Developing a Comprehensive Approach for Preventing Metal Contamination of Pharmaceutical Products - Pharmaceutical Technology

Latest Issue
PharmTech

Latest Issue
PharmTech Europe

Developing a Comprehensive Approach for Preventing Metal Contamination of Pharmaceutical Products
This discussion aims to outline an approach to metal contamination prevention that should achieve a level of control acceptable to all stakeholders. A three-tiered approach is described. This paper also discusses the application of engineering and procedural controls in pharmaceutical manufacturing. Practical examples to cover a variety of pharmaceutical dosage forms are included to illustrate this comprehensive approach.


Pharmaceutical Technology
pp. s6-s11

Safety concerns for metal contamination

The primary reason for zero tolerance of unplanned contamination by foreign materials relates to consumer safety. Particulates in parenteral products, for example, can block capillaries and, under worst-case conditions, could result in death. Metal particulates in oral solutions or solid dosage products could potentially damage teeth if chewed, abrade internal organs, or pose toxicological concerns.

Most pharmaceutical manufacturing equipment is constructed of stainless steel. This can vary in composition; in general, it is comprised of chromium, nickel, zinc, or manganese. Minute levels of ingestion are not expected to pose adverse health consequences.

Nonetheless, the mere potential for adverse health or safety impacts from foreign contamination elevates the concern. And foreign contamination of unknown size, composition, or toxicity actually poses a risk greater than that for known materials.

Industry perspectives on metal contamination

FDA has not established formal limits for foreign material contamination in drug products other than those listed in the United States Pharmacopeia (USP), as follows:

  • USP <1>–Injections: "All articles intended for parenteral administration shall be prepared in a manner designed to exclude particulate matter and other foreign matter. Units with visible particulates shall be rejected."
  • USP <788>–Particulate Matter in Injections: "The average number of particles present cannot exceed 3000 per container equal to or greater than 10 micrometers in size and 300 particles per container equal to or greater than 25 micrometers."
  • USP <797>–Pharmaceutical Compounding Sterile Preparations: "All units must be inspected and rejected when visible particulate matter is detected" (5).

The challenge is to control contamination, not to a limit or specification, but to a level often deemed as "the absence of visible contamination."

Stainless-steel equipment will eventually wear. For example, table press tooling must be inspected frequently for adverse wear or pitting. Critical tooling is required to be dimensionally evaluated regularly to ascertain if it is still "in tolerance." Blenders, agitators, mills, and other moving parts are also known to show wear over time. Where does this missing metal go? Some of it may be imparted to the product being manufactured. Does this, in itself, constitute adulteration? At what point does routine, normal wear become a concern? How do you know if missing metal was worn away as micro-dust versus a single piece? No one would question that bolts, nuts, etc., imparted to products would be unacceptable, but what about the micro-dust?

It appears that most in industry and FDA have come to accept the presence of visible particulate contamination as the limit for acceptable versus unacceptable contamination. Most individuals with normal vision can detect a particulate in the range of 40–50 micrometers in size. FDA clarified this "limit" in a 2002 Warning Letter issued to Berlex Pharmaceuticals:

"While it is generally understood in the pharmaceutical industry that normal wear and tear of manufacturing equipment may lend particulate matter to the products being produced, this type of particulate matter is not visible to the naked eye and is in the parts per million (ppm) or parts per billion (ppb) range. It is not acceptable to have visually observable contaminants in your finished dosage form..." (6).

The bottom line for industry is to prevent the presence of those visible particles in the finished drug product.


ADVERTISEMENT

blog comments powered by Disqus
LCGC E-mail Newsletters

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

Survey
What role should the US government play in the current Ebola outbreak?
Finance development of drugs to treat/prevent disease.
Oversee medical treatment of patients in the US.
Provide treatment for patients globally.
All of the above.
No government involvement in patient treatment or drug development.
Finance development of drugs to treat/prevent disease.
24%
Oversee medical treatment of patients in the US.
12%
Provide treatment for patients globally.
10%
All of the above.
44%
No government involvement in patient treatment or drug development.
10%
Jim Miller Outsourcing Outlook Jim MillerCMO Industry Thins Out
Cynthia Challener, PhD Ingredients Insider Cynthia ChallenerFluorination Remains Key Challenge in API Synthesis
Marilyn E. Morris Guest EditorialMarilyn E. MorrisBolstering Graduate Education and Research Programs
Jill Wechsler Regulatory Watch Jill Wechsler Biopharma Manufacturers Respond to Ebola Crisis
Sean Milmo European Regulatory WatchSean MilmoHarmonizing Marketing Approval of Generic Drugs in Europe
FDA Reorganization to Promote Drug Quality
FDA Readies Quality Metrics Measures
New FDA Team to Spur Modern Drug Manufacturing
From Generics to Supergenerics
CMOs and the Track-and-Trace Race: Are You Engaged Yet?
Source: Pharmaceutical Technology,
Click here