A PROJECT ON

VALIDATION OF
STERILE PRODUCTS

SUBMITTED BY:
NEETI MATHUR
 VALIDATION

Preamble:
Validation is a key process for effective quality assurance.
“Validation is establishing documented evidence which provides a high
degree of assurances that a specific process or equipment will consistently
produce a product or result meeting its predetermined specifications and
quality attributes.”

The major reasons for validation are:

 Quality assurance – Quality cannot be assured by routine quality
control testing because of limitation of statistical samples and the
limited facilities of finished product testing. Validation checks the
accuracy and reliability of a system or a process to meet the
predetermined criteria. A successful validation provides high degree
of assurance that a consistent level of quality is maintained in each
unit of the finished product from one batch to another batch.
 Economics – due to successful validation, there is a decrease in
sampling and testing procedures and there are less number of product
rejections and retesting. This leads to cost-saving benefits.
 Compliance – For compliance to current good manufacturing
practices, validation is essential.

Phases of validation

 Design qualification (DQ): documented verification of the design of

equipment and manufacturing facilities.
 Installation qualification (IQ): documented verification of the
system design and adherence to manufacturer’s recommendations.
 Operational qualification (OQ): documented verification of
equipment or system performance in the target operating range.
 Process performance qualification (PQ): documented verification
that equipment system operates as expected under routine production
conditions. The operation is reproducible, reliable and in a state of
control.
Type of Process Validation

 Prospective
Conducted prior to market the product.

 Concurrent
Based on information generated during actual implementation of
the process. (Each batch will be released separately).

 Retrospective (Not recommended for sterile product)

Based on accumulated historical production, testing and control
data.
Generally requires data from 10-30 batches.
Use data only from batches made by the same process.

VALIDATION OF STERILE PRODUCTS

Main objectives:

 To build sterility into a product.

 To demonstrate to a certain maximum level of probability that the
processing and sterilization methods have established sterility to
all units of a product batch.
 To provide greater assurance and support to all the results of the
end products sterility test.

Sterile Product:
The Products which free of any viable organisms.

Sterility:
Viable microorganisms are absent.

Bioburden:
Total number of viable microorganisms on or in pharmaceutical product
prior to sterilization.
Terminal Sterilization:
Operation whereby the product is sterilized separately by autoclave after
filled and packaged using sterilized container and closures in critical
processing zones.

Aseptic Operation:
Operation whereby the product is sterilized separately by filtering through
0.2 μ or less filter then filled and packaged using sterilized containers and
closures in critical processing zones.

Validation Team: Production, QC, QA, Engineer, Planner

 To prepare the validation protocol
 Verify the calibration and maintenance status of equipment
 Perform qualification for equipments and system
 Verify change control
 Schedule the validation activities
 Training production operators
 Conduct validation study
 Monitor the critical steps in manufacturing process
 Assure that the approved testing standard is being used
 Evaluate all test results,
 Prepare the validation report.

Pre-validation Requirements:
 Preventive Maintenance for Facilities and Utilities
 Calibration of Equipment
 Cleaning Validation
 Equipment & System Qualification
 Raw Materials/Components/Test Methods
 Process Justification
 Change Control
 Training operators
All must be proven suitable and reliable for the manufacturing process
before the process can be validated.

Process Justification:
 To identify critical process steps & process parameter of mixing
process.
 To determine the suitable Hold time Period
 To confirm the analytical tests that will have to be performed
 To define the optimal parameters throughout the overall ampoule
filling process to consistently produce the finished products (filled
ampoules) which meet the established specifications.
 To assure that the product is sterile after sterilization process.

Validation Protocol
A document stating how validation will be conducted, including test
parameters, product characteristics, production equipment to be used and
decision points on what constitutes acceptable test results.

Validation Protocol should contain:

 Title Page, Review/Approval Page
 Purpose and Overview
 Equipment List
 Ingredients and Component List
 Qualification List of Equipment and System
 Process Flow Diagram and Description
 Equipment Critical Process Parameter
 Process Validation Sampling Plan/Testing Requirements
 Acceptance Criteria
 Stability Requirements
 Process for evaluation of any deviations occurring during
validation
 Conclusion
Equipment Critical Process Parameter:
 Mixing Speed
 Mixing Time
 Gas flushing time
 Type and size of filter
 Filtering Time and Pressure used
 Filling Speed
 Temperature and Duration for Terminal Sterilization
 Critical Manufacturing Step
 Dissolving Step
 pH adjustment step
 Final mixing step
 Filtering Step
 Filling Step
 Terminal Sterilization Step
 Leak Test Step

Critical Processing Parameter

 Mixing Speed
 Mixing Time
 Flushing Time
 pH

Critical Processing Steps

Dissolved active ingredients

↓
pH adjustment
↓
Final mixing
↓
Filtration
↓
Filling
↓
 Sterilization

Acceptance criteria

Dissolved active ingredients Clear solution

pH adjustment pH within specification
Final mixing pH, appearance, assay, content,
bioburden, hold time.
Filtration Filter integrity, sterility, pH, hold
time.
Filling Appearance, Bioburden, hold time,
oxygen head space.
Sterilization Sterility, assay, pH, endotoxins etc.
Leak test Number of leaked products.
Visual inspection Number of defected products.

