SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1
6th
CPH assessment training workshop
May 2014
Wondiyfraw Worku,
Assessor
Process validation
2
Talk points
 Objectives of review of quality(CMC) data- reminder
 Process validation, definition and current approaches
 Role of dossier assessment in process validation
 Risk assessment as part of process validation
 Validation scheme: Monitoring and Sampling
 Specific topics: Blend uniformity and validation of compression step
 Process validation: other dosage forms
 Process validation commitment
 Retrospective validation
 Summary: How to review protocol and report
3
Reminder
 Objectives of assessment of quality part
To provide the highest assurance that all production
batches (unit doses) will be consistently efficacious as the
clinical batch(es)
To reduce risk to safety via the highest assurance of
acceptable and consistent quality of the product and its
components
Process
validation
4
Process validation
The collection and evaluation of data, from the process
design stage through commercial production, which establishes
scientific evidence that a process is capable of consistently
delivering quality products. (FDA)
Documented evidence which provides a high degree of
assurance that a specific process will consistently result in a
product that meets predetermined specifications and quality
characteristics. (WHO)
The documented evidence that the process, operated
within established parameters, can perform effectively and
reproducibly to produce a medicinal product meeting its
predetermined specifications and quality attributes.(EMA)
5
Process validation
Traditional vs new paradigm
Post
approval
changes/ch
ange
controls/risk
analysis
Development-
Basic
Process
validation- 3
batches
Pilot batch
manufacturing
Enhanced-
Development and
process
qualification
Control
Strategy
Continuous and
extensive monitoring
of CQAs and CPPs
for each production
batch
ICH Q9
and Q10
ICH Q8,
QbD
6
Latest guidelines
FDA, January 2011 WHO, Revised Annex 7 of
WHO GMP guide (draft for
comment)
EMA, February 2014
Continuous process
verification (CPV)
Continuous process
verification (CPV)
Alternative approaches:
-Traditional approach
-Continuous process
verification
-Hybrid approach
Process design and Initial
validation (process
qualification- PPQ) are initial
phases of CPV
Process design and initial
validation (initial process
verification) are initial phases
of CPV
CPV protocol to be supported
by extensive development
information and lab or pilot
scale data. Executed on each
production batch
No mention of number of
batches for initial process
performance
qualification/validation (rather
must be justified based on
overall product and process
understanding)
Mentions data on at least
three pilot or production
batches collected as part of
process design
Number of batches specified
for traditional approach
- minimum of three production
batches unless other wise
justified
7
Types of process validation and
dossier requirements
Prospective validation Concurrent validation Retrospective validation
Protocol reviewed and
accepted, Product PQD; OR
Protocol executed before
submission or PQ
Protocol reviewed and
accepted, Product PQD
Protocol does not need to
be submitted
Execute and finalize
process validation on the
first three production
batches
Execute and finalize
process validation on the
first three production
batches
Prepare product quality
review report on already
manufactured production
batches
Commercial batches to be
released only after
satisfactorily conclusion of
process validation on three
batches
Each validation batch can
be validated and released.
Applicable for low demand
products (such as NTDs,
orphan drugs or other
seasonal products)
Applicable for submissions
meeting criteria for
established products as
described in Annex 4, TRS
970
8
Process validation- Role of assessment
Design
qualification
Operational
qualification
Performance
qualification
Process
validation
GMP
Dossier
9
Process validation phases
Pre-validation
phase
Protocol
Preparation
Information from
product
development
studies
(identification of
critical attributes)
Information
from
primary/clinical
manufacturing
(scale up
information)
Process risk
assessment
information
(identification
of critical
steps)
Validation phase
Protocol execution
Post valdn phase:
Review of process,
deviations, failures,
need for
improvement,
scale up etc…
Includes
demonstration of
content uniformity of
the clinical batch
10
Risk assessment
 Part of process development and protocol preparation
 Risk matrix- usually as part of process development
• Critical quality attributes (CQA) vs processing stages, e.g. dissolution vs
granulation
• CQA vs critical process parameters, e.g., dissolution vs kneading time
 Failure mode analysis- usually as part of process validation
 To identify critical attributes, processes and parameters
 Informed validation
 To establish control strategy
11
Example: risk matrix for low dose capsule (CQA vs
process stages)
  Sifting/sizing blending lubrication Capsule 
filling
Assay  Low Medium Medium Medium
Content 
uniformity
High High High High
Dissolution Low Low High Low
Stability Low Low Low Low
12
Process steps to be validated
 All steps that are generally considered critical (medium and
high risk steps) should be monitored/scrutinized
 by summarizing actual process parameters applied and observations
recorded
• e.g. sifting stage, wet and dry granulation stages
 observations serve as feedback for future refinement of process
parameters
 In addition, where feasible, sampling and testing should be
performed
• e.g. drying, mixing steps, compression, filling
• results measure effectiveness and consistency of the immediate as
well as preceding steps- e.g. final blend characteristics are mainly
shaped by wet/dry granulation process
13
Validation scheme- example
Processing steps Critical parameters  Validation  scheme
Dispensing Weight checks Monitored
Sifting Mesh size Monitored
Wet Granulation and drying Amount and addition rate of
granulating agent, mixing speed,
time, as well as sequence of
events
Monitored, Drying uniformity to
be tested
Dry Granulation Slugging /compaction
parameters
Monitored only or Monitored and
sampled?
