A critical step in ensuring the quality and safety of processes as part of verification is Design Review, which is sometimes expanded to Design Qualification.
Design Review is a systematic, documented examination of a proposed design to evaluate its adequacy and identify potential issues early in the development process. Here’s how to conduct an effective Design Review:
Plan Systematically: Schedule reviews at appropriate stages of development, ensuring they align with your project timeline.
Involve the Right People: Include representatives from all relevant functions and an independent reviewer not directly responsible for the design stage being evaluated.
Focus on Critical Aspects: Prioritize design elements that directly impact product quality and patient safety.
Document Thoroughly: Record all findings, including the design under review, participants, date, and any proposed actions.
Iterate as Needed: Conduct reviews iteratively as supplier design documents are published, allowing for early issue identification and correction.
Design Qualification: Verifying Suitability
Design Qualification (DQ) is the documented verification that the proposed design of facilities, equipment, or systems is suitable for its intended purpose. Here’s how to implement DQ effectively:
Develop User Requirements: Create a detailed User Requirements Specification (URS) outlining what the equipment or system is expected to do.
Create Functional Specifications: Translate user requirements into technical specifications that guide the design process.
Perform Risk Assessment: Identify potential risks associated with the design and develop mitigation strategies.
Review Design Specifications: Ensure the design meets all specified requirements, including GMP and regulatory standards.
Document and Approve: Formally document the DQ process and obtain approval from key stakeholders, including quality assurance personnel.
Integrating Design Review and DQ
To maximize the effectiveness of these processes:
Use a Risk-Based Approach: Prioritize efforts based on the level of risk to product quality and patient safety.
Leverage Subject Matter Experts: Involve SMEs from the start to contribute their expertise throughout the process.
Implement Change Management: Establish a robust system to manage design changes effectively and avoid late-stage issues.
Ensure Quality Oversight: Have Quality Assurance provide oversight to maintain compliance with current regulations and GMP requirements.
Document Comprehensively: Maintain thorough records of all reviews, qualifications, and decisions made during the process.
Implementing a systematic approach to Design Review and Design Qualification not only helps meet regulatory expectations but also contributes to operational efficiency and product excellence. As the pharmaceutical landscape evolves, staying committed to these foundational practices will remain crucial for success in this highly regulated industry.
User requirements are typically divided into several categories to ensure comprehensive coverage of all aspects of product development, manufacturing, and quality control and to help guide the risk-based approach to verification.
Quality requirements focus on ensuring that the product meets all necessary quality standards and regulatory compliance. This category includes:
Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) compliance, including around cleaning, cross-contamination, etc to ensure compliance with various regulations such as FDA guidelines, EU GMP, and ICH standards.
Documentation and record-keeping standards
Contamination control strategies are a key part of quality requirements, as they are essential for maintaining product quality and patient safety.
Data integrity requirements fall under this category, as they are crucial for ensuring the quality and reliability of data.
Not everyone advocates for this breakdown but I am a huge proponent as it divides the product specific requirements for the more standard must’s of meeting the cGMPs that are not product specific. This really helps when you are a multi-product facility and it helps define what is in the PQ versus what is in the PPQ.
Safety User Requirements
Safety requirements address the safety of personnel, patients, and the environment. They encompass:
Occupational health and safety measures
Environmental protection protocols
Patient safety considerations in product design
General User Requirements
General requirements cover broader aspects of the manufacturing system and facility. These may include:
Facility design and layout
Equipment specifications
Utility requirements (e.g., power, water, HVAC)
Maintenance procedures
By categorizing user requirements in this way, pharmaceutical companies can ensure a comprehensive approach to product development and manufacturing, addressing all critical aspects from product quality to regulatory compliance and safety. This will help drive appropriate verification.
“The specification for equipment, facilities, utilities or systems should be defined in a URS and/or a functional specification. The essential elements of quality need to be built in at this stage and any GMP risks mitigated to an acceptable level. The URS should be a point of reference throughout the validation life cycle.” – Annex 15, Section 3.2, Eudralex Volume 4
User Requirement Specifications serve as a cornerstone of quality in pharmaceutical manufacturing. They are not merely bureaucratic documents but vital tools that ensure the safety, efficacy, and quality of pharmaceutical products.
