Home » On Pharma

Russ Somma on QbD - "How Did You Launch Before, With a Catapult?"


The Competing Globally track also featured a presentation on Quality by Design, made by Russ Somma, President, SommaTech LLC, who worked for several years at Novartis and is also an editorial advisor on PharmaQbD.com.  Mr. Somma joked that the industry never had quality by accident, "We don't just lumber along and wait to fall apart, but the question is: Did you ask the right questions at the right time?" There's a need to better define process needs and required capacity early on.

"It's not a race to the end of development….we need a clear roadmap for development leading to tech transfer," he noted. Later on he described the need for PAT, but not as an add-on, without sufficient process understanding, or as an excuse to justify doing what you want (more on that later(.

He described the need to set drug product specs as well as the importance of:
a basic knowledge of:

  • excipient interactions and process understanding
  • raw material characteristics and variability
  • a target product profile-a “desired state” for product
  • stability of clinical forms, prototypes as well as drug substances.

CMC Project Teams are Critical
Mr. Somma said he was amazed that the CMC Project Team is a new concept for some drug companies ("What did you launch projects with before, a catapult?" he asked.)

He also noted the fact that product changes along the way can spell disaster, for example, if the product picks up moisture.

He suggested the following as some of the key questions to ask and attempt to answer as a starting point:

What are the properties that affect product performance?
What is formulation intended to do given drug substance properties?
What are the special requirements of the drug substance anddrug product?

He mentioned the importance of having a historical database for the product (one may start with broader ranges during early stages, he said, then tighten them.   These require a systematic reporting method referenced during clinical batches,pilot scale, scalup and validation.  This information then becomes  a part of knowledge store for product, and basis for SPC, facility design and maintenance.

It is important to determine the proven acceptable ranges, he noted:

Chart all process steps and controllable parameters
Provide a brief description of the process step and controlled parameter
Include Engineering units that are recorded
Anticipate result for exceeding proven acceptable range
Evaluate the risk of exceeding range

From this one can stablish the operating range to be used for process control, he said. It thus becomes like a staged-gate review process.

Next, one must develop process setpoint and establish equipment tolerances.  "You need narrow limits of values…know what potential failures could be and what you’d have to do about them, he said, noting that process analytical technologies provides a context for defining process-critical control parameters.

Don't Be Linear
"Don’t take linear approach and expect it to work in multidimensional world," he cautioned. "PAT is not a fancy term for getting away with what we want."  Critical sources of variability should be known, variability managed, prior quality attributes predicted, rationale for change

Many firms apply PAT as add on technology, when the underlying process understanding isn’t there, Somma said recalling a company that called him.  They were having trouble with their filling line.  Their IR sensors weren't picking up measurements.  It turned out that the tablet coating was releasing dust, coating the sensors and preventing them from functioning. Somma suggested that the process needed improvement and that it might be overheating. "“But we’re adding PAT to the coating line” was the response he got.  

Moving from Tacit to Explicit Knowledge
Mr. Somma sketched the different types of knowledge, noting that tacit knowledge needs to be replaced with explicit knowledge if scaleup is to proceed correctly and if improvements are to be realized across different functions within a company.  And that knowledge needs to be set forth in a database.

He cited tablet development as an example, since it is time consuming and iterative and scalup is less well understood than other processes.  He summarized new techniques in compression simulation and hybrid continuous process systems singling out MIT's  3DP Process used by the Pennsylvania-based company, Aprecia, and the Glatt Multicell GMC 30, semicontinuous process….

Quick Does Not Equal Cheap
If you want to be quick, Somma noted, you're not necessarily going to be cheap.  "YOu have to throw intelligence rather than money at the problem...and consider the product in its entire life cycle to formulate a proactive rather than reactive submission strategy," and to avoid fishing expeditions for data, and approval delays.

In short, he said, "Know what you do not know." U.S. pharma often fumbles over its own requirements and regulations.  "There are companies [that are already] doing things this way and if you don’t consider changing the way you do things, they’re going to eat your lunch…"  You'll find more about him on www.sommatechconsulting.com


Qbd How did you launch before with a catapult

It is easy to condem companies for not using PAT but the underlying problem is that PAT is not cost effective unless you have a minimum volume.  When a drug is being developed you never know if it is going to be safe, effective and if you pass those hurdles you may get stumbled at the compliance gate.  Once a product is ready to launch you may not have the required volume to make PAT a cost effective choice.  Add to that you have a limited time to earn back your billion dollar investment and we end up with a new drug product that is made molecule by molecule.  Add in the cost to manufacture and do you want to be the person who signs the document not to do a complete test until the product is in the finished container? 

