Tablet compression Validation

The process validation of tablet compression processes is accomplished by testing quality attributes such as content uniformity, dissolution, moisture, and other attributes from stratified sampling conducted throughout the process. Machine operating parameters may vary between lots; example parameters include pre-compressing force, main compressing force, and turret speed. After appropriate set-up of operating parameters, in-process testing or machine control of tablet weight, thickness, and hardness maintains compressing at target attributes by adjusting machine parameters.

Tablet Coating Validation

The process validation of tablet coating processes is accomplished by testing quality attributes such as tablet weight, dissolution, physical appearance, and other attributes from coating runs. Machine operating parameters may vary between lots; most variation is observed in individual coating run batch size. Coating batch size depends on the yield of compressed tablets. The coating batch size may significantly influence coating performance in perforated pan coaters in which air flow through the tablet bed is an important operating parameter.

-Difference between validation plan and validation protocol

A validation plan (VMP) outlines the scope of the work to be done, responsibilities, the approach to be taken etc. It may relate to a new product or a new system or the qualification of your computer network.

The validation protocols are the documents with tests and instructions that are executed for a process, equipment validation or analytical method validation etc. These are cited by the VMP as being required.

A VMP is not always required and is dependant upon the size of the project, whereas you will nearly always have validation protocols in some way shape or form.

Process Validation Analysis Tools

Process Validation Analysis Tools

Author: Chandra Kishra

a. Acceptance Sampling Plan – An acceptance sampling plan takes a sample of product and uses this sample to make an accept or reject decision. Acceptance sampling plans are commonly used in manufacturing to decide whether to accept (release) or to reject (hold) lots of product. However, they can also be used during validation to accept (pass) or to reject (fail) the process. Following the acceptance by a sampling plan, one can make a confidence statement such as: "With 95% confidence, the defect rate is below 1% defective."

b. Analysis of Means (ANOM) – Statistical study for determining if significant differences exist between cavities, instruments, etc. It has many uses including determining if a measurement device is reproducible with respect to operators and determining if differences exists between fill heads, etc. Simpler and more graphical alternative to Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) .

c. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) – Statistical study for determining if significant differences exist between cavities, instruments, etc. Alternative to Analysis of Means (ANOM).

d. Capability Study – Capability studies are performed to evaluate the ability of a process to consistently meet a specification. A capability study is performed by selecting a small number of units periodically over time. Each period of time is called a subgroup. For each subgroup, the average and range is calculated. The averages and ranges are plotted over time using a control chart to determine if the process is stable or consistent over time. If so, the samples are then combined to determine whether the process is adequately centered and the variation is sufficiently small. This is accomplished by calculating capability indexes. The most commonly used capability indices are Cp and Cpk. If acceptable values are obtained, the process consistently produces product that meets the specification limits. Capability studies are frequently towards the end of the validation to demonstrate that the outputs consistently meet the specifications. However, they can also be used to study the behavior of the inputs in order to perform a tolerance analysis.

e. Challenge Test – A challenge test is a test or check performed to demonstrate that a feature or function is working. For example, to demonstrate that the power backup is functioning, power could be cut to the process. To demonstrate that a sensor designed to detect bubbles in a line works, bubbles could be purposely introduced.

f. Component Swapping Study – Study to isolate the cause of a difference between two units of product or two pieces of equipment. Requires the ability to disassemble units and swap components in order to determine if the difference remains with original units or goes with the swapped components.

g. Control Chart – Control charts are used to detect changes in the process. A sample, typically consisting of 5 units, is selected periodically. The average and range of each sample is calculated and plot. The plot of the averages is used to determine if the process average changes. The plot of the ranges is used to determine if the process variation changes. To aid in determining if a change has occurred, control limits are calculated and added to the plots. The control limits represent the maximum amount that the average or range should vary if the process does not change. A point outside the control limits indicates that the process has changed. When a change is identified by the control chart, an investigation should be made as to the cause of the change. Control charts help to identify key input variables causing the process to shift and aid in the reduction of the variation. Control charts are also used as part of a capability study to demonstrate that the process is stable or consistent.

h. Designed Experiment – The term designed experiment is a general term that encompasses screening experiments, response surface studies, and analysis of variance. In general, a designed experiment involves purposely changing one or more inputs and measuring the resulting effect on one or more outputs.

i. Dual Response Approach to Robust Design – One of three approaches to robust design. Involves running response surface studies to model the average and variation of the outputs separately. The results are then used to select targets for the inputs that minimize the variation while centering the average on the target. Requires that the variation during the study be representative of long term manufacturing. Alternatives are Taguchi methods and robust tolerance analysis.

j. Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) – An FMEA is systematic analysis of the potential failure modes. It includes the identification of possible failure modes, determination of the potential causes and consequences and an analysis of the associated risk. It also includes a record of corrective actions or controls implemented resulting in a detailed control plan. FMEAs can be performed on both the product and the process. Typically an FMEA is performed at the component level, starting with potential failures and then tracing up to the consequences. This is a bottom up approach. A variation is a Fault Tree Analysis, which starts with possible consequences and traces down to the potential causes. This is the top down approach. An FMEA tends to be more detailed and better at identifying potential problems. However, a fault tree analysis can be performed earlier in the design process before the design has been resolved down to individual components.

k. Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) – A variation of a FMEA. See FMEA for a comparison.

l. Gauge R&R Study – Study for evaluating the precision and accuracy of a measurement device and the reproducibility of the device with respect to operators. Alternatives are to perform capability studies and analysis of means on measurement device. m. Mistake Proofing Methods – Mistake proofing refers to the broad array of methods used to either make the occurrence of a defect impossible or to ensure that the defect does not pass undetected. The Japanese refer to mistake proofing as Poka-Yoke. The general strategy is to first attempt to make it impossible for the defect to occur. For example, to make it impossible for a part to be assembled backwards, make the ends of the part different sizes or shapes so that the part only fits one way. If this is not possible, attempt to ensure the defect is detected. This might involve mounting a bar above a chute that will stop any parts that are too high from continuing down the line. Other possibilities include mitigating the effect of a defect (seat belts in cars) and to lessen the chance of human errors by implementing self-checks.

n. Multi-Vari Chart – Graphical procedure for isolating the largest source of variation so that further efforts concentrate on that source.

o. Response Surface Study – A response surface study is a special type of designed experiment whose purpose is to model the relationship between the key input variables and the outputs. Performing a response surface study involves running the process at different settings for the inputs, called trials, and measuring the resulting outputs. An equation can then be fit to the data to model the affects of the inputs on the outputs. This equation can then be used to find optimal targets using robust design methods and to establish targets or operating windows using a tolerance analysis. The number of trials required by a response surface study increases exponentially with the number of inputs. It is desirable to keep the number of inputs studied to a minimum. However, failure to include a key input can compromise the results. To ensure that only the key input variables are included in the study, a screening experiment is frequently performed first.

p. Robust Design Methods – Robust design methods refers collectively to the different methods of selecting optimal targets for the inputs. Generally, when one thinks of reducing variation, tightening tolerances comes to mind. However, as demonstrated by Taguchi, variation can also be reduced by the careful selection of targets. When nonlinear relationships between the inputs and the outputs, one can select targets for the inputs that make the outputs less sensitive to the inputs. The result is that while the inputs continue to vary, less of this variation is transmitted to the output causing the output to vary less. Reducing variation by adjusting targets is called robust design. In robust design, the objective is to select targets for the inputs that result in on-target performance with minimum variation. Several methods of obtaining robust designs exist including robust tolerance analysis, dual response approach and Taguchi methods.

q. Robust Tolerance Analysis – One of three approaches to robust design. Involves running a designed experiment to model the output’s average and then using the statistical approach to tolerance analysis to predict the output’s variation. Requires estimates of the amounts that the inputs will vary during long-term manufacturing. Alternatives are Taguchi methods and the dual response approach.

r. Screening Experiment – A screening experiment is a special type of designed experiment whose primary purpose is to identify the key input variables. Screening experiments are also referred to as fractional factorial experiments or Taguchi L-arrays. Performing a screening experiment involves running the process at different settings for the inputs, called trials, and measuring the resulting outputs. From this, it can be determined which inputs affect the outputs. Screening experiments typically require twice as many trials as input variables. For example, 8 variables can be studied in 16 trials. This makes it possible to study a large number of inputs in a reasonable amount of time. Starting with a larger number of variables reduces the chances of missing an important variable. Frequently a response surface study is performed following a screening experiment to gain further understanding of the affects of the key input variables on the outputs.

s. Taguchi Methods – One of three approaches to robust design. Involves running a designed experiment to get a rough understanding of the effects of the input targets on the average and variation. The results are then used to select targets for the inputs that minimize the variation while centering the average on the target. Similar to the dual response approach except that while the study is being performed, the inputs are purposely adjusted by small amounts to mimic long-term manufacturing variation. Alternatives are the dual response approach and robust tolerance analysis.

t. Tolerance Analysis – Using tolerance analysis, operating windows can be set for the inputs that ensure the outputs will conform to requirements. Performing a tolerance analysis requires an equation describing the effects of the inputs on the output. If such an equation is not available, a response surface study can be performed to obtain one. To help ensure manufacturability, tolerances for the inputs should initially be based on the plants and suppliers ability to control them. Capability studies can be used to estimate the ranges that the inputs currently vary over. If this does not result in an acceptable range for the output, the tolerance of at least one input must be tightened. However, tightening a tolerance beyond the current capability of the plant or supplier requires that improvements be made or that a new plant or supplier selected. Before tightening any tolerances, robust design methods should be considered.

u. Variance Components Analysis – Statistical study used to estimate the relative contributions of several sources of variation. For example, variation can on a multi-head filler could be the result of shifting of the process average over time, filling head differences and short-term variation within a fill head. A variance components analysis can be used to estimate the amount of variation contributed by each source.

