Upload
phungkhanh
View
227
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Moist Heat Terminal Sterilization for Controlled
Release Materials
James Agalloco
Agalloco & Associates
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Presentation Overview
• Terminal Sterilization Fundamentals• Steam
• Radiation
• Current Best Practices• TS processes and approaches that everyone, including regulators can agree
on.
• Current processes with a modest twist. Those may that create will likely create some angst.
• Expected Future Developments• Thinking outside the current box that might be a part of our future.
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Terminal Sterilization
• Relies on a lethal treatment to microorganisms
• Safer
• Preferred by regulatory bodies
• Method of choice
• Degradation of materials always a concern
• Easily reproducible process
• Relatively easy to validate
• Not for all materials
• Assumed more expensive
Aseptic Processing
• Relies on removal / separation of microorganisms
• More risky
• Closely scrutinized by regulators
• More widely used
• Material quality / stability largely unaffected
• More variable process
• Much harder to control
• No material issues
• Presumed less expensive
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Why TS is preferable to AP
Assembly
Component 1 Component 2 Formulation Component 1 Component 2 Formulation
Assembly
Sterilize
Sterilize Sterilize Sterilize
No post sterilization handling
Extensive handling is usually necessary
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Why is there a preference?
• Patient safety concerns
• Recalls for lack of sterility are predominantly associated with aseptically processed materials.
• Terminal processes are destructive of microorganisms in the container and fewer variables can impact the process.
• Aseptic processing requires careful control of many more variables and is therefore more prone to contamination.
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Which process to choose?
• Regulators require firms to evaluate TS processes before accepting an aseptic processing solution.• FDA – 1994 - Sterile Product Submission Guidance
• FDA – 2004 - Aseptic Processing Guidance
• EMEA – 1999 – Decision Trees for the Selection of Sterilization –CPMP/QWP/054/98
• But are these guidance documents sufficiently clear and flexible to be of real value?
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Can the product be sterilised by:
no
no
no
Use pre-sterilised individual
components and aseptic
compounding and filling
Use a combination of
aseptic filtration and
aseptic processing
yesMoist heat at 121°C for 15 minutes
Moist heat with F0 = 8 minutes achieving SAL of 10-6 yes
Can the formulation be filtered
through a microbial retentive filteryes
EMEA Decision Tree
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Sterilization / Sterilisation
The America’s
PNSU of 10-6
LVP’s - 1971-72Part 212 Regulation 1976PDA TM#1 – 1978 & 2007Microbiology Based Validation
PracticeFDA Sterilization Guidance – 1994Cycle parameters vary
substantiallyAdapt cycle to product / load
requirements
Europe
121°C / 15 minutesHospital Problems -1972HTM-10 - 1980Engineering Based Validation
PracticeHTM-2010 - 1993, EN 285 & EN
554, Eur. Ph., CPMP Decision Tree –1998Strong preference for standard
cycleAdapt product / process to
standard cycle
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Some Basic Perspectives
•Some products should always be TS • WFI, saline, LVP’s (D5W, Ringer’s, etc.)
•Some products are incompatible w/ TS (at least by steam) and should be aseptically filled.• Freeze-dried, dry powder, water free products, etc.
•The focus of the effort should be on those which fall between these extremes.
•Controlled release products are a greater concern because of their unique product delivery concerns.
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Terminal Sterilization
• A balance must be achieved between the need to maintain a safe, stable and efficacious product while providing sufficient heat input to attain a minimum level of sterility assurance.
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Material Perspectives
• Sterilizing processes should be a compromise between the degradation effect on the materials and destruction of microorganisms.
•A sterilization process that destroys all microorganisms, but renders the item being sterilized unfit for use is of no value.
• The sterilization process and the specific product formulation and container must be suited to each other.
• There are few universal answers, and some of those that appear to be broadly applicable may be wrong.
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Sterilization Validation Methods
• Overkill Method–• For items that can tolerate substantial heat or radiation.
• Can be used for some very stable products.
• Bioburden / Biological Indicator Method• Balance of lethality and stability concerns.
• Common option for moist heat TS processes.
• Bioburden Method• Lowest possible adverse effect
• Basis for most radiation sterilization validation.
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Terminal Sterilization Concerns
Terminal sterilization processes require consideration of the effects of maximum treatment conditions for their potential deleterious effect on the materials being processed.
Sterile
Stable
Sterile
Non-Stable
Non-Sterile
Stable He
at
or
Ra
dia
tio
n I
np
ut
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Validation Methods Compared
Demonstrated PNSU
Expected Shelf Life
Information Needed
For Validation
Heat / Radiation Input to Materials
Bioburden
Method
Bioburden / BI
Method
Overkill
Method
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Products & Containers - Steam
• Solutions, suspensions, and emulsions can all be terminally steam sterilized. A minimum water content of approximately 5% is considered necessary, but this must be evaluated.