Blending mixing speed, time Monitored; Blend uniformity to be
established
Lubrication mixing speed, time Monitored; Blend uniformity from
mixer and bulk container
Compression Initial set up parameters,
speed, applied pressure,
Monitored; Several samples to
be sampled and tested for IPQC
parameters
Fluidized bed coating Spray rate, inlet and product
temp, etc…
Monitored; appearance, weight
gain and full testing
Primary packaging, protocol
requested on case by case basis
Sealing temperature, speed Monitored; leak test
14
Monitoring- Example:
Compaction
 Any comment vis à vis the difference between BMR set range and actual
applied inputs?
BMR Set 
parameters
 Batch 1 Batch 2 Batch 3
e.g. of
parameter
s
Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 1 Cycle 2
Roller
speed
(RPM)
8-15 10 10 10 10 10 10
Roller
pressure
(Bars)
40-60 41-42 42-43 41-43 41-42 41-42 41-43
Vertical
feed screw
(RPM)
50-100 75 75 75 75 75 75
Horizontal
feed screw
(RPM)
10-20 15 15 15 15 15 15
15
Example: Monitoring and sampling:
Drying
Monitoring Set parameter Observation
Batch X Batch Y Batch Z
Inlet temperature 60+/-10o
C 62-65 52-63 52-60
Outlet temp 29-44 31-47 28-36
Total drying time
(min) (for
information)
65 65 80
Sampling and 
testing
Spec Batch X Batch Y Batch Z
Location 1 0.75-2.25% 1.54 1.53 1.70
Location 2 1.94 2.01 1.80
Location 3 2.03 1.30 2.05
Location 4 1.89 1.87 2.20
16
Blend uniformity
 Early check for content uniformity of the final dosage form
Uniform blend
with good flow
and
compressibility
characteristics
Compression with
optimum
conditions
Tablets meeting
criteria for
uniformity of
dosage units
Note: Blend uniformity is a routine test for low dose products (i.e.
active load <=5% or 5mg)
17
Blend uniformity- Sampling
location and method
 Sampling location -usually predetermined as part of qualification
of the mixer (i.e. mostly GMP issue)
 But, in the dossier, we at least check if periphery, center positions and
various other positions are considered
 Samples from each location are usually taken in triplicate
 Samples should also be taken from the blend container- to
evaluate impact of transfer
 important for low dose products and particularly for DC processed blend
 Sampling should be done consistently and in away that does not
disturb the bulk blend state – such aspects (e.g. type of sampling
thief used) are better addressed at the time of inspection
18
Blend uniformity- Sample size
 What is an acceptable amount for samples taken at each location?
 Normally 1-3 time of the FPP unit dose weight
C. Morten, PIAT programme, University of Manchester
19
Blend uniformity- acceptance criteria
 Commonly used criteria
 Individual assays: 90.0-110.0% of label claim, RSD NMT 5.0%
 Less common
 Individual assays:90.0-110.0% of the mean value, RSD NMT 5.0%
• In this case, setting mean = 95.0-105.0% of the label claim appears
reasonable
 Rarely (in case of very low dose products)
 Individual assays: 85.0-105.0% of the label claim/mean value, RSD: NMT
5.0%
 May be acceptable provided that uniformity of dosage units is
satisfactorily demonstrated on tablets/capsules manufactured from
blend lot with close to limit blend uniformity results
20
Sampling and testing plan- Lubrication- example
missing
parameter?
Do you agree with
the acceptance
criteria?
Sample 
location
Sample size Sample 
analysed
Tests Acceptance 
limits
Lubrication 10 position
from
Octagonal
blender and
blend
container
850-2550mg
in triplicate
10 Individual
samples
Blend
uniformity
Mean: 95.0-
105.0%,
individual:
90-110%,
RSD: NMT
5%
Samples
from top,
middle and
bottom
50gm Composite
samples
Complete
analysis as
per routine
blend spec
As per blend
spec
Particle size
distribution,
bulk and
tapped
density
For
information
What are the 
minimum tests we 
expect to see in 
blend spec?
Acceptable?