Gaseous sterilization process Validation

1. INTRODUCTION

Gaseous sterilization processing technology has been available for many years and has been developed to the current "state of the art", with progress being still maintained on several fronts, particularly with reference to vapor phase hydrogen peroxide and ozone.
Most of the literature pertaining to gaseous sterilization has been written with reference to applications for foods, medical devices, medical instruments and pharmaceutical product containers.
This document is intended to provide guidance to establish the scientific effectiveness of ethylene oxide sterilization procedures. It describes the procedures to evaluate the elements of ethylene oxide sterilization procedures which reqfuire confirmation by scientific tests. This guideline describes approaches to accomplish this goal in a way that is acceptable to the Health Products and Food Branch Inspectorate of Health Canada.
This guideline describes the documentation necessary to provide the written evidence that gaseous sterilization procedures have been evaluated and are under control. Such documentation is essential for both the user of the gaseous sterilization procedure and the specialists of the Health Products and Food Branch Inspectorate for the purposes of inspection and drug submission evaluation. This guideline is applicable only to gaseous sterilization procedures. Some principles described in the guideline may be shared with other sterilization procedures. These other sterilization procedures are the subjects of other guidelines and require different validation protocols.
It is not the intent of this document to provide details of specific procedures that may be used, nor to elaborate the mathematical principles of Sterility Assurance Levels (SALs) or Microbiological Safety Indices (MSIs). Such information is readily available from other references.
As with any sterilization procedure, the use of current Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) and control of the manufacturing environment are essentials in the maintenance of barriers against microbial contamination.
To provide maximum benefit, gaseous sterilization procedure validation should be carried out as early as possible in the development of a new or modified procedure or new drug or device product.
This approach, often called prospective validation is preferred by the Inspectorate since it gives an indication of a well thought out production flow. It can also be cost effective as data can be collected while carrying out work which is required for reasons other than validation.
It is assumed that the reader has some familiarity with gaseous sterilization procedures in general, their application and restrictions on use, as well as effect on the items to be sterilized.
Gaseous sterilization procedures are the exposure of items (either components or products) to a chemical sterilant in a gaseous phase in a controlled manner to ensure that a pre-determined lethal effect is delivered to the items being processed with the objective of eliminating the pre-treatment bioburden and providing a satisfactory margin of safety.
It is emphasized that sample based, end product testing does not guarantee a consistent or high quality product but can only effectively identify and statistically quantify the incidence of substandard product. The gaseous sterilization procedure in conjunction with the remainder of the manufacturing process, must be designed to maximize the probability of the product being suitable for its intended use.
Before a gaseous sterilization procedure program is commenced the following items should be in existence or have been carried out:

1. Product definition, in terms of physical, chemical, microbial and pharmacological properties, where appropriate
   
2. Specifications for raw materials and components
   
3. Determination of required Sterility Assurance Level (SAL) based on the use of the items being treated
   
4. Compatibility of the process with the items to be treated
   
5. Determination of acceptable limits of the major residues after gaseous sterilization procedures
   
6. Validation of analytical methods used with adequate calibration and qualification of measuring equipment
   

Note: Validation "tests" should be repeated enough times to assure reliable and meaningful results.
In some circumstances a satisfactory demonstration that the gaseous sterilization procedure consistently produces the desired Sterility Assurance Level may eliminate the need to test every batch of items being treated, for sterility.
Validation of gaseous sterilization procedures involves, but is not restricted to, consideration of the following elements:

• Bioburden
  
• Manufacturing Area Environment
  
• Determination of Time and Humidity in the preconditioning area
  
• Determination of Temperature, Pressure, Time and Humidity in the chamber, ventilation of load after sterilization
  
• Loading Patterns
  
• Biological indicator survival
  
• Vendor Certification (if the gaseous sterilization treatment is carried out by an external contractor).
  
  

2. VALIDATION GENERAL TERMINOLOGY

2.1 In the context of this guide, Process Validation is defined as:

The action taken to demonstrate, and to provide documented evidence that a process will, with a high degree of assurance, consistently achieve the desired and intended results.

2.2 Before Process Validation can commence there must be what may be termed an essential Prevalidation phase. This phase, in addition to such considerations as equipment specification, equipment design and equipment purchase, requires attention to Equipment Qualification.

2.3 Equipment Qualification in turn has two main phases:

2.3.1 Installation Qualification, that is demonstrating and certifying that a piece of equipment is properly installed, is provided with all necessary services, subsidiary equipment and instruments, and is capable of performing in accordance with its basic design parameters.

2.3.2 Operational Qualification, consists of demonstrating that the equipment will perform consistently, and within pre-defined limits, as specified and installed.

2.4 None of these various phases need to be considered as entirely "water-tight" compartments. The divisions have been defined as a matter of convenience in discussion. In practice there is likely to be some overlap, or merging, between the various components of Validation/Qualification. In addition, there are quite wide-spread variations in terminology and conception. Some consider "Qualification" and "Validation" as two separate, yet related activities. Others use the term "Validation" to embrace the overall activity of Prevalidation/Qualification PLUS Process Validation.

The relationships between these various phases may be summarized as follows:

2.5 Validation has also been considered to have three aspects, or possible strategies - Prospective Validation, Concurrent Validation, and Retrospective Validation.

2.5.1 Prospective Validation applies to new processes and new equipment, where studies are conducted and evaluated, and the overall process/equipment system is confirmed as validated before the commencement of routine production.

2.5.2 Concurrent Validation applies to existing processes and equipment. It consists of studies conducted during normal routine production and can only be considered acceptable for processes which have a manufacturing and test history indicating consistent quality production.

2.5.3 Retrospective Validation applies to existing processes and equipment, and is based solely on historical information. Unless sufficiently detailed past processing and control records are available, retrospective validation studies are unlikely to be either possible or acceptable. For example, it would be necessary to establish that the process had not been modified and that the equipment was still operating under the same conditions of construction and performance as documented in the historical records. Maintenance records and process change control documentation would be necessary to support any such claim. Furthermore, the incidence of process failures, and records of rejects and/or reworking would need to be carefully evaluated for evidence of inconsistency in the process. Manufacturing, maintenance, testing and calibration data would all need to demonstrate process uniformity, consistency and continuity.

2.5.4 Concluding Note on Validation Terminology. While there is considerable variation in the understanding and use of the various terms discussed above, there is general agreement that the critical validation concepts are the following:

• the overall process is understood
  
• equipment is appropriately specified and designed
  
• equipment is properly installed and maintained and is demonstrably operating as specified and designed
  
• the process is validated to ensure that it does achieve the desired and intended result
  

3. DEFINITIONS SPECIFIC TO GASEOUS STERILIZATION

Sterilization cycle: Treatment comprising conditioning (if used) exposure to ethylene oxide in a sealed chamber, removal of ethylene oxide and flushing if used.
Preconditioning: Treatment of product prior to the sterilization cycle to attain a predetermined temperature and relative humidity throughout the load.
Preconditioning area: The area in which preconditioning occurs. This may be a chamber or room. A room is considered to be an enclosed space capable of holding more product than can be accommodated in the sterilizer at any one time. A chamber is an area which will only accommodate sufficient product to fill the sterilizer.
Conditioning: Treatment of product within the sterilization cycle, but prior to ethylene oxide admission to attain a predetermined temperature and relative humidity throughout the load.
Gas up time: The time elapsed from the start of ethylene oxide injection into the sterilization chamber until the desired gas concentration is attained.
Cycle completion: That point after completion of the sterilization cycle at which the load may be removed from the chamber.
Fault indication system: An audible or visual signal to indicate to the operator a failure of an operating system.
Permit to work: Authorization to use a sterilizer based upon the fact that it and associated equipment have been validated, maintained and calibrated according to agreed schedules.
Total sterilizer chamber volume: The total internal volume of the sterilizer.
Usable sterilizer chamber volume: The volume inside the sterilizer chamber which may be occupied by a full load including any pallets or other restraining materials which may be used, but excluding clearance space, space for pallet rollers etc).
Sterilization load: The contents of a sterilizer chamber during one complete cycle. It may include more than one manufacturing batch lot, or during qualification may be a partial (defined) load.
Reference load: A defined load made up of one or more products which, as constituted, is the most difficult to sterilize.
Worst case: The position at which it is most difficult to achieve the desired conditions.
Biological indicator (BI): A preparation incorporating a known number of viable bacterial spores of selected resistance to the sterilization process.
In addition throughout this Guideline the words must/shall and should are to be interpreted in the following manner:
Must/Shall: Indicates that this is expected to be done in order to comply with the principles of Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP).
Should: Expresses the need for careful judgement and justification before a decision is made not to comply.

4. OUTLINE OF GASEOUS STERILIZATION PROCEDURES

4.1 Ethylene Oxide (ETO) Sterilization

4.1.1 This guideline is based on the assumption that, except under very carefully defined and controlled conditions, each cycle will be monitored using biological indicators. lternative systems which base assessment of the adequacy of the cycle on continuous monitoring of all the physical and chemical parameters affecting the efficacy of the cycle require additional provision.

4.1.2 Each stage of the evaluation of the adequacy and consistency of an ethylene oxide sterilization process, including any pre-humidification shall be based on a pre-established and approved detailed written protocol.

4.1.3 Before the studies commence, a written change control procedure shall be established to prevent unauthorized change to the protocol and process and restrict change during any phase of the studies until all relevant data is evaluated.

4.1.4 The protocol should be written in accordance with the validation approach chosen and outlined in section 2.

4.1.5 The protocol should specify in detail:

4.1.5.1 The process objectives in terms of type of material, including any packaging, the chamber content and probability of survival (or micro-biological safety index MSI) desired from the process.

4.1.5.2 Pre-established details and or ranges for the process parameters which include pre-humidification time and relative humidity, temperature, loading pattern(s), relative humidity, partial pressure of ethylene oxide (and any carrier gas), exposure time, and degassification procedures.

4.1.5.3 A description of all of the equipment and any support or ancillary equipment in terms of type, model, operational range and characteristics.

4.1.5.4 The performance characteristics of each system, sub-system or equipment described in 3.1.4.3. These characteristics should include, but not necessarily be restricted to pressure gauge accuracy and sensitivity, valve operations, alarm system functions, timer responses and accuracy, gas and water vapor flow rates and pressures, jacket cooling.

4.1.5.5 For new equipment: installation qualification, for all systems, sub-systems, equipment and monitors and computerized systems is a requirement of the overall validation activity.

4.1.5.6 For existing equipment: any necessary improvements to equipment or other compensatory procedures, with appropriate justification shall be adequately qualified.

4.1.5.7 The methods and procedures for monitoring the performance of equipment systems and sub-systems and the process.

4.1.5.9 The training and qualification of personnel responsible for the evaluation and certification of each stage of the protocol and for the final approval of the entire validation procedure.

5. PERSONNEL

5.1 All personnel involved in the validation study are required to have sufficient experience and training to carry out the tasks assigned to them. This experience and training should be described in written form.

5.2 Personnel with the necessary training and experience should ensure that all documentation is developed within a sound engineering, technical and scientific basis, and that all studies carried out are fully evaluated and certified.

5.3 Only personnel with the necessary training and experience should operate equipment and measuring devices as described in this guideline.

5.4 All personnel involved should have the necessary training and expertise in the theory and practice of the operation, maintenance and microbiological principles of sterilizers and sterilization.

6. DATA REVIEW AND STUDY CERTIFICATION

6.1 All information and data generated in the course of a study to validate a gaseous sterilization procedure, should be evaluated by competent, appropriately qualified individuals and should be assessed against the protocol criteria to determine whether they are, or are not, in compliance with the pre-established criteria.

6.2 Full documentation for the rationale for these decisions must be available.

6.3 If the evaluation shows that any pre-established criterion is not met, the impact of this failure, on the entire process should be investigated. This investigation should be thoroughly documented.

There should also be an additional assessment of the appropriateness of the criterion, or criteria, with which compliance was not established.

6.4 The final certification of the validation study should specify the process parameters established during the course of the study.

7. GENERAL LABORATORY CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 All laboratory tests should be performed by a competent laboratory.

7.2 Detailed procedures for all laboratory operations should be available in writing.

7.3 An audit system to determine the competence of contract testing laboratories should be described in writing and be carried out.

8. CHEMISTRY LABORATORY REQUIREMENTS

8.1 If the protocol defines the acceptance criteria for the presence of residual ethylene oxide and by-products of the process, a competent laboratory furnished with the necessary equipment and personnel should carry out the determinations using appropriately validated analytical methods.

8.2 While gas analysis is not absolutely essential, it may provide useful additional information. Where the analysis is carried out the conditions of section 6.4.1.1 must be complied with.

9. MICROBIOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

9.1 Biological Indicators

9.1.1 All biological indicators used in the validation study or used as part of post-validation monitoring or in a requalification study must be calibrated.

9.1.2 Indicators should be used on or before their declared expiry date and stored in such a way that their quality is unimpaired.

9.1.3 Indicators should be tested according to a written procedure for quantitation of the challenge organism and for their response to exposure to the stated critical parameters.

9.1.4 For commercially obtained indicators a certificate of calibration indicating the 'D' value of the lot under carefully defined conditions must be obtained and the suppliers count verified at selected periods during the shelf life of the indicator.

9.1.5 For "in-house" prepared indicators "D" value determination, quantitation and identity verification are required. In carrying out "D" value determinations, the choice of medium, electrolytes, carbohydrate and other physiological components, including the nature of the carrier of the indicator must be clearly defined.

9.1.6 Records of any indicator qualification must be retained in writing.

9.2 Microbiological qualification studies

9.2.1 Microbiological qualification studies must be carried out under cycle conditions equivalent to, or marginally inferior to, the minimum acceptable conditions on a production cycle. Ideally the studies should be carried out at or below the minimum acceptable rH, EO concentration and temperature. However it is acceptable to carry out the qualification studies with just two of these factors at or below the minimum acceptable level provided the other factor is maintained at or below the midpoint of the acceptable range.

9.2.2 Biological monitors or inoculated product should be evenly distributed in the load but shall include those locations where sterilization conditions are assumed most difficult to achieve. The number used must be a minimum of 20 for chambers up to 5000 liters of usable chamber volume. (For a pallet of 2.5m³ these should be distributed as a minimum of 10 per pallet). For larger chambers this must be increased by 2 for each 1000 liters or part thereof for the next 5000 liters, plus 2 per 2000 liters of usable chamber volume thereafter.

9.2.3 Biological monitors should be placed in that part of the product which is most difficult to sterilize. Product should be packaged as it will normally be presented to the sterilizer. Where the design of the product is such that a biological monitor cannot be accommodated in the part most difficult to sterilize, the product should be inoculated with a know spore suspension to provide a known number of viable spores. If a test piece designed to simulate the product is to be used for routine monitoring it must be validated concurrently with the product.

9.2.4 Biological monitors and spore suspension used to inoculate product must be specified.

9.2.5 The preferred method of microbiological qualification is to determine with a reference load the lethality of the cycle by construction of a survivor curve.

An alternative method also using a reference load is to determine the minimum exposure time at which there are no survivors. The routine cycle exposure time must be at least double this.

9.2.6 For initial validation three cycles should be run for each test.

9.3 Acceptance of Biological Controls

9.3.1 Biological monitors should be removed from the load and cultured as quickly as possible. Ideally removal from the load should be completed within four hours of cycle completion, and culture commenced within a further four hours.

9.3.2 If these time periods are exceeded biological monitors should be stored refrigerated prior to culture. The effects of delayed recovery, and in particular exposure to residual EO requires validation.

9.3.3 Recovery media, culture conditions etc, for biological monitors should be subject to control. It should be demonstrated that the culture conditions used are capable of recovering low level of spores.

9.3.4 Biological monitors should be incubated at a temperature of 30-35 ^oC. Positive controls e.g. an indicator which has not been exposed to EO, and negative controls e.g. an uninoculated sample of the media used for the test should be set up and incubated with the test samples.

9.3.5 Ideally monitors should be examined daily. The Positive control must show growth/turbidity within 48 hours.

9.3.6 Microbiological records should show when growth (if any) is first detected.

9.3.7 Any confirmed growth of the test organisms on the biological monitor must be interpreted as a failed cycle.

9.4 Method to Demonstrate Acceptability

9.4.1 To demonstrate acceptability it is recommended that triplicate sublethal cycles should be run at each of two sublethal cycle times. The times of the sublethal cycles should be chosen so as to expect survival of 30% to 80% of the monitors (i.e. test positive). The minimum acceptable number of cycles at each time point is three.

9.4.2 The study may be performed during routine validation or using suitable laboratory equipment under controlled conditions.

