View
225
Download
2
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Implementation of PAT in the Pharmaceutical Industry James K. Drennen, III Duquesne University http:// http:// http:// www.dcpt.duq.edu www.dcpt.duq.edu www.dcpt.duq.edu James K. Drennen, III 2 designing, analyzing, and controlling manufacturing timely measurements (i.e., during processing) monitoring critical quality and performance attributes raw and in-process materials process understanding A system for: “Analyzing” includes: James K. Drennen, III 3
Citation preview
Implementation of PAT in the Pharmaceutical Industry
James K. Drennen, IIIDuquesne University
James K. Drennen, III
2
Duquesne University Center for Pharmaceutical Technology (DCPT)
http://http://http://www.dcpt.duq.eduwww.dcpt.duq.eduwww.dcpt.duq.edu
James K. Drennen, III
3
What is PAT?
A system for:designing, analyzing, and controlling manufacturingtimely measurements (i.e., during processing)monitoring critical quality and performance attributes raw and in-process materialsprocess understanding
“Analyzing” includes:chemical, physical, microbiological, mathematical, and risk analysis
James K. Drennen, III
4
Process Understanding
A process is well understood when:all critical sources of variability are identified and explainedvariability is managed by the processproduct quality attributes can be accurately and reliably predicted
Accurate and Reliable predictions reflect process understanding
James K. Drennen, III
5
Key Elements of PAT Implementation
Risk AnalysisExperimental DesignControl Strategies
SensorsModel development/MaintenanceSPC
Process SamplingInformation Management
James K. Drennen, III
6
Risk Analysis/Experimental Design
FBDrier
Milling
Blender Press
Coater
Sieve
Dispensary
Wet granulation
NIRNIR
NIRNIR
NIRNIR
NIRNIR
Direct Compression
James K. Drennen, III
7
PAT for Solid Dosage Form
Feasibility/Risk AnalysisCalibration RangeProcess SignatureSamplingCalibration Maintenance/Transfer
James K. Drennen, III
8
Real Time Release (RTR)
Quantitative calibrations required for RTR of Dosage Form
Projects involving established productsLab samples required to create necessary range for calibrationStudies performed to determine effect of combining laboratory- and production-scale samples in calibration
Parallel testing may lead to novel qualitative models for predicting product quality parameters
James K. Drennen, III
9
Evaluation of Production Data
Evaluate the within-batch and between-batch spectral variability of production tablets manufactured over one year.
Samples chosen to provide maximum variabilityPotencyHardnessDissolutionDisintegration
James K. Drennen, III
10
Evaluation of Production Data
Little inter-lot variability for production materials
James K. Drennen, III
11
Quantitative Calibration from Production Samples only
Specified
xx
x
x
x
x
xxx
x xx
xx
x
xx
xx
x
xxxx
xxx
xx
xx
xx
xxxxxx
x
xxx
xx
xxxx
x
xxxx
xxx xx
xxxx x
x xx
xxx
x xx
xxxxxxx
xxx
xxx
x xx
xxxx xx
xx
xxxxxx x
xxxxx
xx
xxxx
x
x
xx
xxxx
xxx
x
xx xxxx
x
xx
x
xx
x
xx
xxx xx
xxxxx
x
xx xxxx
x
x
xx
x
x
x
x x
x
xxx
x xx
x
x xx
xx x
xxx x
x
xx x
xx
x
xx
xx x
x
xxx
xxx
x
x
xx
xx
