Blog List Left Sidebar

Protein Characterization

Advanced LC-MS Protein Characterization Services

Eagle Analytical provides advanced LC-MS protein characterization services to support biologic development, ensure product quality, and accelerate regulatory compliance. Our team combines deep scientific expertise with state-of-the-art instrumentation to deliver reliable data, actionable insights, and faster project timelines. 

Whether you are developing monoclonal antibodies, peptide therapeutics, or complex biologics, Eagle is your partner for high-resolution protein analysis and comprehensive characterization.

What is Protein Characterization?

Protein characterization is the process of analyzing proteins to understand their structure, sequence, modifications, and functional properties. It is a critical step in biopharmaceutical development, ensuring that biologics meet safety, efficacy, and quality standards. 

Through advanced LC-MS–based workflows, protein characterization provides detailed insights into: 

  • Amino acid sequence and peptide integrity  
  • Post-translational modifications that affect protein stability and activity  
  • Molecular weight and structural variants for monoclonal antibodies, antibody-drug conjugates, and complex biologics  
  • Protein quantity and composition for regulatory compliance and research validation  

Protein characterization is essential for: 

  • Accelerating biologic development  
  • Ensuring batch consistency and product quality  
  • Supporting regulatory submissions with high-confidence data  

Eagle Analytical combines state-of-the-art instrumentation with deep scientific expertise to deliver high-quality, reproducible protein characterization results that support every stage of drug discovery, development, and manufacturing. 

Why Choose Eagle Analytical for Protein Characterization

Eagle Analytical delivers a precise, scalable, and reliable approach compared to typical analytical providers. Our services are designed to meet the complex needs of biopharmaceutical research and development, helping clients advance their programs with confidence. 

Eagle Analytical provides better accuracy, faster results, and complete support across all protein characterization workflows. 

Our Protein Characterization Services

Peptide Mapping and Sequence Confirmation 

Eagle uses LC-MS to deliver accurate peptide mapping and sequence confirmation. Detect sequence variants, verify amino acid sequences, and ensure batch consistency. 

GLP-1 Peptide High-Throughput Characterization 

Our high-throughput workflows enable rapid analysis of GLP-1 peptides and analogs, confirming peptide identity, purity, and sequence integrity. This solution accelerates discovery and development timelines. 

Protein Identification and Quantitation 

Accurate identification and quantitation confirm sample composition and protein expression. Eagle provides reproducible and precise measurements for research, process development, and regulatory submissions. 

Intact Protein Analysis 

Evaluate molecular integrity and heterogeneity for monoclonal antibodies, antibody-drug conjugates, and other complex biologics. Determine molecular weight, detect structural variants, and assess drug-to-antibody ratios. 

Post-Translational Modification Analysis 

Identify and characterize PTMs such as glycosylation, oxidation, deamidation, and phosphorylation. Detailed PTM analysis ensures protein stability, function, and therapeutic performance. 

Get Started with Eagle Analytical

Accelerate your biologic development with Eagle’s expert protein characterization services. Contact us today to discuss your project and discover how our high-resolution LC-MS workflows can deliver precise, actionable results. 

Peptide Mapping for Protein Characterization

Understanding Peptide Mapping in Protein Characterization

Peptide mapping is one of the most powerful analytical techniques used in protein characterization and biopharmaceutical analysis. It helps scientists confirm a protein’s identity, primary sequence, and structure. It does this by enzymatically digesting the protein into peptide fragments, which are then separated and analyzed in detail. 

Peptide mapping is vital for biotherapeutic development, quality control, and regulatory compliance. It helps ensure that proteins in pharmaceuticals maintain the correct structure and functionality throughout the product lifecycle. 

What Is Peptide Mapping?

Peptide mapping is a widely used analytical method for confirming a protein amino acid sequence and identifying potential structural changes. The technique combines enzymatic digestion with liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry to generate and analyze peptide fragments. 