9.4.3 The recommended numbers of biological monitors (BMs) per validation run should be used (Section 6.4.5). For example if 20 BMs used per validation run then:

• To compare alternative BMs, 20 of each type under examination should be used. These should be located one of each type, in 20 positions within the chamber.
  
• To compare alternative recovery systems 40 BMs for each parameter being examined should be located in pairs in 20 positions within the chamber. On completion of the cycle one of each pair should be incubated under each condition being examined.

10. INSTRUMENTS AND INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION

10.1 Calibration

10.1.1 Equipment used to sterilize products should be provided with recording devices and/or indicators which should be calibrated initially and checked at specific intervals by adequate methods according to a planned maintenance schedule.

10.1.2 Calibration of gauges should be traceable to national standards. The minimum frequency of calibration should be specified, and, in any case, the period between calibration should not be greater than 6 calendar months.

10.1.3 The rH sensors should be "degassed" and recalibrated at a minimum of two points, as necessary.

10.1.4 All calibration procedures must be recorded and documented. An indication that the machine equipment is in a known state of calibration should be displayed.

10.1.5 Instruments requiring calibration include but are not restricted to:

• Temperature recorders and sensors
  
• Thermocouples
  
• Pressure Sensors
  
• Timers
  
• Gas analyzers
  
• Scales (for weighing amounts of gas used)
  

10.2 Leak tests should be performed on all chambers irrespective of the cycle employed. For subatmospheric pure ethylene oxide machines, the leak rate should not exceed 6mm Hg in 10 minutes. Tests shall be performed at least monthly.

10.3 Air filters must be bacterial retentive. Replacement should be included in the planned preventative maintenance scheme, and at the minimum, the frequency for changing filters is every 6 months.

10.4 The internal surfaces of the vaporizer should be cleanable. Cleaning/replacement should be included in a planned preventative maintenance scheme.

11. RECOMMENDED SERIES OF ACTIVITIES

11.1 Equipment Specification and Design

• Definition of system and equipment
  
• Drawings of sterilizer, pipings and sensors
  
• Specifications for sensors
  

11.2 System Function

• Does system function according to specification and design?
  
• temperature profile of empty precondition room and empty sterilizer
  
• rH profile
  
• Leak Test
  
• Evaluation of ethylene oxide supply system and vaporizer
  
• Test cycle runs with critical parameters evaluation
  

11.3 Calibration

• Calibration Procedures
  
• Documentation of Results
  
• "Permit to Operate" for Equipment.
  

11.4 Qualification

11.4.1 Operational Qualification

• Determination of temperature profile in preconditioning and sterilizer with selected loading patterns
  
• Sensor placement at "most difficult to sterilize" locations
  
• Determination of rH and gas concentration profile
  
• "Contamination" of "worst case" product at "most difficult to sterilize" locations
  
• Use of fully loaded chamber with "worst case" product mix
  
• Sterilization time definition
  
• Residue dissipation curves
  

11.5 Process Qualification

11.5.1 Evaluation and documentation of ALL test results.

11.5.2 Creation of Validation report when assurance is obtained that the cycle is consistently achieving the desired effect and is operating within previously defined parameters.

11.6 Validation Acceptance

The final act of validation is acceptance (or rejection) of the results. Documentation for sign off should include:

• the protocol
  
• reference to the specification of the sterilizer involved
  
• details of products used (including packaging and load patterns in the sterilizer)
  
• the cycle specification
  
• the inspection and testing programme (including reference to methods)
  
• reference to training manuals and records for all personnel involved
  
• the records, physical and biological, of all validation runs
  
• all maintenance and calibration procedures, and an indication that all gauges, recorders etc. were calibrated at the time of the validation runs
  
• all written operating procedures including process control limits
  
• provision for future review and revalidation
  

11.7 Routine Operation and Control

11.7.1 The chamber cycle specification should typically include the following points:

• maximum permissible loading time
  
• initial vacuum level and time taken to achieve it
  
• holding time under vacuum, when used
  
• steam addition, pressure, temperature or time, when used
  
• steam holding time
  
• Gas injection, specifying pressure rise and time to achieve it
  
• gas hold time (minimum)
  
• gas concentration in chamber
  
• weight of EO used
  
• chamber temperature (minimum and maximum) during entire cycle
  
• details of air washing at the end of the cycle
  
• relative humidity
  
• number of biological monitors and their locations
  

11.7.2 Sufficient data should be recorded to demonstrate that the specification has been achieved for each routine cycle.

11.7.3 Routine temperature monitoring from within the load is not essential following performance qualification to a standard described in previous section. A minimum of two probes measuring chamber temperature are required. At least one probe should be positioned within the chamber at the coldest location as determined during commissioning.

11.7.4 A system is required to positively identify whether products have been processed.

12. PRODUCT QUALIFICATION

Packaging materials and methods should be selected which are compatible with the proposed ethylene oxide sterilization process and which maintain sterility and quality of the contained product. These performance requirements should be achieved through suitable design and verified according to prescribed validation procedures. The following guidance concerns aspects of packaging which are important to sterilization by ethylene oxide and is not intended to detail all requirements of packaging for sterile product.

12.1 Design

12.1.1 Materials which demonstrate adequate physical properties necessary for maintaining package integrity and product quality should be chosen for the unit container. Physical properties such as tensile strength, wet and dry tear strength, burst strength and air permeability should be considered.

12.1.2 When sealed together these materials should demonstrate adequate seal strength.

12.1.3 The materials should be compatible with the contained product and the assembled pack should withstand the chosen ethylene oxide sterilization process including preconditioning. This should include stability of inks and intended printing materials.

12.1.4 All other levels of packaging such as shelf containers and outer containers should be capable of providing adequate protection during transit and storage and should be compatible with the sterilizing process including preconditioning. Consideration should be given to ink, print and label stability.

12.1.5 Where possible product should be sterilized in the fully packaged state with sealed unit, shelf and outer containers. It is important that materials are chosen which allow adequate moisture penetration during preconditioning and ethylene oxide penetration during sterilization.

12.1.6 Reference should be made to relevant published standards such as "Specifications for papers used in Medical Packaging to be sterilized by Ethylene Oxide or Irradiation" - EUCOMED.

12.1.7 All material and packaging requirements should be detailed in written draft specifications.

12.2 Validation

12.2.1 A written validation protocol should be available and should detail the validation requirements.

12.2.2 Performance criteria for materials and packaging specified during design should be measured according to standards methods of test. These include tensile strength, wet and dry tear strength, burst strength, air permeability, seal strength and integrity. These criteria should be checked before and after sterilization.

12.2.3 Consideration should be given to microbial and physical challenge test procedures in order to determine the ability of the unit container to maintain sterility.

12.2.4 Humidity and gas penetration and success in achieving sterilizing conditions within the unit container will be determined during the sterilization process validation procedure.

12.2.5 After sterilization suitable journey hazard trials should be considered for the product with all levels of packaging and physical testing repeated to determine ability to withstand such treatment.

12.2.6 Each level of packaging should be subjected to expected storage conditions in order to demonstrate adequate performance, throughout the expected shelf life.

12.2.7 The ability to withstand more than one sterilization cycle should be established for each layer of packaging in order that reprocessing through sterilization may be carried out when necessary.

12.3 Specification

12.3.1 Requirements for validated materials and packaging should be detailed in written and approved specifications.

13. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR STERILIZERS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT

13.1 Ethylene Oxide Supply.

13.1.1 Ethylene Oxide storage areas should be secure, ventilated and comply with local safety regulations.

13.1.2 Storage areas for the container of Ethylene Oxide in use must include provision for temperature control where ambient conditions are subject to temperature variation greater than the range recommended by the Ethylene Oxide supplier.

13.1.3 Where the Ethylene Oxide supply to the sterilizer is from a bulk storage tank which is periodically replenished, the tank should be equipped with means to remove samples for analysis, means to empty the tank completely, and provision for cleaning in the event of inadvertent contamination or excessive accumulation of polymers of Ethylene Oxide.

13.1.4 The gas admission system must be equipped with a vaporizer to ensure that liquid Ethylene Oxide is not admitted to the sterilizer chamber.

13.1.5 Ethylene Oxide should be filtered before admission to the vaporizer to ensure the removal of particles of dirt, rust, and polymerized Ethylene Oxide.

13.1.6 The vaporizer should be designed so that the heat transfer surfaces are discardable or demountable to allow cleaning of the internal surfaces. (Polymers of Ethylene Oxide may form and accumulate on the internal surfaces with consequent impairment of heat transfer and/or blockage of the vaporizer).

13.1.7 Provision should be made for continuous measurement of the temperature of the Ethylene Oxide gas between the vaporizer and the sterilizer chamber.

Wherever possible this should control an automatic shut off valve to interrupt the supply of Ethylene Oxide when the temperature falls below a predetermined value to prevent liquid Ethylene Oxide from entering the sterilizer chamber.

