PURPOSE: Periodic performance verification testing (PVT) is used by laboratories to assess and demonstrate proficiency and for other purposes as well. For dissolution, the PVT is specified in the US Pharmacopeia General Chapter Dissolution <711> under the title Apparatus Suitability Test. For Apparatus 1 and 2, USP provides two reference standard tablets for this purpose. For each new lot of these reference standards, USP conducts a collaborative study. METHODS: For new USP Lot P Prednisone Tablets, 28 collaborating laboratories provided data. The study was conducted with three sets of tablets: Lot O open label, Lot O blinded, and Lot P blinded. The blinded Lot O data were used for apparatus suitability testing. RESULTS: Acceptance limits were determined after dropping data due to failure of apparatus suitability, identification of data as unusual on control charts, or protocol violations. CONCLUSIONS: Results yielded acceptance criteria of (47, 82) for Apparatus 1 and (37, 70) for Apparatus 2. Results generally were similar for Lot P compared to results from Lot O except that the average percent dissolved for Lot P is greater than for Lot O with Apparatus 2.
PURPOSE: Periodic performance verification testing (PVT) is used by laboratories to assess and demonstrate proficiency and for other purposes as well. For dissolution, the PVT is specified in the US Pharmacopeia General Chapter Dissolution <711> under the title Apparatus Suitability Test. For Apparatus 1 and 2, USP provides two reference standard tablets for this purpose. For each new lot of these reference standards, USP conducts a collaborative study. METHODS: For new USP Lot P Prednisone Tablets, 28 collaborating laboratories provided data. The study was conducted with three sets of tablets: Lot O open label, Lot O blinded, and Lot P blinded. The blinded Lot O data were used for apparatus suitability testing. RESULTS: Acceptance limits were determined after dropping data due to failure of apparatus suitability, identification of data as unusual on control charts, or protocol violations. CONCLUSIONS: Results yielded acceptance criteria of (47, 82) for Apparatus 1 and (37, 70) for Apparatus 2. Results generally were similar for Lot P compared to results from Lot O except that the average percent dissolved for Lot P is greater than for Lot O with Apparatus 2.
Authors: Gang Deng; Alyssa J Ashley; William E Brown; Joseph W Eaton; Walter W Hauck; Loice C Kikwai; Mark R Liddell; Ronald G Manning; Jimmy M Munoz; Pallavi Nithyanandan; Maria J Glasgow; Erika Stippler; Samir Z Wahab; Roger L Williams Journal: Pharm Res Date: 2008-01-03 Impact factor: 4.200
Authors: Walter W Hauck; Anthony J DeStefano; William E Brown; Erika S Stippler; Darrell R Abernethy; William F Koch; Roger L Williams Journal: AAPS PharmSciTech Date: 2009-01-09 Impact factor: 3.246
Authors: Anthony J DeStefano; Walter W Hauck; Erika S Stippler; William E Brown; Chensheng Li; Gloria G Huang; Barbara J Jones; Kevin O'Hool; William F Koch; Roger L Williams Journal: Pharm Res Date: 2010-10-16 Impact factor: 4.200
Authors: Gang Deng; Alyssa J Ashley; William E Brown; Joseph W Eaton; Walter W Hauck; Loice C Kikwai; Mark R Liddell; Ronald G Manning; Jimmy M Munoz; Pallavi Nithyanandan; Maria J Glasgow; Erika Stippler; Samir Z Wahab; Roger L Williams Journal: Pharm Res Date: 2008-01-03 Impact factor: 4.200