Solid Oral Dosage Forms

Powder Blending

İKEV Meeting
May 31, 2001

Scott Bozzone, Ph.D.

Quality Operations
Cork, Ireland
 Mechanisms of Powder Blending
• Diffusion- redistribution of particles by random
motion
– Vertical or axial motion
– Seen in rotational blenders

• Convection- transfer from one location to another

– Motion imparted by impeller as in Ribbon Blender

• Shear- formation of slip planes

– Motion imparted by high intensity mixers
 Classification of Mixing Equipment
Mechanism Equipment
Diffusion V-Blender (Twin Shell)
(Tumble) Double Cone Blender
Bin Blender
Horizontal/Vertical Drum

Convection Ribbon
(Paddle or Plow) Planetary
Horizontal High Intensity
Vertical High Intensity
Diffusion (with I-Bar)

Pneumatic Fluid Bed

(Expansion with Gas) Reimelt

Reference: FDA Draft Guidance- SUPAC IR/MR-Scale-Up Post Approval Changes - Immediate and
Modified Release - Equipment Addendum, April 1998; http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm
 Blender Selection vs. Material Type
• Non-cohesive blend (flows & mixes easily)
– Bin Blender
– Twin Shell
– Other precision, rotational blender

• Cohesive blend (lumpy, not free-flowing)

– High Shear (e.g. Twin Shell w/ I-Bar, Colette, Lodige)

• Ordered Mix (drug << excipient)

– Tumbling mixers, cone mixer, high energy many types are
allowable.
– Drug is glued to larger excipient particles
– Drug may ‘coat’ larger excipient particles

Drug Excipient
 Rotating Shell Blenders
V-shaped Blender
Shaft Drive
Direction
of Axis of
Rotation Rotation

Keep shell tip speed constant at approximately 100 m/min (300 ft/min)

Double-cone Blender
Shaft Drive
Direction Axis of
of
Rotation Rotation
 Rotating Shell Blenders
Barrel Blender Axis of Rotation

+
Direction
of Rotation +

Bin Blender
Direction
of Rotation Shaft Drive

Axis of Rotation
 Physical Properties of Blend Components

Materials Tests
• Active Ingredients • Particle size Distribution
(coarse, medium, fine)
• Excipients
• Dried Milled Granulations • (loose
Density
or bulk, tapped)
• Final Blends

If possible, match particle size/densities, especially for dry blends.

For example,
• Break-up lumpy excipients with delumping agents (e.g.fumed SiO2)
• Screen/ delump actives with excipients
• Coarse particle sizes could create content uniformity issues.
 Factors in Blending
• Blender Volume
– Usually 60% (±10%) of total air volume is working volume (40% air
to mix and flow). Example: total air volume: 3000L, working vol:
2000 L (66%); Density - 0.48-0.52 g/mL; Batch size is 1,000 Kg.
– Sliding (cascading) fall vs drop.
• Blend times for pharmaceuticals: typically 10-20 minutes.
• Obtain accurate powder density from trials
• Constant batch size
• Visual and calculated observations (before/ after blending)
• Nature of material
• Raw Material physical properties are in control
 Need for Preblending

Direct Preblending Preblending Solvent Addition

Blending (Nongeometric) (Geometric)
>5-10% Active 1-5% Active < 1% < 0.1% active

Straight Use (drug fraction) 1/2 1:1 (Drug:Exc), Dissolve in liquid

{e.g. (0.04) 1/2 = 20%; 1:1 (Mix: Exc), and spray/coat/
mixing 4 Kg drug + 16 Kg 1:1 (Mix: Exc), granulate
Excipient}- Preblend and so on.
Adequate Good method Cumbersome For low dose
products (e.g.
hormones)
 Scale-Up of Blending

Working Capacity Typical RPM Typical Amount

(L) (Kg)
20-50 25–30 8-30
250 22–28 80-150
500 12–18 200-300
2000 8–12 800-1200

Rotational velocity is key blending parameter

Rotational Tip speed (100 m/min) and momentum (mass x
velocity) stay same during scale-up; as mass increases
blender RPM decreases.
 Scale-up of Blending
• Pilot Plant development
– Evaluate and determine blending times
• Start at 10 min, sample every minute thereafter
• Select three times and bracket with acceptable results
– Sampling methods, sizes, and locations are developed
– Determine if blending is critical (i.e. sensitive, problematic)

• Qualify Production Blender

– Verify blending time and rotational speed
• Production blending instructions
– Specific, precise blending speed and blending time.
– Ranges are not usually in batch directions
– No variation from batch to batch
 Segregation
(Demixing of components)

• Occurs during blending, transport, storage or

discharge.
– Seen mostly during transport and discharge.

