Environmental Health and Safety Offers a Biosafety Risk Assessment for a Theoretical Model of a Gene Therapy Process Transfer from Research and Development to Large-Scale Manufacturing.

Introduction: This article provides a strategy by which a manufacturing process with a Biosafety Level 2 (BL2) designation can be downgraded to Biosafety Level 1 (BL1). The principles of the downgrading process are based on the robust contamination controls in clinical and commercial manufacturing, which typically are not part of Research and Development processes. These strict requirements along with the application of current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) principles provide a framework by which processes can be suitably managed and controlled to mitigate biohazard risk, specifically for cell lines that may be contaminated with human pathogenic viral agents. Purpose: We demonstrate how a risk assessment guide was used to define the risk profile of a theoretical process with a human cell line intended for clinical/commercial application. Based on the risk assessment, key BL2 elements were identified as suitable for downgrading, including facility containment controls, emergency spill response plans, and storage and shipping requirements. For various reasons, some aspects of the systems were deemed unsuitable for downgrading due to the severity of the control risk and, therefore, remained at BL2. Summary and Conclusions: We have used an established risk assessment guide to show how cGMP compliments and augments biosafety containment. We provide justification for downgrading from BL2 to BL1 for clinical and commercial cell and gene therapy manufacturing with human cell lines.

An Industry Proposal for a Cell and Gene Therapy Safety Data Sheet.

Introduction: A safety data sheet (SDS) is an established hazard communication tool for chemicals, for which no comparable document exists in the biotherapeutics industry. As the cell and gene therapy (CGT) field expands, industry leaders have identified a growing need to address this gap in communication of the unique occupational health and safety risks posed by CGT materials and products. Methods: Following the sections of a traditional chemical SDS, information was modified by industry subject matter experts, relevant to CGT biological materials. This guide was developed based on assumptions of a maximum biosafety level 2, and any chemical components present in the material were excluded from the hazard classification. Results: The guide contains necessary information to conduct a workplace risk assessment and communicate the unique workplace hazards posed by potential exposures to the material. The target audience is intended to be entities handling and producing these materials, plus collaborators, contractors, or operations sites receiving and handling the CGT material. An example of a CGT SDS is provided in Table 1. Discussion: The CGT SDS provides industry with a best practice to address an existing gap in hazard communication for CGT. We expect that, as the field evolves, so may the contents. The CGT SDS can be used as a reference for other biological modalities in the field. Conclusions: This initial CGT SDS communicates workplace hazards and assesses the unique risks posed by these biological materials and can assist in creating exposure control plans specific to the workplace hazards.