Setting Cleaning Validation Acceptance Limits for Topical Formulations - Pharmaceutical Technology

Latest Issue
PharmTech

Latest Issue
PharmTech Europe

  • Search
  • Suppliers
  • Careers

Enter a company or product name

KeywordLocation
About Search
Setting Cleaning Validation Acceptance Limits for Topical Formulations
There is a need for current cleaning validation methods to be used for topical formulations. The authors highlight the issues and challenges encountered.


Pharmaceutical Technology
Volume 32, Issue 1

in which ADI is the acceptable daily intake of the active A1 (%) and is equal to the minimum therapeutic daily dose × safety factor; MDD is the maximum daily dose for product B (mg); BS is the batch size of the product B (mg); SA is the swab area (cm2 ); and ESA is the equipment surface area shared with product A and product B (cm2 )


Table I: Safety factors for the determination of cleaning validation acceptance limits.
For the MACO calculation using therapeutic dose unit and safety factor approach, different safety factors have been suggested for various formulation types (see Table I). Nonetheless, a safety factor of 1000 is widely used because it can be thought of as comprising a factor of 10 for adjusting a therapeutically effective dose to a therapeutically noneffective dose, a factor of 10 to accommodate for individual variability in response, and a factor of 10 for making cleaning validation studies robust. The dose-reduction fraction is a measure of the risk involved and is assessed by the manufacturer depending on the actual manufacturing situation.

When it comes to TFs, applying the ADI or therapeutic dose–safety factor approach for MACO calculations is challenging for several reasons, including:

  • TFs are not divided into individual dosage units, unlike solid and liquid formulations.
  • Dose size per application varies depending upon the total lesion area. Hence, it becomes difficult to establish minimum or maximum daily doses.
  • No standardized approach exists for determining dose size. That is, the amount of product recommended to be applied per area of skin per treatment varies from manufacturer to manufacturer.
  • The pharmacological effects produced by systemic absorption of the API through oral ingestion are taken into consideration when determining ADIvalues. In the case of TFs, occasionally enough API is absorbed to cause systemic effects. TFs produce local toxicity even at low doses.

Therefore, a need arises for establishing a rational method to determine cleaning validation acceptance limits for TFs. This article establishes a method for the calculation of MACO for the APIof a subsequently manufactured TF by taking into account possible worst cases.

Worst case I

Assume that active A1 is marketed in strengths of 2%, 3%, and 5% and that product B can be applied on the entire body two to four times per day. The criterion set by Long and Finley can be used to determine the total amount of TF (e.g., cream and ointment) applied on the entire body in one application (6). The criterion describes the dosage of TFs in terms of fingertip units (FTUs). One adult FTU is the amount of ointment or cream expressed from a tube with a standard 5-mm diameter nozzle, applied from the distal crease to the tip of the index finger. One FTU contains approximately 0.5 g of cream, and it is assumed that approximately 20.25 g (~40.5 FTUs) of cream is needed to cover an adult body. On the basis of the these assumptions, the maximum amount of product B that can be applied daily would be

20.25 g/application × 4 application/day = 81 g/day

To determine the maximum amount of product applied per treatment for other TFs such as medicated shampoos, lotions, toothpaste, and mouthwash, one could consult the European Commission's Guidance for the Testing of Cosmetic Ingredients and their Safety Evaluation or the manufacturer's in-house criteria (7). For these formulations, the amount of product applied per treatment is fixed; therefore, the maximum amount of product applied per day depends on the maximum number of times the product is used daily.


ADVERTISEMENT

post a comment
Your email address will NOT be published.
appears with your comment
read our privacy policy
Note: does not support HTML
All comments submitted are subject to review, and may be delayed before posting. We reserve the right not to post comments.
LCGC E-mail Newsletters
Subscribe:Check the box next to each newsletter you wish to subscribe for:
| Weekly
| Monthly
| Monthly | Weekly
 Name:
 E-mail:

Survey
At this month's AAPS Annual Meeting & Exposition, several graduate students were awarded as young innovators. What are your thoughts on innovation and the next generation?
We need more young innovators and more students enrolling in pharma science programs
Our industry has just the right mix of young and old to keep innovation going
Age is irrelevant when it comes to innovation
We need more young innovators and more students enrolling in pharma science programs
25%
Our industry has just the right mix of young and old to keep innovation going
16%
Age is irrelevant when it comes to innovation
59%
View Results
Jim MillerOutsourcing OutlookJim Miller Facing Reality
Patricia Van ArnumIngredients InsiderPatricia Van Arnum Advancing Chiral Chemistry in API Synthesis
Faiz kermaniSpotlightFaiz Kermani Demographic time bomb
Rx-360 Takes on Europe, Talks to PharmTech in Podcast Series
Sanctions, Not Barcodes
Vaccines Finding Their Way in Novel Applications
Genzyme’s Friday the 13th
DTCA: Beneficial or Harmful?
FindPharma Custom Search
Source: Pharmaceutical Technology,
Click here