Cited by 3

Test Process and Results of Potential Masking of Sterilizing-Grade Filters

Ferrante, Stephanie, McBurnie, Leesa, Dixit, Mandar, Joseph, Brian, Jornitz, Maik·2020·PDA Journal of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology

Abstract

Pre-use/post-sterilization integrity testing (PUPSIT) has been a widely debated topic for the last several years. To a large extent, the debate is because of the fact that scientific data were not available to provide additional clarity that could inform appropriate risk-based judgements and commensurate actions. To gain clarity, the Parenteral Drug Association (PDA) and BioPhorum Organizations Group (BioPhorum) formed the Sterile Filtration Quality Risk Management (SFQRM) consortium in late 2017. The consortium goals have been to fill existing gaps in scientific data as adequately as possible with studies and industry guidance that would provide professionals and license holders with the ability to make informed decisions about appropriate risk-management strategies. This paper is one in a series of publications that are the result of the collaboration, and these should be considered together and viewed holistically in order to determine the best course of action with regard to PUPSIT. In total, the four papers cover the following areas: (1) data mining to determine the influence of fluid properties on integrity test values, (2) filter masking studies and results (this publication), (3) risk assessment and management from filter production to end use, and (4) points to consider in the best practice of the use of PUPSIT. In total, 25 manufacturers and filter suppliers have contributed to the work of the Consortium, deploying their filtration experts and pooling their collecti…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5731/pdajpst.2019.011189

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Important factors when performing a process risk assessment are the chance of a present filter damage being masked and whether the process fluid can plug and thereby mask this damage.

    “Important factors when performing a process risk assessment are the chance of a present filter damage being masked and whether the process fluid can plug and thereby mask this damage (Ferrante et al. 2020).”

    From Single-use solutions for PUPSIT: requirements, challenges, and solutions (2026) · cites this paper as Ferrante et al. 2020

  • Laser-drilled holes are considered to be the most practical and controllable among various methods for creating artificial leaks in thin films and membranes and have often been used for this purpose.

    “While “real-world” defects can encompass a variety of forms, laser-drilled holes are considered to be the most practical and controllable among various methods for creating artificial leaks in thin films and membranes and have often been used for this purpose [11,16,17,20,30,31].”
  • In many cases, including in some recent studies pertaining to filter integrity testing, a bubble point test is the only test used to assess the integrity of a filter.

    “However, in many cases, including in some recent studies pertaining to filter integrity testing, a bubble point test is the only test used to assess the integrity of a filter [20,21].”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ferrante, S., McBurnie, L., Dixit, M., Joseph, B., & Jornitz, M.
Venue
PDA Journal of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology
Published
2020
Volume
74
Issue
5
Pages
509-523
ISSN
  • 1079-7440
  • 1948-2124
Cited by
3
References
0
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review