21
Compression
 Good compression outcome is a measure of (it depends
on):-
Granule/powder mix properties
• bulk and tapped density-granulation
• particle size and particle size distribution-granulation
• moisture content- drying
• extent of lubrication- lubrication time
Machine and tooling attributes
• appropriate selection and adequate lubrication of punches
and dye
• machine speed
• applied compression pressure
22
Compression – Sampling frequency and size
 depends on the length of the run time/
batch size
we expect frequent sampling than the normal IPQC
frequency
the number of tablets/capsules taken should be
greater than those taken during a normal IPQC
sampling
23
Compression- Challenge studies
 Certain variations in
compression speed and
hardness than the target set
points may happen
 what would be the impact of such
variations?
 speed affects dwell time- which
intern affects several tablet
parameters (thickness, hardness,
as well as weight variation)
 Therefore, robustness should be
demonstrated
C. Morten, PIAT programme, University of Manchester
24
Extensive sampling- example
(there are several other approaches)
IPQC testing schedule Normal production batch Validation batches
48 station machine, batch size of 170,000 tabs, target speed 25rpm
Group weight and
appearance, every 30
minutes; others every 1 hour
(at least 3 times)
About 300 tablets
About 300 tablets
All in process parameters at
start, middle and end of
compression (different
hopper fill levels)
-
About 360 tablets
Additional samples at high,
low speed; at high and low
hardness levels
- About 480 samples
Total number of tablets
sampled
300 tablets 1140 tablets
25
How to demonstrate consistency?
3sigma
process
e.g. 4 sigma
process
26
Process validation-oral solutions
 Validation focuses on
mixing time and conditions to clear solution, if deemed
relevant
• bulk liquids: pH, specific gravity, clarity of solutions;
assay
filling process
• filled units:- Volume/Wt variation and as per FPP specs
 Protocol with commitment is acceptable at the
time of review
27
Process Validation- Oral suspensions
 Focuses on
 API micronization processes (if applicable)
 colloidal milling process (as applicable),
 homogenization
 filling
• Viscosity, fill volume/weight variation,
• Other critical attribute that may be affected by filling process?
• Other parameters as per FPP spec including, PSD, pH, dissolution,
 Protocol with commitment is acceptable at the
time of review
28
Process validation- sterile products
Products mfd by
Terminal sterilization
Products mfd by
Aseptic processing
Container and
component sterilization
and depyrogenation
- Depyrogenation by
tunnel depyrogenator
(e.g. ampoules) or
washing (e.g. rubber
stoppers, plastic
bottles)
- Depyrogenation by
washing- for stoppers,
seals, accessories*
- Validation of steam
sterilization – for
stoppers, seals,
accessories*
- Dry heat sterilization
and depyrogenation-
for glass vials or
ampoules*
29
Process validation- sterile products-Contd
Products mfd by
Terminal sterilization
Products mfd by Aseptic
processing
Product sterilization Terminal sterilization by
Steam sterilization,
radiation or ETO (as
applicable)*
Filter validation (as part of
dev’t pharm)
Process simulation - Media fill
Full batch processing
(other aspects of the mfg
process, e.g. valdn of bulk
prepn, filling and sealing
quality)
3 production batches mfd
at proposed scale
3 production batches mfd
at proposed scale
(commitment may also be
accepted).
*validation should be on three runs to demonstrate reproducibility.
30
Dissolution profile comparison with clinical/BE batch-
solids and suspensions (as part of process validation)
 A good check point to verify performance relative
to the biobatch
All validation batches should be profiled in the routine
media on 12 units, using time points as used for
biobatch
Comparison with historical biobatch profile, with
calculation of f2 (as necessary), should be performed
and results discussed
 Check if the protocol includes adequate
instruction/provision
31
Matrixing/bracketing approach
 Multiple strengths of same product (common
blend)
until stages of final granules: 3 consecutive batches of the
common blend (instead of 3 separate blend batches for each
strength)
compression: 3 consecutive batches of each strength
 Primary packaging of tablet/capsule products
blistering of hygroscopic or moisture sensitive products
however should always be individually validated
32
Process validation- commitment
 As described in Annex 4, TRS 970, applicants
are not expected to have process validation
data before PQ
In this case satisfactory PV protocol (PVP) and
appropriately worded commitment are essential
PVP or signed commitment letter should clearly
indicate the need for prospective validation as
finalized on three consecutive production batches,
unless other wise justified.
33
Retrospective validation for established products
 Generally acceptable if condition described in
Annex 4, TRS 970 (generic guide), are met.
 Tries to demonstrate process effectiveness and
consistency via trend analysis:
extent of deviations
extent of OOS or OOT
extent of batch rejection
extent of product complains
extent of changes/ improvements introduced
See Appendix 2 of Annex 4, TRS 970
34
Review of protocol- main aspects to check
 Scope of the validation (type, batch size, reason)- do they reflect the
planned validation? Highest batch size to be validated?
 Major equipments identified (in line with BMR) and a provision for
recording their Q status included?
