By Nicole Robichaud
Mesa Labs manufactures biological indicators (BIs) in compliance with the United States Pharmacopeia (USP) and the ISO 11138 series, Sterilization of Health Care Products – Biological Indicators. On August 1, 2016, a new revision of the USP was made available which included significant changes to the general chapters and monographs pertaining to BIs, as detailed in Spore News Volume 13, No. 1. In February 2017, a revision to the ISO 11138 series was published and the changes were outlined in Spore News Volume 13, No. 2.
A new revision of the European Pharmacopoeia (EP) General Chapter 5.1.2, concerning BIs, was published July 1, 2017. Although Mesa Labs’ did not previously claim compliance to the EP, many of our international customers do and for this reason, this Spore News article will focus on the new revision EP 9.2, 5.1.2.
The previous version of EP 5.1.2 was concise compared to the new revision and consisted of only five sections. The first section provided a general description of BIs, BI characterization by organism and D-value, placement of BIs in a sterilisation load and choice of indicator organisms for BIs. The next four sections each pertained to specific sterilisation processes, Steam sterilisation, Dry-heat sterilisation, Ionising radiation sterilisation and Gas sterilisation. Each of these sections provided pertinent information such as the organism recommended for the sterilisation process and the recommended minimum BI population and D-value for each process.
The new revision of EP 5.1.2 consists of six sections and each section contains many subsections; the information is more detailed and covers a wider scope than the previous version. A summary of each section is provided below.
Title
Introduction
Biological Indicators for Sterilisation Processes
Biological Indicators for Heat Sterilisation
Biological Indicators for Gas Sterilisation
Biological Indicators for Ionising Radiation Sterilisation
Microbial Preparations for Sterilisation Grade Filtration
In 2014, Spore News Volume 8, No. 2 titled The Problem with EP 7.0, 5.1.2, was released. In this article, the author identified three EP requirements that did not make sense when considering the EP recommended BI resistance in place at that time. We are quite pleased to see that none of the three appear in the new revision of EP 9.2, 5.1.2.
Additionally, it has been verified that Mesa Labs’ BIs now comply with the EP 9.2, 5.1.2; however, three of the quality requirements listed in section 2.2 are not reported on documents provided to the end-user, Certificate of Analysis, Technical Report or Instructions for Use.
Two of the requirements are the 95% confidence interval and the number of replicates tested for D-value determination. The D-value of Mesa Labs’ BIs is determined per ISO 11138-1 which specifies the number of BI replicates used for each method of resistance determination and specifies calculation of the 95% confidence interval when using the Limited Holcomb-Spearman-Karber procedure. Mesa Labs’ approved procedure for resistance determination also specify these details.
The third requirement is reporting the range of temperatures used to determine z-value. Like D-value, the zvalue of Mesa Labs’ BIs is determined either per ISO 11138-3 Biological Indicators for Moist Heat Sterilization Processes or per ISO 11138-4 Biological Indicators for Dry Heat Sterilization Processes. Both ISO documents specify the temperature range used for z-value calculation for each process. The temperatures used to calculate z-values, which are within the ranges specified by ISO, are also included in Mesa Labs’ approved procedure for resistance determination.
There are two items in the new revision of EP 5.1.2 that are worth noting;
The first item is the somewhat contradictory recommendations for end-user verification of BIs. Section 2-1 DESCRIPTION OF BIOLOGICAL INDICATORS FOR STERILISATION PROCESSES states, “The user must establish a high level of confidence in the manufacturer’s compliance to quality standards for the biological indicator (e.g. by means of auditing) in order to rely on the characteristics stated by the manufacturer (see section 2-2). Alternatively, the labelled characteristics of biological indicators shall be verified by the user or by an independent, contract laboratory that is formally approved by the user.” Section 2-2-2 Quality control states, “Quality control for biological indicators consists of testing for purity, identity and estimation of the number of viable cells.” The statement in section 2-1 leads one to believe that if audits are not performed, the end-user should verify all labeled characteristics of the BI, identity, purity, population, D-value and Z-value, whereas the statement in section 2-2-2 suggests the end-user need only test BI purity, identification and viable count.
The second item is the following statement contained in the INTRODUCTION, “Biological indicators are intended for the development and validation of the sterilisation processes and not for routine monitoring unless otherwise stated in this general chapter.” Mesa Labs manufactures BIs that are appropriate for and intended to be used for development, validation and routine monitoring of sterilisation cycles and supports the use of BIs in all sterilisation cycles. This may sound suspect coming from a BI manufacturer; however, BIs are the only tool capable of integrating and responding to all critical process parameters. We firmly believe that use of a BI to monitor routine cycles provides a relatively inexpensive insurance for sterility assurance, whereas omission of the BI unnecessarily increases one’s risk to not detect a cycle failure.
About the Author
Nicole Robichaud graduated from Montana State University with a B.S. in Biological Sciences. Nicole has worked for Mesa Labs since 2007 and has held positions in the Spore Cultivation Laboratory, Quality Control and currently is a Scientific and Technical Service Representative.