• Greater with free-flowing powders since they can

separate easily (based on size, shape, and
density)
• Overcome by
– Minimizing physical differences
– Increasing cohesiveness of formulation
– Optimizing blending conditions
 Types of Segregation
• Sifting - smaller particles slipping between larger ones.
– Particle size differences > 3:1
– Mean Particle size > 300 µm
– Free flowing pile formed through funnel
– Major component is > 3 times minor one.
Example - Granules on top of powder bed in tablet press hopper or
coarse particles at the end of a container. Related to Vibration effects
that may accelerate the sifting phenomenon.

Correction:
• Narrower particle size distribution
• More cohesiveness
• Reduce material handling (discharge, scooping, transport)
• Change equipment design (angles, vents, cone-in-bin)
• Use equal portions if possible (50/50 mix)
 Types of Segregation, Contd..
• Aeration (percolation) or Fluidization causes fines to
travel to the top with air.
– Particle size differences
– Excessive high shear mixing (air introduced during blending)
– Settling effects

• Dusting or particles in the air - fines accumulating at

side or perimeter of drum/bin.
• Arching or ‘rat holing’ - different angle of repose and
cohesiveness of mix components leads to differences
in sliding, mixing, and discharge pattern of mix
components.
 Segregation by Fluidization

Plan View
+ +

Layer of
lines
Elevation Lined to
provide
mass flow

Original configuration- Revised Configuration-

too much air during filling less air effect as it enters
tangentially
Reference: Pharm Tech, June 1994.
Measuring Angle of Repose

H α
H
α
2R 2R
Fixed-Funnel Fixed-Bed Cone

α α
Tilting Box Revolving Cylinder
 Angle of Repose for Different Sieve Cuts of MgO

60
Repose Angle (degrees)

50 Smaller particles have a

higher angle or pile

40

30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Diameter (µm)
 V-type Blenders: Effect of loading

V-type Mixer

α α

α = 70 º- 80 º

Layer-by-layer Loading: Side-by-side Loading:

Convection Paces Blend Diffusion Paces Blend
 Funnel Flow and Mass Flow Patterns

40°
Wall Friction Angle (φ)
Funnel
Flow
30°

20°
Mass
Flow Uncertain
10°

0°
0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50°
Hopper Angle from Vertical (θc)
Higher wall friction requires steeper hopper angle (smaller θc) to
maintain mass flow.
 Mass Flow Angle Design for Hopper

Moving

Stagnant
Shallow Hopper θc
Bottom

Funnel flow Mass flow

(Segregation is worst)

Reference: J. Prescott, Pharm Tech Europe, Jan 2001.

 Rapid drop of powder into a Y-branch
above tablet press leads to air entrainment

Butterfly
valve

35º

7’-0

Tableting Machine Tableting Machine

Original Configuration- Revised Configuration;

airstream carried fines
Vent allows air to bypass

Reference: Pharm Tech, June 1994.

 Sampling Methods
• Static Bed - sample thieves
– Globe (side sampling) - most common
– End
– Streamline End
– Core sampling device

• Flow stream (during dynamic discharge)

– Best to sample entire stream for very short
period.

Refs: 1) Chang, R-K. Drug Dev. Ind. Pharm., 22 (9), 1031-1035 (1996).
2) Garcia, T.P. Pharm Dev. Tech., 3 (1), 7-12 (1998).
 Sample Quantity and Frequency
• In Development phase, pull 1-3x Unit Dose or larger samples.
If 1-3x is problem, test larger samples to assess bias.
Justify deviation from 1-3x dose size.
[Below 1.0x has been problematic, 1-1.5x is optimal.]

