Zamann Pharma Support logo

Siedlerstraße 7 | 68623 Lampertheim, Germany

info@zamann-pharma.com

Request an appointment now

Maintaining the Validated State: Change Control and Traceability in Purified Water Systems

Validation does not protect a system once that system changes. However, most systems change without anyone updating their validation package. During a project at a pharmaceutical company in South America, this gap stood out as one of the most dangerous findings.

The problem came down to poor documentation and weak change control in the company’s PW systems. In other words, the validation records stopped keeping pace with the system they were meant to describe. As a result, the case carries one clear lesson: your validation is invalid the moment traceability is lost. In response, our team identified these gaps and set out a four-step action plan to restore traceability.

Challenges Faced

A detailed GAP analysis in Quality Management Systems is essential for identifying process deficiencies effectively.
  • Equipment Replaced Without EQ/PQ Re-Execution: The site replaced equipment but never re-executed EQ/PQ, so qualification no longer covered the installed system.
  • Change Control Forms Without Impact Assessment: Change control forms lacked an impact assessment, so no one recorded how changes affected the system.
  • An Outdated Validation Package: As a result, the validation package no longer reflected the actual system.
  • An Outdated Risk Assessment: Similarly, the risk assessment had fallen out of date.
  • Deviations Disconnected From Documentation: FDA and EMA expect risk-based validation, change control, and lifecycle management. Keep validation updated and maintain traceability from URS through PQ.

Zamann Pharma Support’s Approach

  • Create a Traceability Matrix: First, a traceability matrix links URS, PQ and review.
  • Link Change Control to the Validation Package: Next, every change control links to the validation package, so modifications update validation instead of bypassing it.
  • Update the Risk Assessment After Events: Then, events such as deviations trigger a risk assessment update.
  • Use Periodic Review to Confirm the Validated State: Finally, periodic review confirms the validated state.

Results Achieved

  • Full Traceability From URS to PQ to Review: With the matrix in place, the site can retain full lifecycle traceability.
  • Change Control Tied to Validation: Because change control links to the validation package, validation can reflect the actual configuration, as EMA Annex 11 expects.
  • A Risk Assessment That Follows Events: Post-event updates let deviations feed directly into the risk assessment.
  • A Routinely Confirmed Validated State: Periodic review regularly confirms the validated state. Ultimately, it guards against the case’s core risk: the moment traceability disappears, validation becomes fiction.
Laboratory
GMP qualification and lifecycle validation activities including IQ, OQ, and PQ supporting inspection readiness in pharmaceutical manufacturing.
Services

Qualification and Validation for GMP Systems

Our team supports the planning, execution, and maintenance of qualification and validation activities, including IQ, OQ, and PQ, to keep GMP-regulated systems compliant and under control.

Read More

Contact Us

Need help? Don't hesitate to get in touch
Zamann pharma support is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy, and we’ll use your personal information to administer your account and to provide the products and services you requested from us.

FAQ

1. Do you need to re-execute EQ/PQ after replacing equipment in a validated PW system?

Yes. Replacing equipment without re-executing EQ/PQ was a core failure in this case, and EMA and FDA treat such lifecycle gaps as a critical deficiency. Because EMA Annex 11 requires validation to reflect the actual configuration, any replacement should pass through risk-based change control, an impact assessment and a validation package update.

2. Why does a change control form without an impact assessment break PW system validation?

Without an impact assessment, change control records a modification but never evaluates its effect on the validated state. Consequently, the validation package and risk assessment fall out of date, and traceability from URS to PQ to review breaks. FDA CSA therefore expects risk-based change control, assessed before implementation and linked to the validation package.

3. How should deviations update the risk assessment in a PW validation lifecycle?

Deviations should revise the risk assessment and link to the documentation updates they require. In this case, unlinked deviations left the risk assessment outdated. Since ICH Q12 makes lifecycle management mandatory, update the risk assessment after events and use periodic review to confirm the validated state.