{"id":17010,"date":"2026-08-24T19:46:52","date_gmt":"2026-08-24T17:46:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/q-finity.de\/aktuelles\/"},"modified":"2026-08-24T21:10:20","modified_gmt":"2026-08-24T19:10:20","slug":"updates","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/q-finity.de\/en\/updates\/","title":{"rendered":"Updates"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
<\/div>
Updates<\/a><\/span>

The PIC\/S Recommendation PI 006, Fourth Version: The Paradigm Shift in Qualification and Validation<\/span><\/a><\/h2><\/div><\/header><\/span>
\"PI<\/a><\/div>
\n

PIC\/S has rewritten its recommendations on qualification and validation: PI 006-4 replaces the 2007 version on October 1, 2026. The real change sits beneath the chapters: validation is no longer a completed event but a continuously demonstrated state. That is precisely what gives modern ways of working a regulatory foundation, from a scientifically justified number of batches in process validation to ongoing verification in operation. Reading the new text with the vocabulary of 2007 can take you down the wrong path: scope and terminology have shifted. Computerized systems are explicitly out of scope; they belong to a different set of rules.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

PI 006-4 \"Recommendations on Qualification<\/a> and Validation\" is the Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme’s (PIC\/S) recommendation on qualification and validation in pharmaceutical manufacturing; its participating authorities include the European inspectorates and the U.S. FDA. It covers the qualification of facilities, equipment and supporting utilities, process and cleaning validation, the validation of test methods, and special topics such as the verification of transportation and the validation of packaging for solid dose products. It enters into force on October 1, 2026, replaces the 2007 version and describes what inspectorates expect beyond Annex 15. It is not a legal instrument; as a guidance and training resource for GMP inspectors and the pharmaceutical industry, however, it shapes inspection practice directly.<\/p>\n

Why is PI 006-4 a paradigm shift?<\/h2>\n

Four narrowly scoped topics from 2007 have become a lifecycle guide. The language, however, deserves particular attention: the words have stayed the same while the meaning underneath them has moved. The longer your validation practice reaches back, the more familiar the terms sound; they no longer carry their 2007 meaning.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
1<\/div>\n
Retrospective validation: gone.<\/b> Once the lifeline for legacy processes. PI 006-4 describes it as \"no longer considered an acceptable approach\". Legacy processes need a gap analysis, a risk assessment and ongoing verification in line with today’s expectations.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
2<\/div>\n
Periodic revalidation of the process: no longer exists.<\/b> Ongoing Process<\/a> Verification<\/a> \"has taken the place of periodic revalidation\". The state of control is demonstrated continuously; the fixed calendar cycle no longer applies. OPV is documented evidence of the state of control and therefore more than monitoring. What it replaces is periodic revalidation, not retrospective validation: two different removals.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
3<\/div>\n
Three batches: a transitional state.<\/b> PIC\/S itself marks the current Annex 15 wording as \"transitory\". The number of batches is scientifically justified and risk-based. The roadmap is public: the joint EMA and PIC\/S Concept Paper from early 2026 announces a comprehensive review once the current targeted revision of Annex 15 is complete.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
4<\/div>\n
IQ, OQ and PQ: no longer the only way.<\/b> Verification<\/a>-based approaches built on good engineering practice, such as ASTM E2500, are explicitly named and can be applied where circumstances justify it. The classic qualification cascade remains the established route; it is simply no longer the only one.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
5<\/div>\n
Transportation is verified.<\/b> The chapter is deliberately titled \"Verification of Transportation\". A transport route is movable and changeable; only stable equipment is qualified. PIC\/S matches how the evidence is established to the object of evidence.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

In addition, statistics moves from optional to expected: process capability indices, multivariate methods and predefined evaluation criteria belong in the protocols where risk warrants it, with subject matter experts and statisticians working side by side. Cleaning validation follows the same movement: the extent of the cleaning program is driven by a toxicological risk assessment, for example based on health-based exposure limits (HBEL); they make the actual hazard potential of an active substance the measure of how stringent cleaning needs to be.<\/p>\n

Is periodic revalidation still written into your validation master plan?<\/p>\n

Periodic revalidation gives way to Ongoing Process<\/a> Verification, and its requirements are concrete. After the initial validation, once routine manufacturing begins, OPV runs until the process is discontinued. It monitors product quality and the critical parameters identified through risk assessment, and draws in quality system signals such as deviations and complaints; the trending should also be capable of detecting creeping change and special causes of variability. Results are reported regularly, normally at least once a year and, wherever possible, with objective statistical tools such as the process capability index Cpk, which measures how reliably the process stays within its specification limits; every report ends with a verdict: the process is in a state of control, or it is not. The effort scales with risk, and the reports may explicitly serve as a reference for the annual Product Quality<\/a> Review. For most companies this means the data already exist. But what about the predefined criteria and the regular, documented verdict?<\/p>\n

There is one question that lets you read PI 006-4 without stumbling: what exactly is demonstrated, and against what? Name the object and the reference point for every piece of evidence and you cannot take a wrong turn. Verifying the transport route then follows just as logically as the risk-based number of batches. Take only the familiar words with you, however, and verification turns into monitoring, the continuous demonstration of control turns into a calendar entry, and a conditional permission turns into a free choice. The same economy of thought runs through the document itself: evidence established once is referenced, not repeated.<\/p>\n