• During Validation,
– Use recommended sample size from Development.
– Minimum ten locations, three per location (total of 30
samples per batch). Must include worst-case locations.
– Test 10 samples per batch. Test other 20 samples per USP
<905> protocol, if needed
– If drug content is > 50% (or 50 mg) in dosage form, blend
uniformity is not needed. (Dickinson’s FDA Review, Nov.
1998)
 Sampling Locations in V- Blender
1st Sample Set
A = Left-Left-Top (left arm)

+
2nd Sample Set
B = Left arm-Left-Middle
C = Left arm-Left-Bottom
D = Discharge Port
A E J
H
B 3rd Sample Set
F I E = Left arm-Center-Middle
F = Center-Center-Center
C G G = Right-Right-Bottom

4th Sample Set

D
H = Right-Right-Top
I = Right-Right-Middle
Diagram Shows Approximate
Two-Dimensional Sample Locations 5th Sample Set
for a Twin Shell Blender J = Right-Right-Top (right arm)
 Sampling Locations in Bin Blender
1st Sample Set
A = Left-Top (left arm)

2nd Sample Set

B = Back-Top
A D J
C = Back-Middle
B H
E 3rd Sample Set
C I D = Center-Top
F E = Center-Middle-Top
F = Center-Bottom
G = Discharge Port
G 4th Sample Set
H = Front-Top
I = Front-Bottom
Diagram Shows Approximate
Two-Dimensional Sample 5th Sample Set
Locations for a Bin Blender J = Right-Top (right arm)
 Sample Analysis
• Use HPLC where possible, for accuracy.
• HPLC method validation.
– Precision
– Reproducibility
– Sensitivity
– Spike Placebo - Recovery
– Solution Stability - Up to 24 hr.
• Blend mean assay is lower than finished product
assay. Investigate…..
– Recovery (dissolving) method, final unit weights, sampling
technique (static charge), non uniform mix. May need a
powder blend assay or potency test.

• Lab training since blend testing may be uncommon.

 Sampling Consistency
• Consistent and standardized sample thief technique
– Angle of insertion (e.g. 45 °)
– Swivel (e.g. 3 o’clock)
– Fast or slow insertion
– Personnel technique
• Glass vs plastic containers (static).
• Sample separation (coarse/fines).
• Test entire sample (1-3 X); Pull in triplicate (back-up testing)

• Weigh sample containers before sample is added.

• Rinse sample container with extra diluent
 Sampling Error/Bias

• Thief design

• Sampling technique

• Physical properties of formulation

– Flow in sample cavity

• Handling procedure

• Sample size (< unit dose)

• Active content (< 5 mg)

Ref: Carstensen, J.T. Drug Dev. Ind. Pharm., 19 (20), 2699-2708 (1993)
 Assay of screen fractions
(to assess distribution of active)

• Coarse, medium, and fines (minimum of three

fractions)
• On occasion, do not meet theoretical potency
– Coarse 1-2 % w/w (Theory is 5% w/w)
– Medium 4 % w/w
– Fines 10 % w/w
• May be up to 100% off from expected and still
provide acceptable final blend and final product.
• Use this technique for rough estimation only.
 Review

• Mixing mechanisms and equipment

• Component characteristics
• Scale-up of mixing parameters
• Sampling considerations
• Test methods used
• Data interpretation
Thank You!
Questions?
 Solid Oral Dosage Forms,
Blend Uniformity:
Principles and Examples

Turkish Pharmaceutical Society Meeting

June 1, 2001

Scott Bozzone, Ph.D.

Quality Operations
Cork, Ireland
 Definitions and Terminology

• Powder Blend Uniformity - refers to active ingredient

(or preservative) distribution or homogeneity in the
“final” blend or mix. Powder Blend is encapsulated,
tabletted, or filled into single or multiple dosage units.

• Adequacy of Mixing - satisfactory blending step to

assure uniformity and homogeneity. A term used by
the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

[21 Code of Federal Regulation 211.110 (a)(3), 1978]

 Reasons for Blend Testing

• To optimize the blend time during development phase.

• To demonstrate lack of segregation in bins/drums during
material handling.
• To confirm that specified blend conditions produce
acceptable uniformity during validation.
• In Australia, blend assays can be used to release finished
product.
 FDA’s position on blend testing

• Use conservative approach: when mixing is critical,

blend evaluation is warranted, but may be
unnecessary under certain circumstances…
• Validation ... may define where it is appropriate, but
a conclusion cannot be made before validation is
completed and historical data is analyzed.
• 21 CFR 211.110 requires in-process controls and
tests…to monitor… those steps responsible for
variability...