Product Testing
 Validation testing of bulk and F/G must be based on testing standard
release criteria and in-process testing criteria.
 Typically involves non-routine sampling/testing throughout the entire
process, with special emphasis on critical process parameters.
 Routine QC release testing should be performed on a routine sample.
These samples should be taken separately from the validation
samples.

Validation Batch:
 New product and product transfer, Prospective validation is required
 Manufacturing Process, Formula, Equipment and Batch Size have to
be fixed during the validation trials.
 Batch Size should be the same size as commercial production batch
 The batch size must be fixed for production.
 Different lots but same manufacturer of active ingredients should be
used during validation trials.
Validation Batch: Bulk Sampling and Testing
 Samples may be taken by
 Collecting during Transfer
 Using a sampling device
 Take at least 2 samples at top, middle and bottom
 Individual Testing of sample must be done and the result must meet
the testing standard specification

Qualification of Maximum Bulk Hold Time

 The maximum period of time which the bulk can be held prior to
filter, Fill and/or Sterilization
 It will be counted after finished final mixing step until transfer to
filter, finished filter until start filling and/or finished filling until start
sterilization.
 One full scale batch should be held for most practical maximum time
period prior to filter, fill and/or sterilization
 If there is not enough support information / qualification done. The
period of 24 hours will be used.
 Hold time qualification must simulate actual storage condition

Finish Product Testing after Sterilization

 Uniformity of filled volume
 Perform testing on filled containers.
 Sterility
 10 samples from each of the beginning and end of the filling run.
Samples must represent all filling nozzles.
 Visual Evaluation
 Appearance, Color of solution
 Other Testing
 Assay, pH, Density, Pyrogen or Endotoxin etc.

Validation Report
 Validation Team must prepare the report
 Report must be reviewed and approved by QA.
 Written Notification or either successful completion or failure of the
process validation must be issued to top management.
  In case of failure, an investigation must be completed and
documented prior to repeat the validation study.

Changes and Revalidation

 Change of any of the following may need revalidation
 Formula Composition
 Raw Material Source
 Manufacturing Process
 Manufacturing Location
 Equipments
 Batch Size
 Testing Specification

Changes
• Minor: It seems to have no impact on formulation
It is not necessary to validate
• Intermediate : It could have significant impact on formulation
Depend on case-by-case (A minimum of 1 trial)
• Major : It is likely to have significant impact on formulation
Revalidation is required (A minimum of 3 trials)

Minor Change
 Qualitative inactive excipient change deemed minor by change control
review
 Process change deemed minor by change control review
 Manufacturing location change with in same building, same
equipment, personnel, procedure and utilities are used
 Equipment change but same design, configuration.

Intermediate Change
 Active ingredient source or synthesis change deemed intermediate by
change control review
 Qualitative inactive excipient change deemed intermediate by change
control review
 Manufacturing location change to a different building on the same site
and same utilities, same equipment, personnel, and procedure are
used. Process changes, such as mixing times or operating speeds for
solutions.
  Change in release specification to a tighter limit caused original
validation results to be out of specification
 Extension of the qualified in process hold time for intermediate or
finished product prior to packaging
 Equipment change deemed intermediate by change control review

Major Changes
 Quantitative or qualitative formulation change deemed major by
change control review
 Inactive excipient or active ingredient source change deemed major
by change control review
 Transfer product from on site to another
 Significant change in process
 Equipment change to a different design, configuration or operating
principle.

Conclusion
 Validation Protocol identifies critical process parameters to be
evaluated and predetermined acceptance criteria.
 Process must be continually monitored and change control used to
identify need for process revalidation.
 Production and QA have to review and approve the validation result.
 Product must be held until the validation get approval.