Defining the Essentials
A well-crafted URS outlines the critical requirements for facilities, equipment, utilities, systems and processes in a regulated environment. It captures the fundamental aspects and scope of users’ needs, ensuring that all stakeholders have a clear understanding of what is expected from the final product or system.
The phrase “essential elements of quality need to be built in at this stage” emphasizes the proactive approach to quality assurance. By incorporating quality considerations from the outset, manufacturers can:
Reduce the need for costly corrections later in the process
Ensure compliance with Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) standards
Mitigating GMP Risks
Risk management is a crucial aspect of pharmaceutical manufacturing. The URS plays a vital role in identifying and addressing potential GMP risks early in the development process. By doing so, manufacturers can:
Ensure that the final product meets regulatory requirements
The URS as a Living Document
One of the key points in the regulations is that the URS should be “a point of reference throughout the validation life cycle.” This underscores the dynamic nature of the URS and its ongoing importance.
Continuous Reference
Throughout the development, implementation, and operation of a system or equipment, the URS serves as:
A benchmark for assessing progress
A guide for making decisions
A tool for resolving disputes or clarifying requirements
Adapting to Change
As projects evolve, the URS may need to be updated to reflect new insights, technological advancements, or changing regulatory requirements. This flexibility ensures that the final product remains aligned with user needs and regulatory expectations.
Practical Implications
Involve multidisciplinary teams in creating the URS, including representatives from quality assurance, engineering, production, and regulatory affairs.
Conduct thorough risk assessments to identify potential GMP risks and incorporate mitigation strategies into the URS.
Ensure clear, objectively stated requirements that are verifiable during testing and commissioning.
Align the URS with company objectives and strategies to ensure long-term relevance and support.
Implement robust version control and change management processes for the URS throughout the validation lifecycle.
Executing the Control Space from the Design Space
The User Requirements Specification (URS) is a mechanism for executing the control space, from the design space as outlined in ICH Q8. To understand that, let’s discuss the path from a Quality Target Product Profile (QTPP) to Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs) to Critical Process Parameters (CPPs) with Proven Acceptable Ranges (PARs), which is a crucial journey in pharmaceutical development using Quality by Design (QbD) principles. This systematic approach ensures that the final product meets the desired quality standards and user needs.
It is important to remember that this is usually a set of user requirements specifications, respecting the system boundaries.
From QTPP to CQAs
The journey begins with defining the Quality Target Product Profile (QTPP). The QTPP is a comprehensive summary of the quality characteristics that a drug product should possess to ensure its safety, efficacy, and overall quality. It serves as the foundation for product development and includes considerations such as:
Dosage strength
Delivery system
Dosage form
Container system
Purity
Stability
Sterility
Once the QTPP is established, the next step is to identify the Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs). CQAs are physical, chemical, biological, or microbiological properties that should be within appropriate limits to ensure the desired product quality. These attributes are derived from the QTPP and are critical to the safety and efficacy of the product.
From CQAs to CPPs
With the CQAs identified, the focus shifts to determining the Critical Process Parameters (CPPs). CPPs are process variables that have a direct impact on the CQAs. These parameters must be monitored and controlled to ensure that the product consistently meets the desired quality standards. Examples of CPPs include:
Temperature
pH
Cooling rate
Rotation speed
The relationship between CQAs and CPPs is established through risk assessment, experimentation, and data analysis. This step often involves Design of Experiments (DoE) to understand how changes in CPPs affect the CQAs. This is Process Characterization.
Establishing PARs
For each CPP, a Proven Acceptable Range (PAR) is determined. The PAR represents the operating range within which the CPP can vary while still ensuring that the CQAs meet the required specifications. PARs are established through rigorous testing and validation processes, often utilizing statistical tools and models.
Build the Requirements for the CPPs
The CPPs with PARs are process parameters that can affect critical quality attributes of the product and must be controlled within predetermined ranges. These are translated into user requirements. Many will specifically label these as Product User Requirements (PUR) to denote they are linked to the overall product capability. This helps to guide risk assessments and develop an overall verification approach.
Most of Us End Up on the Less than Happy Path
This approach is the happy path that aligns nicely with the FDA’s Process Validation Model.
This can quickly break down in the real world. Most of us go into CDMOs with already qualified equipment. We have platforms on which we’ve qualified our equipment, too. We don’t know the CPPs until just before PPQ.