The process uses specific proteolytic enzymes to digest proteins into smaller peptides. These peptide fragments are then separated using liquid chromatography (LC) and analyzed using high-resolution mass spectrometry (MS). 

By comparing the resulting peptide profile with the expected amino acid sequence, scientists can confirm correct protein expression and detect structural variations. These variations may include sequence mismatches, post-translational modifications, or degradation of products that could affect a protein’s safety, stability, or biological activity. Because of its high precision and sensitivity, peptide mapping is widely regarded as the gold standard technique for protein characterization. It is extensively used in biologic drug development, quality control testing, and regulatory evaluation of biopharmaceutical products. 

Why Peptide Mapping Matters in Biopharmaceutical Development

Modern biotherapeutics such as monoclonal antibodies, recombinant proteins, and vaccines are complex molecules. Even small structural variations can influence safety, stability, biological activity, and therapeutic effect.

Peptide mapping helps scientists: 

  • Confirm protein identity by verifying the amino acid sequence 
  • Detect post-translational modifications (PTMs) such as oxidation, deamidation, or glycosylation 
  • Assess product consistency across manufacturing batches 
  • Monitor degradation and other structural changes during storage or processing 
  • Support regulatory submissions and comparability studies 

Because regulatory agencies require detailed structural characterization of biologics, peptide mapping is a critical component of analytical characterization strategies throughout the drug development lifecycle.

How Peptide Mapping Works

Although the workflow can vary depending on the protein and analytical goals, peptide mapping typically follows several key steps. 

  1. Protein Digestion

First, the protein sample is digested with a site-specific protease, most commonly trypsin. This enzyme cleaves the protein at predictable amino acid residues, producing a set of peptide fragments that represent the original protein sequence. 

  1. Peptide Separation

The resulting peptides are separated using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) or ultra-performance liquid chromatography (UPLC). This step isolates individual peptides based on their physiochemical properties, allowing them to be analyzed individually 

  1. Mass Spectrometry Analysis

Each peptide is then analyzed using high-resolution mass spectrometry. This method measures the precise mass of the peptides and their fragments. Providing detailed information about the peptide sequences and potential modifications. 

  1. Data Interpretation

Finally, specialized bioinformatics software and expert scientists compare the peptide data with the expected protein sequence. This confirms protein identity and reveals any structural variations or modifications. 

When performed using high-resolution instrumentation and advanced data analysis, peptide mapping provides comprehensive insight into protein structure, sequence integrity, and overall product quality.

What Sets Eagle Apart in Peptide Mapping

Peptide mapping requires more than advanced instrumentation; it demands scientific expertise, optimized workflows, and reliable data interpretation to deliver meaningful insights. Eagle’s peptide mapping services are designed to deliver accurate protein characterization to support the entire biotherapeutic lifecycle.

Advanced Mass Spectrometry Capabilities 

Eagle utilizes state-of-the-art high-resolution mass spectrometry platforms combined with optimized chromatographic separation techniques. This approach enables: 

  • High peptide sequence coverage 
  • Sensitive detection of low-level modifications 
  • Accurate mass measurement and fragmentation analysis 

These capabilities enable comprehensive structural characterization of complex proteins and biologics. 

Deep Expertise in Protein Characterization 

Eagle’s team of scientists brings extensive experience in biotherapeutic analysis, peptide mapping workflows, and mass spectrometry data interpretation. Their expertise helps translate complex analytical data into clear, actionable insights for clients. 

This scientific depth is particularly valuable when investigating: 

  • Post-translational modifications (PTMs) 
  • Sequence variants 
  • Product degradation pathways 
  • Biosimilar comparability studies 

Robust and Reproducible Analytical Workflows 

Consistency is critical in protein characterization. Eagle employs validated peptide mapping methods and optimized digestion workflows to ensure reproducibility and reliability across samples and studies. 

These workflows are designed to support: 

  • Early-stage development 
  • Process development and comparability studies
  • Product characterization for regulatory submissions 
  • Quality control and stability studies 

Clear, Actionable Data Interpretation 

Beyond generating analytical data, Eagle focuses on delivering clear scientific interpretation and reporting. Detailed reports help clients understand structural findings, potential risks, and their implications for product development or manufacturing. 

