qualification Archives - European Industrial Pharmacists Group (EIPG)

Home  /  ECA’s guide to compliant equipment design  /  qualification

The EU Parliament voted its position on the Unitary SPC


by Giuliana Miglierini The intersecting pathways of revision of the pharmaceutical and intellectual property legislations recently marked the adoption of the EU Parliament’s position on the new unitary Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) system, parallel to the recast of the current Read more

Reform of pharma legislation: the debate on regulatory data protection


by Giuliana Miglierini As the definition of the final contents of many new pieces of the overall revision of the pharmaceutical legislation is approaching, many voices commented the possible impact the new scheme for regulatory data protection (RDP) may have Read more

Environmental sustainability: the EIPG perspective


Piero Iamartino Although the impact of medicines on the environment has been highlighted since the 70s of the last century with the emergence of the first reports of pollution in surface waters, it is only since the beginning of the Read more

•••

ECA’s guide to compliant equipment design

March 31, 2023 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

By Giuliana Miglierini

The legislative evolution of the last decades emphasised requirements for equipment used in pharmaceutical productions. This is even more true with the entry into force of the new Annex 1 to the GMPs, characterised by many new requirements impacting on different manufacturing processes (i.e. production of water for injection, sterilisation, Form-Fill-Seal and Blow-Fill-Seal technologies, single use systems, lyophilisation, etc.).

Each pharmaceutical process requires the careful design of the needed equipment in order to provide the expected efficiency and performance. Furthermore, some equipment may be used for different industrial applications (e.g. pharmaceutical, cosmetic or food), thus needing a fine tuning to reflect relevant requirements. In pharmaceutical manufacturing, a further step of complexity may be represented by the need to handle highly potent active pharmaceutical ingredients, requiring isolators to segregate production, etc.

To facilitate the correct design of equipment compliant to GMPs, a new guidance document has been published by the ECA Foundation. The document was initially drafted in German by a task force of experts in pharmaceutical technology and engineering and published by Concept Heidelberg, and it has now been translated in English

Elements relevant to reach compliance

The first part of the document discusses general requirements that should always be part of the design of GMP-compliant equipment. Four different points of attention are listed: the equipment must not adversely affect the product quality, it must be easy to clean, it must comply with applicable technical rules, and it must be fit for its intended use.

As for the first point, “The question is rather what is tolerable without adversely affecting the product quality”, states the guidance. Avoidance of contamination and cross-contamination are the main goals of cleaning activities, both for sterile and non-sterile medicinal products. There are several issues to be taken in mind from this perspective, including the presence of endotoxins, sealing points, the efficiency of cleaning-in-place (CIP) processes, or the presence of unreachable dead leg areas. According to the guidance, the 3D/6D rule for the prevention of dead legs in water systems often used for specification would not always be correctly applied, due to some confusion in terminology. Official GMPs are also deemed “very vague”, as they are not drafted by engineers and apply to an extremely wide range of different equipment and processes. “Consequently, the question is, which technical rules have to be followed or where the actual state of the art can be looked up”, says the document. Many different references are possible, from pharmacopeia monographs and regulatory guidelines, to ISO standards, and other documents published by international professional bodies.

Qualification and calibration of equipment should always be targeted to the specific product, as it is an essential in proving compliance to the intended use. Regulatory compliance of submitted documentation is not less important, and it greatly impacts on change control and implementation of new productive technologies.

Risk analysis (RA) is the tool introduced in 2005 by ICH Q9 to evaluate all items which may impact on the design of productive processes and related equipment. There is no standard methodology to run risk analysis, the choice depends on the process/product under assessment. According to the guidance, RA can be performed both from the perspective of the product and the equipment, the latter being also considered a GMP risk analysis.

Design and choice of materials

Materials (and coating materials where relevant) used to build pharmaceutical equipment should be completely inert. Pharmaceutical equipment must comply with the EC Directive on Machinery 2006/42/EC and DIN EN ISO 14159. The ECA guidance discusses material selection (plastics or stainless steel); hygienic system design is also addressed by many different guidelines, e.g. those published by the European Hygienic Engineering and Design Group (EHEDG). An important item to consider is service life considerations for the materials used (EHEDG Document 32), as well as their chemical-physical characteristics and materials pairing.

Particularly critical are process contact surfaces, as they may impact product quality. Establishment of specific requirements is thus needed. The guidance focuses its attention on austenitic stainless steels (i.e. CrNiMo steels 1.4404 and 1.4435). The main elements to be assessed are the risk of corrosion, the risk of contamination of the product or process medium and the cleanability of the metallic surface. Topography, morphology and energy level are the main characteristics to be used to describe surfaces, addressing respectively the geometric shape, chemical composition and energy required per unit area to increase the size of the surface. The guidance provides a detailed discussion of all different aspects of surface treatment methods, and the hygienic design of open and closed equipment. Other sections discuss the optimal design of pipework and fittings, connections, welding and seam control. Detailed information is also provided on equipment of electrical engineering, measurement and control technology, as well as the process control technology (PCT) measurement and control functions.