xxx
x
x
x
xx
x
x
x
x
xx
x
x
x
x xxxx
xx
x
xx
xxx
xx
x
xx
x xx
x
x x
xx
xxx
xx x
xxx
xx
xx
x
xxxx
x
x
xxx xx
xxxxx
xxx
xxx
x
xx
xx
xx
x
x
x
xxxxx
xx
xx
x
xx
x
xxxxxxxx x
x x
xxx
x
x
xxx xx
x
x
x
xx
xxx
x
xxx x
xx
x
xx
xx x
xxx
x
xxxxxx
x
xx
xxxx xx
x
xxx
x
xxxxx
xxx
xx
x xx
x
xxx
xx
xx
xxxx
xx
x
xxx
x
xxx
xxx
x xx
xxx
xxx
x
x
xx
xxxx
x
xx
x
x
x xx x
xxx
x
x
x
x
x
x
xx
xxxx
xxxx xx
xx xxxxxx xx
xx xx xxx
x
xx xx xxxxxx xx
xxxxxx xx
xxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx xx
xxxx
xxxxxx
xx xx
xx
xx
xx x
xxxx
xxx
x
xxx
xxx
x
xxxxx
x
xxxx x
x
x
xx x
x xxx
x
xx x
x xx
xx
xxx
xxxxx
x
xx
xxx xxxx
x
xxx
x
xxxxx
xxx
xxx
x
x xx
x
xxx
xx
xx
xxxx
xx
x
xxx
xxx
x
xxx
x xx
xxx
xxxxx
x
x
xx
xxxx
x
xx
x
x
x xx x
xxx
x
x
x
x
x
x
xx
xxxx
xx
xxxxxx xxxxx
xxxxxxxx
xxxxx
xxxx
xxx
xxxxx
xxxxxx xx x
xxxx
x xxxx
xxxxxxxxxxx
x xx
xxxx xxxx
xxxxxx xxx
xxxxxxxx
xxx
xxxx
xxxxx
xxx xxxx
xx
xxxx xxxxxx
xxxxxx xx
xx xxxxxx
xxxx xxxx
xx xx xx
xx xx
xx xxxx
xxxxxx
xx
xxxx
xxxx
xx
xx xxxx
xxxxxxxxxx
xx xxxx
xxxxxx xxxx
x
xxx
xxxx x
xxx
xxxxxx
xx
xxxx x
xxx
x
x xxxxxx
xx
xx
xx xx
xx
xxxxxxxx xx x
xxx
93.0 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104104.693.7
96
98
100
102
104
106
108
110
112
114114.8
Estim
ated
SEC = 1.2 % w/w
SEP = 1.3 % w/w
R squared = 0.58
James K. Drennen, III
12
Calibration including production and development samples
9071.0 75 80 85 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 134.366.5707580859095100105110115120125130135140
144.9
Specified
xxx
xx
xx xx x
xx x
x
x
x x
x
xx x
xxx
x
x x
x
x xx
xxx
xx
xxxx
x x
xxx
xx
x
x
x
x
xxxxx xxxx
xx
x
x
xx
x
xx x
xxx xxx xx
x xx
xx
x
xxxx
xxx
x xx
xxx
x
x
x
xx
xx
x
x
x x
x xx
x
xxxx
xx x
x
xx
xx x
xxxEs
timat
ed
SEP > 3.0
James K. Drennen, III
13
Evidence of “Process Signature”
-0.185 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 -0.00 0.05 0.10 0.150.169-0.25
-0.20
-0.15
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.189
PC 2 (22.95%)
PC 1
( 59 .
59%
)
x pt7069~1
x pt7069~3
x pt7069~9x pt706~14
x pt706~20
x pt706~23x pt706~25x pt706~27
x pt706~29
x pt706~31
x pt706~35
x pt706~39
x pt706~43
x pt706~45
x pt706~47
x pt706~53
x pt706~55
x pt706~57
x pt706~59
x pt706~62x pt706~67
x pt706~72x pt706~74x pt706~76 x pt706~78x pt706~81x pt706~85x pt706~87
x pt706~97x pt70~101
x pt70~109
x pt70~113x pt70~115x pt70~121
x pt70~127x pt70~131
x pt70~133x pt70~135
x pt70~139
x pt70~143
x pt70~146x pt70~149x pt70~153
x pt70~155
x pt70~159x pt70~165
x pt70~167
x pt70~172x pt70~176
x pt70~177x pt70~181
x pt70~185x pt70~191
x pt70~193 x pt70~199x pt70~201
x pt70~203
x pt70~209
x pt70~211
x pt70~212x pt70~214
x pt70~220
x pt70~222
x pt70~225
x pt70~226
x pt70~227
x pt70~228
x pt70~229
x pt70~230x pt70~232
x pt70~233
x pt70~234
x pt70~235
x pt70~238
x pt70~240x pt70~243
x pt70~248x pt70~249
x pt70~250
x pt70~251
x pt70~254x pt70~256
x pt70~257x pt70~260
x pt70~265x pt70~267
x pt70~268x pt70~269
x pt70~272
x pt70~273
x pt70~276
x pt70~277x pt70~278
x pt70~281x pt70~282
x pt70~285
x pt70~286x pt70~289x pt70~292
x pt70~294
x pt70~296
x pt70~297x pt70~298
x pt70~299
x pt70~300
x pt70~301x pt70~303x pt70~305
x pt70~311x pt70~313
x pt70~316