13.1.8 The design and construction of the sterilizer and/or gas admission system must allow the amount of gas admitted to be monitored by at least two of the following:

• pressure rise in the sterilizer
  
• sampling from the sterilizer chamber (for subsequent chemical analysis)
  
• weight difference of the gas cylinder
  
• volume of gas delivered.
  

Whichever primary method is used the measuring equipment should have sufficient sensitivity to allow recording of quantities of gas which may be admitted throughout the sterilization holding period.

13.1.9 Homogeneity of cycle conditions is best achieved by forced circulation.

13.2 Sterilizer Control and Instrumentation.

13.2.1 All measuring instruments and controls fitted to any one sterilizer, and preferably to all sterilizers on any one site, should provide readings in the same system of units. The minimum acceptable is that the reading for any particular variable are in the same units.

13.2.2 The controller and recorder must be separate.

13.2.3 Manual control of an Ethylene Oxide sterilizer does not provide consistently reproducible conditions from cycle to cycle. The variations in cycle conditions make validation of the process difficult and therefore manual control is normally unacceptable.

13.2.4 Each sterilizer should be equipped with the following instruments, located at the loading end of the sterilizer or in a separate control room so that they may be readily viewed by the operator:

• chamber pressure gauge or indicator
  
• chamber pressure recorder
  
• chamber temperature indicator
  
• chamber temperature recorder
  
• chamber rH indicator
  
• chamber rH recorder
  
• gas admission temperature indicator
  
• chamber jacket temperature indicator
  

13.2.5 The use of a single data recorder to replace the three separate recorders listed is acceptable.

13.2.6 In addition to an operating cycle stage indicator, a fault indication system should be fitted. The recording instruments should clearly indicate sensor malfunction.

13.2.7 For maintenance purposes a cycle counter may be of value.

13.2.8 Ethylene Oxide sterilization is commonly carried out within the temperature range 20-60 ^oC with cycle times from 2-18 hours. Table 1 gives recommendations for temperature indicators and recorders for monitoring cycles in this range.

Single sensors which indicate the average temperature throughout the length of the chamber e.g. long bulb mercury in steel Bourbon type instruments are not acceptable as the sensor for temperature recorders or controllers.

13.2.9 Three principle categories of Ethylene Oxide cycle are commonly used:

• Pure Ethylene Oxide or Ethylene Oxide with diluent gas at sub-atmospheric pressure
  
• Ethylene Oxide with a diluent gas such as fluorinated hydrocarbons or nitrogen at pressures up to 2 bar
  
• Ethylene Oxide with a diluent gas such as carbon dioxide at pressures up to 6 bar.
  

The recommendations for pressure indicators and recorders used in these cycle are given in Table 1.

13.2.10 The recommendations for humidity indicators are given in Table 1.

TABLE 1 Recommendations for Indicators and Recorders

13.2.11 Direct monitoring of rH is preferred but the use of temperature or pressure rise is also acceptable. Whichever method is used it must be reproducible.

NOTE: The rH as perceived by sensor at a low pressure may be different from that measured at a higher pressure.

13.2.12 Depending on the type of rH sensor chosen, it may be necessary either to isolate the sensor from the chamber atmosphere immediately prior to admitting the Ethylene Oxide or to remove the sensor for degassing and recalibration as appropriate. If necessary, provision should be made in the design and construction of the sterilizer to facilitate whichever of these methods is used.

13.2.13 Provision should be made to allow the integrity of the vessel to be tested under vacuum and pressure conditions as appropriate.

13.2.14 Air admitted to the sterilizer chamber at the end of the cycle should be filtered through a microbial retentive filter. Although the packaging normally used for sterile products is designed to prevent the ingress of micro organisms, the filtration efficiency of the material is affected by the air flow rate across the material. At the high flow rates associated with air replacement at the end of the cycle unfiltered air may compromise the sterility of the product.

13.2.15 Provision should be made in the design and construction of the sterilizer chamber to allow additional temperature and rH sensors to be positioned throughout the chamber for testing during commissioning and performance qualification.

13.3 Design Criteria of the Preconditioning room or chamber where separate from the sterilization chamber.

13.3.1 The preconditioning should be separate from assembly and packaging areas.

The standard of finish should be similar to that of environmentally controlled areas e.g. easily cleanable and durable finish.

13.3.2 The design and construction of the preconditioning area should ensure that product held within the area is secure. This will require adequate facilities for segregation and identification of different production batches, and facilities for controlling ingress and egress of product and personnel. The preconditioning area should be located in close proximity to the sterilizer(s) to facilitate rapid transfer of the product.

13.3.3 The temperature and relative humidity (rH) of the area should be related to the conditions employed in the sterilization cycle. These should be such that the temperature and rH of the load going into the sterilizer are neither so low that problems of long heat up and condensation occur, nor so high that temperature control of the cycle is compromised.

13.3.4 The area shall have forced air flow. Consideration should be given to the effect the load will have on the air flow patterns within the area. The dynamics and pattern of air flow should be designed to uniform conditions of temperature and rH throughout the preconditioning area.

13.3.5 The maintenance of uniform conditions within the preconditioning area may be compromised unless means are provided to control the length of time that access doors are left open. Where separate doors are provided for personnel access theses should be self closing. Consideration should be given to providing means to alert the operator when the doors have been left open e.g. by means of an audible and visual alarm activated after a pre-determined delay.

13.3.6 Provision should be made for continuous monitoring of the temperature and rH from a reference position as determined during validation. Additional sensors may be required at other positions to confirm uniformity throughout the area.

13.3.7 The design and operation of humidifiers used in the area must be such that the possibility of increases in microbial contamination is minimized.

Humidification by steam injection is preferred. Humidifiers which operate by dispersion of unheated water into an aerosol e.g. spinning disc humidifiers or nebulizers are potent sources of microbial contamination and are unlikely to be suitable.

13.3.8 rH should be controlled by direct monitoring. Interpolation from temperature rise due to steam admission is rarely satisfactory.

14. PRODUCT PROCESS CLAIMS

14.1 The Microbiological Safety Index (MSI) is set on the indicated or anticipated use of the final product.

14.2 The MSI can be established from bioburden studies on the items before sterilization and to calculate the MSI the organism with the highest determined 'D' value should be used.

14.3 Where products are required to be pyrogen free (or specified as containing lower than a particular level of bacteria endotoxin as determined by the Limulus Amebocyte Lysate Test), consideration must be given to the environment in which the items are manufactured or assembled, to the bioburden of components and careful control should be established over critical parameters in these respects.

14.4 It is essential to establish that initial levels of endotoxin are low and that if micro-organisms are present, the opportunities for growth are minimized by such restrictions as limitation of time between assembly and sterilization or maintenance of the items at low temperature. It has to be recognized however that the conditions experienced by the items during many types of preconditioning are conducive to microbial growth.

15. REQUALIFICATION

15.1 Requalification is indicated when a significant change occurs or on a periodic basis to detect any inadvertent process changes. A single requalification run may typically be made on an annual basis for each cycle. Significant changes in any of the following may lead to complete requalification unless the change can be shown not to increase the difficulty of sterilization or diminish the MSI;

1. Packaging
   
2. Product design
   
3. Loading configuration or density
   
4. Sterilizing equipment or process cycle
   

Significant maintenance work may require recommissioning of the sterilizer which may, in turn, lead to requalification.

In addition, trends in biological indicator failure not attributable to process specification failures should be examined and may lead to requalification.

15.2 All changes to the sterilization system or process must be pre-authorized through the approved Change Control Procedure.

15.3 Requalification is the activity which establishes that changes to parts of the sterilization system have not invalidated the initial total validation process.

15.4 Requalification is performed according to detailed written procedures that require the original parameters and limits to be used in a critical evaluation of the data obtained.

15.5 Requalification studies must be documented to the same extent as the original total validation process. If the results are satisfactory the process(es) may be recertificated. If the results are not satisfactory the modified system or process will require a total validation study to assess its (their) suitability.

16. EXPERT EVALUATION

16.1 An evaluation of the total validation study against the protocol requirements should be prepared and conclusions drawn at each stage stated.

The final conclusions should indicate whether the total validation study requirements were met.

In addition, all the parameters used to describe the process to be used for routine ethylene oxide sterilization to ensure that qualified sterilization processes are obtained routinely, should be stated.

16.2 The Expert Evaluation should be signed by duly authorized officers of the organization who were members of the team establishing and authorizing the Validation Study Protocol. These officers should have the necessary experience, qualification and expertise to understand the study and its implications.

16.3 Overall responsibility for the Approval Process is lodged with the most senior person in the Validation Study Team and the most senior person responsible for the Quality Assurance within the organization.

