The purpose of this paper is to stimulate debate in the biopharmaceutical industry and to work toward industry-wide alignment on the creation and use of optimized and lean user requirement specifications (URSs) for equipment, facilities, utilities and systems qualification.
Qualification
Viewing related articles
Container closure (CCI): Dye ingress methods for container-closure integrity testing: An industry position paper
Sep 2018 | Annex 1, Fill Finish
The release of the expanded USP<1207> in 2016 cast doubt over the validity of so-called probabilistic analytical methods, including one the biopharmaceutical industry’s most universal tests – the dye ingress method for container closure integrity
With the dye ingress method ubiquitously used without issue for decades, this paper highlights the continued value and applicability of this and other probabilistic analytical tests. In addition, this paper also describes how any method, whether probabilistic or deterministic, stands or falls on the quality of its development and validation, and not necessarily on the properties of the test itself.
The most important factor is to apply a test method is not how it is labelled, but lies in its development, qualification and whether it meets the need for which it is designed.
Container closure integrity (CCI): Container closure integrity control versus integrity testing during routine manufacturing
Jun 2015 | Annex 1, Fill Finish, POI - Fill Finish
In 2014 uncertainty around regulation for container closure and integrity testing (CCIT) fed a perceptible shift in mindset across the industry, causing some concern amongst many subject matter experts in biological manufacturers. Their concern was that gaps in guidance was enabling skewed expectations such that they would promote 100% CCIT for the release of drug product batches. This paper addresses this concern by re-stating the principles of CCI, qualification, process control and in-process testing to establish the framework within all effective container closure integrity programs. It concludes that performing 100% CCIT does not provide certainty that a process is well controlled and introduces an additional step that is not always necessary or suitable for the high processing speeds in the industry.