Correlation of Visible-Residue Limits with Swab Results for Cleaning Validation - Pharmaceutical Technology

Latest Issue
PharmTech

Latest Issue
PharmTech Europe

Correlation of Visible-Residue Limits with Swab Results for Cleaning Validation


Pharmaceutical Technology


Of the 78 swabs taken for simvastatin, all were below the VRL of 12 μg/swab. This finding confirms that the equipment was visually clean when swabbed. Of the 78 swabs, 64 had no simvastatin detected (less than 0.1 μg/swab), nine had less than 1 μg/swab, and 5 had more than 1 μg/swab.

Eighty-four swabs were taken for rofecoxib, and all were below the VRL of 21.8 μg/swab. Of these, 55 had no rofecoxib detected (less than 0.02 μg/swab), 23 were less than 1 μg/swab, and only 6 were greater than 1 μg/swab.

Finally, of the 69 detergent swabs taken, 68 had no detergent detected (<3 μg/swab) and the remaining swab had less than the 14-μg/swab VRL.

Although all 231 swabs from the cleaning validation study showed agreement between the swab results and VRLs, only 5% of the swabs were greater than 1 μg/swab. The validated cleaning process reduced residues far below both the ARL and the VRL levels. Therefore, the pilot-plant cleaning-validation study did not seriously challenge the correlation between the swab results and the VRLs.

Experimental

Cleaning validation. The current cleaning validation study established the requirements and acceptance criteria for the following equipment in the clinical packaging area: tablet counter, automatic filler, 8-track filler, and tablet elevator. The validation of the cleaning procedures was on equipment that had been used to fill and package clinical product and then cleaned. A development formulation and 500-mg metformin tablets served as representative worst-case formulations for validation. Both products are non film-coated tablets, which produce dust during the packaging process. The metformin tablets had a very high drug load (95%) and any residual dust was most likely to be API.


Table I: Formulation residue concentration and visibility.
Before the first cleaning trial, a VRL was established for both compounds. Each formulation was dispersed in methanol and spotted on 3 × 6-in. stainless steel coupons at appropriate concentrations. A stream of nitrogen dried the spots to facilitate the drying process and prevent potential degradation of the material. Oxidative degradation had occurred on several in-house compounds in the past. The areas of the dried spots determined the amount-per-unit area (μg/cm2 ) value for each spot of material (Table I). The VRL determined for the development compound was 0.51 μg/cm2 (12.75 μg/swab) and 0.97 μg/cm2 (24.25 μg/swab) for metformin.


Table II: Residual metformin (μg/swab).
The cleaning validation was performed in triplicate on representative pieces of equipment. Validation consisted of overall visual inspection and swab sampling in the areas identified in the protocol. These areas had been identified as hard-to-clean areas of the equipment to confirm that the cleaning procedure removed residue to acceptable levels as predetermined by the established 100 μg/swab (25 cm2 ) acceptance criteria for the API. The swab samples were assayed with a validated HPLC method (Agilent 1100 HPLC, Agilent Technologies, Palo Alto, CA) with ultraviolet diode array detection (Tables II and III).


ADVERTISEMENT

RELATED CONTENT
FDA's CMC Pilot Program Moves Forward
FDA Sets Guidance Agenda
A Compliance Perspective on Dissolution Method Validation for Immediate-Release Solid Oral Dosage Forms on Automated Instrumentation
21 CFR Part 11 Revision Delayed, But Moves Forward
Qualification, Validation, and Verification
blog comments powered by Disqus
LCGC E-mail Newsletters

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

Survey
How does your company apply quality-by-design (QbD) principles to manufacturing processes?
To all processes for both new and legacy products
To all process for new products only
To select process for new products only
To select processes for both new and legacy products
Do not use QbD
To all processes for both new and legacy products
20%
To all process for new products only
13%
To select process for new products only
24%
To select processes for both new and legacy products
20%
Do not use QbD
22%
View Results
UPCOMING CONFERENCES

Programs for Investigational and Pre-Launch Drugs
Philadelphia, PA
July 17-18, 2013
Request Brochure

Strategic Pipeline Planning & Portfolio Valuation
Philadelphia, PA
August 13-14, 2013
Request Brochure

MES 2013 - Forum on Manufacturing Execution Systems
Philadelphia, PA
August 14-15, 2013
Request Brochure

Mobile Innovation for the Life Sciences Industry
Philadelphia, PA
August 20-21, 2013
Request Brochure

See All Conferences >>

Eric Langer Outsourcing Outlook Eric LangerOutsourcing's Modest Role as a Cost-Containment Strategy
Patricia Van Arnum Ingredients Insider Patricia Van ArnumIntellectual Property Battles in Solid-State Chemistry
Nathan Jessop Industry Insider Nathan Jessop Campaign Against Counterfeit Drugs Continues
Lynn Torbeck Statistical Solutions Lynn D. TorbeckCompositing Samples and the Risk to Product Quality
 More
Inadequate Access to Medicines Puts EU at Risk
FDA Offers Insight on QbD for Modified-Release Products
Global Biosimilars Market to Reach $2.445 Billion in 2013
Adapting to Change
AstraZeneca and Exco InTouch Collaborate to Augment Current COPD Pathways
FindPharma Custom Search
Source: Pharmaceutical Technology,
Click here