Timothy Cser- Senior Technology Specialist, MilliporeSigma (Merck outside of US & CA); Lamin Jallow- Microbiology Technology Specialist, MilliporeSigma (Merck outside of US & CA)
How do you foresee the role of automation evolving in QC microbiology testing over the next five years?
We will see more robust automation technologies on the market to address the evolving expectations for QC microbiology. As regulations become more prescriptive, leaving less room for interpretation, and as manufacturing throughput becomes more crucial for newly marketed drugs, the expectation will be that automation can support these drivers rather than sometimes being the bottleneck to getting product to market. Where QC analysts once performed routine, repetitive tasks, they could be reassigned to more high-value tasks, or where a QC manager manually reviewed data and ensured its integrity, automation could allow for streamlining of routine testing, data collection, interpretation, and batch record integration.
How is automation currently being integrated into QC microbiology testing processes, and what are the anticipated benefits?
We already have solutions for the industry to automate data connectivity and analytics, perform trend analyses, as well as employ robotics to replace or enhance manual testing. There are commercialized solutions for rapid incubation and detection, rapid sterility testing, and automated capturing of sterility test data, with more to come. The benefits of automation are already recognized as improving efficiency, accuracy, and, in many cases, costs or product throughput. The key driver to realize these benefits is the technology that is under development, or soon will be.
Data Integrity and Traceability
What are the key challenges related to data integrity in QC microbiology testing, and how can they be addressed?
Challenges often stem from the manual, subjective nature of microbial analyses, from legacy systems, MS, and human factors such as fatigue due to repetitive tasks, which can lead to errors, falsification, or non-compliance. Much of QC microbiology relies on older methodologies, making it difficult to bring the tests into a 21 CFR Part 11-compliant environment.
The challenges can be addressed by a combination of modern technology, improved processes, and cultural policies. Adopting automated plate readers, digital imaging, and rapid microbial methods (RMM) can minimize subjectivity and manual errors in colony counting or growth assessment. Integration with LIMS or Electronic Laboratory Notebooks (ELNs) for automatic data capture ensures that data are complete and contemporaneous. Legacy systems can be modernized with integrated lab tools, cloud solutions, and validated computerized systems featuring secure access controls and audit trails. Multi-level reviews, independent quality assurance, and mandatory investigations for OOL results or discrepancies are needed, as well as ongoing training on data integrity principles and microbial procedures to foster an open reporting environment. Password protections, access restrictions, and robust data archiving policies should be implemented, and clear SOPs developed for data management.
What best practices ensure robust data integrity and traceability when integrating new technologies or software platforms?
Companies need a structured, compliance-focused approach. A strong data governance framework must be established with clear policies, roles, and lifecycle management. It is important to conduct risk assessments to identify migration or compatibility risks, and align practices with regulatory standards such as FDA guidance and the ALCOA+ principles. New systems and changed workflows should be validated for their intended use and integrated seamlessly with existing systems to ensure data accuracy, reliability, and traceability. Using validated platforms like LIMS helps preserve metadata during transfers. Furthermore, technical controls should be implemented, for example, secure time-stamped audit trails, role-based access with multifactor authentication, encryption, backups that maintain readability, ty, and compliant electronic signatures. Training should be provided and a culture of compliance fostered. Staff must understand data integrity principles, regulatory obligations, and system use, with leadership promoting accountability and open reporting. Finally, monitoring and continuous improvement should be ensured through regular audits, investigations, CAPAs, and analytics-driven reporting to detect issues, track trends, and adapt to regulatory changes.
Rapid and Real-Time Testing
How are QC labs balancing the demand for speed with the need for accuracy and regulatory compliance in rapid testing?
A mixture of measures is being used, including the adoption of Rapid Microbiological Methods (RMMs). These tests must be validated against pharmacopeial methods of the most important markets and comply with the ALCOA+ principles. Automation and robotics to minimize manual handling errors can speed up sample prep and standardize workflows. Digital LIMS systems serve to integrate results, flag deviations, and ensure traceability in real time while maintaining data integrity. Some companies have implemented parametric release and real-time release testing (RTRT), whereby they use in-process data and statistical methods to release the product faster. An efficient Quality Management System can help to reduce QC bottlenecks.
Many labs perform equivalence testing (i.e., run rapid tests alongside compendial methods) during validation or early adoption phases to build confidence and regulatory acceptance. This dual approach allows labs to release products faster, with a safety net to fall back on traditional method results if needed.