 Reference to current master production record included?
 Summary of critical steps identified? is this convincing ?
 Monitoring and sampling plan provided?- Do you agree with the
steps monitored/sampled?
 Sampling schedule, schematics, tests and acceptance criteria, as well
as current specification codes included ? Are these acceptable?
35
Review of protocol- main aspects to check-contd
 For solid orals: final blending, compression/encapsulation,
coating stages must be adequately sampled and tested. Are these
being reflected?
 Blend uniformity: Sampling schemes and blend uniformity acceptance
criteria specified? Are these acceptable?
 Compression/encapsulation at lower, target and upper speeds included?
 Provision for performance of dissolution profile testing and
comparison with the biobatch included?
 Appropriate commitment (prospective validation on first three
consecutive batches mentioned) provided?
 Protocol reference and version number included in QIS?
36
Review of validation report
 Is the reported data relevant for the proposed manufacturing
process and scale
 equipment used, process parameters applied
 All critical steps adequately monitored/sampled?
 Level of sampling and size are acceptable?
 All results within acceptable limits? Particular trend?
 Deviations appropriately evaluated and discussed?
 Is the overall process in sufficient control? Is there any thing that
should be improved or refined for future production batches
37
Thank you, Questions?

More Related Content

PPTX
Process validation of tablets, capsules and parentrals
PPTX
Auditing in Solid Oral Dosage Form Production Department
PPTX
Qualification of high performance liquid chromatography
PPTX
Quality by Design and Process Analytical Technology
PPTX
ICH Q10 guideline.pptx
PPTX
Vendor qualification
DOCX
Auditing of vendors and production department
Process validation of tablets, capsules and parentrals
Auditing in Solid Oral Dosage Form Production Department
Qualification of high performance liquid chromatography
Quality by Design and Process Analytical Technology
ICH Q10 guideline.pptx
Vendor qualification
Auditing of vendors and production department

What's hot (20)

PPTX
Qualification of Dry Heat Sterilizer or Tunnel.pptx
PPTX
Case study on Out of Specification (OOS).
PPTX
Auditing of quality assurance and maintenance of engineering department
PPTX
Analytical Method Validation as per ICH vs USP
PPTX
Auditing of vendors and production department
PDF
CHAPTER-3 Product and Process Information.pdf
PPTX
Deviation QA
PDF
CHAPTER-1 DEFICIENCIES.pdf
PPTX
Vendor Audit
PPTX
Product Registration Guidlines
PPTX
BACPAC
PPTX
Quality audit plan
PPTX
Cleaning validation
PPTX
Qualification of Autoclave.pptx
PPTX
Quality by design (QbD) and process analytical technology (PAT)
PPTX
Qualification of Friability Test Apparatus.pptx
Qualification of Dry Heat Sterilizer or Tunnel.pptx
Case study on Out of Specification (OOS).
Auditing of quality assurance and maintenance of engineering department
Analytical Method Validation as per ICH vs USP
Auditing of vendors and production department
CHAPTER-3 Product and Process Information.pdf
Deviation QA
CHAPTER-1 DEFICIENCIES.pdf
Vendor Audit
Product Registration Guidlines
BACPAC
Quality audit plan
Cleaning validation
Qualification of Autoclave.pptx
Quality by design (QbD) and process analytical technology (PAT)
Qualification of Friability Test Apparatus.pptx
Ad

Similar to 2 4 process-validation (20)

PPT
2-4_ProcessValidation protocol of pharmaceuticals
PPT
PPTX
Validation of equipment copy
PPTX
Validation of semisolids
PPT
Dosage form validation
PPTX
Types of validation & validation of specific dosage.pptx
PPTX
Pharmaceutical validation
PPTX
Pharmaceutical validation
PPTX
validation and its concepts and its types
PPTX
QUALITY SYSTEMS
PPT
Process validation
PPT
Process validation strategy
PPT
Process validation strategy
PPTX
In process control , validation of large scale process and Case Studies.pptx
PPTX
Seminar on validation by ranjeet singh
PPTX
Process validation fof Pharmaceutical dosage forms (formulation)
PPTX
Pharmaceutical Good Manufacturing Practices
PPTX