Re-validation
 Regular performance of process simulation studies.
 Monitoring of environment, disinfection procedures, equipment
cleaning and sterilization (including containers and closures).
 Routine maintenance and re-qualification of equipment, e.g.
autoclaves, ovens, HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning)
systems, water systems, etc.
 Regular integrity testing of product filters, containers, closures and
vent filters.
 Re-validation after changes.
A. Process Simulations

To ensure the sterility of products purporting to be sterile, both sterilization

and aseptic filling and closing operations must be adequately validated. The
goal of even the most effective sterilization processes can be defeated if the
sterilized elements of a product (the drug, the container, and the closure) are
brought together under conditions that contaminate any of those elements.
Similarly, product sterility will be compromised if product elements are not
sterile when they are assembled.

The validation of an aseptic processing operation should include the use of a

microbiological growth nutrient medium in place of the product. This has
been termed a media fill or process simulation. In the normal media fill
simulation, the nutrient medium should be exposed to product contact
surfaces of equipment, container closure systems, critical environments, and
process manipulations to closely simulate the same exposure that the product
itself will undergo. The sealed containers filled with the media are then
incubated to detect microbial contamination. The results should be
interpreted to determine the potential for a unit of drug product to become
contaminated during actual operations (e.g., start-up, sterile ingredient
additions, and aseptic connections, filling, and closing). Environmental
monitoring data from the process simulation can also provide useful
information for the processing line evaluation.

1. Study Design

A recommended media fill program incorporates the contamination risk

factors that occur on a production line, and accurately assesses the state of
process control. The media fill program should address applicable issues
such as:
  Factors associated with the longest permitted run on the
processing line
 Number and type of normal interventions, atypical
interventions, unexpected events (e.g., maintenance),
stoppages, equipment adjustments or transfers
 Lyophilization, when applicable
 Aseptic assembly of equipment (e.g., at start-up, during
processing)
 Number of personnel and their activities
 Number of aseptic additions (e.g., charging containers
and closures as well as sterile ingredients)
 shift changes, breaks, and gown changes (when
applicable)
 Number and type of aseptic equipment
disconnections/connections
 Aseptic sample collections
 Line speed and configurations
 Manual weight checks
 Operator fatigue
 Container closure systems (e.g., sizes, type,
compatibility with equipment)
 Specific provisions of aseptic processing related
Standard Operating Procedures (e.g., conditions
permitted before line clearance is mandated)

A written batch record, documenting production conditions and simulated

activities, should be prepared for each media fill run. The same vigilance
should be observed in both media fill and routine production runs. Media
fills should not be used to justify an unacceptable practice.

2. Frequency and Number of Runs

When a processing line is initially qualified, separate media fills should be

repeated enough times to ensure that results are consistent and meaningful.
This approach is important because a single run can be inconclusive, while
multiple runs with divergent results signal a process that is not in control. At
least three consecutive separate successful runs should be performed during
initial line qualification. Subsequently, routine semi-annual qualification
should be conducted for each processing line to evaluate the state of control
of the aseptic process. Activities and interventions representative of each
shift, and shift changeover, should be incorporated into the design of the
semi-annual qualification. For example, the evaluation of a shift should
address its unique time-related and operational features. All personnel who
enter the aseptic processing area, including technicians and maintenance
personnel, should participate in a media fill at least once a year. Participation
should be consistent with the nature of each operator's duties during routine
production. Each change to a product or line change should be evaluated
using a written change control system. Any changes or events that have the
potential to affect the ability of the aseptic process to exclude contamination
from the sterilized product should be assessed through additional media fills.
For example, facility and equipment modifications, line configuration
changes, significant changes in personnel, anomalies in environmental
testing results, container closure system changes or, end product sterility
testing showing contaminated products may be cause for revalidation of the
system.

Where data from a media fill indicate the process may not be in control, a
comprehensive documented investigation should be conducted to determine
the origin of the contamination and the scope of the problem. Once
corrections are instituted, repeat process simulation runs should be
performed to confirm that deficiencies in practices and procedures have been
corrected and the process has returned to a state of control. When an
investigation fails to reach well-supported, substantive conclusions as to the
cause of the media fill failure, three consecutive successful runs and
increased scrutiny (e.g., extra supervision, monitoring) of the production
process should be implemented.

3. Duration of Runs

The duration of aseptic processing operations is a major consideration in

determining the size of the media fill run. Although the most accurate
simulation model would be the full batch size and duration because it most
closely simulates the actual production run, other appropriate models can be
justified. In any study protocol, the duration of the run and the overall study
design should adequately mimic worst-case operating conditions and cover
all manipulations that are performed in the actual processing operation. In
this regard, interventions that commonly occur should be routinely
simulated, while those occurring rarely can be simulated periodically.
While conventional manufacturing lines are highly automated, often operate
at relatively high speeds, and are designed to limit operator intervention,
there are some processes that include considerable operator involvement.
When aseptic processing employs manual filling or closing, or extensive
manual manipulations, the duration of the process simulation should
generally be no less than the length of the actual manufacturing process to
best simulate contamination risks posed by operators.