Ref: FDA letter, Aug 29, 1997 in PDA Technical Report No. 25, 1998
 Draft FDA Guidance on BUA

• FDA (Office of Generic Drugs - OGD) has issued a Draft

Guidance for ANDA Products (August 1999)
– Conduct BUA on all commercial batches of ANDA drug
products with < 50 mg or < 50% active ingredient(s)
(Those requiring USP CU test)
– FDA’s interpretation of 211.110 (a)(3) requires BUA (in-
process testing for adequacy of mixing)
– Sample size (less that 3x dosage weight, if bias, up to 10x);
N= 6-10 samples; Acceptance criteria: 90.0-110.0% (mean),
RSD < 5.0%
• Statement that it will extend to NDAs, after another Guidance is
revised

The intent of the guidance is clarified in 3/00 edition of Human

Drug GMP Notes.
 BUA for Simple Dosage Forms

Weight of Active Pharmaceutical

Ingredients(s) per Dosage Form Unit
0 mg 50 mg x mg

Blend Uniformity Analysis Blend Uniformity Analysis

Recommended Not Usually Needed

0% 50% 100%

Reference: FDA Draft Guide, Blend Uniformity, Aug 1999.

 BUA: Industry Comments to FDA Guidance
• BUA is unnecessary for commercial batches since blending step
is validated
– Evaluated during Development and Validation
– Blend time and speed specified in manufacturing instructions
– Raw material control

• Guidance follows USP CU test requirement only part of the way;

does not allow testing of additional 20 samples
• Proposed BUA acceptance criteria of 90.0-110.0% mean,
<5.0% RSD is looser than USP’s 85-115% for individuals, <
6.0% RSD; should be 90.0-110.0% for individuals
• Could lead to unauthorized reblending/retesting procedures
• Firms prefer not to conduct BUA on routine production batches.
 FDA court case* on BUA

• Sampling technique should be representative of all

portions of blend.
• Blending should not generate weak and/or hot
spots in the blend.
• For blend uniformity, sample size must be at most 3
unit dosages.

* FDA vs. Barr, legal action, 1993

 Powder Blending Parameters

Variable Response

• Blending time • Blend Content Uniformity

• Blender speed • Assay
• Intensifier bar • Particle size distribution
• Powder flow
• Densification/Aeration
 Lubricant Blending Parameters

Variable Response

• Blender speed • Loose/tapped densities

• Blending time • Powder flow (from blender/
hopper)
• Method of addition
• Tabletting/filling
characteristics
 Acceptance Criteria for Blend Assay

Samples Individual Assay

RSD < 5.0%

10 Powder Blend - Stage 1 90% 110%
< 6.8%
30 Powder Blend - Stage 2
80% 120%
RSD < 6.0%
10 Finished Product - Stage 1 85% 115%
< 7.8%
30 Finished Product - Stage 2 75% 125%

Blend uniformity acceptance criteria are usually tighter than those for
finished product; requirements for Stage 1 are tighter than those for
Stage 2.
 Standard Deviation Prediction Interval (SDPI)
• Allows calculation of maximum acceptable standard deviation for
blend samples (Uses F statistic)
• More conservative approach than the USP

Sample % RSD
size SDPI USP

10 3.84 6.0 (Stage 1)

20 4.26
30 4.40 7.8 (Stage 2)
60 4.55
 Effect of Blending Time on Blend Uniformity

Blend time Mean RSD Range

(min) (%) (%) (%)

5 99.7 1.1 98.1-101.8

7 100.0 1.7 97.2-103.3

9 100.0 2.0 95.5-103.1

Sample size: N= 10, 1-2 X (1-2 unit dose); product has 7% active.