Process Validation.pptx
PPTX
Process validation of tablets
2-4_ProcessValidation protocol of pharmaceuticals
Validation of equipment copy
Validation of semisolids
Dosage form validation
Types of validation & validation of specific dosage.pptx
Pharmaceutical validation
Pharmaceutical validation
validation and its concepts and its types
QUALITY SYSTEMS
Process validation
Process validation strategy
Process validation strategy
In process control , validation of large scale process and Case Studies.pptx
Seminar on validation by ranjeet singh
Process validation fof Pharmaceutical dosage forms (formulation)
Pharmaceutical Good Manufacturing Practices
Process Validation.pptx
Process validation of tablets
Ad

More from Fasika Alemu (18)

PDF
Guide for insvestment in developing countires
PDF
Chemical parks (1)
PDF
Progress international guidelines for industrial parks
PDF
Pharmaceutical industry design (1)
PDF
7.5.9.5.8 methods-of-sterilization
PPTX
Capa system
PDF
Amergamalpres1 130129172315-phpapp01
PPTX
PPTX
International law in hcwm
PPT
Cleaning validation
PDF
Gmp inspection for medicinal product
PPTX
Hygeine and sanitation
PDF
Presentation cleaning-validation
PPT
Introductiontogoodstoragepracticesfull 100702102420-phpapp02
DOCX
Assessment report of ethiopian somali region
PPT
analysis of a cross over design
PPTX
Study types
DOCX
Strategy for enhanced marketing authorization final docx
Guide for insvestment in developing countires
Chemical parks (1)
Progress international guidelines for industrial parks
Pharmaceutical industry design (1)
7.5.9.5.8 methods-of-sterilization
Capa system
Amergamalpres1 130129172315-phpapp01
International law in hcwm
Cleaning validation
Gmp inspection for medicinal product
Hygeine and sanitation
Presentation cleaning-validation
Introductiontogoodstoragepracticesfull 100702102420-phpapp02
Assessment report of ethiopian somali region
analysis of a cross over design
Study types
Strategy for enhanced marketing authorization final docx

Recently uploaded (20)

PDF
Deadly Stampede at Yaounde’s Olembe Stadium Forensic.pdf
PPTX
Gastroschisis- Clinical Overview 18112311
PPTX
CEREBROVASCULAR DISORDER.POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONx
PPTX
Slider: TOC sampling methods for cleaning validation
PPTX
neonatal infection(7392992y282939y5.pptx
PPT
ASRH Presentation for students and teachers 2770633.ppt
PPTX
CME 2 Acute Chest Pain preentation for education
PPTX
Fundamentals of human energy transfer .pptx
PPTX
Acid Base Disorders educational power point.pptx
PPT
Management of Acute Kidney Injury at LAUTECH
PPTX
Respiratory drugs, drugs acting on the respi system
PPT
Obstructive sleep apnea in orthodontics treatment
PPTX
Note on Abortion.pptx for the student note
PDF
Human Health And Disease hggyutgghg .pdf
PPTX
SKIN Anatomy and physiology and associated diseases
PDF
Handout_ NURS 220 Topic 10-Abnormal Pregnancy.pdf
PPTX
ACID BASE management, base deficit correction
DOC
Adobe Premiere Pro CC Crack With Serial Key Full Free Download 2025
PPTX
NEET PG 2025 Pharmacology Recall | Real Exam Questions from 3rd August with D...
PPTX
Imaging of parasitic D. Case Discussions.pptx
Deadly Stampede at Yaounde’s Olembe Stadium Forensic.pdf
Gastroschisis- Clinical Overview 18112311
CEREBROVASCULAR DISORDER.POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONx
Slider: TOC sampling methods for cleaning validation
neonatal infection(7392992y282939y5.pptx
ASRH Presentation for students and teachers 2770633.ppt
CME 2 Acute Chest Pain preentation for education
Fundamentals of human energy transfer .pptx
Acid Base Disorders educational power point.pptx
Management of Acute Kidney Injury at LAUTECH
Respiratory drugs, drugs acting on the respi system
Obstructive sleep apnea in orthodontics treatment
Note on Abortion.pptx for the student note
Human Health And Disease hggyutgghg .pdf
SKIN Anatomy and physiology and associated diseases
Handout_ NURS 220 Topic 10-Abnormal Pregnancy.pdf
ACID BASE management, base deficit correction
Adobe Premiere Pro CC Crack With Serial Key Full Free Download 2025
NEET PG 2025 Pharmacology Recall | Real Exam Questions from 3rd August with D...