17. DOCUMENTATION

17.1 All documentation should be signed and dated. Only authorized signatures should be accepted.

17.2 Procedures for and records of calibration of equipment should be maintained.

17.3 For each sterilizing cycle, a record should be maintained of product(s) processed through that cycle.

17.4 Date and time of initiation and completion of cycle should be recorded.

17.5 For each batch processed legible records of the physical values achieved during the sterilization cycle must be retained, e.g. gas control factors, temperature, pressure, humidity. These must be reviewed, signed and dated to confirm the values achieved are within those specified.

17.6 The operation of the sterilizer should be on a "permit to work" basis.

17.7 No product labeled as sterile shall be released for distribution until any prescribed microbiological control procedures have been satisfactorily completed and so approved by the microbiologist.

17.8 Batch manufacturing records should include sterilization and associated microbiological records or reference to them.

Legible copies of the original recording of the cycle variables should be retained.

17.9 Batch manufacturing records must contain a dated signed statement that the batch has been approved for release or has been rejected.

17.10 For the purposes of inspection by the inspectors of the Health Products and Food Branch Inspectorate and for submission for pre-marketing evaluation, there should be:

a) An outline of the protocol followed which should indicate:

• the approach taken
  
• the justification for the approach
  
• description of any equipment modifications description of any protocol modifications made in light of results obtained
  

b) Process Documentation which indicates:

• process development
  
• product/packaging suitability
  
• final process parameters
  
• details of partial exposure processes
  
• details of partial load configurations
  
• details of full load configurations
  
• rationale for "worst case" decisions
  

c) Microbiology including:

• bioburden studies, with D value determinations
  
• biological indicator studies, including location selection
  
• product sterility tests
  
• microbiological method validation
  

18. OTHER GASEOUS STERILIZATION PROCEDURES

18.1 Other processes involving gaseous chemical sterilization procedures are in use. These include but are not restricted to:

• Low Temperature Steam Formaldehyde(LTSF)
  
• Ozone
  
• Vapor Phase Hydrogen Peroxide(VPHP)
  

18.2 The validation requirements for these processes are similar to those for Ethylene Oxide sterilization processes and the information in this guideline may be extrapolated for use in the validation of such processes.

18.3 None of the other gaseous sterilization procedures described above have been used to the extent to which ethylene oxide sterilization has been used and in many cases their use may be considered experimental.

Dosage Form Validation Guidelines

Table of Contents

1.0 Scope
2.0 Introduction
3.0 Purpose
4.0 Definitions
5.0 Phases of Validation
6.0 Interpretation
7.0 References
GMP Committee Members

1.0 Scope

This Guidance document has been prepared to provide guidance to the pharmaceutical industry in dealing with validation issues for sterile and non-sterile dosage forms, biologicals, and radiopharmaceuticals. It should be noted that additional guidance related to sterile products and not contained in this document should also be considered. These requirements may be found in the five supplemental process validation guidelines available on the Inspectorate's website. The five documents pertain to the following specific processes:

• Moist Heat Sterilization for Pharmaceuticals
• Aseptic Processes for Pharmaceuticals
• Form-Fill-Seal for Pharmaceuticals
• Irradiation Sterilization for Pharmaceuticals
• Gaseous Sterilization for Pharmaceuticals

It is expected that importers and distributors of drug products have documented evidence that their vendors meet validation requirements.

2.0 Introduction

This document provides guidance on issues and topics related to systems, equipment qualification, product and process validation for sterile and non-sterile dosage forms. These topics reflect an area in pharmaceutical, biological, and, radiopharmaceuticals manufacture that is noted as being important by both the Inspectorate and the pharmaceutical industry. These guidelines have been prepared to provide guidance to inspectors, evaluators and the industry in dealing with issues related to validation. Utilization of this information should facilitate compliance with Division 2, Part C of the Regulations to the Food and Drugs Act.
It is not intended that the recommendations made in these guidelines become requirements under all circumstances. Information provided in the Interpretation section for limits to be applied in defined circumstances, as well as the number of batches to be utilized for validation studies are for guidance purposes only. Inspectors, evaluators and the industry may consider other alternate means if proposed and documented with appropriate scientific justification.

3.0 Purpose

These guidelines outline the general principles that the Inspectorate considers to be acceptable elements of validation which may be used by fabricators, packagers/labellers for drug products. The Guidelines on Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP), Division 2, Part C of the Food and Drug Regulations require that:

• all critical production processes be validated
• validation studies are conducted in accordance with pre-defined protocols. Written reports summarizing recorded results and conclusions are prepared, evaluated, approved and maintained
• changes to production processes, operating parameters, equipment or materials that may affect product quality and/or the reproducibility of the process are also to be validated prior to implementation.

These guidelines are not intended to specify how validation is to be conducted, but are indicators of what is expected to be covered by fabricators, packagers/labellers.
The elements of validation presented in these guidelines are not intended to be all-encompassing. The particular requirements of validation may vary according to factors such as the nature of drug products eg. sterile, non-sterile, biologicals, and the complexity of the process. The concepts provided in these guidelines have general applicability and provide an acceptable framework for establishing a comprehensive approach to validation.

4.0 Definitions

Change Control (contrôle des changements): A written procedure that describes the action to be taken if a change is proposed (a) to facilities, materials, equipment, and/or processes used in the fabrication, packaging, and testing of drugs, or (b) that may affect the operation of the quality or support system.
Cleaning Validation (validation des procédés de nettoyage): The documented act of demonstrating that cleaning procedures for the equipment used in fabricating/packaging will reduce to an acceptable level all residues (products/cleaning agents) and to demonstrate that routine cleaning and storage of equipment does not allow microbial proliferation.
Concurrent Validation (validation concomitante): A process where current production batches are used to monitor processing parameters. It gives assurance of the present batch being studied, and offers limited assurance regarding consistency of quality from batch to batch.
Critical Process Parameter (paramètre critique du procédé): A parameter which if not controlled will contribute to the variability of the end product.
Equipment Qualification (qualification de l'équipement): Studies which establish with confidence that the process equipment and ancillary systems are capable of consistently operating within established limits and tolerances. The studies must include equipment specifications, installation qualification, and operational qualification of all major equipment to be used in the manufacture of commercial scale batches. Equipment Qualification should simulate actual production conditions, including "worst case"/ stressed conditions.
Installation Qualification (qualification d'installation): The documented act of demonstrating that process equipment and ancillary systems are appropriately selected and correctly installed.
Major Equipment (équipement principal): A piece of equipment which performs significant processing steps in the sequence of operations required for fabrication/packaging of drug products. Some examples of major equipment include tablet compression machines, mills, blenders, fluid bed dryers, heaters, drying ovens, tablet coaters, encapsulators, fermentors, centrifuges, etc.
Master Production Document (document-type de production): A document that includes specifications for raw material, for packaging material and for packaged dosage form, master formula, sampling procedures, and critical processing related SOPs, whether or not these SOPs are specifically referenced in the master formula.
Measuring Devices (instruments de mesure): A device used in monitoring or measuring process parameters.
Operational Qualification (qualification opérationelle): The documented action of demonstrating that process equipment and ancillary systems work correctly and operate consistently in accordance with established specifications.
Process Capability (capacité du procédé): Studies conducted to identify the critical process parameters that yield a resultant quality, and their acceptable specification ranges, based on the established +/- 3 sigma deviations of the process, under stressed conditions but when free of any assignable causes.
Process Qualification (qualification du procédé): The phase of validation dealing with sampling and testing at various stages of the manufacturing process to ensure that product specifications are met.
Process Re-validation (revalidation du procédé): Required when there is a change in any of the critical process parameters, formulation, primary packaging components, raw material fabricators, major equipment or premises. Failure to meet product and process specifications in sequential batches would also require process re-validation.
Process Validation (validation du procédé): Establishing documented evidence with a high degree of assurance, that a specific process will consistently produce a product meeting its predetermined specifications and quality characteristics. Process validation may take the form of Prospective, Concurrent or Retrospective Validation and Process Qualification or Re-validation.
Prospective Validation (validation prospective): Conducted prior to the distribution of either a new product or a product made under a modified production process, where the modifications are significant and may affect the product's characteristics. It is a pre-planned scientific approach and includes the initial stages of formulation development, process development, setting of process specifications, developing in-process tests, sampling plans, designing of batch records, defining raw material specifications, completion of pilot runs, transfer of technology from scale-up batches to commercial size batches, listing major process equipment and environmental controls.
Retrospective Validation (validation rétrospective): Conducted for a product already being marketed, and is based on extensive data accumulated over several lots and over time. Retrospective Validation may be used for older products which were not validated by the fabricator at the time that they were first marketed, and which are now to be validated to conform to the requirements of Division 2, Part C of the Regulations to the Food and Drugs Act.
Validation (validation): The documented act of demonstrating that any procedure, process, and activity will consistently lead to the expected results. Includes the qualification of systems and equipment.
Validation Master Plan (plan maître de validation): An approved written plan of objectives and actions stating how and when a company will achieve compliance with the GMP requirements regarding validation.
Validation Protocol (protocole de validation): A written plan of actions stating how process validation will be conducted; it will specify who will conduct the various tasks and define testing parameters; sampling plans, testing methods and specifications; will specify product characteristics, and equipment to be used. It must specify the minimum number of batches to be used for validation studies; it must specify the acceptance criteria and who will sign/approve/ disapprove the conclusions derived from such a scientific study.
Validation Team (équipe de validation): A multi-disciplinary team of personnel primarily responsible for conducting and/or supervising validation studies. Such studies may be conducted by person(s) qualified by training and experience in a relevant discipline.
Worst Case Condition (condition de la pire éventualité): The highest and /or lowest value of a given parameter actually evaluated in the validation exercise.

