## Is Perfusion Bioreactor Technology Finally Going Mainstream in Biopharma?

The share of biopharmaceutical manufacturers using single-use perfusion equipment at any production stage has doubled — from 33.1% to 65.8% — since 2016, according to BioPlan Associates' 23rd Annual Report and Survey of Biopharmaceutical Manufacturing, published in August 2026. Yet a second number tells a more cautionary story: only about 10% of bioprocess facilities currently deploy perfusion [bioreactors](https://synbiointel.com/glossary/bioreactor) in actual upstream production, per BioPlan's Top1000Bio global facilities database. The gap between evaluation and commercial deployment is the defining tension in continuous bioprocessing today.

The 2026 survey found that 42.3% of global respondents plan to evaluate upstream continuous processing or perfusion this year, up from 38.8% in 2024 and the highest planned-evaluation rate recorded since 2018. That trajectory — evaluation numbers trending steadily upward for nearly a decade — is the leading indicator that BioPlan analysts argue signals a genuine inflection point, not just another cycle of optimism.

The industry has heard the five-years-away forecast before. For roughly two decades, survey respondents have predicted that fully continuous bioprocessing is just around the corner. Actual adoption has persistently lagged that optimism. Whether 2026 marks a true turning point or another false dawn depends on factors the evaluation numbers alone cannot resolve.

---

## Where Perfusion Is Actually Being Used — and by Whom

The real-world adoption picture, as documented in BioPlan's data and independent research cited in the report, is one of deliberate caution rather than wholesale commitment.

Named adopters fall into recognizable archetypes:

**Hybrid integrators at moderate scale:** GSK, Just–Evotec Biologics, KBI Biopharma, Sandoz, Lonza, and Sanofi are using hybrid configurations of continuous and batch processing, or continuous production, at moderate scales — the source specifies 500–1,000 L as the relevant range.

**Seed-train intensification specialists:** Pfizer has integrated perfusion-based seed trains to achieve the high cell densities required for its global vaccine and antibody supply. Boehringer Ingelheim uses perfusion for early clinical-stage projects and to accelerate monoclonal antibody (mAb) production, employing N–1 intensification to increase seeding cell density before final production in large-volume stainless-steel tanks.

**Asia-Pacific single-use operators:** CL Biologics, Fujifilm Biotechnologies, Samsung Biologics, and WuXi Biologics all operate facilities with moderate-scale single-use perfusion bioreactors, with emphasis on N–1 perfusion or perfusion [fed-batch](https://synbiointel.com/glossary/fed-batch) methods for ultrahigh productivity.

**Cell and gene therapy CDMOs:** Novartis and Charles River Laboratories provide perfusion-based manufacturing primarily through [CDMO](https://synbiointel.com/glossary/cdmo) services for cell and gene therapies, with their perfusion strategies centered on cell expansion — T cells and NK cells — rather than large-scale protein secretion.

What these examples collectively illustrate is that perfusion is being adopted as a precision tool inserted into specific process steps, not as a wholesale replacement for established fed-batch infrastructure. Several large biopharma companies, the BioPlan analysis notes, have tested perfusion in R&D and later reverted to fed-batch for commercial runs.

---

## What Is Blocking Full Commercial Deployment

The BioPlan analysis identifies a cluster of structural barriers that evaluation numbers alone cannot dissolve:

**Regulatory comfort with the familiar.** FDA and EMA have encouraged continuous manufacturing but the regulatory playbook for fully continuous biologics production remains less defined than for fed-batch. Sponsors filing commercial BLAs with continuous processes are navigating territory where precedent is thin, which raises approval risk — a material concern for any asset worth hundreds of millions of dollars in development spend.

**Infrastructure lock-in.** Large-scale stainless-steel fed-batch capacity represents sunk costs that are difficult to write off. Boehringer Ingelheim's approach — perfusion for N–1 intensification feeding into existing large-volume stainless tanks — is a rational response to this constraint, extracting productivity gains without stranding capital.

**Workforce expertise gaps.** Operating perfusion systems at commercial scale requires process engineers comfortable with steady-state cell culture dynamics, real-time analytics, and process analytical technology (PAT) integration. That talent pool is smaller than the fed-batch workforce.

**Cost calculus.** Perfusion equipment, particularly single-use membrane systems and hollow-fiber bioreactors, carries higher per-run consumable costs than equivalent fed-batch setups. At commercial scale, those costs must be offset by measurable productivity or quality gains that can be modeled convincingly enough to justify capital reallocation.

**CDMO client alignment.** CDMOs, which collectively process a substantial fraction of the industry's clinical and commercial biologics volume, tend to default to fed-batch because clients expect it and regulators have deep familiarity with it. Until more sponsors specifically request or require continuous processes, CDMOs face limited commercial incentive to retool.

