My name is Jian-Hwa Han. I have worked in dissolution area for 12 years.
I am the only speaker got extra time for presentation, and I do have a lot of information to share. I would like to ask you to hold your question if possible, and we have plenty time for discussions later.
Quick survey: (i) How many people heard about gelatin cross-linking issue? (ii) How many people perform dissolution testing? (iii) How many people actually had cross-linking headache before?
Workshop – “Challenges in Dissolution” I have one of my own QbD term - “Dissolution Space”, which is a knowledge space contains all the dissolution concepts and practices. And, in my Disso Space, the gelatin cross-linking only take up a very small portion in this space.
“A very small problem” but caused a very huge headache for the whole industry.
Good thing about this issue is – It is generic. Therefore, if we can share all of our knowledge and experiences, we should be able to come up a good solution for it.
<number>
We all have heard about “gelatin cross-linking”. But, do we know how that happens, when it could happen. Or, is there any way to prevent it?
What would be a good strategy for employing Tier-2 testing?
The Tier-2 testing provides us a helpful second chance to re-assess the quality of our gelatin products. We all appreciate to have this second chance.
Does the Tier-2 testing work? – Yes! (May be!) Can we make it better? – Certainly! That is what we are here for!
The key point for Tier-2 method to work is the enzyme activity.
Do we know what exactly the enzyme activity is for the material that we currently use?
Do we have good control on enzyme activity for our testing?
Does pepsin and pancreatin work equally well for digestion of the cross-linked gelatin?
Can we correlate our Tier-2 results to in vivo performance?
We want to learn the basics and apply the knowledge to better control our testing method.
When we hit the road block, are we bold enough to try something new and be able to convince the agencies?
There is one section in the new USP general chapter <1094> talking about gelatin cross-linking and the common causes. There are chemical and physical factors from the materials, environment, and packaging, … etc..
The true solution for solving the cross-linking problem is to identify the root causes, and find the ways to prevent it from happening, or slow down the progress.
(The dissolution testing is only a tool to show the quality of the product. We can ONLY improve the method, but we can not improve the quality of the product.)
When some test results “Do not conform” to the Dissolution specification, it may or may not due to gelatin cross-linking. We need to be aware that Tier-2 testing can ONLY solve the problems if the issue is “gelatin cross-linking”.
Here are some tips can help you to identify if the problem is “gelatin cross-linking”. The key word is “visual observation”! & “Visual observation” means nothing if you don’t document it.
(#4) Capsule opening time: In acid media, a fresh capsule would open within 2 minutes (HGC/SGC), and the aged capsules may not open until 3~5 minutes or even later.
(#5) Pellicle Formation is the strongest evidence for gelatin cross-linking: Different gelatin products/different levels of cross-linking Different characteristics of pellicles.
(#6) Threading: Trivial but important. It is an early sign of gelatin cross-linking which has been ignored most of the times. At this stage, you will not fail your spec, but you can expect the cross-linking is happening. It could buy you the time for preparation, and avoid the panic shock at the later time.
(I use these pictures to help me to make a point here. Actually, the threads are very fine - too fine to be captured by camera. So, you will need to train your eyes for it.)
With this background knowledge, we can build up a reasonable common practice for utilizing Tier-2 testing.
When we receive a sample (release or stability), we will always follow Tier-1 testing protocol first.
If the testing results are good as expected, we report the results and are done with it. !!!
If the result is questionable (note - during early development phases there is no spec set yet), we would track back the observation records to exam the possibility for gelatin cross-linking.
If the answer is possible, then we will perform Tier-2 testing.
The grey area is an important conceptual box which we should always think about how to correlate the dissolution results to product in vivo performance. At this time, I would push it to the background.
After the Tier-2 testing, if the testing result is acceptable, we will report the results. (Done!)
If the results are still not acceptable, then we will initiate a lab investigation to identify the possible root causes and design an action plan to tackle the problem. (i.e. a CAPA activity)
If the cross-linking behavior is not confirmed, we will initiate the lab investigation right at that time.
Now, USP <711> gives us two options.
Question: Do these two options provide equal power to open the cross-linked gelatin capsules?
Do these two options can apply to all dissolution methods that we are using?
The activities of pepsin and pancreatin are both pH dependent.
Pancreatin contains several enzymes, and which enzyme plays the most important roles to digest the cross-linked gelatin?
The enzyme activity is a very complicated subject for discussion.
There are at least 7 different ways to define the pepsin activity by different organizations around the world. And, there are many different testing methods for pepsin activity, and they don’t produce the same results. Therefore, it is important to have a harmonized way for us to get the right information for use.
