AUTHOR OF THIS BLOG

DR ANTHONY MELVIN CRASTO, WORLDDRUGTRACKER

FDA presentation at the ECA Conference Particles in Parenterals

 regulatory  Comments Off on FDA presentation at the ECA Conference Particles in Parenterals
Oct 272016
 

Image result for visual inspection of medicinal products for parenteral use.

At the Particles in Parenterals Conference Dr Stephen Langille from the US FDA gave a talk on the FDA’s current thinking with regard to the visual inspection of medicinal products for parenteral use.

http://www.gmp-compliance.org/enews_05610_FDA-presentation-at-the-ECA-Conference-Particles-in-Parenterals_S-PTK_n.html

 

Dr Stephen Langille from the US FDA gave a talk on the FDA’s current thinking with regard to the visual inspection of medicinal products for parenteral use. In his presentation he showed the number of recalls caused by visible particulate matter over the last 11 years. For him, most of the recalls were justified when the types of particles found were taken into consideration. He also emphasized that something is possibly wrong in the visual inspection process if particles found in the market are bigger than 1000 µm.

The prevention of particles is very important to him. From his perspective the best particle is one which is not in the product. Also important to him are threshold studies, meaning to show the minimum particle size which can still be detected (dependent of product and type of container). These threshold studies are crucial for the setup of the test sets and the qualification of the inspectors of the manual inspection. He also mentioned the semi-automated inspection process. For him semi-automated inspection is good for detecting container-closure issues, like missing stoppers. But he also questioned whether an inspection time of about one second is suitable to detect particles with a size of 200µm for example. In the discussion he was asked about FDA’s opinion on the USP chapter <790>. In his opinion, USP chapter <790> can be an effective tool for ensuring that the manufacturing process and 100% inspection process are adequate to limit visible particle contamination. However, cGMPs must be followed during the manufacturing and visual inspection process. Meeting the requirements of USP <790> should not be used to excuse not meeting cGMPs.

You will find the complete presentation in the members area of the ECA webpage.

 

.///////////FDA presentation, ECA Conference , Particles in Parenterals

Share

New Q&A Document on the Visual Inspection of Parenterals available

 regulatory  Comments Off on New Q&A Document on the Visual Inspection of Parenterals available
Sep 092016
 

Image result for ECA's Visual Inspection Group

The ECA’s Visual Inspection Group has developed a new document with answers to frequently asked questions. This new Q&A document is now available for download on the Group’s website. Read more about frequently asked questions in the visual inspection.

http://www.gmp-compliance.org/enews_05500_New-Q-A-Document-on-the-Visual-Inspection-of-Parenterals-available_15266,15265,15221,15662,Z-PEM_n.html

The Visual Inspection Group, an Interest Group of the ECA Foundation, has developed a new document with frequently asked questions. The new Q&A document, which was compiled by the Group’s Board, is now available for a free of charge download on the website.

For compiling the document the members of the Group were asked to provide their questions in February. These questions were then evaluated and answered by the Board Members.

The new document is structured as follows:

  • Manual Inspection
  • Automated Inspection
  • Qualification / Validation
  • Test sets
  • Re-Qualification
  • AQL-Tests
  • Defect Categorisation
  • Specific Products
  • Regulatory Affairs
  • Process Control / SPC

Some examples for the questions and the respective answers:

The grey portion of fully automatic control is often checked manually, to return not clearly or fully tested products back to the inspection process. Is it allowed to carry out this testing with the automated inspection machine? From a GMP view, there are no restrictions. It is also important here that at the end a yield calculation and evaluation in the batch record appears. And there are also automated inspection systems that have already integrated the double inspection with multiple cameras.
In highly automated manufacturing lines for LVP flexible containers, the visual inspection process may/cannot comply to the standard visual inspection criteria e.g.: 5 sec inspection time, agitation of the container etc. Is this a compliance problem? The requirements like 5 sec inspection time required by pharmacopoeias are addressing manually performed visual inspection. If the visual inspection is performed automatically, it is the company’s responsibility to ensure that the inspection via camera systems is as effective as a manual visual inspection via a validation (e.g. Knapp Test).

 

Should the AQL be inspected by QC or production AQL manual inspection may be carried out by production staff (to avoid setting up a separate visual inspection team in QC) under a quality oversight or the quality unit. If performed by production operators, the AQL test should not be done by members of the team that was performing the 100 % visual inspection of the batch.

 

The new Q&A document is available for members in the members’ area on the Visual Inspection Group website free of charge. Membership in the Group is also free of charge and merely requires a registration.

The Good Practice Guide “Visual Inspection of medicinal products for parenteral use”, was also revised. The new Version 3.0 will be introduced at the ECA Conference Particles in Parenterals in Barcelona, Spain, from 28-29 September 2016. All delegates of the conference will receive a free copy.

///////// ECA,  Visual Inspection Group, parenteral use, Particles in Parenterals

Share
Follow

Get every new post on this blog delivered to your Inbox.

Join other followers: