WHO issues revised Guideline on HVAC Systems

The World Health Organization (WHO) recently issued a guideline for commenting which describes the requirements for HVAC systems for the manufacture of non-sterile forms. As most guidelines on this topic address the requirements for sterile dosage forms, the previous version was gladly accepted by industry. Learn more about the revised guideline on HVAC systems.


The World Health Organization (WHO) recently issued a guideline for commenting which describes the requirements for HVAC systems used for the manufacture of non-sterile dosage forms. As most guidelines on this topic address the requirements for sterile forms, the previous version (TRS 961, Annex 1) from 2011 was gladly accepted by industry. Mentioned are non-sterile dosage forms as tablets, capsules, liquids or ointments, but also for the final steps in the manufacture of APIs. The WHO guideline means to provide guidance specifically for the areas design, installation, qualification and maintenance of ventilation systems. For the manufacture of highly potent materials the WHO refers to their Guideline TRS 961, Annex 3.

The biggest changes comprise:

  • The chapter “Premises” was moved to the front to emphasize its importance. The chapter now further comprises some sample layouts
  • The section “Commissioning, Qualification and Validation” was revised to match it with the  WHO Guideline TRS 937, Annex 4 (Supplementary guidelines on good manufacturing practices: validation)
  • The part “Maintenance” was removed from the part “Commissioning, Qualification and Validation” and is now a separte chapter
  • In addition a number of comments were added, graphs revised, and the overall readability was improved

Due to the many references and the numerous and improved illustrations the document is a good source for the (exemplary) requirements in the manufacture of solid and non-sterile dosage forms.

To find out more please visit the WHO website where you will find the draft document SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDELINES ON GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICES FOR HEATING, VENTILATION AND AIR-CONDITIONING SYSTEMS FOR NON-STERILE PHARMACEUTICAL DOSAGE FORMS. The deadline for comments is the 12 July 2016. The results are expected to be discussed during the 51st WHO expert committee meeting in October.

///////////WHO,  revised Guideline,  HVAC Systems

EU GMP Annex 1 Revision 2016 – what does the pharmaceutical industry expect?

Dr Friedrich Haefele, Vice President Fill & Finish Biopharma at Boehringer Ingelheim

Dr Friedrich Haefele, Vice President Fill & Finish Biopharma at Boehringer Ingelheim talked in his keynote speech at the Pharma Congress 2016 about the revision of Annex 1 of the EU GMP Guide. Read here what the pharmaceutical industry expects form the new Annex 1.


Europe’s biggest Pharma Congress of its kind took place in Düsseldorf on 12 and 13 April. With more than 1000 participants, 90 exhibitors and 10 GMP conferences this Congress 2016 has been the biggest since the first one 18 years ago. 50 lectures, almost exclusively case studies from pharmacuetical companies such as Pfizer, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim and many more were discussed. Special attention was paid to the keynotes at the beginning of each congress day.

Dr Friedrich Haefele, Vice President Fill & Finish Biopharma at Boehringer Ingelheim talked in his keynote speech about the revision of Annex 1 of the EU Guidelines to Good Manufacturing Practice. The first version dates already back to the year 1972. Dr Haefele stated that there had already been five revisions since this time but no fundamental review. This means the time has come to revise this fundamental document on the regulation of sterile manufacture in Europe.

Dr Haefele demonstrated the need for action on one hand by a comparison with the FDA Aseptic Guide and on the other hand by means of his own commenting. Friedrich Haefele said that priority should be given to harmonisation. He basically believes that Annex 1 should remain reserved for sterile parenteral products and that other sterile products or active pharmaceutical ingredients should be regulated in other documents or in specific annexes. He also wants a separation between aseptically manufactured and terminally sterilised products in the new Annex 1.

He considers DIN ISO 14644-1 to be a central document that is used for the classification of clean rooms in the European Guideline but also in the US Guide. Dr Haefele is not bothered by the fact that the limit for 5 µm particles has been deleted from the grade ISO 5 (ISO 4.8). According to him it should also be deleted from the European requirements. Deviations in the case of 0.5 and 5 µm particles occur essentially in parallel so that it should be possible to renounce to the limit for 5 µm particles.

Dr Haefele also proposed a simplification for the microbiological environmental monitoring. Settle plates as well as microbial air sampling are required in Europe at the moment. According to Dr Haefele only the microbial air sampling should be compulsory whereas the use of settle plates should be optional or additional. The use of average values in the microbiological monitoring in the clean room should be dismissed. With the use of isolators with validated decontamination cycles the microbiological monitoring could be reduced to the essential pursuant to ICH Q9 Quality Risk Management.

In contrast to the FDA Aseptic Guide the European Annex 1 contains requirements concerning the crimping process as well as a differentiation between aseptic and clean processes. For the latter Dr Haefele wants a clear definition of “Grade A Air Supply” that should be used for protection during the process according to Annex 1. Dr Haefele stated that the industry has its opinion concerning this but that it should also be recorded in the relevant official document. By this he meant the use of air filtered according to the requirements of grade A without considering the microbiological requirements.

