A Risk-Based Approach for Pre-Use/Post-Sterilization Integrity Test Simulation During Bacterial Retention Testing as Part of the Process-Specific Filter Validation of Sterilizing Grade Filters
Abstract
Pre-use post-sterilization integrity testing is implemented in sterile filtration applications by drug manufacturers using a risk-based approach with consideration of the stipulation in Eudralex Volume 4, Annex 1, Manufacture of Sterile Medicinal Products, which states that "The integrity of the sterilizing filter should be verified before use". Within the bacterial retention test design, performed as part of the process-specific sterile filter validation, it is important to simulate the filtration process under evaluation as closely as possible. Worst-case conditions experienced by the process filter during routine use that may impact the process filters' ability to produce a sterile effluent should be accounted for in the study. As performing pre-use post-sterilization integrity tests introduces additional mechanical stress on the process filter and a new potential route for the introduction of bioburden into the process fluid flow path related to the filter wetting procedure, a risk-based bacterial retention test design incorporating a pre-use post-sterilization integrity test simulation phase should be considered after a thorough evaluation of the process-specific conditions. The risk assessment should include evaluation of process pre-use post-sterilization integrity test conditions, including but not limited to the integrity test method and specifications, the wetting fluid type, the maximum allowable number of pre-use post-sterilization integrity test repetitions, as well as the permitted bioburden level of the pre-use post-sterilization integrity test wetting fluid. The outcome of the assessment provides a basis for the process-specific bacterial retention test design. In the following, we present our perspective on the topic as well as detailed insight into various aspects of pre-use post-sterilization integrity test simulation test design for consideration. Finally, we present all three PUPSIT-BCT approaches described (non-bactericidal, partially bactericidal, and bactericidal). Executed studies yielded acceptable results. Target parameters agreed upon were met.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Single-use solutions for PUPSIT: requirements, challenges, and solutions
Glenz, M., Eiermann, P., Manser, B., & Teschner, H. (2026) · Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology · doi:10.1007/s00253-026-13847-5 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Salamatian, M., Groβ, Y., Stering, M., Le, T. V., & Bindels, A.
- Affiliations
- Sartorius (United States) (US)
- GlaxoSmithKline (Belgium) (BE)
- Venue
- PDA Journal of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology
- Publisher
- Parenteral Drug Association, Inc.
- Published
- 2025
- Volume
- 79
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 408-421
- ISSN
- 1079-7440 (ISSN-L)
- 1948-2124
- OpenAlex
- W4410493150
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- FWCI
- 0.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- PDA Journal of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Analytical Chemistry › Analytical Methods in Pharmaceuticals
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Aerosol Filtration and Electrostatic Precipitation
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biotechnology › Microbial Inactivation Methods
- Keywords
- sterile filtration, filter validation, risk-based approach, risk assessment, microbial load, worst-case scenario, sterile pharmaceutical products
- MeSH terms
- Bacteria, Drug Contamination, Filtration, Sterilization, Technology, Pharmaceutical, Risk Assessment
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