This makes the user requirements even more important as living documents. Yes, we’ve qualified our equipment for these large ranges. Now that we have the CPPs, we update the user requirements for the Product User Requirements, perform an overall assessment of the gaps, and, with a risk-based approach, do additional verification activations either before or as part of Process Performance Qualification (PPQ).
Maintaining process closure is crucial for ensuring product quality and safety in biotechnology manufacturing, especially when using single-use systems (SUS). This approach is an integral part of the contamination control strategy (CCS). To validate process closure in SUS-based biotech manufacturing, a comprehensive method is necessary, incorporating:
Risk assessment
Thorough testing
Ongoing monitoring
By employing risk analysis tools such as Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) and Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA), manufacturers can identify potential weaknesses in their processes. Additionally, addressing all four layers of protection helps ensure process integrity and product safety. This risk-based approach to process closure validation is essential for maintaining the high standards required in biotechnology manufacturing, including meeting Annex 1.
Understanding Process Closure
Process closure refers to the isolation of the manufacturing process from the external environment to prevent contamination. In biotech, this is particularly crucial due to the sensitivity of biological products and the potential for microbial contamination.
Throughout this process it is important to apply the four layers of protection that form the foundation of a robust contamination control strategy:
Process: The inherent ability of the process to prevent or control contamination
Equipment: The design and functionality of equipment to maintain closure
Operating Procedures: The practices and protocols followed by personnel
Production Environment: The controlled environment surrounding the process
I was discussing this with some colleagues this week (preparing for some risk assessments) and I was reminded that we really should put the Patient in at the center, the zero. Truer words have never been spoken as the patient truly is our zeroth law, the fundamental principle of the GxPs.
Key Steps for Validating Process Closure
Risk Assessment
Start with a comprehensive risk assessment using tools such as HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) and FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis). It is important to remember this is not a one or another, but a multi-tiered approach where you first determine the hazards through the HACCP and then drill down into failures through an FMEA.
HACCP Approach
In the HACCP we will apply a systematic, preventative approach to identify hazards in the process with the aim to produce a documented plan to control these scenarios.
a) Conduct a hazard analysis b) Identify Critical Control Points (CCPs) c) Establish critical limits d) Implement monitoring procedures e) Define corrective actions f) Establish verification procedures g) Maintain documentation and records
FMEA Considerations
In the FMEA we will look for ways the process fails, focusing on the SUS components. We will evaluate failures at each level of control (process, equipment, operating procedure and environment).
Identify potential failure modes in the SUS components
Assess the severity, occurrence, and detectability of each failure mode
Calculate Risk Priority Numbers (RPN) to prioritize risks
Verification
Utilizing these risk assessments, define the user requirements specification (URS) for the SUS, focusing on critical aspects that could impact product quality and patient safety. This should include:
Process requirements (e.g. working volumes, flow rates, pressure ranges)
Following the ASTM E2500 approach, when we conduct the design review of the proposed SUS configuration, to evaluate how well it meets the URS, we want to ensure we cover:
Overall system design and component selection
Materials of construction
Sterilization/sanitization approach
Integrity assurance measures
Sampling and monitoring capabilities
Automation and control strategy
Circle back to the HACCP and FMEA to ensure they appropriately cover critical aspects like:
Loss of sterility/integrity
Leachables/extractables introduction
Bioburden control failures
Cross-contamination risks
Process parameter deviations
These risk assessments will define critical control parameters and acceptance criteria based on the risk assessment. These will form the basis for verification testing. We will through our verification plan have an appropriate approach to:
Verify proper installation of SUS components
Check integrity of connections and seals
Confirm correct placement of sensors and monitoring devices
Document as-built system configuration
Test system integrity under various operating conditions
Perform leak tests on connections and seals
Validate sterilization processes for SUS components
Verify functionality of critical sensors and control
Run simulated production cycles
Monitor for contamination using sensitive detection methods
Verify maintenance of sterility throughout the process
Assess product quality attributes
The verification strategy will leverage a variety of supplier documentation and internal testing.
Closure Analysis Risk Assessment (CLARA)
Acceptance and release will be to perform a detailed CLARA to:
Identify all potential points of contamination ingress
Assess the effectiveness of closure mechanisms
Evaluate the robustness of aseptic connections
Determine the impact of manual interventions on system closure
On Going Use
Coming out of our HACCP we will have a monitoring and verification plan, this will include some important aspects based on our CCPs.