This approach allows organizations to make informed decisions with confidence. 

Supporting the Entire Biotherapeutic Lifecycle 

Eagle’s peptide mapping services support protein characterization from early discovery through commercial manufacturing. Whether confirming protein identity, assessing structural changes, or supporting regulatory documentation, Eagle provides the analytical expertise needed to ensure product qualityconsistency, and integrity. 

Exploring Alternative Sterility Testing Methods: A Q&A with Eagle Experts.

We’re proud to share that Eagle’s experts were recently interviewed by American Pharmaceutical Review magazine for an in-depth discussion on alternative sterility testing methods. The article was published in the September issue of American Pharmaceutical Review.

Below, you can read the full feature and explore insights from our team on evolving sterility testing approaches and future industry trends.

What are some of the key challenges in adopting rapid sterility testing methods over the traditional USP <71> approach within the pharmaceutical industry?

“Traditional” methods are viewed as the gold standard, highly recognized, widely regulated, and backed by decades of acceptance, which leaves little external pressure to move away from them. On the other hand, adopting rapid methods requires significant investment in new technologies, extensive validation to meet regulatory expectations, and overcoming cultural hesitation to abandon a well-established approach. Moreover, as we explore rapid methods more deeply, it becomes clear they are not a one-size-fits-all solution. Each comes with its own strengths and drawbacks, and because they are designed to be faster and more efficient, they often become more selective in their application.

How can method suitability testing help mitigate risks of false results or incompatibilities when switching to faster sterility assays for novel formulations?

Method suitability testing serves as a critical checkpoint to ensure that a sterility test is truly reliable for a given product. Different drug products can have unique properties such as viscosity, color, pH, or antimicrobial activity that may interfere with the sterility test and either mask contamination or generate misleading outcomes. By performing method suitability, laboratories confirm that the test can detect potential contaminants in the presence of the actual product, rather than just in a clean growth medium.

This step is critical when transitioning to newer or faster assays, as it minimizes the risk of false negatives (contamination being missed) or false positives (contamination appearing where none exists). In other words, it ensures that the chosen method is both accurate and compatible with the product’s characteristics, building confidence in the results and supporting regulatory expectations for patient safety. 

How do recent updates in USP <797> and USP <1223> affect the validation and acceptance of rapid sterility testing technologies, and what requirements must be met for regulatory compliance?

Recent revisions to USP <797> and USP <1223> clarify how rapid sterility tests can replace the traditional USP <71> sterility test, provided it is proven that the alternative is at least equivalent (non-inferior) and fit for its intended use. In other words, if the rapid method is validated per <1223> and implemented within a compliant quality system per <797>, it can be used it in place of <71>. There must be however, A <1223>-aligned validation that includes IQ/OQ/PQ, accuracy, precision, specificity/selectivity, sensitivity/LOD, robustness, and equivalence/non-inferiority vs. <71>, plus method suitability for each product.

What are the current FDA and USP expectations for alternative rapid sterility methods, and how can organizations demonstrate equivalency or superiority to USP <71>?

FDA does allow rapid and alternative microbiological methods for in-process, and finished-product release, including sterility, if you demonstrate the method is equivalent or better than the conventional method. You would also need to validate accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility per 21 CFR 211.  USP <797> states that for sterility testing you may use USP <71> or a validated alternative that is non-inferior to <71>, with validation aligned to USP <1223>, which in turn provides the playbook for selecting, validating, and justifying alternative and rapid methods, emphasizing qualification with the actual product and demonstration of equivalence or superiority to the compendial method.

What are the main differences between rapid sterility testing platforms such as ScanRDI®, BacT/Alert®, and Celsis®, and what advantages does each bring for different product types?

Each has different detection principles, and their strengths depend on the type of product being tested.


ScanRDI® (bioMérieux) uses solid-phase cytometry with fluorescent staining to directly detect individual microbes captured on a membrane. It is non-growth-based and can deliver actionable sterility decisions in ~4 hours. That makes it a strong fit for short  filterable aqueous products with a short BUD.

BacT/ALERT® (bioMérieux) is an automated growth system that monitors CO₂ production in inoculated culture bottles via a colorimetric sensor. It is highly versatile across complex matrices, including cell & gene therapy and products where filtration is impractical or organism recovery is challenging. It can yield results in 7 days.

Celsis® (Charles River) employs amplified ATP bioluminescence after enrichment to flag contamination. It can yield sterility results in 6-7 days. It’s a strong option for a wide range of filterable and non-filterable products.

How does the ScanRDI® system achieve 1-2 day sterility results, and what types of pharmaceutical products can it effectively test?

ScanRDI® utilizes solid-phase cytometry principles to detect viable microorganisms. Unlike traditional methods, it is not growth-based, allowing for rapid detection. The process begins by filtering an appropriate volume of the product through a 0.45 µm membrane. The membrane is then rinsed to eliminate any residual substances that could cause autofluorescence. Viable cells retained on the membrane are stained using proprietary reagents and incubated. These reagents interact specifically with enzymes present in viable cells. This enzymatic activity transforms one of the reagents into a fluorescent compound, causing the viable cells to fluoresce. The prepared membrane is placed into the ScanRDI® instrument, which performs a laser scan across the entire surface. The software flags all fluorescent events—these may include viable cells or autofluorescent particles—and records their X-Y coordinates.

Finally, the operator reviews these coordinates under a fluorescence microscope to distinguish true viable cells from background particles or artifacts.

What new advancements or future trends are emerging in the field of rapid sterility testing, and how might they further shorten turnaround times or expand testing capabilities for complex biopharmaceutical products?

New advancements in rapid sterility testing are focused on reducing turnaround times from weeks to hours or days by leveraging technologies like nucleic acid amplification, bioluminescence and nanopore sequencing. These innovations help accommodate the limited shelf-life of complex biopharmaceuticals, such as cell and gene therapies in addition to conventional sterile pharmaceutical products. Future trends include greater automation, machine learning for faster analysis, and new technologies for in-process and real-time monitoring.

Illustration of USP Endotoxin Testing using recombinant reagents rCR and rFC as sustainable alternatives to LAL-based BET methods.
A New Era for Endotoxin Testing: USP <86> Introduces Sustainable Recombinant Alternatives to LAL

Today, USP <85> continues to serve as the gold standard for Bacterial Endotoxin Testing (BET), relying exclusively on Limulus Amebocyte Lysate (LAL) derived from the blood of the Atlantic Horseshoe Crab (Limulus Polyphemus). While detection methods varied, the reagent initiating the cascade reaction was always LAL. This dependence on a single-source, regionally limited raw material raised concerns about sustainability and supply chain reliability.

LAL is extracted from the horseshoe crab’s blood, primarily sourced from the Northeastern United States. However, environmental challenges such as overharvesting (for bait), habitat disturbance, climate change, and pollution threaten the crab population. These factors jeopardize the consistent availability and performance of LAL, posing risks to the integrity of BET results.

In response, conservation efforts have emerged, including regulatory oversight, habitat protection, and aquaculture initiatives. Simultaneously, the pharmaceutical industry has embraced the Three R’s Principle—Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement—by developing non-animal dependent reagents with comparable efficacy. Although recombinant alternatives have existed for over two decades, compendial recognition was only recently achieved.

In November 2024, USP announced the publication of USP <86>, officially released in May, introducing recombinant reagents for BET. This marks a significant milestone, as both USP <85> and USP <86> are now approved for endotoxin testing.

Illustration comparing the endotoxin detection pathways of traditional LAL methods and recombinant reagent–based methods.
Illustration comparing the endotoxin detection pathways of traditional LAL methods and recombinant reagent–based methods.

USP <86> features two recombinant reagents: Recombinant Cascade Reagent (rCR) and Recombinant Factor C (rFC). These are genetically engineered using recombinant DNA to produce the necessary protein complexes for endotoxin detection. The rCR pathway mirrors the kinetic chromogenic LAL method, incorporating Factor C, Factor B, and a pro-clotting enzyme. In contrast, rFC utilizes only Factor C and a fluorogenic substrate, streamlining the detection process.

The rCR reagent offers a seamless transition from LAL, requiring minimal method modification. It also eliminates β-glucan interference, enhances robustness, and reduces lot-to-lot variability. Meanwhile, rFC, though structurally distinct, promises faster reaction times due to its simplified pathway and fluorescence-based detection. The adoption of USP <86> reflects growing confidence in recombinant technology to deliver reliable, sustainable BET solutions. It addresses key concerns:

REPLACE. Substitutes animal-derived LAL with recombinant reagents (rCR and rFC).
REDUCE. Expands market options, decreasing reliance on LAL.
REFINE. Minimizes animal impact by offering non-animal alternatives.

Moreover, recombinant reagents mitigate supply chain vulnerabilities and improve consistency. Despite industry hesitation to shift from a 40-year reliance on LAL, USP recognition and ongoing research are expected to bolster confidence in USP <86>. In time, recombinant technology may not only match but surpass LAL usage and potentially replace it entirely.

FDA Investigator’s Manual

We’ve added a comprehensive FDA Handbook to our website to help you better understand FDA rules, compliance expectations, and industry best practices. Whether you work in healthcare, pharmacy, or regulatory affairs, this guide gives you practical information to help you stay aligned with current FDA standards.

What’s included:

  • Administrative guidance

  • Notes, records, and documentation

  • Regulatory procedures

  • Sampling and inspections

  • Import guidance

  • Recall activities

  • Investigations

  • Public health collaboration

  • Safety practices

  • Appendix for reference

The handbook is the Investigations Operations Manual (IOM), which is the FDA’s main guide for how field investigations are performed. The IOM sets the rules that FDA staff follow to ensure investigations are done correctly, consistently, and in support of public health.

 

Download FDA Handbook

 

Lessons Learned in Interpreting and Operationalizing USP 795 and USP 797 Updated Requirements

When industry veterans gathered in Boston for the 2025 Compounding Pharmacy Compliance (CPC) Conference, all eyes were on one of the most anticipated sessions of the year — a presentation by Dr. Ross Caputo, President & CEO of Eagle.

Former IVT Speaker of the Year (2021), Dr. Caputo returned to the CPC stage not just with insight, but with experience. His presentation, titled “Lessons Learned in Interpreting and Operationalizing USP 795 and 797,” was less about theory — and more about what actually works.

What’s Changed — and Why It Matters

The recent updates to USP <795> and <797> have challenged the compounding world to raise the bar. It’s no longer enough to “follow SOPs.” Now, compliance requires deep integration of training, documentation, facility control, and evidence-based testing.

From beyond-use dating (BUD) to aseptic simulation, pharmacies are expected to not just know the standards — but to prove them operationally.

“There’s a difference between reading a regulation and living it,” Dr. Caputo told the room.

The Designated Person: Not a Title, a Responsibility

One of the most misunderstood shifts? The role of the Designated Person (DP). Many assume it’s just the pharmacist-in-charge. Not quite.

According to USP, the DP is anyone — or a team — formally accountable for compounding operations, environmental control, and regulatory adherence. Dr. Caputo urged attendees to define DP roles functionally, not by job titles. And most importantly? Document everything.

Hazardous Drugs, Higher Stakes

With USP <800> now fully applicable, hazardous drug (HD) compounding must meet a higher standard. Negative pressure rooms, proper venting, and rigorous wipe sampling aren’t optional — they’re expected.

Dr. Caputo shared a common pitfall: facilities that think passing a certification once means they’re in the clear. The truth? “If you’re not monitoring airflow or exposure routinely, you’re just hoping for compliance.”