A highly critical area within a pharmaceutical facility are cleanrooms, for which the design of the equipment and the choice of materials is even more stringent. Elements to be considered include stability/statics as concerns dynamic loads, smoothness of the floor, tightness of external façades and of enclosing surfaces of cleanrooms. Smooth nonporous surfaces are required, together with avoidance of molecular contamination, resistance to the intended cleaning or disinfection agents and the cleaning procedure, simple and tight integration of various fittings, efficient and rapid implementation of subsequent functional and technical changes. The ECA guidance document goes deeper into relevant requirements for all elements that are part of the design of a compliant cleanroom.

Documentation and automation

User requirement specifications (URS) are the key document to demonstrate equipment is fit for the intended use, as stated by GMP Annex 15 (2015). The ECA guidance suggests translating the URS in a technical version to be submitted to the potential equipment supplier, so to ensure the design would reflect product and quality-relevant requirements, being thus GMP compliant.

The management of documentation along the design life cycle of a new piece of equipment is also taken into consideration, with the different construction phases identified according to Good engineering practices (GEP): conceptual design, basic design/engineering, and detailed design/engineering.

The extensive use of data to monitor and document pharmaceutical manufacturing process represents another area of great attention. Requirements relevant to the design of validated computerised systems, data protection and data integrity must be kept in mind. ECA’s experts highlight the need to carefully delimitate areas subject to validation and their extention, particularly with reference to automated systems. Differences between qualification and validation of automated systems are also addressed, including equipment that might either be defined as “computerised” or “automated” system. Regulatory reference for validation is GAMP 5, while qualification refers to Annex 15.


A concept paper on the revision of Annex 11

November 18, 2022 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This concept paper addresses the need to update Annex 11, Computerised Systems, of the Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) guideline. Annex 11 is common to the member states of the European Union (EU)/European Economic Area (EEA) as well as to the participating authorities of the Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme (PIC/S). The current version was issued in 2011 and does not give sufficient guidance within a number of areas. Since then, there has been extensive progress in the use of new technologies.

Reasons for the revision of Annex 11 include but are not limited to the following (in non-prioritised order):

  • The document should be updated to replace relevant parts of the Q&A on Annex 11 and the Q&A on Data Integrity on the EMA GMP website
  • An update of the document with regulatory expectations to ‘digital transformation’ and similar newer concepts will be considered
  • References should be made to ICH Q9
  • The meaning of the term ‘validation’ (and ‘qualification’), needs to be clarified
  • Guidelines should be included for classification of critical data and critical systems
  • Important expectations to backup processes are missing e.g. to what is covered by a backup, what types of backups are made, how often backups are made, how long backups are, retained, which media is used for backups, or where backups are kept
  • The concept and purpose of audit trail review is inadequately described
  • Guidelines for acceptable frequency of audit trail review should be provided
  • There is an urgent need for regulatory guidance and expectations to the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) models in critical GMP applications as industry is already implementing this technology
  • FDA has released a draft guidance on Computer Software Assurance for Production and Quality System Software (CSA). This guidance and any implication will be considered with regards to aspects of potential regulatory relevance for GMP Annex 11

The current Annex 11 does not give sufficient guidance within a number of areas already covered, and other areas, which are becoming increasingly important to GMP, are not covered at all. The revised text will expand the guidance given in the document and embrace the application of new technologies which have gained momentum since the release of the existing version.

If possible, the revised document will include guidelines for acceptance of AI/ML algorithms used in critical GMP applications. This is an area where regulatory guidance is highly needed as this is not covered by any existing regulatory guidance in the pharmaceutical industry and as pharma companies are already implementing such algorithms.

The draft concept paper approved by EMA GMP/GDP IWG (October 2022) and by PIC/S (November 2022) and released for a two-months consultation until 16 January 2023.


FAT and SAT, a critical step for the introduction of new equipment

March 25, 2022 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Giuliana Miglierini

There are two key moments to be faced to introduce a new piece of equipment in a pharmaceutical plant: a factory acceptance testing (FAT), usually performed by its manufacturer to verify the new equipment meets its intended purpose, prior to approve it for delivery and once arrived at its final destination and installed, a site acceptance testing (SAT) run by the purchasing company and is part of the commissioning activity.

