A Review on Life Cycle Management Approach on Asset Qualification
All equipment’s used in the production of products shall be properly Validated, Qualified and Calibrated to demonstrate that it is suitable for its intended purpose. Qualification is an important aspect of the pharmaceutical quality system. When the equipment is properly qualified, verified and maintained, there is the possibility of Consistent performance of the equipment. A well designed qualification program saves valuable time and cost. Qualification is called a cyclic process because it is a never ending process. Appropriate documentation of the qualification program is very important as lack of the documented evidence does not give any meaning to qualification (Not documented it means not done). The current programs and procedures of equipment qualification used within any pharmaceutical and bioscience industry are based on ‘regulatory requirements’, ‘voluntary standards’, ‘vendor practices’, and ‘industry practices’. The output is considerable variation in the way any pharmaceutical and biotechnological companies approach for the laboratory equipment. The lifecycle management approach of equipment qualification covers entire life cycle for the specification, design, manufacturing, installation, commissioning, qualification (4Qs Model DQ, IQ, OQ, PQ), operation & maintenance of equipment in a risk based life cycle management approach. The goal of any regulated pharmaceutical and bioscience company is to provide reliable and valid data suitable for its intended purpose. Main goal of equipment qualification is to form the basis for written procedures for production and process control which are designed to assure that the drug products have the SISPQ (Safety, Identity, Strength, Purity and Quality)
Keywords: Validation, Calibration, Life cycle management approach, Qualification (4Qs Model- DQ, IQ, OQ & PQ), SISPQ (Safety, Identity, Strength, Purity and Quality)
2. Schedule M; Part 1- Good manufacturing practices for premises and materials; 7.0Equipment. http://cdsco.nic.in/html/GMP/Schedule M (GMP).
3. Nash, Robert A, et al. Pharmaceutical Process Validation 3rded. Informa Healthcare. 2003; P. 860.
4. Laboratory Controls, General Requirements, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 211.160, Title 21, Rev. April 2000.
5. Maintenance and Calibration of Equipment, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 58.63, Title 21, Rev. April 2000.
6. Bedson P., The Development and Application of Guidance on Equipment Qualification of Analytical Instruments, Accred. Quality. Assurance. 1996; 1(6):265–274.
7. Bedson P., The Development and Application of Guidance on Equipment Qualification of Analytical Instruments, Accred. Qual. Assur. 1996; 1(6):265–274.
8. Unites States Pharmacopeia, Chapter <1058>, Analytical Instrument Qualification, Rockville, USA, 2008.
9. Bridges, D. (2005). Compliance requirements for equipment and instrumentation in GLP studies. Society of quality assurance first global QA conference 21st SQA annual meeting preconference training. Florida. USA. pp. 1-17.
10. Huber, L. (2005). Compliance Requirements for Equipment and Instrumentation in GLP Studies in Gap Analysis, Risk Assessment, & Master Validation Plan. 21st SQA Annul Meeting Preconference Training, Florida, USA.
11. Unites States Pharmacopeia, Chapter <1058>, Analytical Instrument Qualification, Rockville, USA, 2008.
12. M. Freeman, M.Leng, D. Morrison and R.P. Munden from the UK Pharmaceutical Analytical Sciences Group (PASG), Position Paper on the qualification of analytical equipment, Pharm. Techn. Europe, 40-46, November 1995.
13. L. Huber, Validation and Qualification in Analytical Laboratories, Interpharm, Informa Healthcare, New York, USA, 1998, Second revision 2007.
14. Final version of Annexure 15 to EU Guide to Good Manufacturing Practice, Qualification and Validation.
15. Unites States Pharmacopeia, Chapter <1058>, Analytical Instrument Qualification, Rockville, USA, 2008.
16. PIC/S, PI 006-2, Recommendations on Validation Master Plan, Installation and Operational Qualification, Non-sterile Process Validation, Cleaning Validation.
17. British Standard, BS 3811, “Glossary of maintenance management terms in terotechnology,” March 1984.
18. Norsok Standard, Z-008, Rev-2, “Criticality analysis for maintenance purposes,” November 2001.
19. FDA; "Guidance for Industry - Formal Dispute Resolution: Scientific and Technical Issues Related to Pharmaceutical CGMP"
20. Taylor, Nick. In-Pharma Technologist.com; "Ignore a form 483? Not wise say FDA" (26-02-2009)
21. "Goebel, Paul W.; Whalen, Matthew D.; and Khin-Maung-Gyi, Felix. Applied Clinical Trials Online; "What a Form 483 Really Means" 01-09-2001"
22. Rios, Maribel. Pharm Tech Talk; "FDA Begins Enforcing Deadlines on Form 483 Responses" 15-09-2009
23. Risk based equipment qualification: A user/supplier cooperative approach, GAMP Italia Equipment Validation Work Group, Pharmaceutical Engineering, 2007; 27(3).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License. that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).