Imaging of parasitic D. Case Discussions.pptx

2 4 process-validation

  • 1. 1 6th CPH assessment training workshop May 2014 Wondiyfraw Worku, Assessor Process validation
  • 2. 2 Talk points  Objectives of review of quality(CMC) data- reminder  Process validation, definition and current approaches  Role of dossier assessment in process validation  Risk assessment as part of process validation  Validation scheme: Monitoring and Sampling  Specific topics: Blend uniformity and validation of compression step  Process validation: other dosage forms  Process validation commitment  Retrospective validation  Summary: How to review protocol and report
  • 3. 3 Reminder  Objectives of assessment of quality part To provide the highest assurance that all production batches (unit doses) will be consistently efficacious as the clinical batch(es) To reduce risk to safety via the highest assurance of acceptable and consistent quality of the product and its components Process validation
  • 4. 4 Process validation The collection and evaluation of data, from the process design stage through commercial production, which establishes scientific evidence that a process is capable of consistently delivering quality products. (FDA) Documented evidence which provides a high degree of assurance that a specific process will consistently result in a product that meets predetermined specifications and quality characteristics. (WHO) The documented evidence that the process, operated within established parameters, can perform effectively and reproducibly to produce a medicinal product meeting its predetermined specifications and quality attributes.(EMA)
  • 5. 5 Process validation Traditional vs new paradigm Post approval changes/ch ange controls/risk analysis Development- Basic Process validation- 3 batches Pilot batch manufacturing Enhanced- Development and process qualification Control Strategy Continuous and extensive monitoring of CQAs and CPPs for each production batch ICH Q9 and Q10 ICH Q8, QbD
  • 6. 6 Latest guidelines FDA, January 2011 WHO, Revised Annex 7 of WHO GMP guide (draft for comment) EMA, February 2014 Continuous process verification (CPV) Continuous process verification (CPV) Alternative approaches: -Traditional approach -Continuous process verification -Hybrid approach Process design and Initial validation (process qualification- PPQ) are initial phases of CPV Process design and initial validation (initial process verification) are initial phases of CPV CPV protocol to be supported by extensive development information and lab or pilot scale data. Executed on each production batch No mention of number of batches for initial process performance qualification/validation (rather must be justified based on overall product and process understanding) Mentions data on at least three pilot or production batches collected as part of process design Number of batches specified for traditional approach - minimum of three production batches unless other wise justified
  • 7. 7 Types of process validation and dossier requirements Prospective validation Concurrent validation Retrospective validation Protocol reviewed and accepted, Product PQD; OR Protocol executed before submission or PQ Protocol reviewed and accepted, Product PQD Protocol does not need to be submitted Execute and finalize process validation on the first three production batches Execute and finalize process validation on the first three production batches Prepare product quality review report on already manufactured production batches Commercial batches to be released only after satisfactorily conclusion of process validation on three batches Each validation batch can be validated and released. Applicable for low demand products (such as NTDs, orphan drugs or other seasonal products) Applicable for submissions meeting criteria for established products as described in Annex 4, TRS 970
  • 8. 8 Process validation- Role of assessment Design qualification Operational qualification Performance qualification Process validation GMP Dossier
  • 9. 9 Process validation phases Pre-validation phase Protocol Preparation Information from product development studies (identification of critical attributes) Information from primary/clinical manufacturing (scale up information) Process risk assessment information (identification of critical steps) Validation phase Protocol execution Post valdn phase: Review of process, deviations, failures, need for improvement, scale up etc… Includes demonstration of content uniformity of the clinical batch
  • 10. 10 Risk assessment  Part of process development and protocol preparation  Risk matrix- usually as part of process development • Critical quality attributes (CQA) vs processing stages, e.g. dissolution vs granulation • CQA vs critical process parameters, e.g., dissolution vs kneading time  Failure mode analysis- usually as part of process validation  To identify critical attributes, processes and parameters  Informed validation  To establish control strategy
  • 11. 11 Example: risk matrix for low dose capsule (CQA vs process stages)   Sifting/sizing blending lubrication Capsule  filling Assay  Low Medium Medium Medium Content  uniformity High High High High Dissolution Low Low High Low Stability Low Low Low Low
  • 12. 12 Process steps to be validated  All steps that are generally considered critical (medium and high risk steps) should be monitored/scrutinized  by summarizing actual process parameters applied and observations recorded • e.g. sifting stage, wet and dry granulation stages  observations serve as feedback for future refinement of process parameters  In addition, where feasible, sampling and testing should be performed • e.g. drying, mixing steps, compression, filling • results measure effectiveness and consistency of the immediate as well as preceding steps- e.g. final blend characteristics are mainly shaped by wet/dry granulation process
