OPTIMIZATION OF PANTOPRAZOLE ENTERIC PELLETS COATING PROCESS BY QBD: EFFECT OF COATING PROCESS VARIABLES ON THE INTERMEDIATE QUALITY OF THE PRODUCT AND SCALE UP
Keywords:
Wurster, Risk assessment, Design space, Control strategy, FMEA, Scale up, QbDAbstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to optimize pantoprazole enteric coating process based on Quality by Design (QbD) principle and successful scale up.
Methods: The critical process parameters (CPP) were identified based on Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) tool. A full factorial design was applied to develop design space and determine control strategy for pantoprazole enteric coating process, have promising yield, assay and reduced process time. The coating process variables studied were air volume (X1), spray rate (X2) and atomization air pressure (X3), versus percentage fines (Y1), percentage agglomerates (Y2) and assay (Y3) as responses. The pellets were coated in Wurster and characterized for assay, dissolution, scanning electron microscopy and loss on drying.
Results: When X2 at low level and X3 at high level, spray drying increased hence fines increased while X2 at a high level and X3 at a low level, agglomeration increased. The optimization performed to decide level of X2 and X3 for fines and agglomerated free process. The operating ranges, for robust coating process of desired pellets yield and quality, X1, X2 and X3 were 46-58 CFM, 6-9 g/min and 1.1-1.3 bar respectively. In scale up of pellets, physical and chemical parameters reproduced based on process ran as per scale up factor calculation.
Conclusion: It was concluded that a promising pellets coating process was successfully designed using QbD approach and successfully scale upscale up possible based on complete optimization of process variables, understanding of risk associated with variables and implementation of scale-up factor calculation provided by the vendor.
Â
Downloads
References
Mitchell M. Determining criticality-process parameters and quality attributes part i: criticality as a continuum. Bio Pharm International. Dec, 2013;26:12.
ICH Guideline. Pharmaceutical development Q8 (R2), Current Step 4 version; 2009.
ICH Guideline. Quality Risk Management Q9. Current Step 4 version; 2005.
ICH Guideline. Pharmaceutical Quality System Q10, Current Step 4 version; 2008.
Thomas AL. Using a systematic approach to select critical process parameters. BioPharm Int 2012;7:12.
Maronga SJ, Wnukowski P. The use of humidity and temperature profiles in optimizing the size of fluidized bed in a coating process. Chem Eng Process 1998;5:423–32.
Oliveira WP, Freire JT, Coury JR. Analysis of particle coating by spouted bed process. Int J Pharm 1997;158:1-9.
Ronsse F, Pieters JG, Dewettinck K. Combined population balance and thermodynamic modeling of the batch top-spray fluidized bed coating process. part I model development and validation. J Food Eng 2007;78:296-07.
Shallcross DC. Psychrometric charts. In: DC Shallcross. Ed. Handbook of psychrometric charts: humidity diagrams for engineers. London: Blackie Academic and Professional; 1997. p. 44-5.
Cole GC. Coating pans and coating columns. In: GC Cole. Ed. Pharmaceutical Coating Technology. London: Taylor and Francis; 1995. p. 205-9.
Christensen FN, Bertelson P. Qualitative description of the Wurster-based fluid-bed coating process. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 1997;23:451-3.
Hemati M, Cherif R, Saleh K, Pont V. Fluidized bed coating and granulation: influence of process-related variables and physicochemical properties on the growth kinetics. Powder Technol 2003;130:18–34.
Wan LSC, Heng PWS, Liew CV. The influence of liquid spray rate and atomizing pressure on the size of spray droplets and spheroids. Int J Pharm 1995;118:213-9.
Heng PWS, Chan LW, Chan WY. Application of spot colour measurement for the optimization of colour coating. S T P Pharm Sci 1999;9:539-4.
Singh SK, Reddy IK, Khan MA. Optimization and characterization of controlled release pellets coated with an experimental latex: II. Cationic drug. Int J Pharm 1996;141:179-5.
Jones DM, Percel PJ. Coating of multiparticulates using molten materials: Formulation and process considerations. In: I. Ghebre-Sellassie. Ed. Multiparticulate Oral Drug Delivery. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1994. p. 113-2.
Fitzpatrick S, Ding Y, Seiler C, Lovegrove C, Booth S, Forster R, et al. Positron emission particle tracking studies of a Wurster process for coating applications. Pharm Technol 2003;27:70-8.
Shelukar S, Ho J, Zega J, Roland E, Yeh N, Quiram D, et al. Identification and characterization of factors controlling tablet coating uniformity in a Wurster coating process. Powder Technol 2000;110:29-6.
Stamatis DH. Failure mode and effect analysis: FMEA from theory to execution. Milwaukee: American Quality Press; 2003.
Masoud H, Arash S, Natraj R. The application of FMEA in the oil industry in Iran: the case of four litre oil canning process of sepahan oil company. Afr J Business Management 2011;5:3019-7.
Mohammad HY, Tahereh NBA, Shahram T, Sekine SE. Performance improvement through proactive risk assessment: using failure modes and effects analysis. J Education Health Promotion 2014;3:28.
http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Inspections/InspectionGuides/ucm074928.htm. [Last accessed 18 Sep 2014].
United state pharmacopeia, USP37-NF32; 2014;3:4182-6.
Nagarwal RC, Srinatha A, Pandit JK. In situ forming formulation: development, evaluation, and optimization using 33 factorial design. AAPS PharmSciTech 2009;10:977–4.
Yu LX. Pharmaceutical quality by design: product and process development, understanding, and control. Pharm Res 2008;25:781–1.
Bogner R, Drennen J, Khan M, Oksanen C, Reklaitis G. Quality by design i: application of failure mode effect analysis (FMEA) and plackett–burman design of experiments in the identification of Main Factors†in the formulation and process design space for roller-compacted ciprofloxacin hydrochloride immediate-release tablets. AAPS PharmSciTech 2012;13:1243-4.