In 2010, when Sigma changed the activity statement in their CofA for its pepsin product, P7000, it created a big confusion for many analytical labs.
Working in a dissolution lab, I am hoping for the vendors who can provide us stable enzymes with reliable activity values. So, I can just use the materials referring to their activity values to run my tests.
I can not afford to perform the enzyme activity assay when I need to run my Tier-2 testing.
To be able to get meaningful data, we need to:
Select a right sample works from pH 1 to pH 6.8 and above. Also, we can focus the impact to dissolution only from the capsule shell.
We need to be able to reproduce representative cross-linked samples for comparison. We have to make the sample everyday for the experiments.
Observe details and correlate to the results. Accumulate the knowledge and come up with answers.
Slides 12 – (HGC; 0.1N HCl/Pepsin)
Here are the results comparing different levels of cross-linked samples by Tier-1 and Tier-2 testing using 0.1N HCl/Pepsin media.
The HGC samples are treated with aldehyde for 1-hour, 2-hrs, and 4-hrs to achieve different levels of cross-linking.
The plot on the left is Tier-1 results, and on the right is Tier-2 results.
Acceptance criteria? At least, it has to pass the Q spec for sure. Ideally, we would like to see the Tier-2 dissolution profile is comparable to the control profile.
Then, we will select a sample with suitable level of cross-linking for further evaluation.
Slide 13 – (SGC)
After we have identified the level of cross-linking that will fail Tier-1 and pass Tier-2, then we use this sample to evaluate the pH effect.
This slide shows Pepsin’s performance in media with different pH range from pH 1 to pH 6.8.
This experiment is performed with SGC sample treated with aldehyde for 4 hours.
The Tier-2 results are satisfactory at pH 1 and pH 4. It fails badly at pH 6.8.
For highly soluble and fast dissolving drug products, it may pass Tier-2 at pH 6. Drug with less solubility or slow dissolving formulation may not be able to pass because the delayed capsule opening will not provide enough time for dissolution.
Slide 14 – (SGC)
Similar experiments performed for Pancreatin from pH 4 to pH 8.
In this case, the sample can only pass Tier-2 testing at pH 6.8 which still show significant slow down at 20-minute time point.
Slide 15 – (HGC)
This is a direct comparison of the Tier-2 method performance for the two options that we have from USP <711> (i.e. 0.1N HCl/pepsin and pH 6.8/Pancreatin).
This experiment is performed with HGC sample treated with aldehyde for 4 hours.
From this plot, we can see that these two Tier-2 testing conditions do not provide equivalent outcomes.
The 0.1N HCl/Pepsin is better than pH 6.8/Pancreatin. The other reason is that the gelatin is more soluble in acid and capsules will open faster in pH 1 than in pH 6.8.
Slide 16 – (SGC: ABT-627 @pH 8)
Additional experiments have been performed to see different dissolution results when we applied more Pancreatin in the media.
Our finding shows that at USP <711> specified level, it just barely passed the Q spec (at 30 minutes).
Using 2X of USP <711> specified level, we can warrant a clear pass for Q spec.
While using 3X of USP <711> specified level, we can match the dissolution profile to the control profile (i.e. normal capsule tested by Tier-1).
So far, we have only discussed in vitro testing results for cross-linked capsules. How does it correlate to in vivo performance?
[Ref] At the end of last century, there was a working group worked very hard on this subject. They developed three different levels of cross-linked capsule samples which were (i) P/P: Control sample - pass both Tier-1 and Tier-2; (ii) F/P: Mildly cross-linked sample – failed Tier-1 and passed Tier-2, and (iii) F/F: Severely cross-linked sample – Failed both Tier-1 and Tier-2 testing.
These three samples had been clinically tested for bio-equivalency.
I would like to ask you a simple question. What is the concern about gelatin cross-linking for in vivo drug performance? Are we afraid of the capsules won’t open in human body?
If the capsule does not open, what would be the outcome from the BE study? It should fail the Cmax or AUC, right? Now, what do you think? It would fail high or fail low?
The results from this report showed the F/F sample ONLY failed Cmax a little bit too high??? The AUC is perfectly ok.
From the results, I am pretty sure the all capsules have opened in human body. (Ding!!!)
[Are we too uptight on the in vitro dissolution testing?]
From QC point of view, no matter what, we do need to have a system to measure the quality of our product. Therefore, we still need to have a reliable Tier-2 method which can serve for QC purpose.