5.0 Phases of Validation

The activities relating to validation studies may be classified into three phases:
Phase 1:
Pre-Validation Phase or the Qualification Phase, which covers all activities relating to product research and development, formulation, pilot batch studies, scale-up studies, transfer of technology to commercial scale batches, establishing stability conditions, storage and handling of in-process and finished dosage forms, Equipment Qualification, Installation Qualification, master production documents, Operational Qualification, Process Capability.
Phase 2:
Process Validation Phase (Process Qualification phase) designed to verify that all established limits of the Critical Process Parameters are valid and that satisfactory products can be produced even under the "worst case" conditions.
Phase 3:
Validation Maintenance Phase requiring frequent review of all process related documents, including validation audit reports to assure that there have been no changes, deviations, failures, modifications to the production process, and that all SOPs have been followed, including Change Control procedures.
At this stage the Validation Team also assures that there have been no changes/ deviations that should have resulted in Requalification and Revalidation.

6.0 Interpretation

General Concepts:
Quality, safety and effectiveness must be built into the product. This requires careful attention to a number of factors such as the selection of quality materials/components, product and process design, control of processes, in-process control, and end-product testing.
Due to the complexity of the drug products, routine end-product testing alone is not sufficient due to several reasons. Furthermore, quality cannot be tested into the finished drug product but rather be built in the manufacturing processes and these processes should be controlled in order that the finished product meets all quality specifications. A careful design and validation of systems and process controls can establish a high degree of confidence that all lots or batches produced will meet their intended specifications.

Validation protocol

A written plan stating how validation will be conducted, including test parameters, product characteristics, production and packaging equipment, and decision points on what constitutes acceptable test results. This document should give details of critical steps of the manufacturing process that should be measured, the allowable range of variability and the manner in which the system will be tested.
The validation protocol provides a synopsis of what is hoped to be accomplished. The protocol should list the selected process and control parameters, state the number of batches to be included in the study, and specify how the data, once assembled, will be treated for relevance. The date of approval by the validation team should also be noted.
In the case where a protocol is altered or modified after its approval, appropriate reasoning for such a change must be documented.
The validation protocol should be numbered, signed and dated, and should contain as a minimum the following information:

• objectives, scope of coverage of the validation study
• validation team membership, their qualifications and responsibilities
• type of validation: prospective, concurrent, retrospective, re-validation
• number and selection of batches to be on the validation study
• a list of all equipment to be used; their normal and worst case operating parameters
• outcome of IQ, OQ for critical equipment
• requirements for calibration of all measuring devices
• critical process parameters and their respective tolerances
• description of the processing steps: copy of the master documents for the product
• sampling points, stages of sampling, methods of sampling, sampling plans
• statistical tools to be used in the analysis of data
• training requirements for the processing operators
• validated test methods to be used in in-process testing and for the finished product
• specifications for raw and packaging materials and test methods
• forms and charts to be used for documenting results
• format for presentation of results, documenting conclusions and for approval of study results.

Validation Master Plan

A validation master plan is a document that summarises the company's overall philosophy, intentions and approaches to be used for establishing performance adequacy. The Validation Master Plan should be agreed upon by management.
Validation in general requires meticulous preparation and careful planning of the various steps in the process. In addition, all work should be carried out in a structured way according to formally authorised standard operating procedures. All observations must be documented and where possible must be recorded as actual numerical results.
The validation master plan should provide an overview of the entire validation operation, its organizational structure, its content and planning. The main elements of it being the list/inventory of the items to be validated and the planning schedule. All validation activities relating to critical technical operations, relevant to product and process controls within a firm should be included in the validation master plan. It should comprise all prospective, concurrent and retrospective validations as well as re-validation.
The Validation Master Plan should be a summary document and should therefore be brief, concise and clear. It should not repeat information documented elsewhere but should refer to existing documents such as policy documents, SOP's and validation protocols and reports.
The format and content should include:

• introduction: validation policy, scope, location and schedule
• organizational structure: personnel responsibilities
• plant/ process /product description: rational for inclusions or exclusions and extent of validation
• specific process considerations that are critical and those requiring extra attention
• list of products/ processes/ systems to be validated, summarized in a matrix format, validation approach
• re-validation activities, actual status and future planning
• key acceptance criteria
• documentation format
• reference to the required SOP's
• time plans of each validation project and sub-project.

Installation and Operational Qualification

The detail and scope of a qualification exercise is in many respects related to the complexity of the equipment involved and the critical nature of that equipment with respect to the quality of the final product. Installation and Operational Qualification exercises assure through appropriate performance tests and related documentation that equipment, ancillary systems and sub-systems have been commissioned correctly. The end results are that all future operations will be reliable and within prescribed operating limits.
The basic principles are:

• equipment be correctly installed in accordance with an installation plan
• requirements for calibration, maintenance and cleaning be covered in approved SOP's
• tests be conducted to assure that equipment is operating correctly, under normal and "worst case" conditions
• operator training requirements pertaining to new equipment be conducted and documented.

At various stages in a validation exercise there is need for protocols, documentation, procedures, equipment, specifications and acceptance criteria for test results. All these need to be reviewed, checked and authorised. It would be expected that representatives from the appropriate professional disciplines, eg. Engineering , Research and Development, Manufacturing, Quality Control and Quality Assurance be actively involved in these undertakings with the final authorisation given by a validation team or the Quality Assurance representative.
Installation Qualification (IQ):
I.Q. is the method of establishing with confidence that all major processing, packaging equipment and ancillary systems are in conformance with installation specifications, equipment manuals, schematics and engineering drawings. This stage of validation includes examination of equipment design, determination of calibration, maintenance and adjustment requirements.
For complicated or large pieces of equipment, a pharmaceutical manufacturer may elect to undertake a pre-delivery check of the equipment at the supplier's assembly facility. This pre-delivery check cannot substitute for the Installation Qualification. However, it is acknowledged that the checks conducted and documented at this stage may duplicate a number of the checks conducted at the I.Q. stage, thus leading to a reduction in the scope of the I.Q. checks.
All equipment, gauges and services should be adequately identified and should be given a serial number or other reference number. This number should appear in the reports for the equipment validation studies conducted.
Installation qualification requires a formal and systematic check of all installed equipment against the equipment supplier's specifications and additional criteria identified by the user as part of the purchase specifications. These checks, tests and challenges should be repeated a significant number of times to assure reliable and meaningful results.
At the I.Q. stage the company should document preventive maintenance requirements for installed equipment. The preventive maintenance schedule should be incorporated into the routine maintenance schedule.
Note:
There will be cases where installation of the equipment had not been qualified at the time of installation, and the engineering drawings and manuals for the equipment are no longer available at the manufacturing site. However, the equipment in place operates for a lengthy period of time without any problem or modifications of its design since it was first installed. In such situations, the Inspectorate considers that it may be appropriate for those specific cases to verify a limited number of the most critical parameters demonstrating that the equipment had been adequately installed. Thereafter, the company could pass directly to the operational qualification (O.Q.) stage if there is sufficient documented evidence that these units have always been well maintained and calibrated according to an adequate pre-established schedule.
Operational Qualification (OQ):
The conduct of an Operational Qualification should follow an authorised protocol. The critical operating parameters for the equipment and systems should be identified at the O.Q. stage. The plans for the O.Q. should identify the studies to be undertaken on the critical variables, the sequence of those studies and the measuring equipment to be used and the acceptance criteria to be met.
Studies on the critical variables should include a condition or a set of conditions encompassing upper and lower processing and operating limits referred to as "worst-case" conditions. The completion of a successful O.Q. should allow the finalisation of operating procedures and operator instructions documentation for the equipment. This information should be used as the basis for training of operators in the requirements for satisfactory operation of the equipment.
The completion of satisfactory I.Q. and O.Q. exercises should permit a formal "release" of the equipment for the next stage in the process validation exercise as long as calibration, cleaning, preventive maintenance and operator training requirements have been finalised and documented.
Re-Qualification:
Modifications to, or relocation of equipment should follow satisfactory review and authorization of the documented change proposal through the change control procedure. This formal review should include consideration of re-qualification of the equipment. Minor changes or changes having no direct impact on final or in-process product quality should be handled through the documentation system of the preventative maintenance program.
Process Validation:
It would normally be expected that process validation be completed prior to the distribution of a finished product that is intended for sale (Prospective Validation). Where this is not possible, it may be necessary to validate processes during routine production (Concurrent Validation). Processes which have been in use for some time without any significant changes may also be validated according to an approved protocol (Retrospective Validation).
a) Prospective Validation:
In Prospective Validation, the validation protocol is executed before the process is put into commercial use. During the product development phase the production process should be broken down into individual steps. Each step should be evaluated on the basis of experience or theoretical considerations to determine the critical parameters that may affect the quality of the finished product. A series of experiments should be designed to determine the criticality of these factors. Each experiment should be planned and documented fully in an authorised protocol.
All equipment, production environment and the analytical testing methods to be used should have been fully validated. Master batch documents can be prepared only after the critical parameters of the process have been identified and machine settings, component specifications and environmental conditions have been determined.
Using this defined process a series of batches should be produced. In theory, the number of process runs carried out and observations made should be sufficient to allow the normal extent of variation and trends to be established to provide sufficient data for evaluation. It is generally considered acceptable that three consecutive batches/runs within the finally agreed parameters, giving product of the desired quality would constitute a proper validation of the process. In practice, it may take some considerable time to accumulate these data.
Some considerations should be exercised when selecting the process validation strategy. Amongst these should be the use of different lots of active raw materials and major excipients, batches produced on different shifts, the use of different equipment and facilities dedicated for commercial production, operating range of the critical processes, and a thorough analysis of the process data in case of Requalification and Revalidation.
During the processing of the validation batches, extensive sampling and testing should be performed on the product at various stages, and should be documented comprehensively. Detailed testing should also be done on the final product in its package.
Upon completion of the review, recommendations should be made on the extent of monitoring and the in-process controls necessary for routine production. These should be incorporated into the Batch manufacturing and packaging record or into appropriate standard operating procedures. Limits, frequencies and actions to be taken in the event of the limits being exceeded should be specified.
Matrix or "Family" approaches to prospective process validation:
It may be possible and acceptable in particular circumstances for a manufacturer that uses the same process for several related products to develop a scientifically sound validation plan for that process rather than different plans for each product manufactured by that process.
The matrix approach generally means a plan to conduct process validation on different strengths of the same product, whereas the "family" approach means a plan to conduct process validation on different products manufactured with the same processes using the same equipment.
The validation process using these approaches must include batches of different strengths or products which should be selected to represent the worst case conditions or scenarios to demonstrate that the process is consistent for all strengths or products involved.
b) Concurrent Validation:
Unconditional use of this approach is not encouraged by the Inspectorate and is not acceptable as being the "norm". In using this approach there is always the risk of having to modify process parameters or specifications over a period of time. This situation often leads to questions regarding disposition of the batches that had already been released for sale, subsequently known to have undesired quality characteristics.
Concurrent validation may be the practical approach under certain circumstances. Examples of these may be:

