The fourteen-day problem, and what it does to a commercial testing model

Four independent testing services carry most of the weight of trust in the research-peptide trade: Janoshik, Medutest, PeptideMeter and VendorInvestigate. Between them they have done more to raise documentation standards in this market than any regulator has, and the Journal says so plainly because the criticism that follows is narrower than it might otherwise appear. All four are chemistry operations. Their instruments separate, detect and identify molecules. None of the four is primarily a microbiology laboratory, and microbiology is where the questions in this piece live.

The compendial sterility test, described plainly

The compendial test proceeds by one of two routes. In membrane filtration, the entire contents of the sampled containers are passed through a retentive membrane which is then divided between two growth media. In direct inoculation, the contents are transferred into the media directly. The media are a fluid thioglycollate medium incubated at thirty to thirty-five degrees for anaerobes and aerobes, and a soybean-casein digest medium incubated at twenty to twenty-five degrees for fungi and aerobes. Incubation runs for fourteen days with periodic examination for visible growth.

The number of containers sampled depends on batch size, and for a parenteral batch above five hundred containers the requirement is twenty. Every one of those twenty is destroyed. Method suitability must be demonstrated separately, because a preserved formulation or an antimicrobial residue can inhibit the very growth the test is looking for, and the bacteriostatic and fungistatic properties of the article have to be neutralised or shown absent before a negative result means anything.¹

A reader who takes nothing else from this section should take the sample size. Twenty containers, fourteen days, destroyed. That is the entire empirical basis of the finished-product sterility claim, and it is why the process argument carries the weight.

Low endotoxin recovery, and the clean result that is wrong

The most uncomfortable finding in endotoxin testing over the past fifteen years is that certain formulation matrices cause added endotoxin to become undetectable over time. Spike a known quantity of reference endotoxin into a solution containing a non-ionic surfactant and a chelating buffer, hold it, and the recoverable endotoxin declines — sometimes to a small fraction of what was added — while nothing has been removed. The lipopolysaccharide aggregate state has changed, and the assay cannot see what it cannot bind.

The phenomenon is called low endotoxin recovery, and it matters because the combination of polysorbate with citrate or phosphate is extremely common in peptide and protein formulations. A hold-time study — spiking the actual product matrix and measuring recovery across the intended sample storage interval — is the standard mitigation, and it is now expected as part of method suitability for products in that formulation space.

The implication for a reader is narrow but worth stating. A negative endotoxin result on a surfactant-containing formulation, reported without a hold-time recovery study, is weaker evidence than it appears. A negative result on a reconstituted lyophilised peptide in plain water for injection, tested promptly, is considerably stronger.²

The four services, and what they will sell you

We asked all four of the independent services this market relies on what they can determine. Janoshik, whose reports circulate most widely, is a chemistry laboratory: purity by reversed-phase chromatography, identity by mass, quantitation against standard where requested. Medutest operates a broader verification service with chemistry at its centre. PeptideMeter is likewise a chemistry and verification operation. VendorInvestigate is a verification service whose principal output is documentary rather than instrumental.

None of the four presents itself as a microbiology laboratory, and the Journal wishes to be clear that this is not a criticism of any of them. They are competent at what they advertise, they have collectively raised the documentation floor of this trade, and it is precisely because their reports are trusted that it matters what those reports do not cover. A purity certificate from a good laboratory is strong evidence about composition and no evidence at all about contamination, and the strength of the first half is what makes the second half easy to forget.

Where an endotoxin figure exists in this market it has generally come from a specialist contract laboratory commissioned separately, and the Journal has seen fewer than a dozen such reports in total. Two of them accompanied vials we submitted ourselves.

What we submitted, and what came back

Between the second and fourth quarters the Journal purchased fourteen vials of lyophilised research peptide from nine suppliers, at catalogue prices, through ordinary channels and without identifying ourselves. Each was photographed sealed, logged, and stored at two to eight degrees on arrival. Twelve were submitted to a contract laboratory accredited to the general competence standard for testing laboratories for bacterial endotoxin determination by kinetic chromogenic assay, with method suitability established for each matrix. Two were submitted for a compendial sterility test by membrane filtration, which destroyed both.

We disclose the following limitations without being asked. Fourteen vials from nine suppliers is not a survey. Single determinations carry the uncertainty of single determinations. A negative sterility result on one vial says nothing about the batch it came from, for exactly the statistical reasons set out above. And a vial that has crossed a border in a padded envelope has a thermal and mechanical history we cannot reconstruct.

What the exercise establishes is narrower than a survey and, we think, worth publishing: that the tests exist, that they are commercially available to a private purchaser at a known price, that the numbers they return are interpretable against a calculable limit, and that nothing prevented any of the nine suppliers from commissioning them first.³

A note on method and sourcing

The compendial material in this article is drawn from the current general chapters of the United States Pharmacopeia and the European Pharmacopoeia, read in the original rather than in summary, and from the international standards on aseptic processing and on laboratory competence. Where a chapter has changed status recently — as the recombinant reagent chapters have — we say so, because a reader consulting an older edition will find a different framing.

Where the Journal reports a number it obtained itself, it states the laboratory’s accreditation status, the method family, whether method suitability was established, and the number of determinations. Where we report what a company told us, we distinguish an answer from a refusal and a refusal from a non-response, because those three things are routinely collapsed in coverage of this trade and they are not the same.

Corrections to this department are handled by the standards desk, which reads every letter and records the outcome in the log. Readers who believe a paragraph here overstates its evidence are asked to write to standards@compoundjournal.com; readers with documents to send, including certificates they would like read, should write to letters@compoundjournal.com. We do not publish correspondents’ names without permission and we do not identify the source of a certificate.

We will keep asking the five questions, printing the answers, and recording the refusals as refusals. Two companies changed their certificates after the first round of this correspondence, which is a small result for a year of letters and rather better than none. Documents to letters@compoundjournal.com; disputes about anything above to standards@compoundjournal.com.