---

## The Skeptical Read on the Survey Data

BioPlan's own framing — that adoption is "finally on the cusp" — deserves scrutiny. The jump from 38.8% to 42.3% in planned evaluations is real but modest. More importantly, evaluation intent has been a reliable leading indicator of actual adoption only if the conversion rate from evaluation to deployment is improving. The source does not provide that conversion rate directly. 

The 65.8% single-use perfusion equipment usage figure is also broader than it appears: it includes any stage of manufacturing, meaning a company running a perfusion seed train (N–1 intensification) while using fed-batch for final production is counted in that 65.8%. The operationally meaningful number — 10% of facilities using perfusion in upstream production — suggests the technology is still a specialty tool rather than a platform.

For next-generation biologics — cell therapies, gene therapies, personalized mAbs at small lot sizes — perfusion's economics may be structurally more favorable than in high-volume commodity mAb production. Novartis and Charles River's focus on cell expansion for [cell therapy](https://synbiointel.com/glossary/cell-therapy) manufacturing points toward the segment where the adoption case is least dependent on overcoming fed-batch inertia.

---

## Industry Trajectory Implications

If BioPlan's trend line holds, the next 24–36 months should produce a clearer answer on whether evaluation intent converts to commercial deployment at meaningful scale. Vendors supplying single-use perfusion hardware — hollow-fiber systems, tangential flow filtration, inline sensors — stand to benefit from the evaluation surge regardless of whether full commercial deployment follows. The 65.8% adoption figure also signals that the hardware supply chain and facility engineering knowledge base are maturing, which should progressively reduce the implementation risk that has historically deterred commercial scale-up.

For enterprise buyers and process development teams, the practical implication of the BioPlan data is that N–1 perfusion intensification offers a relatively low-risk entry point: productivity gains at seeding without requiring regulatory novelty arguments at the final production step. That is likely why the Pfizer and Boehringer Ingelheim models have gained traction as reference architectures.

The regulatory dimension will be the rate-limiting variable. FDA and EMA encouragement of continuous manufacturing is meaningful, but formal guidances specific to continuous biologics production would materially accelerate commercial adoption in ways that no amount of industry optimism can replicate on its own.

---

## Key Takeaways

- Single-use perfusion equipment usage across any production stage has doubled from 33.1% to 65.8% since 2016 (BioPlan Associates, 2026).
- Only approximately 10% of bioprocess facilities currently use perfusion bioreactors in upstream production, per BioPlan's Top1000Bio database.
- 42.3% of global survey respondents plan to evaluate upstream continuous processing or perfusion in 2026 — the highest rate since 2018 and up from 38.8% in 2024.
- Named commercial adopters including Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Samsung Biologics, and WuXi Biologics primarily use N–1 perfusion intensification or hybrid strategies rather than fully continuous commercial production.
- Structural barriers — regulatory familiarity with fed-batch, infrastructure sunk costs, workforce gaps, and CDMO client inertia — continue to restrain conversion from evaluation to commercial deployment.
- Cell and gene therapy manufacturing, where lot sizes are small and cell expansion is the primary objective, represents the segment with the most favorable near-term adoption economics.

---

## Frequently Asked Questions

**What is perfusion bioreactor technology and how does it differ from fed-batch?**
A perfusion bioreactor continuously adds fresh media and removes spent media while retaining cells, enabling steady-state culture at high cell densities. Fed-batch processes add nutrients periodically without media exchange and harvest at batch end. Perfusion can deliver higher volumetric productivity but requires more complex process control and has higher consumable costs.

**How widely adopted is continuous bioprocessing in commercial biopharma manufacturing as of 2026?**
According to BioPlan Associates' 2026 survey data, approximately 10% of bioprocess facilities use perfusion bioreactors in upstream production. While 65.8% of manufacturers report using single-use perfusion equipment at some stage, this includes seed-train and development applications rather than full commercial production runs.

**Which companies are leading perfusion bioreactor adoption?**
BioPlan's 2026 analysis names Pfizer (seed-train perfusion for vaccines and antibodies), Boehringer Ingelheim (N–1 intensification for mAbs), Samsung Biologics, WuXi Biologics, Lonza, Sandoz, and GSK among the leaders. Novartis and Charles River Laboratories focus on perfusion for cell and gene therapy manufacturing via CDMO services.

**Why are CDMOs slow to adopt continuous bioprocessing?**
CDMOs argue that fed-batch aligns with client expectations and regulatory familiarity. Since sponsors typically specify process requirements, CDMOs face limited commercial incentive to retool capacity for continuous processes unless clients specifically demand them or regulators create compliance advantages for continuous methods.

**What would accelerate broad commercial adoption of perfusion technology?**
Clearer formal regulatory guidance from FDA and EMA specific to continuous biologics manufacturing would be the highest-impact catalyst. Secondary drivers include reduced single-use consumable costs at scale, expanded workforce expertise, and accumulation of regulatory precedents from early commercial approvals of continuously manufactured biologics.