Integrity Testing
Implement routine integrity testing protocols for SUS components
Utilize methods such as pressure decay tests or helium leak detection
Establish acceptance criteria for integrity tests
Environmental Monitoring
Develop a comprehensive environmental monitoring program
Include viable and non-viable particle monitoring
Establish alert and action limits for environmental contaminants
Establish a robust change control process for any modifications to the SUS or process
Regularly review and update risk assessments based on new data or changes
Implement a continuous improvement program to enhance process closure
Leveraging the Four Layers of Protection
Throughout the validation process, ensure that each layer of protection is addressed:
Process:
Optimize process parameters to minimize contamination risks
Implement in-process controls to detect deviations
Equipment:
Validate the design and functionality of SUS components
Ensure proper integration of SUS with existing equipment
Operating Procedures:
Develop and validate aseptic techniques for SUS handling
Implement procedures for system assembly and disassembly
Production Environment:
Qualify the cleanroom environment
Validate HVAC systems and air filtration
Remember that validation is an ongoing process. Regular reviews, updates to risk assessments, and incorporation of new technologies and best practices are essential for maintaining a state of control in biotech manufacturing using single-use systems.
Connected to the Contamination Control Strategy
Closed systems are a key element of the overall contamination control strategy with closed processing and closed systems now accepted as the most effective contamination control risk mitigation strategy. I might not be able to manufacture in the woods yet, but darn if I won’t keep trying.
They serve as a primary barrier to prevent contamination from the manufacturing environment by helping to mitigate the risk of contamination by isolating the product from the surrounding environment. Closed systems are the key protective measure to prevent contamination from the manufacturing environment and cross-contamination from neighboring operations.
The risk assessments leveraged during the implementation of closed systems are a crucial part of developing an effective CCS and will communicate the (ideally) robust methods used to protect products from environmental contamination and cross-contamination. This is tied into the facility design, environmental controls, risk assessments, and overall manufacturing strategies, which are the key components of a comprehensive CCS.
Facility design and manufacturing processes are complex, multi-stage operations, fraught with difficulty. Ensuring the facility meets Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) standards and other regulatory requirements is a major challenge. The complex regulations around biomanufacturing facilities require careful planning and documentation from the earliest design stages.
Which is why consensus standards like ASTM E2500 exist.
Central to these approaches are risk assessment, to which there are three primary components:
An understanding of the uncertainties in the design (which includes materials, processing, equipment, personnel, environment, detection systems, feedback control)
An identification of the hazards and failure mechanisms
An estimation of the risks associated with each hazard and failure
Folks often get tied up on what tool to use. Frankly, this is a phase approach. We start with a PHA for design, an FMEA for verification and a HACCP/Layers of Control Analysis for Acceptance. Throughout we use a bow-tie for communication.
Aspect
Bow-Tie
PHA (Preliminary Hazard Analysis)
FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis)
HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points)
Primary Focus
Visualizing risk pathways
Early hazard identification
Potential failure modes
Systematically identify, evaluate, and control hazards that could compromise product safety
Timing in Process
Any stage
Early development
Any stage, often design
Throughout production
Approach
Combines causes and consequences
Top-down
Bottom-up
Systematic prevention
Complexity
Moderate
Low to moderate
High
Moderate
Visual Representation
Central event with causes and consequences
Tabular format
Tabular format
Flow diagram with CCPs
Risk Quantification
Can include, not required
Basic risk estimation
Risk Priority Number (RPN)
Not typically quantified
Regulatory Alignment
Less common in pharma
Aligns with ISO 14971
Widely accepted in pharma
Less common in pharma
Critical Points
Identifies barriers
Does not specify
Identifies critical failure modes
Identifies Critical Control Points (CCPs)
Scope
Specific hazardous event
System-level hazards
Component or process-level failures
Process-specific hazards
Team Requirements
Cross-functional
Less detailed knowledge needed
Detailed system knowledge
Food safety expertise
Ongoing Management
Can be used for monitoring
Often updated periodically
Regularly updated
Continuous monitoring of CCPs
Output
Visual risk scenario
List of hazards and initial risk levels
Prioritized list of failure modes
HACCP plan with CCPs
Typical Use in Pharma
Risk communication
Early risk identification
Detailed risk analysis
Product Safety/Contamination Control
At BOSCON this year I’ll be talking about this fascinating detail, perhaps too much detail.
Investigations of a Dog 