- RSD < 5.0 % (and 3.84% from SDPI, as well)

- All acceptable and equivalent uniformity at 5- 9 min.
- Seven minutes was chosen and was bracketed.
 Effect of Physical Properties on BUA

Test Batch 1 Batch 2 Batch 3 Batch 4

Blend Particle size
% > 250 μm 15 12 12 12
% < 106 μm 65 72 72 73
Blend Density, g/mL
Loose (Bulk) 0.53 0.55 0.55 0.54
Tapped 0.63 0.69 0.69 0.69
Blend Uniformity
Mean, % 99.9 102.3 100.3 101.2
RSD, % 1.7 3.3 1.0 1.1
Core Uniformity
Mean, % 101 102 101 101
RSD, % 1.1 0.9 1.7 1.5
 Effect of Particle Size of a Potent Active
(4% w/w)
• Scale-up: Blend uniformity RSD was >8% and on
occasion, 10%.
• Investigation and screen analysis revealed active had
5-10% of very hard, coarse particles (>1000 µm)
that could actually weigh more than 0.8 mg. This
lead to poor blend and content uniformity.
• Correction:
– Controlled milling of active
– Preblend step added (since active % was relatively low)
– Use of Comil or conical screening with excipient provides
enhanced mixing and dispersion of active.
 Choice of Blending Equipment
0.8

0.7

0.6
Standard Deviation

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800
Time (seconds)

Cross-Flow Quad Cone Slant Cone T win-Shell

Blending of 3.5% Citric Acid in Sand; Source: Harsco Co. (Patterson Kelley
Blenders Co.), 1997
 Choice of Blending Equipment
0.40

0.35
Standard Deviation

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800

Time (seconds)

Cross-Flow Quad Cone Slant Cone Double Cone

Blending of 3.5% citric acid in granular Na tripolyphosphate; Source:

Harsco Co. (Patterson Kelley Blenders Co.), 1997
 Blending more than one active

• All actives must be distributed uniformly

• Focus on minor component-usually the
more difficult to disperse
• Literature has equations/calculations: apply
same CV or acceptance criteria for each
component.
 BUA vs CU - 2 Actives

• Active A: 10% w/w, B: 12.5 % w/w

• Both actives are granulated, dried and blended.
• Physical Properties of blend
• Particle size mean - about 200 µm (10% < 70 µm ; 10% > 800 µm)
• Density - 0.74 g/mL (loose), 0.83 g/mL (tapped).
• Angle of repose - 0.65
• Blend 10 min @ 12 rpm (120 revolutions)

Active A Active B
Mean RSD, % Mean RSD, %
Blend 103.1 1.3 96.8 1.5
(n = 10)

Tablet 99.0 1.5 101.5 1.6

1. 6
(n = 30)
 BUA vs. CU 3 Actives, Example 1

• Actives A 4% w/w, B 60% w/w, and C 2% w/w

• All actives are granulated, dried and blended.
• Physical Properties of blend
• Particle size mean - about 110 µm (15% < 55 µm ;
8% > 250 µm)
• Density- 0.50 g/mL (loose), 0.64 g/mL (tapped).
• Blend- 20 min @ 10 rpm (200 revolutions)

n= 10; All RSDs were < 3.8 % (SDPI) and all met specifications of 5.0%
 BUA vs. CU 3 Actives, Example 1, contd.
Blend uniformity, 3 batches
Active Mean, % RSD, %
A 99-101 1.0-3.6
B 97-99 0.6-2.0
C 99-102 1.5-2.9

CU, 3 batches
Active Mean, % RSD, %
A 99-100 1.4-2.3
B 97-98 0.5-0.8
C 99-102 1.4-1.8

For blend uniformity: n= 10; all RSDs were < 3.8 % (SDPI) and met spec of 5.0%
For tablet CU: n= 10 for 2 batches and n = 30 for third batch; all RSDs were <3.8 %
(SDPI) and met specifications of 5.0%
 BUA vs. CU 3 Actives, Example 2

• Actives: A 66.7% w/w, B 8.0% w/w, and C 0.33%

w/w
• All actives are granulated, dried and blended.
• Preblending (5 min) , Main blending (20 min), and
Lubrication (5 min)
 BUA vs. CU 3 Actives, Example 2, contd.
Blend uniformity, 3 batches
Active Mean, % RSD, %
A 66-68 0.9-3.9
B 7.9–8.0 1.3–1.8
C 0.32-0.34 3.7–4.2

CU, 3 batches
Active Mean, % RSD, %
A 98-100 0.4–1.6
B 98-102 0.5-1.9
C 96-103 1.2-7.2

For blend uniformity: n= 10; met spec of 85-115% (and RSD < 5.0%). Test extra tablets
as RSD is >3.84 (SDPI)
For CU: Each batch had 6 groups of 10 tablets tested (batch total n= 60), RSDs were
<3.8% (SDPI) for A and B, C was most difficult but met spec of 85-115% for all tablets
 Operating Characteristic Curve for USP and FDA
When Population SD is 8%, USP (Stage 2) accepts about 45%, USP stage

1 about 20 % and FDA plan only 2%.