For lyophilization operations, unsealed containers should be exposed to

pressurization and partial evacuation of the chamber in a manner that
simulates the process. Vials should not be frozen, as this may inhibit the
growth of microorganisms.

4. Size of Runs

The simulation run sizes should be adequate to mimic commercial

production conditions and accurately assess the potential for commercial
batch contamination. A generally acceptable starting point for run size is in
the range of 5,000 to 10,000 units. For operations with production sizes
under 5,000, the number of media filled units should equal the maximum
batch size made on the processing line.

When the possibility of contamination is higher based on the process design

(e.g., manually intensive filling lines), a larger number of units, generally at
or approaching the full production batch size, should be used. In contrast, a
process conducted in an isolator can have a low risk of contamination
because of the lack of direct human intervention and can be simulated with a
lower number of units as a proportion of the overall operation.

Some batches are produced over multiple shifts or yield an unusually large
number of units, and media fill size and duration are especially important
considerations in the media fill protocol. These factors should be carefully
considered when designing the simulation to adequately encompass
conditions and any potential risks associated with the larger operation.

5. Line Speed

The media fill program should adequately address the range of line speeds
(e.g., by bracketing all vial sizes and fill volumes) employed during
production. Each individual media fill run should evaluate a single worst-
case line speed, and the speed chosen for each run during a study should be
justified. For example, use of high line speed is often most appropriate in the
evaluation of manufacturing processes characterized by frequent
interventions or a significant degree of manual manipulation. Use of slow
line speed is generally appropriate for evaluating manufacturing processes
characterized by prolonged exposure of the sterile drug product and
container closures in the aseptic area.

6. Environmental Conditions

Media fills should be adequately representative of the range of conditions

under which actual manufacturing operations are conducted. An inaccurate
assessment (making the process appear cleaner than it actually is) can result
from conducting a media fill under extraordinary air particulate and
microbial quality, or under production controls and precautions taken in
preparation for the media fill. To the extent standard operating procedures
permit stressful conditions, it is important that media fills include analogous
challenges to support the validity of these studies.

7. Media

In general, a microbiological growth medium, such as soybean casein digest

medium, should be used. Use of anaerobic growth media (e.g., fluid
thioglycollate medium) would be appropriate in special circumstances. The
media selected should be demonstrated to promote growth of USP <71>
indicator microorganisms as well as representative isolates identified by
environmental monitoring, personnel monitoring, and positive sterility test
results. Positive control units should be inoculated with a <100 CFU
challenge and incubated. For those instances in which the growth promotion
testing fails, the origin of any contamination found during the simulation
should nonetheless be investigated, and the media fill should be promptly
repeated.

The production process should be accurately simulated using media and

conditions that optimize detection of any microbiological contamination.
Each unit should be filled with an appropriate quantity and type of microbial
growth medium to contact the inner container closure surfaces (when the
unit is inverted or thoroughly swirled) and permit visual detection of
microbial growth.

Some drug manufacturers have expressed concern over the possible

contamination of the facility and equipment with the nutrient media during
media fill runs. However, if the medium is handled properly and is promptly
followed by the cleaning, sanitizing, and, where necessary, sterilization of
equipment, subsequently processed products are not likely to be
compromised.

8. Incubation and Examination of Media-Filled Units

Media units should be incubated under conditions adequate to detect

organisms that can otherwise be difficult to culture. Incubation conditions
should be established in accord with the following general guidelines:

 Incubation temperature should be suitable for recovery of

bioburden and environmental isolates and should at no time be
outside the range of 20-35oC. Incubation temperature should be
maintained within 2.5oC of the target temperature.
 Incubation time should not be less than 14 days. If two
temperatures are used for the incubation of the media filled
samples, the samples should be incubated for at least 7 days at
each temperature.

Each media-filled unit should be examined for contamination by personnel

with appropriate education, training, and experience in microbiological
techniques. There should be direct quality control unit oversight throughout
any such examination. Clear containers with otherwise identical physical
properties should be used as a substitute for amber or other opaque
containers to allow visual detection of microbial growth.

When a firm performs a final product inspection of units immediately

following the media fill run, all integral units should proceed to incubation.
Units found to have defects not related to integrity (e.g., cosmetic defect)
should be incubated; units that lack integrity should be rejected. Erroneously
rejected units should be returned promptly for incubation with the media fill
lot.
After incubation is underway, any unit found to be damaged should be
included in the data for the media fill run, because the incubation of the units
simulates release to the market. Any decision to exclude such incubated
units (i.e., nonintegral) from the final run tally should be fully justified and
the deviation explained in the media fill report. If a correlation emerges
between difficult to detect damage and microbial contamination, a thorough
investigation should be conducted to determine its cause (see Section VI.B).

