Optimization of the water-insoluble procedures for USP General Chapter Residual Solvents <467>.

The water-insoluble procedures in US Pharmacopeia (USP) General Chapter Residual Solvents <467>, which are based on European Pharmacopoeia procedures, were optimized and modified before their inclusion in the chapter to improve their scope, performance, and ruggedness. The optimized procedures use a static headspace introduction system with a gas chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization detector. This article describes some of the key changes made to the USP published procedures, including use of dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) or dimethylformamide (DMF) as the solvent, addition of 5 mL of water and 1 mL of sample (dissolved in DMSO or DMF) to the headspace vial, use of a 3:1 GC split ratio, and use of new matrix-matched system suitability solutions. These procedures were verified with two different active pharmaceutical ingredients--hydroxyzine pamoate and prednisone. In the investigation, the more polar material (hydroxyzine pamoate) showed greater recoveries for the optimized procedures when prepared in DMSO. The less polar material (prednisone) typically had greater recoveries in DMF for the optimized procedures. During experimentation, insights into sample preparation, additional types of headspace instrumentation, solvent purity, and other parameters were also gained.

The USP Performance Verification Test, Part I: USP Lot P Prednisone Tablets: quality attributes and experimental variables contributing to dissolution variance.

PURPOSE: Beyond instrumental qualification, proficiency testing is not usually a prerequisite for many analytical procedures, given reliance on a manufacturer's assay validation coupled with regulatory review and inspection. Given the special features of the dissolution procedure, proficiency testing was put in place initially by pharmaceutical manufacturers and carried on by USP. Proficiency testing is designed to help ensure that execution of a dissolution procedure for solid oral dosage forms adequately supports administrative and legal decisions so that measurements made at different times, by different analysts, or with different methods can be confidently compared. USP has applied metrological principles to aid practitioners in carrying out the dissolution procedure alone and in collaborative studies to facilitate understanding potential sources of variability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present study aimed to identify key dissolution variables associated with USP Lot P Prednisone Tablets in conjunction with the USP Performance Verification Test (PVT). Using five dissolution test assemblies from different manufacturers, at least four of six analysts determined percents prednisone dissolved on dissolution Apparatus 1 (basket) and Apparatus 2 (paddle) on each assembly. Six replicate experiments were performed on each analyst-assembly combination with a set of six to eight tablets in each experiment. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Statistical analysis demonstrated that dissolution test assemblies were the largest factor contributing to dissolution variability. Inherent tablet variability was low, and USP Lot P Prednisone Tablets did not contribute importantly to dissolution variability. Contributions from analyst and analytical procedure also were estimated to be low.

The USP Performance Verification Test, Part II: collaborative study of USP's Lot P Prednisone Tablets.

PURPOSE: Periodic performance verification testing (PVT) is used by laboratories to assess and demonstrate proficiency and for other purposes as well. For dissolution, the PVT is specified in the US Pharmacopeia General Chapter Dissolution <711> under the title Apparatus Suitability Test. For Apparatus 1 and 2, USP provides two reference standard tablets for this purpose. For each new lot of these reference standards, USP conducts a collaborative study. METHODS: For new USP Lot P Prednisone Tablets, 28 collaborating laboratories provided data. The study was conducted with three sets of tablets: Lot O open label, Lot O blinded, and Lot P blinded. The blinded Lot O data were used for apparatus suitability testing. RESULTS: Acceptance limits were determined after dropping data due to failure of apparatus suitability, identification of data as unusual on control charts, or protocol violations. CONCLUSIONS: Results yielded acceptance criteria of (47, 82) for Apparatus 1 and (37, 70) for Apparatus 2. Results generally were similar for Lot P compared to results from Lot O except that the average percent dissolved for Lot P is greater than for Lot O with Apparatus 2.