Suppr超能文献

自动培养系统与符合CFR/USP标准的细胞治疗产品无菌检测方法的比较。

Comparison of automated culture systems with a CFR/USP-compliant method for sterility testing of cell-therapy products.

作者信息

Khuu H M, Stock F, McGann M, Carter C S, Atkins J W, Murray P R, Read E J

机构信息

Department of Transfusion Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.

出版信息

Cytotherapy. 2004;6(3):183-95. doi: 10.1080/14653240410005997.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Although widely used, commercially available automated culture methods are not US Food and Drug Administration-approved for sterility testing of cell-therapy products. For cell-therapy products regulated under Section 351 of the Public Health Service Act, sterility testing must be performed by the methods described in 21 CFR 610.12 and USP <71> (CFR/USP method), or by methods demonstrated to be equivalent.

METHODS

Two automated methods, BacT/Alert (BTA; bioMerieux) and Bactec (Becton Dickinson), were compared with the CFR/USP method. Representative mononuclear cell (MNC) products were formulated using six different product media. MNC product aliquots containing 10-50 x 10(6) cells in a 0.5 mL volume were seeded with organisms, and cultured for 14 days in aerobic and anaerobic bottles of each system. Ten different organisms at target concentrations of 10 and 50 colony-forming units (CFU) per bottle were tested.

RESULTS

Positives were detected in a mean (range) of 72% (7-100%) of cultures for CFR/USP, 82% (0-100%) for BTA, and 93% (57-100%) for Bactec. For nine of the 10 organisms tested, overall detection rates for BTA and Bactec were equivalent to or higher than CFR/USP. Of the six product media tested, detection of organisms was impaired only by the medium containing multiple antibiotics: this occurred in all three systems. Both BTA and Bactec had shorter times to detection than the CFR/USP method, with overall means (ranges) of 87 (24-264) h for CFR/USP, 24 (12-54) h for BTA, and 33 (12-80) h for Bactec. Detection occurred consistently within 7 days for both BTA and Bactec, but not for CFR/USP.

DISCUSSION

Both BTA and Bactec are superior to the CFR/USP method for overall detection and time to detection of organisms in MNC products suspended in commonly used media. These data support general use of either BTA or Bactec for sterility testing of a variety of cell-therapy products, and suggest that a 7-day culture period is sufficient to detect clinically relevant organisms. These results confirm the need for bacteriostasis and fungistasis testing of antibiotic-containing products, even when antibiotic-binding substances are used.

摘要

背景

尽管市售的自动化培养方法被广泛使用,但美国食品药品监督管理局未批准其用于细胞治疗产品的无菌检测。对于受《公共卫生服务法》第351条监管的细胞治疗产品,必须采用21 CFR 610.12和美国药典<71>中所述的方法(CFR/USP方法)或经证明等效的方法进行无菌检测。

方法

将两种自动化方法,即BacT/Alert(BTA;生物梅里埃公司)和Bactec(贝克顿·迪金森公司)与CFR/USP方法进行比较。使用六种不同的产品培养基配制代表性单核细胞(MNC)产品。将0.5 mL体积中含有10 - 50×10⁶个细胞的MNC产品等分试样接种微生物,并在每个系统的需氧瓶和厌氧瓶中培养14天。测试了目标浓度为每瓶10和50个菌落形成单位(CFU)的十种不同微生物。

结果

CFR/USP方法的培养物中阳性检出率平均(范围)为72%(7 - 100%),BTA为82%(0 - 100%),Bactec为93%(57 - 100%)。对于所测试的10种微生物中的9种,BTA和Bactec的总体检出率等于或高于CFR/USP。在所测试的六种产品培养基中,仅含有多种抗生素的培养基会影响微生物的检测:在所有三个系统中均出现这种情况。BTA和Bactec的检测时间均短于CFR/USP方法,CFR/USP方法的总体平均(范围)时间为87(24 - 264)小时,BTA为24(12 - 54)小时,Bactec为33(12 - 80)小时。BTA和Bactec均能在7天内持续检测到阳性,但CFR/USP方法则不能。

讨论

对于悬浮在常用培养基中的MNC产品中微生物的总体检测和检测时间,BTA和Bactec均优于CFR/USP方法。这些数据支持将BTA或Bactec普遍用于各种细胞治疗产品的无菌检测,并表明7天培养期足以检测出临床相关微生物。这些结果证实了即使使用抗生素结合物质,含抗生素产品也需要进行抑菌和抑真菌检测。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验