Written procedures regarding aseptic interventions should be clear and

specific (e.g., intervention type; quantity of units removed), providing for
consistent production practices and assessment of these practices during
media fills. If written procedures and batch documentation are adequate,
these intervention units do not need to be incubated during media fills where
procedures lack specificity, there would be insufficient justification for
exclusion of units removed during an intervention from incubation. In no
case should more units be removed during a media fill intervention than
would be cleared during a production run. The ability of a media fill run to
detect potential contamination from a given simulated activity should not be
compromised by a large-scale line clearance, which can result in removal of
a positive unit caused by an unrelated event or intervention. If unavoidable,
appropriate study provisions should be made to compensate in such
instances.

Appropriate criteria should be established for yield and accountability.

Media fill record reconciliation documentation should include a full
accounting and description of units rejected from a batch.

9. Interpretation of Test Results

The process simulation run should be observed, and contaminated units

should be reconcilable with the approximate time and the activity being
simulated during the media fill. Video recording of a media fill has been
found to be useful in identifying personnel practices that could negatively
impact the aseptic process.

Any contaminated unit should be considered as objectionable and fully

investigated. The microorganisms should be identified to species level. In
the case of a media fill failure, a comprehensive investigation should be
conducted, surveying all possible causes of the contamination. The effects
on commercial drugs produced on the line since the last successful media fill
should also be assessed.

Whenever contamination exists in a media fill run, it should be considered

indicative of a potential sterility assurance problem, regardless of run size.
Test results should reliably and reproducibly show that the units produced
by an aseptic processing operation are sterile. Modern aseptic processing
operations in suitably designed facilities have demonstrated a capability of
meeting contamination levels approaching zero and should normally yield
no media fill contamination. Recommended criteria for assessing state of
aseptic line control are as follows:

 When filling fewer than 5000 units, no contaminated units

should be detected.
 When filling from 5,000 to 10,000 units:

-- 1 contaminated unit should result in an investigation,

including consideration of a repeat media fill.

-- 2 contaminated units are considered cause for revalidation,

following investigation.

 When filling more than 10,000 units:

-- 1 contaminated unit should result in an investigation.

-- 2 contaminated units are considered cause for revalidation,

following investigation.

ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

Fill must meet the acceptance limits from the following table:

Maximum acceptable contaminated Number of good Vials incubated

units observed in the lot.
0 3000
1 4750
2 6300
3 7760
 4 9160
5 10520
6 11850
7 13150
8 14440
9 15710
10 16970
11 18210
12 19440

For any run size, intermittent incidents of microbial contamination in media

filled runs can be indicative of a persistent low-level contamination problem
that should be investigated. Accordingly, recurring incidents of
contaminated units in media fills for an individual line, regardless of
acceptance criteria, would be a signal of an adverse trend on the aseptic
processing line that should lead to problem identification, correction, and
revalidation.

B. Filtration Efficacy

Filtration is a common method of sterilizing drug product solutions. An

appropriate sterilizing grade filter is one that reproducibly removes all
microorganisms from the process stream, producing a sterile effluent. Such
filters usually have a rated porosity of 0.2 micron or smaller. Whatever filter
or combination of filters is used, validation should include microbiological
challenges to simulate worst-case production conditions regarding the size of
microorganisms in the material to be filtered and integrity test results of the
filters used for the study. The microorganisms should be small enough to
both challenge the nominal porosity of the filter and simulate the smallest
microorganism that may occur in production. The microorganism
Brevundimonas diminuta (ATCC 19146) when properly grown, harvested
and used, can be satisfactory in this regard because it is one of the smallest
bacteria (0.3 micron mean diameter). Bioburden of unsterilized bulk
solutions should be determined to trend the characteristics of potentially
contaminating organisms. In certain cases, when justified as equivalent as or
better than use of Brevundimonas diminuta, it may be appropriate to
conduct bacterial retention studies with a bioburden isolate.

The number of microorganisms in the challenge is important because a filter

can contain a number of pores larger than the nominal rating, which has the
potential to allow passage of microorganisms. The probability of such
passage is considered to increase as the number of organisms (bioburden) in
the material to be filtered increases. A challenge concentration of at least 107
organisms per cm2 of effective filtration area of B. diminuta should
generally be used. A commercial lot's actual influent bioburden should not
include microorganisms of a size and/or concentration that would present a
challenge beyond that considered by the validation study.