• Glass and plastic pre-formed vials, BFS, glass and plastic syringes have all been successfully processed.
• Interpolation of container sizes, formulation strength, etc. is possible.
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Remember the Real Target
• The most common error associated with terminal sterilization (and perhaps sterilization in general) is forgetting that the intent is destruction of the bioburden to low levels (a Probability of a Non-Sterile Unit [PNSU] of not more than 1 in 106 units).
• What happens to the biological indicator (if there is one) is largely irrelevant outside of the context of the validation exercise.
Downloaded from sterilize.it
BI & Bioburden Relative Resistance106
103
100
10 -3
10 -6
10 -9
10 -15
10 -12
10 -18
3 6 12 15 18 21 24 27 309
Biological IndicatorDeath Curve
Bioburden
Death Curve
Po
pu
lati
on
Time
Downloaded from sterilize.it
F0 = 8.0 minutes F0 = 8.0 minutes
D121 of BI = 0.5 minutes D121 of bioburden = 0.005
minutes
N0 of BI = 106 N0 of bioburden = 100 ( or 102)
PNSU for BI = 10-10 PNSU for Bioburden = 10-1,598
0loglog ND
FNu
Where,Nu = Probability of Non-sterile Unit (PNSU also known as SAL)D= natural resistance of bioburdenF= Fvalue or lethality of processNo= bioburden count per container
Bioindicator Bioburden
Downloaded from sterilize.it
How not to test TS productsC
on
tam
inati
on
Rate
N/A Cleanroom
TS Sterility
Testing
N/A
EM
Testing
Downloaded from sterilize.it
How to test TS productsC
on
tam
inati
on
Rate
N/A Isolator
TS Sterility
Testing
N/A
EM
Testing
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Contemporary TS Processesusing Moist Heat
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Terminal / Non-Porous Loads
• Air over-pressure of the load may be required to maintain container integrity.
• Steam quality testing is irrelevant.
• Materials sensitive to excess heat can be processed.
• Minimum and maximum time-temperature or F0 requirements are needed.
• Container-closure interface sterilization can be a concern if components aren’t sterile.
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Terminal Sterilization Cycles
• The common autoclave cycles can be used, as well as some others.• Gravity Displacement
• Single Pre-Vacuum
• Multiple Pre-vacuum
• Steam-Air
• Steam-Water-Air (Raining Water)
• Immersion
• Continuous Sterilizer
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Gravity Displacement Cycle
Steam Inlet
Steam Trap
Tem
per
atu
re
Time
Heat-up Exposure Cool-down
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Multiple Pre-vacuum Cycle
Pre-vac Come-up Exposure Exhaust Drying Atmospheric
Break
Pressure
Temperature
Downloaded from sterilize.itCourtesy of Fedegari Autoclavi, SPA
Steam-Air Sterilizer
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Steam-Air-Water Sterilizer
Courtesy of Fedegari Autoclavi, SPA
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Advanced Steam Designs
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Continuous Sterilizer
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Internal Pressures During Cycles
Heating CoolingSteady State
T = 80°C
P = 1.8 Bar
T = 122°C
P = 3.7 Bar
T = 100°C
P = 2.4 Bar
T = 100°C
P = 2 Bar
T = 122°C
P = 3.1 Bar
T = 80°C
P = 1.5 Bar
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Exposure Time
Equilibration Time
Chamber Come-up Time
Chamber / Drain
Temperature
Chamber Temperature
Chamber
Cool-Down
Time
Load
Cool-Down
Time
Load Come-up Time
TE
MP
ER
AT
UR
E / P
RE
SS
UR
E
TIME
Temperature
Setpoint
Temperature Setpoint
Dead Band
Cycle Start
Chamber Pressure
Load Temperature
Container internal
Pressure
Air Overpressure Cycle
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Sterilization Cycle Development
• Screen formulation for terminal sterilization.
• Selection the correct equipment / process.
• Determining the slowest / fastest to location in filled product containers.
• Determining the slowest / fastest to heat zone of load.
• Define how much lethality is enough based upon bioburden.
• Define load sizes and patterns.
• Product stability evaluation.
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Mapping Studies
• Container mapping• Probe position in container
• Load mapping• Position of load in chamber
• Both hot and cold spot determination
• Load sizes & patterns• Minimum, maximum loads
• Use of dummy load components (fixed loads)
• Container Sizes / Fill Volumes• Minimum and maximum container sizes
• Multiple fill volumes in single container
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Container Mapping - Vertical
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Container Mapping - Horizontal
- HEAT MAPPING STUDY
Fill Level
7.7
12.9
7.57.7
12.7 12.8 13.5 14.3
16.1 15.7
7.8
AVERAGE HEAT INPUT (F ) AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS0
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Key Validation Concerns
•Minimum / maximum F0 criteria are required.
