Upload
elwin-brooks
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DEVELOPMENT OF QUALITY BY DESIGN (QBD) GUIDANCE ELEMENTS ON DESIGN
SPACE SPECIFICATIONS ACROSS SCALES WITH STABILITY CONSIDERATIONS
Scale up consideration – NIR calibration
Benoit Igne, Sameer Talwar, Brian Zacour,
Carl Anderson, James Drennen
Duquesne University Center for Pharmaceutical Technology
Blend Scale up issues
• Volume of powder sampled decreased
• Differences in fill volume
• Blending dynamics changed
• Blender shape changed
• Different NIR sensors– ThermoFisher Spectral Probe to ExpoTech
ePAT 601 Blend monitor
Efficient calibration approach
• Used limited number of levels– 0%, 100%, nominal, granule
• Classical least squares based method– Regression vector is based on the pure
components
• Consequently, the differences in regression vector from scale to scale, from NIR sensor to NIR sensor was mainly a function of the instrument differences
Efficient calibration approach
• No unique samples
• No degradation of sample
• No transfer set / standardization method
• Reduced time and effort for calibration model development: “calibration in hours”
Calibration comparison
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Reference (%, w/w)
Pre
dict
ion
(%,
w/w
)
API
MCC
HPCStarch
data5
API MCC HPC StarchRMSEC (%) = 1.40 0.95 1.08 0.70RMSECnom (%) = 1.66 1.09 1.25 0.75
API MCC HPC StarchRMSEC (%) = 1.56 0.81 0.98 0.41RMSECnom (%) = 1.93 1.58 1.38 0.50
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Predicted (%, w/w)
Ref
eren
ce (%
, w/w
)
API
MCC
HPC
Starch
Laboratory scale Scale-up
Blend end point
• At laboratory scale1. Both instruments gave similar outputs
2. RMSNV under error of validation
• At scale up1. RMSNV under error of validation
• Blend was stopped in a similar manner, based on similar criteria– Similar definition of homogeneity
– Differences in scales of scrutiny