Direct inoculation into the drug formulation provides an assessment of the

effect of drug product on the filter matrix and on the challenge organism.
However, directly inoculating B. diminuta into products with inherent
bactericidal activity or into oil-based formulations can lead to erroneous
conclusions. When sufficiently justified, the effects of the product
formulation on the membrane's integrity can be assessed using an
appropriate alternate method. For example, the drug product could be
filtered in a manner in which the worst-case combination of process
specifications and conditions are simulated. This step could be followed by
filtration of the challenge organism for a significant period of time, under the
same conditions, using an appropriately modified product (e.g., lacking an
antimicrobial preservative or other antimicrobial component) as the vehicle.
Any divergence from a simulation using the actual product and conditions of
processing should be justified.

Factors that can affect filter performance normally include (1) viscosity of
the material to be filtered, (2) pH, (3) compatibility of the material or
formulation components with the filter itself, (4) pressures, (5) flow rates,
(6) maximum use time, (7) temperature, (8) osmolality, (9) and the effects of
hydraulic shock.

When designing the validation protocol, it is important to address the

effect of the extremes of processing factors on the filter capability to
produce sterile effluent. Filter validation should be conducted using the
worst-case conditions, such as maximum filter use time and pressure.
 Filter validation experiments, including microbial challenges, need not be
conducted in the actual manufacturing areas. However, it is essential that
laboratory experiments simulate actual production conditions. The specific
type of filter used in commercial production should be evaluated in filter
validation studies. When the more complex filter validation tests go beyond
the capabilities of the filter user, tests are often conducted by outside
laboratories or by filter manufacturers. However, it is the responsibility of
the filter user to review the validation data on the efficacy of the filter in
producing a sterile effluent. The data should be applicable to the user's
products and conditions of use because filter performance may differ
significantly for various conditions and products.

After a filtration process is properly validated for a given product, process,

and filter, it is important to ensure that identical filter replacements
(membrane or cartridge) used in production runs will perform in the same
manner. Sterilizing filters should be routinely discarded after processing of a
single batch. Normally, integrity testing of the filter is performed prior to
processing, after the filter apparatus has already been assembled and
sterilized. It is important that integrity testing be conducted after filtration to
detect any filter leaks or perforations that might have occurred during the
filtration. Forward flow and bubble point tests, when appropriately
employed, are two integrity tests that can be used. A production filter's
integrity test specification should be consistent with data generated during
filtration efficacy studies.

C. Sterilization of Equipment and Container and Closures

To maintain sterility, equipment surfaces that contact a sterilized drug

product or sterilized container or closure surfaces must be sterile so as not to
alter purity of the drug (211.63 and 211.113). Those surfaces that are in the
vicinity of sterile product or container closures, but do not directly contact
the product should also be rendered sterile where reasonable contamination
potential exists. It is as important in aseptic processing to properly validate
the processes used to sterilize such critical equipment as it is to validate
processes used to sterilize the drug product and its container and closure.
Moist heat and dry heat sterilization are most widely used.

Sterility of aseptic processing equipment should be maintained by batch-by-

batch sterilization. Following sterilization of equipment, containers, or
closures, transportation or assembly should be performed with adherence to
strict aseptic methods in a manner that protects and sustains the product's
sterile state.

1. Sterilizer Qualification and Validation

Validation studies should be conducted demonstrating the efficacy of the

sterilization cycle. Prequalification studies should also be performed on a
periodic basis. For both the validation studies and routine production, use of
a specified load configuration should be documented in the batch records.

The insulating properties of unevacuated air prevent moist heat under

pressure from penetrating or heating up materials and achieving the lethality
associated with saturated steam. Consequently, for such processes, there is a
far slower thermal energy transfer and rate of kill from the dry heat in
insulated locations in the load. It is important to remove air from the
autoclave chamber as part of a moist heat under pressure sterilization cycle.

For the various methods of sterilization, special attention should be given to

the nature or type of the materials to be sterilized and the placement of
biological indicators within the sterilization load.

D-value of the biological indicator can vary widely depending on the

material to be sterilized. Potentially difficult to reach locations within the
sterilizer load or equipment train (for SIP applications) should be evaluated
in initial studies. For example, filter installations in piping can cause a
substantial pressure differential across the filter, resulting in a significant
temperature drop on the downstream side. Biological indicators should be
placed at appropriate downstream locations of this equipment to determine if
the drop in temperature affects the thermal input at these sites.
Prequalification and/or revalidation should continue to focus on the load
areas identified as most difficult to penetrate or heat (e.g., worst-case
locations of tightly wrapped or densely packed supplies, securely fastened
load articles, lengthy tubing, the sterile filter apparatus, hydrophobic filters,
stopper load).