According to an article published in Outsourced Pharma, the commissioning of a new piece of equipment poses many challenges, and criticalities needs to be considered both from the business and regulatory point of view. Pharmaceutical plants are very complex and often customised upon the specific business needs, and the delivery of a new equipment requires the interaction of many different parties, both internal and external to the purchasing company. FAT, SAT and commissioning activities require a careful planning and detailed responsibilities for all participating parties to be included within the Commissioning and Qualification Plan (CQV plan). A possible responsibility matrix is suggested by the authors to provide clarity and ensures ownership of activities.

FAT, assessing the equipment at the manufacturer site

FAT and SAT testing involve the visual inspection of the equipment and the verification of its static and/or dynamic functioning, in order to assess the actual correspondence to the user requirement specifications (URS). While FATs are usually based on simulations of the equipment’s operating environment, SAT testing occurs at the final site after installation, thus it reflects the real operating conditions and environment in order to support qualification.

There are many different elements to be considered during FAT testing, including for example verification of the existing site drainage, piping, or room dimensions, or the position of the handle for accessibility, as well as software design specification, interface, and device integration.

The FAT exercise is always highly recommended, as it is essential to solve in advance (before shipment to the final destination) any error or malfunctioning of the equipment, that otherwise might occur at the purchasing company’s site. This results in the optimisation of the delivery and commissioning process, with important savings in terms of both time and costs for the purchasing company. To ensure for the transparency of FAT testing, the entire procedure (that requires usually 1-3 days, depending on the complexity of the equipment to be verified) is usually performed in the presence of a third party inspector and customer representative.

A comprehensive set of documentation should be always available to support FAT, including URS, drawings, checklists and procedures, calibrations and certifications, data sheets, references, etc. Raw data acquired during FAT are transmitted to the customer for analysis and validation. FAT should take into consideration all aspects relevant to the evaluation of the safety and functionality of the equipment and its compliance to URS, GMPs and data integrity. To this regard, it is also important for the engineering team called to run the new equipment at its final location to learn and share knowledge with the manufacturer along the entire commissioning process, so to increase the first-hand direct experience. According to the article, this is also critical to authorise the shipment of the equipment to the final destination, a step that should always be performed by an authorised, trained, and approved subject matter expert.

 SAT acceptance testing

All criticalities emerged during the FAT exercise are then checked again at the final site, after installation and verification; additional test cases may also be added to the SAT protocol to check for potential failure modes. SAT testing is performed once all connections between the new equipment and other machines/softwares are in place, under the real operating parameters, and may be witnessed by a representative of the equipment’s manufacturer.

Results from SATs may thus differ from those obtained from the FAT previously run by the manufacturer. From the regulatory point of view, SAT testing is a key element to demonstrate the compliance of the equipment to GMP requirements and to support the overall quality and safety of pharmaceutical productions. In this case too, many are the possible elements to be inspected and verified, including interlocks, ventilation, internal box pressure, electrical/hydraulic connections and safety systems, visual checks of components, training of the operators, etc.

A plan for each testing phase

FAT planning begins at the very moment of the purchasing company placing the order for the new equipment, and it has to reflect all URS to be checked for acceptability of the manufactured apparatus. This step in the design is critical and calls for a strict and positive communication between the manufacturer and its customers, a key point to take into consideration all elements that should enter the project.

All identified items and procedures to be challenged during FAT and SAT testing are usually addressed within the CQV plan, that connects the design phase to user requirements specifications and the other elements impacting the commissioning and qualification processes (i.e. system impact assessment, design specification, functional risk assessment, hardware / software specifications, Installation / Operational / Performance Qualification), including deviations and change management. The plan specific to SAT testing should include the scope, test specifications and logs, a test summary, the Commissioning report and the final Certificate of Acceptance.

Transparency and a robust statistical approach should represent main targets along the entire commissioning and validation procedure, that may be run with the assistance of external consultants. All activities that shall enter the regulatory dossiers should always be justified and documented, also under the perspective of data integrity. The Outsourced Pharma’s article also suggests paying a particular attention to controls on data provided by the manufacturer in the case a risk-based leveraging is applied.


Automation of aseptic manufacturing

October 29, 2021 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Giliana Miglierini

The pharmaceutical industry is often the last industrial sector to implement many new manufacturing and methodological procedures. One typical example is Lean production, those concepts were developed in the automotive industry well before their adoption in the pharmaceutical field. The same may also apply to automation: it appears time is now mature to see an increasing role of automated operations in the critical field of aseptic manufacturing, suggests an article by Jennifer Markarian on PharmTech.com.

The main added value of automation is represented by the possibility to greatly reduce the risk of contamination associated to the presence of human operators in cleanrooms. A goal of high significance for the production of biotech, advanced therapies, which are typically parenterally administered. Automation is already taking place in many downstream processes, for example for fill/finish operations, packaging or warehouse management.

