If one takes a closer look at the 483s and Warning Letters issued by FDA
with regard to pharmaceutical manufacturing equipment, one finds among
others some documents citing the contamination of the product through the
equipment.Three Warning Letters reference products contaminated by metal particles. This problem was definitely caused by the
equipment. The question is how this could have happened.
Manufacturing equipment should be qualified, thus proving its
suitability for the intended purpose. Just because time and again
deficiencies are found in the equipment, special focus is placed on
validation and qualification within the framework of pharmaceutical
manufacture. National and international regulations as well as GMP
inspectors consider qualified equipment and validated processes to be an
important prerequisite for attaining and maintaining pharmaceutical
quality.
If one looks at the equipment before and also after qualification, a
variety of points can have caused the deficiencies.
Before the equipment is qualified, there is the construction according
to the pharmaceutical regulations. Next to the regulations concerning
production itself and quality control, the construction has to create the
conditions for reproducible operation. In this respect, GMP/FDA-compliant
engineering has a pivotal role in the initial stages.
After qualification, two integral parts of quality assurance are
regular and preventive maintenance in pharmaceutical production as well as
the documentation of changes.
The complaints regarding metal contamination were discussed in detail
within FDA Warning Letters and 483s. In this context, the FDA stresses the fact that a systematic
analysis/investigation has to be carried out in case of such an
'unexpected contamination.' Moreover, the FDA demands that not only the
batch in which the 'unexpected contamination' was found has to be
analysed, but also all other batches that could potentially be
affected.
If the analysis shows that the contamination with metal particles was
caused by faulty engineering, this can at worst result in the closure of
the facility.
The following complaints can be found in inspection reports and even in
Warning Letters:
- Rust was observed in various parts of the equipment, transport carts
and furniture used in cleanrooms and in critical parts of the filling
section
- Rust was also observed in the active air sampler used to monitor the
cleanrooms
- There were no controls for metal in the areas where rust was
observed
- There was no SOP describing the investigations to be carried out
when unexpected contamination (e.g. metal particles) is detected
- Due to the use of a wrong equipment part, mechanical problems
occurred resulting in metal abrasion. As a consequence, metal
particles were found in the product.
- etc.