The formal program providing for regular revalidation should consider the
age of the sterilizer and its past performance. Change control procedures
should adequately address issues such as a load configuration change or a
modification of the sterilizer.

a. Qualification: Empty Chamber

 Temperature distribution studies evaluate numerous locations
throughout an empty sterilizing unit (e.g., steam autoclave, dry
heat oven) or equipment train (e.g., large tanks, immobile
piping). It is important that these studies assess temperature
uniformity at various locations throughout the sterilizer to
identify potential cold spots where there can be insufficient heat
to attain sterility. These heat uniformity or temperature
mapping studies should be conducted by placing calibrated
temperature measurement devices in numerous locations
throughout the chamber.

b. Validation: Loaded Chamber

Heat penetration studies should be performed using the

established sterilizer load(s). Validation of the sterilization
process with a loaded chamber demonstrates the effects of
loading on thermal input to the items being sterilized, and may
identify cold spots where there is insufficient heat to attain
sterility.

The placement of biological indicators (BI) at numerous

positions in the load, including the most difficult to sterilize
places, is a direct means of demonstrating the efficacy of any
sterilization procedure. In general, the thermocouple (TC) is
placed adjacent to the BI so as to assess the correlation between
microbial lethality and thermal input. When determining which
articles are most difficult to sterilize, special attention should be
given to the sterilization of filters.

Ultimately, cycle specifications for such sterilization methods

are based on the delivery of adequate thermal input to the
slowest to heat locations. A sterility assurance level of 10-6 or
better should be demonstrated for a sterilization process.

2. Equipment Controls and Instrument Calibration

For both validation and routine process control, the reliability of the data
generated by sterilization cycle monitoring devices should be considered to
be of the utmost importance. Devices that measure cycle parameters should
be routinely calibrated. Written procedures should be established to ensure
that these devices are maintained in a calibrated state. For example:
  Temperature monitoring devices for heat sterilization should be
calibrated at suitable intervals, as well as before and after
validation runs.
 Devices used to monitor dwell time in the sterilizer should be
periodically calibrated.
 The microbial count and D-value of a biological indicator
should be confirmed before a validation study.
 Bacterial endotoxin challenges should be appropriately
prepared and measured by the laboratory.
 Instruments used to determine the purity of steam should be
calibrated as appropriate.
 For dry heat depyrogenation tunnels, devices (e.g. sensors and
transmitters) used to measure belt speed should be routinely
calibrated.

To ensure robust process control, sterilizing equipment should be properly

designed with attention to features such as accessibility to sterilant, piping
slope, and proper condensate removal (as applicable).

Equipment control should be ensured through placement of measuring

devices at those risk-based control points that are most likely to rapidly
detect unexpected process variability. Where manual manipulations of
valves are required for sterilizer operations, these steps should be
documented in manufacturing procedures. Sterilizing equipment should be
properly maintained to allow for consistently satisfactory function.
Evaluation of sterilizer performance attributes such as equilibrium (come up)
time studies should be helpful in assessing if the unit continues to operate
properly.
ENDOTOXIN CONTROL
21 CFR 211.63 states that “Equipment used in the manufacturing,
processing, packing, or holding of a drug product shall be of appropriate
design, adequate size, and suitably located to facilitate operations for its
intended use and for its cleaning and maintenance.”
21 CFR 211.65(a) states that “Equipment shall be constructed so that
surfaces that contact components, in-process materials, or drug products
shall not be reactive, additive, or absorptive so as to alter the safety, identity,
strength, quality, or purity of the drug product beyond the official or other
established requirements.”

21 CFR 211.67(a) states that “Equipment and utensils shall be cleaned,

maintained, and sanitized at appropriate intervals to prevent malfunctions or
contamination that would alter the safety, identify, strength, quality, or
purity of the drug product beyond the official or other established
requirements.”

21 CFR 211.94(c) states that “Drug product containers and closures shall be
clean and, where indicated by the nature of the drug, sterilized and processed
to remove pyrogenic properties to assure that they are suitable for their
intended use.”

21 CFR 211.167(a) states that “For each batch of drug product purporting to
be sterile and/or pyrogen-free, there shall be appropriate laboratory testing to
determine conformance to such requirements. The test procedures shall be
in writing and shall be followed.”

Endotoxin contamination of an injectable product can occur as a result of

poor CGMP controls. Certain patient populations (e.g., neonates), those
receiving other injections concomitantly, or those administered a parenteral
in atypically large volumes or doses can be at greater risk for pyrogenic
reaction than anticipated by the established limits based on body weight of a
normal healthy adult. Such clinical concerns reinforce the importance of
exercising appropriate CGMP controls to prevent generation of endotoxins.
Drug product components, containers, closures, storage time limitations, and
manufacturing equipment are among the areas to address in establishing
endotoxin control.