PAT is a daunting task and risk.  What makes matters worse is that chemists are trainied to make a molecule, preciptate the molecule, test it for yeild and purity and then move on to the next step.  If you truly what PAT and continuous manufacturing you will need to trian chemists differently (preferably with chem engineers)!

 

 

PAT is cost effective at ANY level

There is (obviously) a continuing misunderstanding about what PAT really is. PAT is a tool, part of QbD, but just a tool. It consists of continuous measurements and, hopefully, a modicum of control. It is NOT just for large volume products. Obviously, Viagra and Tylanol would benefit, but so would a twice a year product. How?

Let's look at the first step in PAT: raw material inspection. Unless a company is a rare bird, it uses (basically) the same raw materials for all its dosage forms. Thus, having a NIR to inspect the incoming lactose will benefit a daily 5-million tablet product or a once-a-year, 50,000 tablet product. Since it is the same procedure, it matters not the final "resting place" of the raw material. The QC time and chemicals used to pass a lot of raw material is just as expensive for a small or large volume product.

Mixing of a blend: this is catch-as-catch-can process normally. For propriatary drugs, we do three batches then assume everything is the same forever. Generics are required to check every lot (normally done on a risk-basis: make the tablets before the QC result comes back). Whether a blend is for a once-only material (clinical batch?) or ten time a week product, an on-line spectrometer saves time and money.

And the beat goes on. All the PAT tools are applicable to any and all products. Can we stop the "Urban legends" that exist? It does cost money to set up the instruments, but, my gosh, the lab time savings are amazing. PAT is NOT just for big sellers, it is NOT taught in school, and, unless applied, IS necessary to preserve our jobs.

E.W. Ciurczak

QbD and other TLA

We are all riding a bandwagon of TLAs (three letter acromyms). However it is still interesting even with doing the right things, products in Pharma world are produced checking quality every step of the way. That itself tells us that there is gap between what is done in the lab and what is done on the manufactuirng floor. 

Lack of QbD on the manufacturing floor is not a reflection of individual performance. It is due regulations dictating the industry. They have forced producers in a "quality by analysis" corner and we are stuck. Team work is needed to get out of this corner.   

QbD

Are the comments of the speaker about accident by design tongue in cheek. I hope not because the issue of QbD is becoming a bandwagon everyone is jumping on. Companies have developed drug products for many years...the implcation is that before QbD they just sat and guessed what to do and how to do it. Having developed products for some 30 years I resent the idea that there was no quality in my design. I used the best knowledge available and would conduct paramaterisation experiments to determine if there were critical issues that might effect product safety and efficacy. Its what I was taught to do in the 60's [be a scientist] trained others to do in the 70's and 80's and did from then on in various companies around the world. QbD is just good science-nothing new here except the name.

 

 

 

QbD isn't commonplace

While I did not work in solid dosage forms until 1970, I have a few wrinkles from the industry over 38 years. My running joke (being in Pharmaceutical Development) was that "development" consisted of "If 0.5% mg Stearate doens't work, try 0.75%." There was a longer time period (in many cases) to scale up a batch than develop the formulation, in the first place.

Our catch-line was, "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called 'Research.'" An exaggeration, but there wasn't a whole pile of physical chemistry behind what we were doing. To test plastic bottles for moisture protection, the idea was to fill the bottle with water, seal the top and weigh it at time points. When the merger (Ciba-Geigy) took place, I was told to curtail the packaging materials testing because, (and I quote from memory) "All our products are coated, so they don't have any problems with moisture."

If we get together for a beer someday, I will curl your hair with stories from various companies that I worked at.. about people who "knew what they were doing and were using good science." In short, QbD is a tiny bit more than "good science." It is an understanding and cooperation from the synthesis of the API through the stability testing of a product. The science of TLC was "good," just not appropriate to process control.  

E.W. Ciurczak