1.0
0.9
USP
Probability of Acceptance
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
USP
0.4 Stage 1
0.3
0.2 FDA
0.1 RSD 5%
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Population Standard Deviation (%)
 Comparing BUA to CU
10
9
8
CU, %RSD
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

BUA, %RSD

BUA Frequently Does Not Correlate well with CU

 Handling Out-of-Specification Result
• Formal investigation per SOP.
• Assignable cause - correct and repeat testing.
• Stage 2 Testing (additional 20 samples).
• Non-assignable cause
– Different blend sampling method or larger sample size.
– Extensive and representative tablets/capsule content
uniformity to evaluate the blend.

Ref: PDA Technical Report No. 25 (1998), Page 39.

 Some Reasons for Inconsistent Results
• Lab handling or calculation errors.
• Sampling errors or bias.
• Wide distributions of particle size or density of
ingredients.
• Poor blending, or discharge conditions (segregation,
aeration/settling, percolation).
• Active content (< 2% or 5 mg).
• Analytical method not validated for blend.
 TGA Position on Microdose Formulations (<5 mg)

• Master record shall describe mixing procedure.

Determine parameters to achieve uniform mixing, for
each batch size of microdose product.
• Mixing procedure shall be periodically validated. Any
significant change requires validation.
• Records of above shall be kept.
• Uniformity of drug content shall be assessed
according to written program.

Ref: International GMPs, Australia, TGA, Section 7.8, 1990

 Validation Requirements for Blending Equipment Change
Recommended
Validation
Class Subclass Example Requirements
Same Same Same Make/ Ensure sameness*
Model Blender

Same Same Tote Bin To Matcon None*

Same Different** V-Blender to Bin Blend Uniformity

Blender Blend Characteristics

Different** Different Convection Define Process Parameters

(Planetary) to Blend Uniformity,
Diffusion (Bin) Blend Characteristics

* Equipment IQ/OQ; ** Major changes are to be validated

 Future Needs and Trends

• More research on blending, such as bin blending,

including lubricant blending.
• Study mixing in equipment with different principles
such as high shear or air fluidized mixing.
• Improve powder sampling device and procedure.
• Near-Infrared (NIR) method for blend analysis -
fast, reliable.
• When blending is shown to be a critical process
step, ensure adequate pilot study of the causative
factors during process optimization.
 References
• US Food Drug Administration
– Regulation, 21 CFR 211.110 (a)(3), 1978.
– Proposed rule to 21 CFR 211.110 (d), May 3, 1996.
– cGMP Human Drug Notes, May 1993, March 2000.

• US vs. Barr Labs; Civil action in New Jersey, Feb 1993.

• Parenteral Drug Association (PDA), Technical Report No. 25,

“Blend Uniformity Analysis”, 1997.

• International GMPs, Code of Good Manufacturing Practices for

Therapeutic Goods (Australia), 7.8 “Microdose Formulations -
Validation and Control”, 1990.

• Pharmaceutical Technology journal (US and Europe)

– US- Prescott, J. & T. Garcia, Troubleshooting Guide, March 2001
– Europe- Powder Flow I, II- Prescott, J. Jan, Feb 2001
 Note of Caution

• Regulations - must follow; legal requirements

• Corporate SOPs - must follow; Corporate requirements,
may be revised.
• FDA or ICH Guidances - should follow; good practices; if
there is an alternate way justify it (ICH Guides with FDA
agreement are as good as regulations)
• Draft Guidances - serious consideration, may follow, open
for comments
• Newsletters with Sources - Consideration - obtain source
• Newsletters without Sources - Opinion articles - use
caution, source of ideas or “possible” trends to come
Thank You!
Questions?