• when a previously validated process is being transferred to a third party contract manufacturer or to another manufacturing site
• where the product is a different strength of a previously validated product with the same ratio of active / inactive ingredients
• when the number of lots evaluated under the Retrospective Validation were not sufficient to obtain a high degree of assurance demonstrating that the process is fully under control
• when the number of batches produced are limited (e.g. orphan drugs).

It is important in these cases however, that the systems and equipment to be used have been fully validated previously. The justification for conducting concurrent validation must be documented and the protocol must be approved by the Validation Team. A report should be prepared and approved prior to the sale of each batch and a final report should be prepared and approved after the completion of all concurrent batches. It is generally considered acceptable that a minimum of three consecutive batches within the finally agreed parameters, giving the product the desired quality would constitute a proper validation of the process.
c) Retrospective Validation:
In many establishments, processes that are stable and in routine use have not undergone a formally documented validation process. Historical data may be utilized to provide necessary documentary evidence that the processes are validated.
The steps involved in this type of validation still require the preparation of a protocol, the reporting of the results of the data review, leading to a conclusion and recommendation.
Retrospective validation is only acceptable for well established detailed processes that include operational limits for each critical step of the process and will be inappropriate where there have been recent changes in the formulation of the product, operating procedures, equipment and facility.
The source of data for retrospective validation should include amongst others, batch documents, process control charts, maintenance log books, process capability studies, finished product test results, including trend analyses, and stability results.
For the purpose of retrospective validation studies, it is considered acceptable that data from a minimum of ten consecutive batches produced be utilized. When less than ten batches are available, it is considered that the data are not sufficient to demonstrate retrospectively that the process is fully under control. In such cases the study should be supplemented with data generated with concurrent or prospective validation.
Some of the essential elements for Retrospective Validation are:

• Batches manufactured for a defined period (minimum of 10 last consecutive batches)
• Number of lots released per year
• Batch size/strength/manufacturer/year/period
• Master manufacturing/packaging documents
• Current specifications for active materials/finished products
• List of process deviations, corrective actions and changes to manufacturing documents
• Data for stability testing for several batches
• Trend analyses including those for quality related complaints

Process Re-Validation:
Re-validation provides the evidence that changes in a process and /or the process environment that are introduced do not adversely affect process characteristics and product quality. Documentation requirements will be the same as for the initial validation of the process.

Periodic review and trend analysis should be carried out at scheduled intervals. Re-validation becomes necessary in certain situations. The following are examples of some of the planned or unplanned changes that may require re-validation:

• Changes in raw materials (physical properties such as density, viscosity, particle size distribution, and moisture, etc., that may affect the process or product).
• Changes in the source of active raw material manufacturer
• Changes in packaging material (primary container/closure system).
• Changes in the process (e.g., mixing time, drying temperatures and batch size)
• Changes in the equipment (e.g. addition of automatic detection system). Changes of equipment which involve the replacement of equipment on a "like for like" basis would not normally require a re-validation except that this new equipment must be qualified.
• Changes in the plant/facility.
• Variations revealed by trend analysis (e.g. process drifts)

A decision not to perform re-validation studies must be fully justified and documented.
Change Control:
Written procedures should be in place to describe the actions to be taken if a change is proposed to a product component, process equipment, process environment, processing site, method of production or testing or any other change that may affect product quality or support system operations.
All changes must be formally requested, documented and accepted by the Validation Team. The likely impact / risk of the change on the product must be assessed and the need for the extent of re-validation should be determined.
Commitment of the company to control all changes to premises, supporting utilities, systems, materials, equipment and processes used in the fabrication/packaging of pharmaceutical dosage forms is essential to ensure a continued validation status of the systems concerned.
The change control system should ensure that all notified or requested changes are satisfactorily investigated, documented and authorised. Products made by processes subjected to changes should not be released for sale without full awareness and consideration of the change by the Validation Team. The Team should decide if a re-validation must be conducted prior to implementing the proposed change.

7.0 References

1. Guidelines on General Principles of Process Validation, CDER, US-FDA 1987
2. Pharmaceutical Process Validation; 2^nd edition, Editors: I. R. Berry and R.A. Nash, 1993
3. Recommendations on Validation Master Plan, Installation and Operational Qualification, Non-Sterile Process Validation, Cleaning Validation, PIC/S, August 2001

GMP Committee Members

Name	Title / Office / Bureau	Location
France Dansereau	Manager, Drug GMP Inspection Unit, Compliance and Enforcement Coordination Division (CECD), HPFBI*	Ottawa, ON
Kim Dayman-Rutkus	Director, Policy and Regulations Division, HPFBI	Ottawa, ON
Richard Ferland	MRA** Officer	Longueuil, QC
Francisco Fernandes	Compliance Specialist, Ontario & Nunavut Operational Centre, HPFBI	Toronto, ON
Taras Gedz	Bureau of Pharmaceutical Sciences, TPD***	Ottawa, ON
Denis Girard	Scientific Assessment Advisor, VDD****	Ottawa, ON
Raymond Giroux	Drug Specialist, Quebec Operational Centre, HPFBI	Longueuil, QC
Alicja Kasina	Drug Specialist, Atlantic Operational Centre	Halifax, NS
Stephen McCaul	MRA Officer	Toronto, ON
Johanne St-Denis, Secretary	Compliance Officer (CECD), HPFBI	Ottawa, ON
Paul Gustafson	Compliance Officer, Manitoba and Saskatchewan Operational Centre, HPFBI	Winnipeg, MB
Willem Stevens	Senior Biologist/Evaluator, BGTD*****	Ottawa, ON
Stéphane Taillefer	Compliance Specialist, CECD, HPFBI	Longueuil, QC
Sheila Welock	Drug Specialist, Western Operational Centre, HPFBI	Burnaby, BC

* Health Products and Food Branch Inspectorate.
** Mutual Recognition Agreement.
*** Therapeutic Products Directorate.
**** Veterinary Drugs Directorate.
***** Biologics and Genetic Therapies Directorate (BGTD).