【24h】

Editorial: Vapour hydrogen peroxide - a sterilising agent?

机译:编辑:蒸气氢过氧化氢 - 一种灭菌剂?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

It is an unusual step for an inspector to step up and write a blog to make a point that he felt that people were just not getting. This blog is most likely a result of responses to the recently released new version of Annex 1. On 20 April 2018, Andrew Hopkins (Senior Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) Inspector) wrote an MHRA blog1 giving a clear MHRA interpretation of the use of vapour hydrogen peroxide (VHP). The clarity was that currently VHP is a decontamination agent not a sterilising agent. With all Grade A microbiology results, the requirement is no viable organisms isolated2. What this means in practice, is that you can possibly accept >1 colony-forming unit/test within a scientific justification. This is not the case for sterility test failures. For VHP, there is a requirement to show that the decontamination works but not a requirement to show a 6-log reduction - although this is the current practice during initial and periodic validation. Isolators and restricted access barrier systems (RABS) are small cleanrooms that typically integrate process equipment as part of the barrier. There is no requirement for barrier surfaces or non-product contacting surfaces of process equipment within to be sterile. Sterility assurance is gained both by using a recognised sterilisation process and validating this by a 6-log reduction of an accepted indicator species. It is not the other way around. You cannot claim a sterilisation process by having a 6-log reduction and claiming that therefore the "kill" process is a sterilising process. The blog focuses on considerations in fragility of VHP relative to failure to inactivate spores in clumps (as sometimes found on biological indicators) and where bio-contamination is protected from the sporicidal process, e.g. fatty acids from human contact. It follows qualifying a VHP process with clean un-clumped spores, as is often the case, does not assure surfaces are actually sterile if bioburden has characteristics that do not support biological inactivation.
机译:检查员加强并撰写博客是一个不寻常的一步,以便他认为人们只是没有得到的观点。本博客最有可能对最近发布的新版本的附件1. 2018年4月20日,Andrew Hopkins(高级药品和医疗保健制品监管机构(MHRA)检查员)写了一个MHRA Blog1,给出了一个明确的MHRA解释使用蒸气氢过氧化氢(VHP)。清晰度是目前VHP是一种净化剂,而不是灭菌剂。随着所有级别的微生物学结果,该要求是没有可行的生物体分离2。这意味着在实践中,您可以在科学的理由中接受> 1个菌落形成单位/测试。无菌测试失败不是这种情况。对于VHP,有一个要求显示去污工作但不是要求显示6日志减少的要求 - 尽管这是初始和定期验证期间的当前实践。隔离器和限制访问屏障系统(RAB)是小型洁净室,通常将过程设备作为屏障的一部分集成。在无菌内部的工艺设备的屏障表面或非产品接触表面没有要求。通过使用公认的灭菌过程来获得无菌保障,并通过6次目录的指标物种验证这一点。这不是另一条路。您不能通过具有6次降低的减少并声称,因此“杀死”过程是灭菌过程来申请灭菌过程。该博客对VHP的脆弱性相对于失败的脆性进行了专注于群中的碎裂(如生物指标上的血管),并且从孢子醛过程中保护生物污染,例如,来自人接触的脂肪酸。它遵循符合清洁的未丛生孢子的VHP过程,如往往的情况,如果Bioburden具有不支持生物灭活的特征,则不确保表面实际上是无菌的。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号