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

References

• US Food and Drug Administration. Suitability determination for donors of human cellular and tissue-based products; Proposed rule. Federal Register 1999;64:52696— 723.
   Google Scholar
• US Food and Drug Administration. General Biologics Standards.21 CFR 600.
   Google Scholar
• Read EJ. The new regulatory environment for cellular therapy products: challenges for academic-based manufacturing facil-ities. In: Smit Sibinga CTh, de Leij LFMH, editors. Cellular engineering and cellular therapies. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Burger S. Current regulatory issues in cell and tissue therapy. Cytotberapy 2003;5:289–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• US Food and Drug Administration. General Biologics Standards.21 CFR 610.12.
   Google Scholar
• US Pharmacopeia. General Information Chapter 71, Sterility Tests, Rockville, MD 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Reimer LG, Wilson ML, Weinstein MP. Update on detection of bacteremia and fungemia. Clin Microbiol Rev 1997;10:44–465.
   Google Scholar
• Bourbeau P, Riley J, Heiter BJ et al. Use of the BacT/Alert bloodculture system for culture of sterile body fluids other than blood. Clin Microbiol 1998;36:3273–7.
   Google Scholar
• Simor AE, Scythes K, Meaney H et al. Evaluation of the BacT/Alert microbial detection system with FAN aerobic and FAN anaerobic bottles for culturing normally sterile body fluids other than blood. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2000;37:5–9.
   Google Scholar
• Fuller DD, Davis TE. Comparison of Bactec Plus Aerobic/F, Anaerobic/F, Peds Plus/F, and Lytic/F media with and without fastidious organism supplement to conventional methods for culture of sterile body fluids. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1997;29:219— 25.
   Google Scholar
• Davis-Sproul J. ISCT sterility testing survey. ISCT Telegraft Newsletter 2002;9:1— 3.
   Google Scholar
• Red cell transfusions contaminated with Yersinia enterocolitica —United States, 1991-1996, and initiation of a national study to detect bacteria-associated transfusion reactions. MMWR 1997; 46:553–5.
   Google Scholar
• Crepin 0, Roussel-Delvallez M, Martin GR et al. Effectivenessof resins in removing antibiotics from blood cultures. 7 Clin Microbiol 1993;31: 734–5.
   Google Scholar
• Lindsey NJ, Riely PE. In vitro antibiotic removal and bacterial recovery from blood with an antibiotic removal device. 7 Clin Microbiol 1981;13:503— 7.
   Google Scholar
• Smith SM, Eng RK. In vitro evaluation of the Bactec resin-containing blood culture bottle. 7 Clin Microbiol 1983;17:1120— 6.
   Google Scholar
• Spaargaren J, van Boven CPA, Voorn GP. Effectiveness of resinsin neutralizing antibiotic activities in Bactec Plus Aerobic/F culture media. 7 Clin Microbiol 1998;36:3731–3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowley SD, Davis J, Dick J et al. Bacterial contamination of bonemarrow grafts intended for autologous and allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. Transfusion 1988;28:109— 12.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stroncek DF, Fautsch DK, Lasky LC et al. Adverse reactions in patients transfused with cryopreserved marrow. Transfusion 1991;31:512–26.
   Google Scholar
• Lazarus HM, Magalhaes-Silverman M, Fox RM et al. Contam-ination during in vitro processing of bone marrow for transplan-tation: clinical significance. Bone Marrow Transplant 1991;7:241–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwella N, Zimmermann R, Heuft HG et al. Microbiologic contamination of peripheral blood stem cell autografts. Vox Sang 1994;67:32–5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Prince HM, Page SR, Keating A et al. Microbial contaminationof harvested bone marrow and peripheral blood. Bone Marrow Transplant 1995;15:87 — 91.
   Google Scholar
• Padley D, Koontz F, Trig ME et al. Bacterial contamination rates following processing of bone marrow and peripheral blood progenitor cell preparations. Transfusion 1996;36:53— 9.
   Google Scholar
• Webb U, Coral FS, Andersen JW et al. Sources and sequelae ofbacterial contamination of hematopoietic stem cell components: implications for the safety of hematotherapy and graft engineer-ing. Transfusion 1996;36:782— 8.
   Google Scholar
• Espinosa MTF, Fox R, Creger RJ et al. Microbiologic contam-ination of peripheral blood progenitor cells collected for hematopoietic cell transplantation. Transfusion 1996;36:789–93.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Khuu HM, Cowley H, David-Ocampo V et al. Catastrophic failures of freezing bags for cellular therapy products: descrip-tion, cause, and consequences. Cytotberapy 2002;4:539–49.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kocka FE, Magoc T, Searcy RL. Action of sulfated polyanions used in blood culture on lysozyme, complement and antibiotics. Ann Clin Lab Sci 1972;2:470–3.
   Google Scholar
• Krogstad D, Murray P, Granich G et al. Sodium polyanethol-sulfonate (SPS) inactivation of aminoglycosides. Antimicrob Agents Cbemotber 1981;20:66— 70.
   Google Scholar
• Murray P, Niles A. Inactivation of penicillins by thiol broth. Clin Microbiol 1982;16:982–4.
   Google Scholar
• Brecher ME, Means N, Jere CS et al. Evaluation of an automatedculture system for detecting bacterial contamination of platelets: an analysis with 15 contaminating organisms. Transfusion 2001;41:477— 82.
   Google Scholar
• US Pharmacopeia. General Information Chapter 1046, Cell and Gene Therapy, Rockville, MD 2003.
   Google Scholar