Potency ≠ Stability

Here’s where it gets technical — and where many pharmacies fall short.
A drug holding potency over time does not automatically meet stability requirements under the new standards. Category 3 compounded sterile preparations (CSPs) now demand:

  • Stability-indicating test methods

  • Container-closure integrity

  • Particulate testing

  • AME (antimicrobial effectiveness) for aqueous formulas

And those tests? They must be run on the exact formulation, container, and components you’re actually using. No substitutions.

Categories 1, 2, 3 — Not Just New Labels

Gone are the days of “low-, medium-, high-risk” compounding. The USP revisions now classify CSPs as Categories 1, 2, or 3, with levels based on environmental control, garbing, testing, and procedural rigor — not just how complex the product is.

This change impacts beyond-use dating, monitoring schedules, and garbing protocols. And yes — it’s a heavy lift.

“If you’re treating a Category 3 CSP like a Category 1, you’re gambling with compliance,” Dr. Caputo cautioned.

Media-Fill and Smoke Studies: Simulation Is the Standard

Off-the-shelf media-fill kits? Often inadequate.

Media-fill testing must fully simulate your facility’s aseptic process — duration, personnel, manipulations, interruptions, the whole picture. Dr. Caputo emphasized that your media-fill should tell your story, not just meet a checklist.

And as for smoke studies — video recording is now standard. Each compounding process (vials, IV bags, syringes) should be assessed individually.

The Bottom Line: Compliance Is a Living System

Throughout the presentation, one theme came through loud and clear: data without action is meaningless.

Environmental results, personnel requalifications, SOP updates, deviations — these aren’t just records to keep. They’re opportunities to identify trends, anticipate risks, and continuously improve.

“You don’t fail an audit because you had an excursion,” Dr. Caputo said.
“You fail it because you didn’t know why it happened.”

What Comes Next?

As states stagger in how they adopt USP standards, pharmacies must prepare for the most stringent interpretation. Some will audit for <795> compliance; others may enforce <800> with zero grace. Dr. Caputo encouraged facilities to stay ahead by creating internal standards that exceed the baseline — not just meet it.

At Eagle Analytical, our mission remains unchanged: to help compounding pharmacies not just survive regulation changes, but lead through them.

Whether it’s stability studies, media-fill testing, facility qualification, or SOP development, our team is here to support your compliance — every step of the way.


📞 Need help navigating the new USP standards?
Visit eagleanalytical.com or call us at 800.745.8916


Relevant Services
✓ Stability Testing for BUD Validation
✓ Smoke Studies & Video Documentation
✓ USP <800> Containment Planning
✓ Custom SOPs & QA Consulting

AzPA Convention, 06/12-06/15
Be in the room for candid conversations and hear about the trends shaping the next decade of pharmacy. Eagle would love to see you there! 

From capsules to curriculum, reimagined and resilient, AzPA’s Annual Convention will debut a new fearless experience for every professional in pharmacy.

Event Information

ASHP Summer, 06/08 – 06/10
Pharmacy Futures 2025
Transforming Pharmacy Practice Today and Tomorrow

Eagle hopes to see you at ASHP Summer in Charlotte, NC! This event brings together pharmacy practitioners and practice leaders to collaborate and innovate to shape the practice’s future.

Event Information

IVT/Health Informa (CPC), 06/02-06/03

Eagle is going to Boston 2025! 

Come attend the presentation by 2021 IVT Speaker of the Year, Dr.Ross A. Caputo, Ph.D. at the Compounding Pharmacy Compliance Congress, where he discusses Interpreting and Operationalizing USP 795 and 797 Updated Requirements. 

If you have questions about any of the updated 795 and 797 requirements, make sure to visit our Eagle Team representatives: Lisa Johnson, Jay Patel, and Ross Caputo! They are here to help you!

