The Akers–Agalloco Method - Pharmaceutical Technology

Latest Issue

Latest Issue
PharmTech Europe

The Akers–Agalloco Method

Pharmaceutical Technology
Volume 29, Issue 11

2 nonroutine interventions within 2 feet: 2 3 2 = 12

1 critical intervention: 1 5 3 = 15

Weighted interventions/h: 12 + 4 + 9 + 12 + 15 = 52

The score should be based on the number of interventions observed or the maximum allowed. The ideal number of required interventions is always zero.

The weighted number of interventions (normalized for criticality and proximity) per hour should be determined first. A longer evaluation period provides a more accurate assessment, as does averaging the number of observed interventions over the entire batch or multiple batches. The role of container and closure consistency in determining handling requirements is automatically included when determining intervention risk in this manner.

Containers/hour. The number of containers per hour is the actual number of units produced during a one-hour period, not the theoretical line speed per minute multiplied by 60. Determination of this value over a longer period of time is preferable for the sake of accuracy. Do not include periods when filling is intentionally stopped for activities such as lunch, breaks, or shift change. Include in the calculation those times when the fill is interrupted by interventions of any type. Divide these values by each other to determine the number of interventions per container. Again, a lower number is desirable. This value is the intervention risk (I R ), expressed as follows:

(normalized interventions/h) (containers/h) = interventions/container or intervention risk (I R )

Adjusted product-filling risk

Estimate the total risk from filling (for either manual or machine fills) by incorporating the remaining variables associated with the filling process: container size, complexity, container introduction method, closure-handling technology factor, and process duration (see Table V).

Table V: Aseptic filling.
Multiply the intervention risk by the process duration in hours, the container design factor, container feed factor, closure feed, aseptic personnel factor, and the technology factor.

I R fill duration container factor container feed factor closure feed factor novelty factor product factor = contribution to risk from aseptic filling

The longer the process duration, the greater the possibility that at least one unit will be contaminated because of the increased number of interventions. Multiplying the intervention risk by the length of the process emphasizes the effect of filling speed and includes consideration of fatigue as a factor in causing contamination.

Table VI: Lyophilization process (if present).
Multiplying the resulting number by the product and technology factors adjusts for the varying levels of contamination potential associated with various aseptic technologies and product formulation types.

Lyophilization risk. Lyophilization risk is associated with the time that filled components are exposed to the environment, between first exposure and closure, as well as with the handling practices, lyophilizer sanitization** (see endnotes) and sterilization practices, and environmental technology (see Table VI). The equation is as follows:

lyophilization risk contribution = loading time lyophilizer sterilization factor load factor transfer factor tray factor technology factor


blog comments powered by Disqus
LCGC E-mail Newsletters

Subscribe: Click to learn more about the newsletter
| Weekly
| Monthly
| Weekly

FDASIA was signed into law two years ago. Where has the most progress been made in implementation?
Reducing drug shortages
Breakthrough designations
Protecting the supply chain
Expedited reviews of drug submissions
More stakeholder involvement
Reducing drug shortages
Breakthrough designations
Protecting the supply chain
Expedited reviews of drug submissions
More stakeholder involvement
View Results
Eric Langerr Outsourcing Outlook Eric LangerTargeting Different Off-Shore Destinations
Cynthia Challener, PhD Ingredients Insider Cynthia ChallenerAsymmetric Synthesis Continues to Advance
Jill Wechsler Regulatory Watch Jill Wechsler Data Integrity Key to GMP Compliance
Sean Milmo European Regulatory WatchSean MilmoExtending the Scope of Pharmacovigilance Comes at a Price
From Generics to Supergenerics
CMOs and the Track-and-Trace Race: Are You Engaged Yet?
Ebola Outbreak Raises Ethical Issues
Better Comms Means a Fitter Future for Pharma, Part 2: Realizing the Benefits of Unified Communications
Better Comms Means a Fitter Future for Pharma, Part 1: Challenges and Changes
Source: Pharmaceutical Technology,
Click here