What advancements have been made in rapid and real-time microbiological testing methods, and how do they compare to traditional methods?
Among the fields where advancements have been made is molecular genetics. PCR, qPCR, and digital PCR detect specific microbial DNA/RNA sequences fast and at high sensitivity and specificity. These methods distinguish between live and dead organisms when combined with viability dyes and are used in sterility and mycoplasma testing. Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) has proved useful for contamination source-tracking and biosafety. Although still costly, it is increasingly being used for root-cause investigations.
RMMs are also gaining traction. Growth-based ATP bioluminescence methods measure viable microbial ATP in products and can read results in CFUs. The technology is much faster than traditional culturing, but it does not identify species. Flow cytometry counts and characterizes individual cells in real time and assesses viability and growth kinetics without incubation. Biosensors & microfluidics “Lab-on-a-chip” platforms integrate detection, identification, and quantification, offering near real-time, portable testing with minimal reagents. MALDI TOF mass spectrometry identifies microbes within minutes by protein fingerprinting. Identification is far faster than with biochemical tests, though it requires enrichment cultures in many cases.
Gloveless Isolator Advancements
What recent advancements in gloveless isolator technology have been made, and how do they enhance the safety and efficiency of QC microbiology testing?
In the range of risk factors to an aseptic process, adopting gloveless isolators is about as far as you can go to reduce the human-borne risk of introducing contamination. Gloves have been recognized as the primary source of potential contamination, and gloveless isolators remove that interface and the associated risk. Recent advancements now allow for a fully automated process, with minimal human intervention other than setting up and loading the required materials. The question that remains is how to perform environmental monitoring in gloveless isolators to verify that they continue to meet regulatory requirements throughout the process. More and more measures are being implemented for EM using materials that are compatible with isolator transfer ports and robotics. Advanced technologies such as BAMS (Biofluorescent Aerosol Monitoring Systems) are also being adopted.
In what situations is gloveless technology most advantageous compared to traditional isolator or cleanroom setups?
Because their contamination risk is widely assumed to be considerably lower, gloveless isolators are ideal for high-risk aseptic processes as well as for the containment of highly potent or radioactive drug substances.
Non-animal based Pyrogen Testing
What are the main scientific and regulatory drivers behind the shift to non-animal-based pyrogen testing methods?
For scientific, regulatory, and ethical reasons, the traditional Rabbit Pyrogen Test (RPT) has now been effectively banned by the European Pharmacopoeia (EP). The fever response of rabbits is different from that of humans. The RPT can detect a broad range of pyrogens, but not always with the precision and sensitivity needed for modern cell and gene-based biologics. It is also slow and does not support real-time monitoring. In vitro methods, on the other hand, have been making advances. The Monocyte Activation Test (MAT) uses blood monocytes or cryopreserved cells of humans to mimic the human fever reaction to cytokine release. It detects a broad spectrum of endotoxins and non-endotoxin pyrogens, unlike the Limulus Amebocyte Lysate (LAL) test for bacterial endotoxins. The LAL is based on blood cells of the horseshoe crab, whose populations are endangered by the bleeding practices. The Recombinant Factor C (rFC) assay is a non-animal LAL test with a high specificity, though also only for endotoxins.
Regulatory agencies worldwide, the ICH, and the WHO are all committed to reducing animal use in testing. USP encourages the adoption of MAT and rFC as validated alternatives. Although EMA, FDA, and other regulators are aligned in principle, adoption speeds differ.
What challenges do companies face when transitioning to non-animal-based pyrogen testing?
There are certain technical, regulatory, and organizational challenges. Regulators require that alternative methods be validated for each product type to show equivalence, limits of detection, and proof of reliability, so QC staff have to fully understand the regulatory expectations and undergo training in the new method (e.g., cytokine ELISA for MAT). Companies may need to run parallel testing (new test vs. RPT/LAL) before regulators accept the switch because in vitro assays may behave differently. Variability between blood cell donors has led to an increased use of cryopreserved or pooled cells for the MAT, but these are not yet fully standardized. While EP now strongly supports MAT, regulators in the US and parts of Asia still widely accept and expect RPT and LALL. We do not know if and when the RPT will end in the US, so companies selling globally must sometimes maintain dual testing strategies.
Subscribe to our e-Newsletter.s
Stay up to date with the latest news, articles, and events. Plus, get special
offers from American Pharmaceutical Review delivered to your inbox!
Sign up now!