lims-stability

Stability Management

Store. Pull. Trend.

Eighteen months of data. One number that changes everything. The trend was visible—nobody was watching. Automatic trending shows you degradation trajectories before they cross limits.

Stability Management

Eighteen months of data. One number that changes everything.

The regulatory submission was three weeks away. Eighteen months of stability data, all trending perfectly—until the 18-month timepoint came back. Assay: 89.2%. Specification: NLT 90.0%.

Nobody saw it coming. The 12-month result was 94.1%. The 15-month was 92.3%. But the degradation rate wasn't linear, and nobody had run the regression. Nobody had projected when the curve would cross the specification limit. The data existed—it just sat in columns waiting for someone to ask the right question.

The submission deadline slipped by six months. The commercial launch slipped with it. The competitor who filed two months later beat them to market. All because a spreadsheet full of numbers never told anyone what those numbers meant.

Stability Study Lifecycle

Stability is a program, not a collection of samples

A single product stability program spans years—multiple protocols at different storage conditions, dozens of timepoints, hundreds of individual tests. One missed pull can force you to restart a study. One chamber excursion can invalidate months of data. One trending issue discovered too late can delay your submission by a year.

Most LIMS treat stability as an afterthought: just more samples to test. They track sample IDs and test results. They don't understand that stability is a program with structure—protocols define conditions, conditions define timepoints, timepoints generate samples, samples generate results, and results build trends that predict the future. Without that structure, you're not managing stability. You're managing a spreadsheet.

The 6-month pull nobody noticed

It happens more often than anyone admits. A timepoint was due last week. The calendar reminder got buried in email. The analyst who usually handles pulls was on vacation. Nobody noticed until the monthly report revealed a gap. Now the study has missing data that auditors will question, and there's no way to go back in time.

The investigation takes three days. Was the protocol violated? Can the study continue? Does the gap affect the registration timeline? In the end, the study continues with a documented deviation—but the auditor will ask about it, and the answer will be "human error in a manual tracking process."

Chamber excursions are worse. The alarm went off overnight. Maintenance silenced it and noted "temp spike, resolved." But which samples were affected? How long were they out of spec? Someone pulls up the data logger, exports to Excel, cross-references against the chamber loading log (which is in a different system), and tries to figure out which of the 200 samples in that chamber were actually compromised. Hours of work that could have taken minutes.

The most painful failure is trend blindness. Eighteen months into a critical study, the assay result comes back at 89%—just below the 90% specification. Nobody saw it coming because nobody was watching the trend. The data was there all along—twelve individual results that, plotted on a graph, clearly showed the trajectory. But who has time to plot graphs manually for every attribute on every study?

Protocol-driven from the start

Seal treats stability as a first-class concept, not an afterthought bolted onto sample management. You define protocols with storage conditions, timepoints, and testing requirements. The system generates the complete schedule automatically—every pull date from month zero through month sixty, calculated and tracked.

ICH conditions are built in: long-term at 25°C/60% RH, intermediate at 30°C/65% RH, accelerated at 40°C/75% RH. Refrigerated, frozen, and photostability conditions are ready to use. Custom conditions for specific product requirements work the same way.

Proactive alerts mean the system watches the calendar so humans don't have to. Two weeks before a timepoint, the responsible analyst gets notified. If a pull becomes overdue, escalation begins automatically. Missed pulls become genuinely difficult rather than routine.

When chambers drift

Stability chambers are the heart of your program, and Seal monitors them continuously. Connect your chamber sensors and see real-time temperature and humidity on a dashboard. Historical data logs automatically for your audit trail.

Excursion Management

When conditions drift outside limits, the alert fires immediately—not when someone checks the data logger the next morning. The system identifies which samples were in that chamber during the excursion, calculates the duration and temperature range automatically, and generates a pre-populated impact assessment. What used to take hours of manual cross-referencing happens in minutes.

Seeing the future in your data

The real power of systematic stability management is trending. As results accumulate over months and years, patterns emerge. Products don't usually fail suddenly—they degrade gradually, and that degradation is visible in the data long before it crosses a specification limit.

Trending and Prediction

Seal generates trend charts automatically as each result is entered. Live visualization shows how every stability attribute is changing over time. Statistical regression projects when each attribute will reach its specification limit. If your product is trending toward OOS at month 30, you know at month 12—not at month 30 when it's too late to do anything but watch your timeline slip.