x pt70~318x pt70~319
x pt70~321
x pt70~322
x pt70~323
x pt70~328
x pt70~329
x pt70~330
x pt70~331
x pt70~335
x pt70~336x pt70~337
x pt70~338
x pt70~344
x pt70~345
x pt70~348
x pt70~349
James K. Drennen, III
14
Using Laboratory Scale Samples to Expand Calibration Range
Comparison of three scales of compression
-0.0003
-0.0002
-0.0001
0.0000
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
-0.0015 -0.0010 -0.0005 0.0000 0.0005 0.0010 0.0015
P C1
single punch compressor small scale rotary comp. full scale compressor
James K. Drennen, III
15
Sampling/SPC/Data Management
James K. Drennen, III
16
Test of Sample Positioning System
James K. Drennen, III
17
Test of Sample Positioning System
Two sides of tablet provide identical spectra
James K. Drennen, III
18
Test of Sample Positioning System
Early positioning studies led to improvements in conveyor and trigger system
X-position study for 2nd Deriv. Intensity vs. Position along the belt
-0.002
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.010
0.012
0.014
0.016
40.0 42.0 44.0 46.0 48.0 50.0 52.0 54.0 56.0 58.0
P o sit io n alo ng the belt (1 / 64 in)
James K. Drennen, III
19
Example API Calibration
~500 calibration/150 validation samplesMultiple independent lots
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Reference Assay (mg)
Pred
icte
d A
ssay
(mg)
Elements=599Slope=0.963129Intercept=1.803031Correlation=0.981368RMSEP=1.247676Bias=-0.002690
James K. Drennen, III
20
Example Hardness Calibration
~500 calibration/150 validation samplesMultiple independent lots
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Reference Hardness
Pred
icte
d H
ardn
ess
Elements=588Slope=0.93Intercept=4.36Correlation=0.9629RMSEP=7.99Bias=-0.0143
James K. Drennen, III
21
Calibration Maintenance/Transfer
Why are transfer/update protocols necessary?Need for a calibrated backup instrumentEventual expansion to further linesTransfer-in-time of knowledge from earlier experiments
James K. Drennen, III
22
Calibration Maintenance/Transfer
Variability in Product/ProcessVariability in Instrument/Sensor
Methods must be developed prior to implementation
Calibration updateCalibration transferIntegration with existing SPC and OOS procedures
James K. Drennen, III
23
Possible Outcomes of NIR Prediction of Assay Results
In S
pec
Out
of S
pec
ValidNIR Result
Not-ValidNIR Result
1 2
4 3
NIR
Tes
t Res
ult f
or T
able
t:
Evaluation of NIR Test:1. Accepted result - pass2. Investigation required
(NIR result not acceptable)3. Investigation required
(NIR result not acceptable)4. Accepted result – fail
orDuring initial period –Investigation recommended
James K. Drennen, III
24
Calibration Update
Definition:The enhancement of an existing calibration model through the inclusion of additional calibration samples
Calibration update samples are more representative of the current test samples than the original calibration samples
Calibration update performed following change in product (eg: new supplier)
James K. Drennen, III
25
Continuum of Calibration Transfer Types
Preprocessing Methods (scatter correction, derivatives, etc.)
Instrument Matching (univariatelinear, etc.)