The advantages of the automation of aseptic processes

“The biggest challenges engineers face when designing isolated fill lines are fitting the design into a small, enclosed space; achieving good operator ergonomics; and ensuring all systems and penetrations are leak-tight and properly designed for cleanability and [hydrogen peroxide] sterilization,” said Joe Hoff, CEO of robotics manufacturer AST, interviewed by Jennifer Markarian.

The great attention to the development of the Contamination Control Strategy (CCS) – which represents the core of sterile manufacturing, as indicated by the new Annex 1 to GMPs – may benefit from the insertion of robots and other automation technologies within gloveless isolators and other types of closed systems. This passage aims to completely exclude the human presence from the cleanroom and is key to achieve a completely segregated manufacturing environment, thus maximising the reduction of potential risks of contamination.

The new approach supports the pharmaceutical industry also in overcoming the often observed reluctance to innovate manufacturing processes: automation is now widely and positively perceived by regulators, thus contributing to lowering the regulatory risks linked to the submission of variations to the CMC part of the authorisation dossiers. High costs for the transitions to automated manufacturing – that might include the re-design of the facilities and the need to revalidate the processes – still represent significant barriers to the diffusion of these innovative methodologies for pharmaceutical production.

The elimination of human intervention in aseptic process was also a requirement of FDA’s 2004 Guideline on Sterile Drug Products Produced by Aseptic Processing and of the related report on Pharmaceutical CGMPs for the 21st Century: A Risk-Based Approach. According to Morningstar, for example, the FDA has recently granted approval for ADMA Biologics’ in-house aseptic fill-finish machine, an investment aimed to improve gross margins, consistency of supply, cycle times from inventory to production, and control of batch release.

Another advantage recalled by the PharmTech’s article is the availability of highly standardized robotics systems, thus enabling a great reduction of the time needed for setting up the new processes. The qualification of gloves’ use and cleaning procedures, for example, is no longer needed, impacting on another often highly critical step of manufacturing.

Easier training and higher reproducibility of operative tasks are other advantages offered by robots: machines do not need repeated training and testing for verification of the adherence to procedures, for example, thus greatly simplifying the qualification and validation steps required by GMPs. Nevertheless, training of human operators remains critical with respect to the availability of adequate knowledge to operate and control the automated systems, both from the mechanical and electronic point of view.

Possible examples of automation in sterile manufacturing

Robots are today able to perform a great number of complex, repetitive procedures with great precision, for example in the handling of different formats of vials and syringes. Automatic weighing stations are usually present within the isolator, so to weight empty and full vials in order to automatically adjust the filling process.

This may turn useful, for example, with respect to the production of small batches of advanced therapy medicinal products to be used in the field of precision medicine. Robots can also be automatically cleaned and decontaminated along with other contents of the isolator, simplifying the procedures that have to be run between different batches of production and according to the “Cleaning In Place” (CIP) and “Sterilisation In Place” (SIP) methodologies.

The design and mechanical characteristics of the robots (e.g. the use of brushless servomotors) make the process more smooth and reproducible, as mechanical movements are giving rise to a reduced number of particles.

Examples of gloveless fully sealed isolators inclusive of a robotic, GMP compliant arm were already presented in 2015 for the modular small-scale manufacturing of personalised, cytotoxic materials used for clinical trials.

Maintenance of the closed system may be also, at least partly, automated, for example by mean of haptic devices operated by remote to run the procedure the robotic arm needs to perform. Implementation of PAT tools and artificial intelligence algorithms offers opportunities for the continuous monitoring of the machinery, thus preventing malfunctioning and potential failures. The so gathered data may also prove very useful to run simulations of the process and optimization of the operative parameters. Artificial intelligence may be in place to run the automated monitoring and to detect defective finished products.

Automated filling machines allow for a high flexibility of batch’s size, from few hundreds of vials per hour up to some thousands. The transfer of containers along the different stations of the process is also automated. The implementation of this type of processes is usually associated with the use of pre-sterilised, single-use materials automatically inserted within the isolator (e.g. primary containers and closures, beta bags and disposal waste bags).

Automation may also refer to microbial monitoring and particle sampling operations to be run into cleanrooms, in line with the final goal to eliminate the need of human intervention.

Comparison of risks vs manual processes

A comparison of risks relative to various types of aseptic preparation processes typically run within a hospital pharmacy and performed, respectively, using a robot plus peristaltic pump or a manual process was published in 2019 in Pharm. Technol. in Hospital Pharmacy.

Production “on demand” of tailor-made preparations has been identified by authors as the more critical process, for which no significant difference in productivity is present between the manual and automated process. The robotic process proved to be superior for standardised preparations either from ready to use solutions or mixed cycles. A risk analysis run using the Failure Modes Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) showed a lower level of associated risk.