The projections aren't just lines on a graph. The system calculates confidence intervals based on data density and variability. When there's enough data to make a reliable prediction, you see it. When the data is too sparse or too variable, the system tells you that too. No false confidence in shaky projections.

The AI learns from your historical data. Products that look similar to past failures get flagged early. Degradation patterns that match known failure modes trigger alerts. You have time to investigate, adjust formulation, or plan for the business impact. You stop being surprised by stability failures.

The week before submission

Regulatory filing deadlines used to mean weeks of compilation work. Someone would pull stability data from the LIMS. Someone else would export chamber logs. A third person would build trend charts in Excel, manually adjusting axis scales and adding trendlines. A fourth would compile everything into the CTD Module 3 format, cross-referencing page numbers and table numbers across hundreds of pages.

The errors were inevitable. Chart 47 showed data through month 18, but the table showed data through month 15 because someone forgot to update it. The trend line in Figure 12 used different regression parameters than the one in Figure 8 because different analysts built them. Page 234 referenced "See Table 23" but Table 23 was actually Table 24 after someone inserted a table earlier in the document.

Seal compiles submission packages automatically. All data for a product, organized by protocol and condition, with complete history. Trend charts generate from the underlying data—no manual chart creation, no possibility of the chart not matching the data. Tables and figures reference each other correctly because they're generated from the same source. Before you export, the system shows any gaps: missed timepoints, pending tests, incomplete analyses. You find problems before the submission, not when reviewers send questions three months later.

The full lifecycle

From the moment you initiate a study to the day you archive it, every step is tracked. Define the product, batch, protocol, and testing panel. The system creates sample placeholders and generates the complete schedule. As pulls happen and testing completes, results flow in and trends update. When the study concludes, generate final reports with one click. Archived studies remain accessible for regulatory queries years later.

Integration without double entry

Already running stability tests in another LIMS? Seal connects to LabWare, STARLIMS, Benchling, and major instrument data systems like Empower and OpenLab. Your analysts continue testing in the systems they know. Results flow into Seal automatically, and trending happens without anyone re-entering data. The stability program runs on top of your existing infrastructure.

Capabilities

01Protocol Management
Define stability protocols with ICH conditions, custom conditions, timepoints, and testing panels. Reuse across products.
02Automatic Scheduling
System generates full pull schedule from protocol definition. Proactive alerts before timepoints. Escalation for overdue pulls.
03Chamber Integration
Real-time monitoring of temperature and humidity. Automatic excursion detection with impact assessment on affected samples.
04Live Trend Analysis
Automatic trending as results accumulate. Statistical regression and prediction. Early warning for products approaching limits.
05Regulatory Submission
Export-ready stability data packages for CTD Module 3, NDAs, and other submissions. Trend charts and data tables included.
06Excursion Management
Immediate alerts when chamber conditions drift. One-click impact assessment. Documented evaluation for audit trail.
07AI Shelf-Life Prediction
Predict when attributes will reach spec limits. Early warnings for trending issues. Confidence intervals based on data density.
08LIMS Integration
Pull results from LabWare, STARLIMS, Benchling, or instrument data systems. No double entry.
01 / 08
Protocol Management
Protocol Management

Entities

Entity
Description
Kind
Stability Study
A complete stability study for a specific batch and protocol.
type
ST-2024-001
24-month stability study for Drug Product A.
instance
Stability Protocol
Defines storage conditions, timepoints, and testing requirements.
type
ICH Accelerated
40°C/75% RH accelerated stability protocol.
template
ICH Long-Term
25°C/60% RH long-term stability protocol.
template
ICH Intermediate
30°C/65% RH intermediate stability protocol.
template
Stability Chamber
Controlled environment for sample storage with temperature monitoring.
type
Stability Sample
Sample placed on stability with defined pull schedule.
type
Timepoint
Scheduled testing point (e.g., 3 month, 6 month, 12 month).
type
Excursion
Chamber condition outside acceptable limits.
type
Trend Analysis
Statistical analysis of stability data over time.
type

FAQ

Yes. A product can have multiple concurrent protocols at different conditions (accelerated, long-term, intermediate). Each is tracked independently with its own timepoints and testing requirements. Common for regulatory submissions that require all three conditions.