• Tight temperature range at steady state is preferred.
•Hot and cold spot determination in load (may be a region rather than a single point).
• Temperature & BI challenge performed together.
•Need to define routine probe locations. Cold spots are rarely monitored in commercial processes• Correlation developed between control location and cold / hot spot to regulate
process.
• Bioburden monitoring instituted as routine measure if not an aseptic fill.
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Maximum and Minimum Loads
•Maximum loads are typically all that will fit in a chamber in a normal loading pattern.
•Minimum loads are arbitrary minimums which a firm might process. Some of the minimums used are a single tray, or single box.
• The utility of maximum and minimum loads depends to a large extent on the range of lot sizes produced. There are firms which have chosen to validate only maximum loads, and any load smaller than maximum is made up to maximum with dummy units. More widespread is the validation of maximum and minimum loads, which affords greater flexibility in batch size.
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Bottles of Convenience
• Monitoring of sterilizer cold spot is not required for process control.
• Correlation between the cold (and hot spot) with the monitored location should be established during cycle development / validation.
• A fixed monitoring location can be used provided its process requirements are defined to assure conditions at the points of interest are know in relation to the monitored location.
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Biological Indicator Choices
• Geobacillus stearothermophilus (rarely) ATCC 7953 or 12980
• Clostridium sporogenes ATCC 51232
• Bacillus coagulans
• Bacillus subtilis ATCC 5230
• Bioburden organisms
• Must know D-value in product or product substitute
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Test Fluids (Product Surrogates)
• Water for Injection, normal saline, salt solutions, SCDM, other microbiological medias and buffers, match product viscosity & solids content?
• Advantages – Reduce the amount of product required for validation purposes, Widely used for preliminary mapping studies, etc. If a growth medium is used, may simplify microbial challenge studies.
• Disadvantages - If used for microbiological challenges, additional D-values must be obtained. Must be shown to resemble product.
• Selection Criteria - Cost, safety, resemblance to product, ease of testing, use as physical and/or biological model for product
• Consider use of SCDM for microbiological challenge units to simplify testing.
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Use of D & z Values
•D-values - of critical importance• Never use a biological indicator without knowledge of the
D-value on the substrate or in the product. Supplier data is normally from a paper strip .
• Requires internal resources - Biological Indicator Evaluation Retort {BIER} vessel, detailed microbiological methods
• z-values - of less importance• Their measurement by manufacturers and users is non-
routine. In most cases the values given in the literature are utilized without difficulty.
• Varies only slightly over the temperature range of most interest.
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Bioburden Information
• #, amount, quantity• Kind, type, species, genus, origin?• Seasonal variation• Positive & Negative controls on methods• Kinds of products
• growth supportive• highly contaminated
• Filtration method as adapted from sterility test•USP microbial methods adapted•Need for periodic monitoring• Establishment of action / alert levels
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Container-Closure Integrity
It is important to ensure that the initial and long term microbial barrier properties of the container-closure system are not compromised by the sterilization cycle.
Initial development and validation of a sterilization cycle should include an assessment of the package integrity, when sterilized at the maximum exposure time and temperature.
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Closure-Container Interface
• All LVP manufacturers (and some others) inoculate the seal area of the stopper / glass with B. atrophaeus to confirm lethality where steam might not easily penetrate.
• A 1x106 CFU challenge might be excessive at this location, given the minimal potential for bioburden.
• If both container and stopper are sterilized prior to filling, this evaluation isn’t necessary.
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Stopper Vial Interface Inoculation
VIALVIAL
Inoculum
1 2
3
4
Stopper Stopper
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Some TS Experience
• Minimum F0 requirements ranging from 2 to 38 minutes
• Glass / plastic containers – 0.5 to 500 mL
• BI’s used – G. stearothermophilus, B. subtilis 5230, B. atrophaeus
• Product D121 values – 0.2 – 6 minutes
• Containers – vials, ampules, syringes
• Aseptic & non-aseptic fills
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Parametric Release
• From a risk and science perspective there is no value in performing a sterility test on terminally sterilized products.
• The only thing that a sterility test could potentially detect would be a failure to run the cycle, and depending upon the product characteristics even this detection is not assured.
• There is the impression that a “laboratory” test is required, however thermal or dosimetry data is more likely to indicate process failure than a lab test.
• The real obstacles with respect to parametric release are regulatory and compendial, not scientific.
Downloaded from sterilize.it
TS Processes / Practices on the Horizon
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Breaking out of the Box
• Post-aseptic filling lethal treatments at temperatures that kill spores have been used for decades.
•While this is not in the strictest sense terminal sterilization it is a means by which microbial risk can be mitigated.
•Many pathogenic organisms are killed very efficiently at temperatures in the 70-80oC range or at lower radiation doses.
