Advertisement

Container Closure Integrity Testing of Primary Containers for Parenteral Products

  • Shu-Chen Chen
Chapter
Part of the AAPS Advances in the Pharmaceutical Sciences Series book series (AAPS, volume 38)

Abstract

Container closure integrity (CCI) is the ability of a container closure system—i.e., a package system—to provide containment and protection for the content inside. Ensuring the CCI of a parenteral product package is essential during the entire lifecycle of a product. The chapter first reviews the U.S. FDA regulatory requirements on CCI. Regulations for several regulatory authorities outside the USA are also presented for comparison. From these regulatory requirements, attributes of CCI test are discussed. The chapter is then devoted to two aspects of CCI tests—(1) selection criteria for the test method to use and (2) introduction of six different methods. Selection criteria cover sensitivity and reliability of the method, destructive versus non-destructive methods, inline monitoring versus offline test as well as the material of construction of the primary container. Six methods reviewed are microbial challenge test, liquid tracer leak test, vacuum decay leak test, electrical conductivity leak test, tracer gas leak test, and headspace gas analyzer. Finally, the development, qualification, and validation of a method to be used are discussed. Each CCI test method has its advantages and disadvantages. The selection of an appropriate CCI method depends on the purposes and requirements of the test. In the Summary section, comparisons on the pros and cons for the various methods are presented.

Keywords

Container closure integrity Leak Test method Sensitivity Reliability Destructive Qualification Validation 

References

  1. 1.
    ASTM F2338-09. Standard test method for nondestructive detection of leaks in packages by vacuum decay method. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ASTM F2391-05. Standard test method for measuring package and seal integrity using helium as the tracer gas. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burrell B, Carver M, DeMuth G, Lambert W. Development of a dye ingress method to assess container-closure integrity: correlation to microbial ingress. PDA J Pharm Sci Technol. 2000;54(6):449–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Container closure systems for packaging human drugs and biologics. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration, Guidance for Industry, May 1999.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Container and closure system integrity testing in Lieu of sterility testing as a component of the stability protocol for sterile products. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration, Guidance for Industry, February 2008.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    EP 3.2.9. Rubber closures for containers. European Pharmacopeia 7.0, European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines, Strasbourg, France.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    EudraLex. The rules governing medicinal products in the European Union, Vol 4, EU guidelines to good manufacturing practice, medicinal products for human and veterinary use, Annex 1—Manufacture of Sterile Medicinal Products, European Commission.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guazzo DM. Parenteral product container closure integrity testing, Chapter 14 of pharmaceutical dosage forms: parenteral medications. In: Neema S, Ludwig JD, editors. Formulation and packaging, 3rd ed, Vol 1. NY: Informa Healthcare; 2010.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ICH Q2(R1). Validation of analytical procedures: text and methodology. In: International conference on harmonization of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ISO 8871-5:2005. Elastomeric parts for parenterals and for devices for pharmaceutical use—Part 5: functional requirements and testing.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    ISO 8362-2:2008. Injection containers and accessories—Part 2: closures for injection vials.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    ISO 8362-5:2008. Injection containers and accessories—Part 5: freeze drying closures for injection vials.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kirsch L, Nguyen L, Moeckly C, Gerth R. Pharmaceutical container closure integrity II: the relationship between microbial ingress and helium leak rates in rubber stoppered glass vials. PDA J Pharm Sci Technol. 1997;51:195–202.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kirsch L. pharmaceutical container/closure integrity VI: a report on the utility of liquid tracer methods for evaluating the microbial barrier properties of pharmaceutical packaging. PDA J Pharm Sci Technol. 2000;54(4):305–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lin T, Hsu C, Kabakoff B, Patapoff T. Application of frequency-modulated spectroscopy in vacuum seal integrity testing of lyophilized biological products. PDA J Pharm Sci Technol. 2004;58(2):106–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Measurement Systems Analysis. Automotive Industry Action Group, 4th ed. June 2010.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McGinley C, Bigwarfe P, Thiel A, Olson K, Loe Ø, Loffredo D, Joseph J. Degradation of drug product caused by a leak detection instrument: mechanistic studies of degradation. Hospira, Inc., One 2 One Global Pharmaceutical Services, Lake Forest, IL 60045.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Orosz S Jr, Guazzo D. Glass vial finish defects, leak detection and product risk assessment. In: PDA annual meeting, packaging science Interest Group, March 16, 2010 Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pharmaceutical Package Integrity. Technical Report No. 27. PDA J Pharm Sci Technol 1988;52:S2, 35–7.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sterile Drug Products Produced by Aseptic processing—Current Good Manufacturing Practice. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration, Guidance for Industry, September 2004.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    The Code of Federal Regulations. Title 21 food and drugs, Revised April 1, 2006.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    USP <381>. Elastomeric closures for injection, United States Pharmacopeial Convention, Inc., Rockville, MD, December 2011.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    USP <1207>. Sterile product packaging—integrity evaluation. United States Pharmacopeial Convention, Inc., Rockville, MD, December 2011.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    USP <1225>. Validation of compendial procedures. United States Pharmacopeial Convention, Inc., Rockville, MD, December 2011.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wolf H, Stauffer T, Chen S, Lee Y, Forster R, Ludzinski M, Kamat M, Godorov P, Guazzo D. Vacuum decay container/closure integrity testing technology. Part 1. ASTM F2338-09 Precision and Bias Studies. PDA J Pharm Sci Technol. 2009;63:472–88.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wolf H, Stauffer T, Chen S, Lee Y, Forster R, Ludzinski M, Kamat M, Mulhall B, Guazzo D. Vacuum decay container/closure integrity testing technology. Part 2. Comparison to dye ingress tests. PDA J Pharm Sci Technol. 2009;63:489–98.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Agoura HillsUSA

Personalised recommendations