Home › Forums › General Discussion › In-use stability testing single unit dose injectable › Reply To: In-use stability testing single unit dose injectable
If the label states to use immediately I would think that should not require any micro support or even any routine stability on recon material, but still, that should be justified in the filing, which shouldn’t be too hard to do, especially for the reasons you give in your question. EMA’s in-use guideline states “The appropriate physical, chemical and microbial properties of the product susceptible to change during storage should be determined over the period of the proposed in-use shelf life.” First point on this is that it can be interpreted to only apply to material not labeled for immediate use after reconstitution. Second, the words “appropriate” and “susceptible to change” seem to give room for justifications if micro/sterility testing doesn’t make sense. I agree that it doesn’t make sense for an in-use stability study on non-sterile products mimicking non-sterile use to include micro and sterility testing, especially if anti-microbial effectiveness is in parallel. Still, any decision will need to be justified. If your label claim states the reconstituted material is good for a specific time/condition then the conservative approach would be to support that material via routine stability to show, at least in a sterile laboratory environment, that it does not promote microbial growth during that recon period. But there must be a several scenarios where not doing micro testing in this routine stability setting would be justified–such as a very short recon stability, or anti-microbial effectiveness tested on the non-recon material, etc.
