Connecting Across Competencies: Leveraging Best Practices for Processing

The AAMI working group ST/WG 93 is finalizing a standard (AAMI ST98) for the cleaning validation of reusable medical devices based on guidance from the technical information report AAMI TIR30:2011/(R)2016. A number of analytical best practices are being considered for this new standard. Test method suitability for processing cleaning validations historically has been established using one positive control and performing an extraction efficiency. The new cleaning validation standard is proposed to require a change from only one replicate test sample to three when performing method suitability. This change will affect manufacturers; therefore, the value of and consideration for performing these additional replicates requires explanation. This article discusses how variation of validation parameters can affect the accuracy and precision during method suitability testing. Multiple replicates are needed to understand the variability of method extraction and impact on cleaning validations of reusable medical devices.

An Overview of Risk Management and Risk-based Cleaning Validation

Risk in general means exposure to harm or a factor that can contribute towards bringing harm to a system. Almost every operation in the pharmaceutical industry is susceptible to risks. There is a need to overcome risks and them to prevent unwanted changes in product quality and safety. This prevention can be done by carrying out quality risk management (QRM) that facilitates the proper of risks, risk analysis, risk assessment to control and reduce risks. ICH Q9 guidelines explain quality risk management and its applications in the pharmaceutical industry. Cleaning validation is performed to verify and evaluate the efficacy of cleaning procedures used to clean the equipment after production and to prevent cross-contamination between products that are manufactured in the production facility. current study on reviews of quality risk management and cleaning validation policies. By incorporating QRM in the quality policy, companies can look to improve the modern Approach towards facing risks related to the issues that affect the product quality, safety and compliance concerning the cleaning of equipment used in manufacturing and supporting operations in the industries.

Comparison of Detection Limits for Allergenic Foods between Total Adenylate (ATP+ADP+AMP) Hygiene Monitoring Test and Several Hygiene Monitoring Approaches

ABSTRACT Validation and verification of cleaning and inspection methods are essential to prevent the spread of allergens via cross-contact. Among the hygiene monitoring tests used on-site, the ATP test is rapid and provides quantifiable results. Nevertheless, because a wide variety of foods contain significant amount of ADP and/or AMP due to the degradation of ATP, the ATP+ADP+AMP (A3) test is preferred for detecting food debris. Hence, the A3 test may be valuable in screening food debris that may contain residual allergens. In this study, the detection limits of the A3 test for 40 foods that are regulated in several countries as allergenic were compared with those of the other hygiene monitoring tests used on-site: the conventional ATP test with similar sensitivity for ATP, the protein swab test that detects as little as 50 μg of protein, and the lateral flow immunoassay (LFI). The A3 test demonstrated lower detection limits than did the ATP test. The detection sensitivity of the A3 test was greater than that of the protein swab test except for its use on gelatin (extracted protein). The cleaning validation performance using a stainless steel model in fish and meat revealed that the A3 test is efficient in verifying the levels of remaining food debris. Although LFI displayed the best sensitivities for 10 of 14 foods, it is not commercially available for some specific allergens; however, the A3 test can detect such food debris. Moreover, the detection limits of the A3 test were preferable or comparable to those of LFI for crustacean shellfish and for processed grains, with the exception of wheat flour and buckwheat. A field study in a food processing plant demonstrated that the amount of both A3 and milk protein (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) considerably decreased as the cleaning steps progressed. Therefore, the A3 test is effective in detecting the risk for allergen cross-contact after inadequate cleaning. HIGHLIGHTS