Material Air Lock (MAL) 100 / 9 100 / 9
Comp Prep / Material
Staging
Note * 300 / 28
Total Area 2400 / 223 1500 / 140
35 – 40% Decrease in required functional areas
Impact to Layout
Space /Area Gr $/SF
(US / €)
Isolator
(SF/SM)
$ Isolator
(US / €)
Flexible
(SF/SM)
$ Flex
(US / €)
Vial Filling &
Capping
C 425 /
316
2100 /
195
892,500 /
663,840
900 / 84 405,000 /
301,240
Gowning C 425 /
316
120 / 11 54,000 /
40,165
120 / 11 54,000 /
40,165
Degowning C 425 /
316
80 / 8 36,000 /
26,775
80 / 8 36,000 /
26,775
MAL C 425 /
316
100 / 9 45,000 /
33,475
100 / 9 45,000 /
33,475
Comp Prep /
Matl Staging
D 300 /
223
Note * 0 300 / 28 90,000 /
66,942
Totals 2400 /
223
1,027,500 /
764,254
1,500 /
140
630,000 /
468,594
Cost Impact - Facility
* Component prep area is included in the overall area of
vial filling & capping.
Size, Cost & Equipment
• Facility Size
• Reduce operating areas by 30-40%
• Facility Cost
• Reduced engineering / design & construction costs
• Reduced construction / constructability challenges
• Reduced capital equipment investment
• Equipment Operations
• Eliminate washing and depryogenation operations from the
manufacturing site
• Increase equipment utilization
• Single fill line has the ability to process multiple container
formats
• Eliminates some of the most common routine interventions
Conclusions
• Flexible aseptic processing simplifies the traditional
aseptic manufacturing process
• Flexible aseptic processing leverages the strengths of
best in industry technologies to:
• Focus on core aseptic manufacturing processes
• Provide an adaptable platform capable of multi-
container format filling
• Minimize routine operator interventions
• Reduce facility size, utilities, cost, and validation
• Increase operational efficiency
Thank You!
Joshua Russell, Principle Engineer – Life Sciences
Automated Systems of Tacoma (AST)
4110 South Washington St. Tacoma, WA 98409
(253) 475-0200
jrussell@ast-inc.com
Steven Walter, Process Systems Tech. Specialist
Hargrove Life Sciences
1880 JFK Blvd., Suite 700, Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 789-9665
swalter@hargrove-epc.com