•We shouldn’t think of aseptic processing or terminal sterilization as an either/or proposition.
• Post-aseptic filling treatments should be more broadly applied.
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Dr. Sasaki’s Suggestion
• Dr. Sasaki suggested at the USP Open Conf. in 2002 that parametric release could be considered for processes that deliver as little as Fo=2 minutes.
• To those convinced that only overkill processes are suitable for use in moist heat sterilization this idea may seem preposterous.
• Environmental endospores do not have a D121 higher than 0.2 minutes, vegetative cells would have D121 values in some cases >100,000X less.
• So, a process yielding a F0 of 2 minutes would provide a ten log spore reduction against the most resistant pre-sterilization bioburden.
• With that in mind Dr. Sasaki’s suggestion doesn’t seem preposterous at all, in fact it seems downright logical.
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Aseptic Processing & Terminal Sterilization
•Aseptic Processing• 10-3 - Percentage of Contaminated Units (not an SAL)• Implied Estimate of Sterility Assurance
• Terminal Sterilization• 10-6 - Probability of a Non-sterile Unit (PNSU)• Quantitative Assessment of Sterility Assurance• Assumes known F0, D and bioburden N0
• Terms cannot be added to determine an overall SAL for a combined process.
Downloaded from sterilize.it
What if?
• Is there a benefit to a terminal treatments (moist heat or radiation) following aseptic processing?
• Absolutely, but we have been fixated on processes that kill highly resistant spores.
• Almost everyone agrees that this type of process would risk to the patient.
• Almost no one agrees on what type of post aseptic fill lethal process should be used.
Downloaded from sterilize.it
TS and APComponent 1 Component 2 Formulation
Assemble Sterilize
Sterilize Sterilize Sterilize
This process could be either moist heat or radiation
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Post Aseptic Fill Heat Treatment
Conventional TS Post-aseptic fill Treatment
Sterile
Non-Stable
Non-Sterile
Stable
Sterile
Non-StableSterile
Stable
Sterile Stable
He
at In
pu
t
Downloaded from sterilize.it
A New Perspective Decision Tree
Can the product be sterilized bymoist heat, achieving a minimum PNSU of 10-6?
Sterilize by moist heat to minimum PNSU of 10-6
Can the formulation be sterilized by filtration?
Use pre-sterilized product, components, aseptic compounding and filling
Sterile filter, aseptically process and fill
Yes
Can the product be sterilized bymoist heat, achieving a PNSU of 10-3-10-6?
Sterilize by moist heat, to a PNSU of 10-3-10-6
No
No
YesCan the product be sterilized bymoist heat, using 121°C for 15 minutes?
No
Sterilize by moist heat, using standard cycle
Yes
Yes
No
Is the product stable at 100°C
Yes
Is the product stable at 80°C
No
Validate destruction using B. megaterium –D100 = ~1 minute
YesValidate destruction using >>106 of non-
sporeformer
No
Yes
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Possible Post A/P Heat Treatments
• Reduced F0 and/or time-temperature• - F0 of 2,4,6, or 8 - No standards exist
• Processing at less than 121°C• 100°C for X minutes – lethal for most spores and all non-spore formers
• 80°C for X minutes – lethal for some spores and all non-spore formers
• 60°C for X minutes - lethal for nearly all non-spore formers
Downloaded from sterilize.it
ISO 15883 – The A0 Concept
• This standard developed for hospital disinfection equipment evaluates thermal processes in the 80°C range in a manner identical to F0 with the time expressed in seconds due to the susceptibility of vegetative cells to destruction by moist heat.
• Minimally acceptable A to disinfect (destroy vegetative cells) are 600 seconds for medical devices in contact with intact skin and 3000 seconds for critical medical devices.
• The use of this system may be well suited for post-aseptic fill heat treatments.
tA
T
10
)80(
10
Downloaded from sterilize.it
What these changes might mean
• Movement away from the “black” or “white view of “aseptic processing or terminal sterilization”
• Approaches that visit the “gray” area in between the extremes are desirable.
• If not “aseptic processing & terminal sterilization”, then perhaps “aseptic processing and supplementary lethal treatment”.
• The end result is less risk to the patient, improved stability over classical TS processing and substantially fewer issues in aseptic processing control.
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Future Processes
• If we recognize that the concern is risk to the patient, then post-aseptic fill processes make perfect sense.
• We shouldn’t thing in terms of current PNSU or even F0 targets, but in slightly different terms.
• The A0 model or something like it makes sense below 121°C for moist heat.
Downloaded from sterilize.it
Conclusion
• In the future we can make our products safer, we just have to be willing to re-think some of our traditional goals for patient safety.
• With more and more biological products coming to market, new thinking is necessary to provide greater assurance than our current practices allow.
Downloaded from sterilize.it
PostScript
Walter Kelly, 1971