  • 13. 13 Validation scheme- example Processing steps Critical parameters  Validation  scheme Dispensing Weight checks Monitored Sifting Mesh size Monitored Wet Granulation and drying Amount and addition rate of granulating agent, mixing speed, time, as well as sequence of events Monitored, Drying uniformity to be tested Dry Granulation Slugging /compaction parameters Monitored only or Monitored and sampled? Blending mixing speed, time Monitored; Blend uniformity to be established Lubrication mixing speed, time Monitored; Blend uniformity from mixer and bulk container Compression Initial set up parameters, speed, applied pressure, Monitored; Several samples to be sampled and tested for IPQC parameters Fluidized bed coating Spray rate, inlet and product temp, etc… Monitored; appearance, weight gain and full testing Primary packaging, protocol requested on case by case basis Sealing temperature, speed Monitored; leak test
  • 14. 14 Monitoring- Example: Compaction  Any comment vis à vis the difference between BMR set range and actual applied inputs? BMR Set  parameters  Batch 1 Batch 2 Batch 3 e.g. of parameter s Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Roller speed (RPM) 8-15 10 10 10 10 10 10 Roller pressure (Bars) 40-60 41-42 42-43 41-43 41-42 41-42 41-43 Vertical feed screw (RPM) 50-100 75 75 75 75 75 75 Horizontal feed screw (RPM) 10-20 15 15 15 15 15 15
  • 15. 15 Example: Monitoring and sampling: Drying Monitoring Set parameter Observation Batch X Batch Y Batch Z Inlet temperature 60+/-10o C 62-65 52-63 52-60 Outlet temp 29-44 31-47 28-36 Total drying time (min) (for information) 65 65 80 Sampling and  testing Spec Batch X Batch Y Batch Z Location 1 0.75-2.25% 1.54 1.53 1.70 Location 2 1.94 2.01 1.80 Location 3 2.03 1.30 2.05 Location 4 1.89 1.87 2.20
  • 16. 16 Blend uniformity  Early check for content uniformity of the final dosage form Uniform blend with good flow and compressibility characteristics Compression with optimum conditions Tablets meeting criteria for uniformity of dosage units Note: Blend uniformity is a routine test for low dose products (i.e. active load <=5% or 5mg)
  • 17. 17 Blend uniformity- Sampling location and method  Sampling location -usually predetermined as part of qualification of the mixer (i.e. mostly GMP issue)  But, in the dossier, we at least check if periphery, center positions and various other positions are considered  Samples from each location are usually taken in triplicate  Samples should also be taken from the blend container- to evaluate impact of transfer  important for low dose products and particularly for DC processed blend  Sampling should be done consistently and in away that does not disturb the bulk blend state – such aspects (e.g. type of sampling thief used) are better addressed at the time of inspection
  • 18. 18 Blend uniformity- Sample size  What is an acceptable amount for samples taken at each location?  Normally 1-3 time of the FPP unit dose weight C. Morten, PIAT programme, University of Manchester
  • 19. 19 Blend uniformity- acceptance criteria  Commonly used criteria  Individual assays: 90.0-110.0% of label claim, RSD NMT 5.0%  Less common  Individual assays:90.0-110.0% of the mean value, RSD NMT 5.0% • In this case, setting mean = 95.0-105.0% of the label claim appears reasonable  Rarely (in case of very low dose products)  Individual assays: 85.0-105.0% of the label claim/mean value, RSD: NMT 5.0%  May be acceptable provided that uniformity of dosage units is satisfactorily demonstrated on tablets/capsules manufactured from blend lot with close to limit blend uniformity results
  • 20. 20 Sampling and testing plan- Lubrication- example missing parameter? Do you agree with the acceptance criteria? Sample  location Sample size Sample  analysed Tests Acceptance  limits Lubrication 10 position from Octagonal blender and blend container 850-2550mg in triplicate 10 Individual samples Blend uniformity Mean: 95.0- 105.0%, individual: 90-110%, RSD: NMT 5% Samples from top, middle and bottom 50gm Composite samples Complete analysis as per routine blend spec As per blend spec Particle size distribution, bulk and tapped density For information What are the  minimum tests we  expect to see in  blend spec? Acceptable?
  • 21. 21 Compression  Good compression outcome is a measure of (it depends on):- Granule/powder mix properties • bulk and tapped density-granulation • particle size and particle size distribution-granulation • moisture content- drying • extent of lubrication- lubrication time Machine and tooling attributes • appropriate selection and adequate lubrication of punches and dye • machine speed • applied compression pressure
  • 22. 22 Compression – Sampling frequency and size  depends on the length of the run time/ batch size we expect frequent sampling than the normal IPQC frequency the number of tablets/capsules taken should be greater than those taken during a normal IPQC sampling
  • 23. 23 Compression- Challenge studies  Certain variations in compression speed and hardness than the target set points may happen  what would be the impact of such variations?  speed affects dwell time- which intern affects several tablet parameters (thickness, hardness, as well as weight variation)  Therefore, robustness should be demonstrated C. Morten, PIAT programme, University of Manchester
  • 24. 24 Extensive sampling- example (there are several other approaches) IPQC testing schedule Normal production batch Validation batches 48 station machine, batch size of 170,000 tabs, target speed 25rpm Group weight and appearance, every 30 minutes; others every 1 hour (at least 3 times) About 300 tablets About 300 tablets All in process parameters at start, middle and end of compression (different hopper fill levels) - About 360 tablets Additional samples at high, low speed; at high and low hardness levels - About 480 samples Total number of tablets sampled 300 tablets 1140 tablets