Event Information

The Appropriateness of the ScanRDI® Sterility Testing Method

Introduction

Mandated by regulatory requirements such as USP <797> Pharmaceutical Compounding – Sterile Preparations and Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMP), sterility testing is a quality control measure for aseptically produced pharmaceutical products. However, the compendial testing method outlined in USP <71> Sterility Tests presents significant statistical, microbiological, and time limitations. The implementation of a robust quality assurance program and the adoption of rapid sterility testing methods are essential to overcome such limitations.

Limitations of the Compendial Method

The USP sterility test method, first introduced in 1936 and subsequently revised, has been criticized for its limitations. Studies such as those by Frances Bowman (1969) emphasized the need for multiple culture media due to the inability of any single medium to support the growth of all microorganisms. Bryce (1956) highlighted that sterility tests only assess organisms capable of growing under test conditions and that the sample size is so restricted that it provides only a gross estimate of the sterility of a product lot.

Traditional sterility testing, as outlined in USP <71>, relies on methods involving direct inoculation or membrane filtration followed by a 14-day incubation period in growth-promoting media. This approach presents several key limitations:

  1. Statistical Limitations – Sterility testing only evaluates a small fraction of a given batch. As a result, it is possible for contaminated units to go undetected, leading to the release of nonsterile product.
  2. Microbiological Limitations – The growth media used in the compendial methods do not support the proliferation of all microbial species. Fastidious organisms or viable but non-culturable (VBNC) microbes may not be detected, creating potential sterility assurance gaps.
  3. Time Limitations – The 14-day incubation period significantly delays product release, increasing holding costs and impeding timely patient access and use time.

 Quality by Design: Building Sterility into Every System

Since sterility testing alone cannot provide absolute assurance of product sterility, a comprehensive quality assurance program integrating the principles of quality by design (QbD) must be developed, implemented, and practiced. Sterility assurance must be an intrinsic feature of the entire production system, from the onset, rather than the outcome of a sterility test. By integrating QbD principles into all aspects of aseptic processing, encompassing facility and engineering controls, environmental monitoring, personnel training, and process validation, compounders are less reliant on a single quality control test, which is only representative of the microbial quality of the samples tested, to disposition a compounded sterile preparation

USP <797> and Alternative Sterility Testing Methods

Recent revisions to USP <797> now permit the use of alternative methods, provided they meet specific validation criteria, offering opportunities to improve testing efficiency and reliability. USP General Notices state that alternative testing methods may be used if they can be shown to provide equivalent or better results than compendial methods. Further, according to USP <6.30> Alternative and Harmonized Methods and Procedures, alternative methods must be fully validated per USP <1225> Validation of Compendial Procedures and must demonstrate comparable results within allowable limits. Alternative methods aim to simplify sample preparation, improve precision and accuracy, reduce run time, and allow for automation.

Evolution of Alternative Methods for Sterility Testing

USP <1071> Rapid Microbial Tests for Release of Sterile Short-Life Products: A Risk-Based Approach describes various technologies for rapid microbial tests and their operating parameters relative to user requirement specifications. Among these requirements is the expectation for a low limit of detection and a faster time to result.

To address the limitations of culture-based detection, direct microscopic examination methods emerged in 1977 (Kronvall and Myhre, 1977). These methods utilized a cell stain that only reacted in cells with intact chromosomes to make them fluoresce under ultraviolet light exposure and direct epifluorescent microscopic examination. This cell staining concept underwent decades of improvement. Over time, advancements in microbial detection led to the development of solid-phase laser scanning cytometry, which allows detection and enumeration of microorganisms within hours rather than days or weeks. This concept formed the technical basis for the development and validation of the ScanRDI® sterility test.

Benefits of ScanRDI® for Rapid Sterility Testing

Scan Rapid Detection Imaging (ScanRDI®), a fluorescence-based technology that detects viable microorganisms within hours is an FDA-accepted alternative documented in Drug Master File (DMF) #14621 submitted to the FDA in 1999. ScanRDI® rapidly detects viable microbial cells down to one microorganism without relying on microbial growth or multiplication, eliminating the need for specialized culture conditions and extended incubation periods.