Adequate cleaning, drying, and storage of equipment will control bioburden

and prevent contribution of endotoxin load. Equipment should be designed
to be easily assembled and disassembled, cleaned, sanitized, and/or
sterilized. If adequate procedures are not employed, endotoxins can be
contributed by both upstream and downstream processing equipment.
Sterilizing-grade filters and moist heat sterilization have not
been shown to be effective in removing endotoxin.
Endotoxin on equipment surfaces can be inactivated by high-
temperature dry heat, or removed from equipment surfaces
by cleaning procedures. Some clean-in-place procedures
employ initial rinses with appropriate high purity water
and/or a cleaning agent (e.g., acid, base, surfactant),
followed by final rinses with heated WFI. Equipment should
be dried following cleaning, unless the equipment proceeds
immediately to the sterilization step.

Endotoxin (E. coli O113:H10)

CONTROL STANDARD ENDOTOXIN (CSE)
Control Standard Endotoxin (CSE) may be used to prepare controls for the
Limulus Amebocyte Lysate (LAL) test or for oven depyrogenation studies.
Store at 2-8oC before reconstitution. Directions for use in oven
depyrogenation studies are on the reverse side of this sheet. The vials may
appear to be empty, but on close examination, a fine web of endotoxin may
be visible.

MATERIALS:
• Control Standard Endotoxin (CSE), 0.5 µg/vial, (catalog #E0005).
• LAL Reagent Water (LRW). Use sterile water for injection or
irrigation (no bacteriostat) or water certified as an LRW (see lysate
package insert).
• 5 ml sterile disposable pipette.
• Parafilm (American National Can).
• Dilution tubes (glass tubes depyrogenated by dry heat incubation or
sterile, polystyrene disposables).

PROCEDURE:
 Remove the metal seal from the vial and aseptically remove the
stopper.
  Add LRW to the vial. Recommended reconstitution volume is 5 ml,
however, alternate volumes may be used to achieve desired
concentration of stock solution. a. To reconstitute with a pipette,
break the vacuum by lifting the stopper just enough to allow air to
enter, remove the stopper and add LRW. Seal the vial with Parafilm.

 Vortex vigorously for one minute, at 5-10 minute intervals over a

30-60 minute period at room temperature.

 Store reconstituted CSE at 2-8oC for not more than four weeks. Do
not freeze CSE.

 Vortex the CSE for at least 30 seconds immediately before making

the first dilution and then make appropriate dilutions to achieve
desired concentrations. The dilutions may be initiated with three
serial tenfold dilutions of the stock concentration (100 ng/ml when
reconstituted with 5 ml). Serial twofold dilutions may then be made
to bracket the sensitivity of the LAL or make dilutions appropriate
for the turbidimetric method. Vortex between dilutions.

NOTE: Vials of CSE appear empty. Upon close examination, you may
see a very fine web of endotoxin present in each vial. Contact
Associates of Cape Cod, Inc. if you have any questions about the
reconstitution and use of Control Standard Endotoxin.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE IN THE VALIDATION OF

DEPYROGENATION:
Two methods are recommended for using Control Standard Endotoxin
(CSE), catalog numbers E0005 and E0125, for monitoring depyrogenation
procedures. These are
A) Direct (dry) method, or
B) Indirect (reconstituted and dispensed).

Method A
1) Remove the label and closure from each vial and cover the vials with a
double layer of aluminum foil.
2) Retain a minimum of two vials for use as positive controls.
3) Place the challenge vials in the oven load to be used for the validation.
4) At the end of the depyrogenation process, collect the vials for testing.
5) Reconstitute processed and control vials of CSE according to the
procedure on the reverse side of this sheet.
6) Test all vials as unknowns according to the package insert included with
the lysate.
7) Calculate the reduction in endotoxin between the control vials and the
processed vials (mean measured concentration in control vials divided
by the mean measured concentration in process vials).

If the value is 1000 or greater, then the oven has achieved a 3-log or greater
reduction.

Method B

1) Reconstitute a vial according to the procedure on the reverse side of

this sheet.
2) Add small aliquots or dilutions of the CSE to material to be
depyrogenated. Add an amount sufficient to determine at least three log
removals. Take into account any dilution involved to recover added
endotoxin and any loss due to non-recoverable adsorption to the vessel.
Include at least two vessels as recovery controls.
3) Run material through the depyrogenation procedure.
4) Recover CSE from materials using a minimum amount of LAL reagent
water (LRW).
5) Test with LAL as above.
6) Calculate the reduction in endotoxin as indicated in step 7 above.