Complex, black-box Method-Method: PDS, ANN
Orthogonal Projection Methods
James K. Drennen, III
26
Failure Detection
NIRInstrument Sample
NIRData
Pre -treatment
Model
Result(Prediction) Final
Result
Is prediction valid?(Qres and T 2)
InstrumentStandardization Instrument
Evaluation andcorrective action
Potential errors ( A) due to:-New instrument-Changed instrument response
Potential errors ( B) due to:-Raw material change-Process change
Result is valid
Result requires investigationInstrumentMatching
Calibration TransferProcesses NIR Prediction Prediction Validity
Historicaldata and
actionthreshold
James K. Drennen, III
27
Example: Master and slave instruments
1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 20000.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
Wavelength ( nm )
Ref
lect
ance
Rat
io
James K. Drennen, III
28
Bias Correction Needed
James K. Drennen, III
29
Bias Correction Applied
0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
New Instrument Absorbance @ 1440 nm
Ref
eren
ce In
st. A
bsor
banc
e @
144
0 nm
James K. Drennen, III
30
Calibration transfer model
1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Wavelength ( nm )
Arb
itrar
y U
nits
Multiplicative Constant
Additive Coefficients
James K. Drennen, III
31
Prediction Following Instrument-Instrument Transfer
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 7030
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
Measured Content ( mg )
Pre
dict
ed C
onte
nt (
mg,
bia
s co
rrec
ted)
N = 78RMSEP = 2.25%RSD = 23.2 %r = 0.973r2 = 0.946
James K. Drennen, III
32
Example: Lamp change
1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 20000.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
Wavelength ( nm )
Ref
lect
ance
Rat
io
James K. Drennen, III
33
Justification for baseline subtraction method
46 46.5 47 47.5 48 48.5 49 49.5 5046
46.5
47
47.5
48
48.5
49
49.5
50
Prior to Lamp Change, ( mg )
Follo
win
g La
mp
Cha
nge,
Unc
orre
cted
( m
g )
James K. Drennen, III
34
Calibration transfer model for correcting lamp change
1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000-0.05
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
Wavelength ( nm )
Ref
lect
ance
Rat
io
Additive Calibration Transfer Coefficients
James K. Drennen, III
35
Prediction quality with calibration transfer
46 46.5 47 47.5 48 48.5 49 49.5 5046
46.5
47
47.5
48
48.5
49
49.5
50
Prior to Lamp Change, ( mg )
Follo
win
g La
mp
Cha
nge,
Tra
nsfe
r Cor
rect
ed (
mg
)
James K. Drennen, III
36
How Many Transfer Samples?
5 10 15 20 25 30
1
Number of Transfer Samples ( n )
Rel
ativ
e Er
ror (
mul
tiple
)
James K. Drennen, III
37
Stability of transfer standards
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 352
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
Time ( days )
Tran
sfer
SE
P (
mg
)
James K. Drennen, III
38
Process Understanding- Blending
Optimization of PAT methodTechnologyMethodologySampling
Improved Process Control
James K. Drennen, III
39
Advantage of PAT Method
RL
1 23 4
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1 2 3 4 5Location
% O
utlie
rs
BA
Figure 2. Outlier pattern of thief probe collected samples. A) V-blender showing UV sampling positions. B) Percent of outliers as a function of sample location
James K. Drennen, III
40
Inter- vs. Intra-shell MixingFront
L R
Back
R L
Top (n=4)Middle (n=4)
Bottom (n=4)
Left shell (n=6)
Right shell (n=6)
James K. Drennen, III
41
V-BlenderTop
y = 88.231e-0.1197x
R2 = 0.9945
Middley = 77.703e-0.1201x
R2 = 0.9684
Bottomy = 79.212e-0.1307x
R2 = 0.9711
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Time (min)
%R
SD
James K. Drennen, III
42
V-Blender
Left army = -9.2466x + 63.825
R2 = 0.9995
Right army = -1.9808x + 13.321
R2 = 0.9979
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
50.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time (min)
%R
SD
James K. Drennen, III
43
V-Blender
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (min)
%R
SD
Left armRight armTopMiddleBottom
James K. Drennen, III
44
Optimization of Sensor Position
James K. Drennen, III
45
Effect of Blender RPM
0.700.750.800.850.900.951.001.05
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56Time (min)
Cor
rela
tion
Coe
ffic
ient
IX
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.850.90
0.951.00
1.05
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56Time (min)
Cor
rela
tion
Coe
ffic
ient
XIII
Figure 3B. MBEST correlation coefficient-time profiles of high humidity 11% SA blends using single model
Higher RPM
Lower RPM
James K. Drennen, III
46
Conclusion
Risk Analysis and Statistical experimental design requiredChemical, physical and performance parameters can be predicted, but understand the chemistry/physicsSampling issues are criticalData management system necessaryControl systems integration necessary- SPC, OOS, 21 CFR Part 11
James K. Drennen, III
47
Duquesne University Center for Pharmaceutical Technology
http://http://http://www.dcpt.duq.eduwww.dcpt.duq.eduwww.dcpt.duq.edu
Recommended