  • 25. 25 How to demonstrate consistency? 3sigma process e.g. 4 sigma process
  • 26. 26 Process validation-oral solutions  Validation focuses on mixing time and conditions to clear solution, if deemed relevant • bulk liquids: pH, specific gravity, clarity of solutions; assay filling process • filled units:- Volume/Wt variation and as per FPP specs  Protocol with commitment is acceptable at the time of review
  • 27. 27 Process Validation- Oral suspensions  Focuses on  API micronization processes (if applicable)  colloidal milling process (as applicable),  homogenization  filling • Viscosity, fill volume/weight variation, • Other critical attribute that may be affected by filling process? • Other parameters as per FPP spec including, PSD, pH, dissolution,  Protocol with commitment is acceptable at the time of review
  • 28. 28 Process validation- sterile products Products mfd by Terminal sterilization Products mfd by Aseptic processing Container and component sterilization and depyrogenation - Depyrogenation by tunnel depyrogenator (e.g. ampoules) or washing (e.g. rubber stoppers, plastic bottles) - Depyrogenation by washing- for stoppers, seals, accessories* - Validation of steam sterilization – for stoppers, seals, accessories* - Dry heat sterilization and depyrogenation- for glass vials or ampoules*
  • 29. 29 Process validation- sterile products-Contd Products mfd by Terminal sterilization Products mfd by Aseptic processing Product sterilization Terminal sterilization by Steam sterilization, radiation or ETO (as applicable)* Filter validation (as part of dev’t pharm) Process simulation - Media fill Full batch processing (other aspects of the mfg process, e.g. valdn of bulk prepn, filling and sealing quality) 3 production batches mfd at proposed scale 3 production batches mfd at proposed scale (commitment may also be accepted). *validation should be on three runs to demonstrate reproducibility.
  • 30. 30 Dissolution profile comparison with clinical/BE batch- solids and suspensions (as part of process validation)  A good check point to verify performance relative to the biobatch All validation batches should be profiled in the routine media on 12 units, using time points as used for biobatch Comparison with historical biobatch profile, with calculation of f2 (as necessary), should be performed and results discussed  Check if the protocol includes adequate instruction/provision
  • 31. 31 Matrixing/bracketing approach  Multiple strengths of same product (common blend) until stages of final granules: 3 consecutive batches of the common blend (instead of 3 separate blend batches for each strength) compression: 3 consecutive batches of each strength  Primary packaging of tablet/capsule products blistering of hygroscopic or moisture sensitive products however should always be individually validated
  • 32. 32 Process validation- commitment  As described in Annex 4, TRS 970, applicants are not expected to have process validation data before PQ In this case satisfactory PV protocol (PVP) and appropriately worded commitment are essential PVP or signed commitment letter should clearly indicate the need for prospective validation as finalized on three consecutive production batches, unless other wise justified.
  • 33. 33 Retrospective validation for established products  Generally acceptable if condition described in Annex 4, TRS 970 (generic guide), are met.  Tries to demonstrate process effectiveness and consistency via trend analysis: extent of deviations extent of OOS or OOT extent of batch rejection extent of product complains extent of changes/ improvements introduced See Appendix 2 of Annex 4, TRS 970
  • 34. 34 Review of protocol- main aspects to check  Scope of the validation (type, batch size, reason)- do they reflect the planned validation? Highest batch size to be validated?  Major equipments identified (in line with BMR) and a provision for recording their Q status included?  Reference to current master production record included?  Summary of critical steps identified? is this convincing ?  Monitoring and sampling plan provided?- Do you agree with the steps monitored/sampled?  Sampling schedule, schematics, tests and acceptance criteria, as well as current specification codes included ? Are these acceptable?
  • 35. 35 Review of protocol- main aspects to check-contd  For solid orals: final blending, compression/encapsulation, coating stages must be adequately sampled and tested. Are these being reflected?  Blend uniformity: Sampling schemes and blend uniformity acceptance criteria specified? Are these acceptable?  Compression/encapsulation at lower, target and upper speeds included?  Provision for performance of dissolution profile testing and comparison with the biobatch included?  Appropriate commitment (prospective validation on first three consecutive batches mentioned) provided?  Protocol reference and version number included in QIS?
  • 36. 36 Review of validation report  Is the reported data relevant for the proposed manufacturing process and scale  equipment used, process parameters applied  All critical steps adequately monitored/sampled?  Level of sampling and size are acceptable?  All results within acceptable limits? Particular trend?  Deviations appropriately evaluated and discussed?  Is the overall process in sufficient control? Is there any thing that should be improved or refined for future production batches

Editor's Notes

  • #15: Normally, the protocol should require validation of the BMR range, but once validation is executed either the BMR set up parameters should be revised to reflect the validated range or set point or new validation should be done.
  • #26: i.e, in sigma process, the whole area within +/-3 of SD will be within spec limit, while in case of 4 sigma, +/4 SD of the curve area is within spec limit (and in this case Cpk is roughly equal to 1.33).