Sterility testing of cell therapy products: parallel comparison of automated methods with a CFR-compliant method

被引:35
作者
Khuu, Hanh M.
Patel, Nayana
Carter, Charles S.
Murray, Patrick R.
Read, Elizabeth J.
机构
[1] NIH, Ctr Clin, Dept Transfus Med, NIH, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
[2] NIH, Ctr Clin, Dept Lab Med, NIH, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1111/j.1537-2995.2006.01041.x
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND: Automated blood culture systems are not FDA-approved for sterility testing of human cells, tissues, or cellular- or tissue-based products. It was previously demonstrated that BacT/ALERT (bioMerieux) and Bactec (Becton Dickinson) were superior to the manual CFR method described in the general biologics regulations, in rates of detection and time to detection of organisms seeded into mock mononuclear cell products with a variety of background media and antibiotics. In this study, the two automated systems were compared to the CFR method for sterility testing of actual cell therapy products manufactured in our facility. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Over a 36-month period, in-process and final product samples from all cell therapy products manufactured in our facility were tested for sterility both by the CFR method and by either BacT/ALERT or Bactec. Products were categorized according to collection and processing variables for analysis of results. RESULTS: For 1617 samples of a broad range of cell therapy products, rates of true-positive tests were comparable for the automated and CFR methods (2.3% vs. 2.1%), but the CFR method had higher rates of false-positive results (7.3% vs. 0.2%). For automated systems, time to detection of organisms was equivalent to, or faster than, the CFR method. CONCLUSION: Compared to the CFR method, both BacT/ALERT and Bactec are more sensitive, faster in time to detection, less prone to false-positive results, and less labor-intensive. Both of these automated systems are suitable for sterility testing of cell therapy products after site-specific validation has been performed.
引用
收藏
页码:2071 / 2082
页数:12
相关论文
共 33 条
[1]  
*AM ASS BLOOD BANK, 2004, STAND CELL THER PROD
[2]  
Attarian H, 1996, BONE MARROW TRANSPL, V17, P699
[3]   Bacterial contamination of blood components [J].
Brecher, ME ;
Hay, SN .
CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY REVIEWS, 2005, 18 (01) :195-+
[4]   Evaluation of an automated culture system for detecting bacterial contamination of platelets: an analysis with 15 contaminating organisms [J].
Brecher, ME ;
Means, N ;
Jere, CS ;
Heath, D ;
Rothenberg, S ;
Stutzman, LC .
TRANSFUSION, 2001, 41 (04) :477-482
[5]   Evaluation of a new generation of plastic culture bottles with an automated microbial detection system for nine common contaminating organisms found in PLT components [J].
Brecher, ME ;
Hay, SN ;
Rothenberg, SJ .
TRANSFUSION, 2004, 44 (03) :359-363
[6]   Validation of BacT/ALERT plastic culture bottles for use in testing of whole-blood-derived leukoreduced platelet rich-plasma-derived platelets [J].
Brecher, ME ;
Hay, SN ;
Rothenberg, SJ .
TRANSFUSION, 2004, 44 (08) :1174-1178
[7]   Changes to the journal [J].
Davis, S ;
Kaye, A .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE, 2002, 9 (01) :1-1
[8]   Microbiologic contamination of peripheral blood progenitor cells collected for hematopoietic cell transplantation [J].
Espinosa, MTF ;
Fox, R ;
Creger, RJ ;
Lazarus, HM .
TRANSFUSION, 1996, 36 (09) :789-793
[9]   Detection of bacterial contamination in apheresis platelet products: American Red Cross experience, 2004 [J].
Fang, CT ;
Chambers, LA ;
Kennedy, J ;
Strupp, A ;
Fucci, MCH ;
Janas, JA ;
Tang, YL ;
Hapip, CA ;
Lawrence, TB ;
Dodd, RY .
TRANSFUSION, 2005, 45 (12) :1845-1852
[10]   Liquid nitrogen freezers: A potential source of microbial contamination of hematopoietic stem cell components [J].
Fountain, D ;
Ralston, M ;
Higgins, N ;
Gorlin, JB ;
Uhl, L ;
Wheeler, C ;
Antin, JH ;
Churchill, WH ;
Benjamin, RJ .
TRANSFUSION, 1997, 37 (06) :585-591