I believe we do have enough information for in vivo performance of the cross-linked capsules.
What we need is to harmonize Tier-2 testing to have equivalent enzymatic power for digesting the cross-linked gelatin throughout the physiological pH ranges.
Gelatin cross-linking happens randomly from sample-to-sample, from batch-to-batch. It is very hard to predict when or which gelatin capsule sample will show cross-linking.
When it happens in a batch, it has highly variable capsule-to-capsule behavior.
For a stability sample, the early detection may be from the 6 month, 40C/75RH stressed samples.
If you observe cross-linking in 6 months stressed sample (i.e. 40°C/75RH), you may expect to see some cross-linking at ~12 months for the 25°C/60RH samples.
With good packaging, the 24 months stability sample usually will not fail Tier-2 testing. However, most of the time, the problem is not around the mean value but from some really bad individual capsules.
[So, if you have a question in mind that when we go to Tier-2 testing, do we follow S-1, S-2, and S-3 any more? That is a good question! I will leave it for further discussion.]
After hearing all the stories about Tier-2 testing, you should feel less stress than before.
However, there are still a few weak spots in the whole process map.
(i) Neither Pepsin nor Pancreatin work well around pH 4.5!
(ii) Surfactant compatibility issue with enzymes. For poorly soluble drugs, we have to use surfactant in the media to improve the solubility, but many commonly used surfactants may denature the enzymes and reduce the enzyme activities.
The Expert Panel has started looking for alternative enzymes to be used around pH 4.5. The preliminary testing results are very promising, so stay tuned.
For poorly soluble drugs, we may consider using a 2-step Tier-2 testing method for capsules products.
The concept is drop the sample in media with enzyme but no surfactant run for 10~15 minutes, then add surfactant concentrate to bring up the surfactant concentration to the level as Tier-1 media.
Some Method development considerations:
How much volume used for the initial step? How much volume for the surfactant concentrate?
The volume impacts hydrodynamics of the method, and also impacts the media preparation.
It may be very hard to have a perfect alignment for Tier-1 and Tier-2 testing conditions for this kind of method. If something is significant different, we will need to perform impact assessment to evaluate the method performance.
Here is an example for 2-step Tier-2 method development.
First, we want to check the hydrodynamics impact. In this case, we used 500 mL for the initial media, then added 400 mL concentrated solution as a worst case scenario. We want to show there is no artificial capsule opening by the introduced turbulence during the addition of the second solution.
The blue profile represents the normal capsules, and the red profile is for the cross-linked capsules tested by Tier-1 method. The X-linked samples failed Tier-1.
The brown profile is for the same cross-linked capsules went through a “mimic” 2-step method without using enzyme to explore hydrodynamic impact to the samples.
The finding shows that we will not generate any false passing result.
The other thing we need to confirm is enzyme power provided by the first treatment step (i.e. the timing). In this case, we used 0.01N HCl/Pepsin as media and treated for 10 minutes during the first step, then added the surfactant concentrate and continue for the testing.
Both good capsules (control) and cross-linked capsules are tested by Tier-1 and Tier-2 testing.
From the results, we have confirmed the testing condition is satisfactory.
Cross-linking is a big headache to dissolution analysts since the Tier-2 method is not easy to develop.
It is always better to prevent the cross-linking from happening. Eventually, the headache can be prevented or minimized.
It is desirable to identify the enzyme activity level required for each enzyme used at different pH’s that can provide “equivalent” digestion power for the whole physiological pH ranges.
If the capsule opening is the only concern for cross-linked capsule samples, it would be nice to utilize other testing method which is simpler and better controlled.
I had worked on an oil-filled SGC project. The dissolution method is very complicated, and we have to identify special lots of surfactant to be used for that method due to significant oil/surfactant/drug interaction/interference for the HPLC analysis. It was a mess! I was able to correlate the disintegration results to dissolution results from cross-linked samples. At the end, the agency agreed to allow us using disintegration to replace dissolution testing for that product.
At the end, I would like to thanks for my Abbott Dissolution colleagues for the great efforts and wonderful team work.
Thanks to my management for providing us the opportunities to do dissolution researches.
Thanks to Mr.Tom Langdon from American laboratories for helping me to learn a lot about enzymes.
Thanks to Mr. Steven Leinbach from Capsugel for sharing the results and good discussions for the new enzymes explorations.
Significant delay of capsule shell opening for all conditions
Sample variability from cross-linking treatment
Sample variability from cross-linking treatment
Testing variability: Rupture & re-seal