Like the compendial method, the ScanRDI® testing protocol utilizes the same sampling protocols outlined in USP <71>, detects all the standard USP organisms, and requires method suitability testing. Furthermore, it has been shown to provide consistent and reliable results that have been prospectively validated as published by Smith et al, (2010).

From 2007 to 2018, Eagle utilized ScanRDI® testing to determine the sterility of compounded sterile preparations. During this period, nearly 40,000 tests were performed across 1,500 drug compounding categories for 500 pharmacy locations; believed to be the most complex data set accumulated. A retrospective validation of the products tested indicated a sterility failure rate of 0.96% (383), with 96% resulting sterile, and 3.4% resulting incompatible (no test). In parallel, a retrospective validation of over 45,000 USP <71> sterility tests across 1,500 drug compounding categories for approximately 1,000 pharmacy locations was performed, resulting in a sterility positive rate of 0.63% (288). With comparable sterility failure rates, the ScanRDI® sterility test method protocol has proven to be an effective, reliable, and efficient alternative method to the compendial USP <71> sterility test protocol. At Eagle, method suitability is testing is performed on every unique client formulation across all sterility testing platforms.

Key benefits of ScanRDI® include:
  • Rapid Turnaround – Detects viable organisms in as little as two hours, expediting batch release.
  • Increased Sensitivity – Capable of detecting single viable cells, including VBNC organisms that traditional sterility tests may miss.
  • No Growth Requirement – Unlike culture-based methods, ScanRDI® does not rely on microbial replication, reducing the risk of false negatives

Regulatory Compliance, Patient Safety, and Business Risk

Despite its limitations, sterility testing, in conjunction with a robust quality assurance program, remains a regulatory requirement under USP <797> and CGMP for aseptically produced products. The most efficient strategy for compliance and operations is the implementation of rapid sterility testing methods such as ScanRDI®. At Eagle, we understand that achieving sterility assurance requires more than just passing a sterility test, as it alone cannot assure product sterility. In addition to laboratory testing, our team provides end-to-end support for aseptic processing at all stages of sterility assurance, helping clients design and implement facility controls, qualify equipment, processes and personnel, develop and validate processes and programs, provide on-site aseptic training, and perform compliance audits.

Ultimately, compliance with sterility requirements is not just about meeting regulatory mandates—it is about patient safety, access, and satisfaction. Rapid sterility testing ensures faster product release, preventing testing time from cutting into patients’ in-use time. Additionally, reduced inventory hold times translate to improved operational efficiency and cost savings. By integrating a robust quality assurance program with rapid sterility testing, compounders can confidently disposition products while mitigating business risks and protecting public health. With Eagle as your aseptic processing partner, you gain a team of experts dedicated to ensuring compliance, efficiency, and patient safety at every step of the process.

References

Bowman, F.W. 1969. The Sterility Testing of Pharmaceuticals. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. 58 (11): 1301 – 1308.

Nagarkar, P.P., S.D. Ravetkar and M.G. Watve. 2001. Oligophilic Bacteria as Tools to Monitor Aseptic Pharmaceutical Production Units. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 67 (3): 1371 – 1374.

Kronvall, G., and E.Myhre. 1977. Differential staining of bacteria in clinical specimens using acridine orange buffered at low pH. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand B. 85 (4):249-254.

Jones, D.L., M.A. Brailsford, and J-L. Drocourt. 1999. Solid-Phase, Laser-Scanning Cytometry: A New Two-Hour Method for the Enumeration of Microorganisms in Pharmaceutical Water. Pharamcopeial Forum 25(1): 7627 – 7645.

Bryce, D.M. 1956. Tests for the Sterility of Pharmaceutical Preparations: The Design and Interpretation of Sterility Tests. Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology. 8 (2): 561 – 572.

Smith, R., Von Tress, M., Tubb, C., & Vanhaecke, E. (2010). Evaluation of the ScanRDI as a rapid alternative to the pharmacopoeial sterility test method: Comparison of limits of detection. PDA Journal of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology, 64(4), 356-363.