There are important differences between Annex 1 and the Aseptic Guide in the area of sterilisation. The US document contains no indications for a terminal product sterilisation. It is contained in the EU document. Dr Haefele proposes to limit the requirement for a sterilisation with pure steam primariliy to the terminal product sterilisation and to also allow other methods e.g. sterilisation with ethylene oxide for example for so-called ready-to-use materials.

He sees further potential for improvement concerning the topic sterile filtration. He considers that the integrity testing after sterilisation immediately before filling can be omitted since the data of the filter validation and the integrity testing after filling give adequate security. To renounce to the obligatory integrity testing after sterilisation and before use, reduces the complexity of the aseptic set-up and when constructing facilities.

A further difference concerns the quality oversight. In Europe there is no requirement that the quality assurance (physically) must take place on-site during aseptic processes. But the Aseptic Guide requires a QC oversight and here, especially the media fill is mentioned. Dr Haefele invoked a harmonisation of the requirements, in order to strengthen the European philosophy, however. Quality assurance is a system and not an organisation. Mr. Haefele proposed a further change concerning the media fill in isolators. Here, interventions are carried out from the outside when carrying gloves. This means that they are “person-neutral”. The requirement that the qualification of interventions during the media fill has to be done person-specific should therefore be omitted for media fills in isolators.

As concerns the topic disinfection Mr. Haefele would prefer the admission of hydrogen peroxide for the decontamination of surfaces in isolators and material locks as well as the dispensation with the mandatory rotation when using disinfectants.
A further topic in Annex 1 is the monitoring of the integrity of containers containing sterile medicinal products. At the moment, the Annex requires a 100% integrity testing only for containers closed by fusion (glass ampoules and BFS containers). Dr Haefele would prefer more openness up to suitable controls for all packaging systems or pharmaceutical dosage forms.

Finally, he reaffirmed the use of modern barrier techniques for the aseptic manufacture as state-of-the-art and repeated his wish for a harmonisation of the requirements for sterile and aseptically produced medicinal products. MRA, mutual recognition agreements, could reduce the number of regulatory inspections at the companies.

Currently, the publication of the draft of the new EU GMP Annex 1 is planned for autumn 2016.

Source: Pharma Kongress 2016 (companies who wish to book a booth in 2017 can register here)
/////Dr Friedrich Haefele, Vice President, Fill & Finish Biopharma,  Boehringer Ingelheim, EU GMP Annex 1 Revision 2016,  pharmaceutical industry,

FDA approved a switchover from batch to the new technology for production of HIV drug Prezista, Darunavir on a line at its plant in Gurabo, Puerto Rico

New Drug Approvals

Above is an Illustration example,

FDA urges companies to get on board with continuous manufacturing

The FDA gave Johnson & Johnson’s ($JNJ) Janssen drug unit the thumbs up last week for the continuous manufacturing process that it has been working on for 5 years. The agency approved a switchover from batch to the new technology for production of HIV drug Prezista on a line at its plant in Gurabo, Puerto Rico……http://www.fiercepharma.com/manufacturing/fda-urges-companies-to-get-on-board-continuous-manufacturing

Darunavir structure.svg
Darunavir ball-and-stick animation.gif


Just after opening a refurbished manufacturing facility in Cape Town, South Africa earlier this year, pharma giant Johnson & Johnson ($JNJ) recently opened the doors to its Global Public Health Africa Operations office there.

The company has invested $21 million (300 million rand) in the facilities. The global public health facility will focus on HIV, tuberculosis and maternal, newborn and child health, South Africa – The Good News reported.

“This (investment) tells us that South…

View original post 224 more words

FDA´s new policy regarding grouping of supplements for CMC changes

The US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Office of Pharmaceutical Quality (OPQ) released a new document outlining how supplements can be grouped together and submitted concurrently for the same chemistry, manufacturing and controls (CMC) changes. Find out more about Policy and Procedures regarding the Review of Grouped Product Quality Supplements.


On April 19, 2016 the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Office of Pharmaceutical Quality (OPQ) released a new document outlining how supplements can be grouped together and submitted concurrently for the same chemistry, manufacturing and controls (CMC) changes to multiple approved new drug applications (NDAs), abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) and biological license applications (BLAs) submitted by the same applicant.

The agency says the goal of its new policy is to make the process more efficient and consistent when reviewing grouped supplements.The term “grouped supplements” is used to describe two or more supplements reviewed and processed using the procedures set forth in the new document, though FDA makes clear that supplements cannot be grouped if submitted by a different applicant or if the supplements provide for different CMC changes. “The supporting data necessary for the review of the CMC changes should be the same for each of the grouped supplements,” FDA says. “Any supplement that provides for the same CMC changes but necessitates the review of data that is unique to that supplement (e.g., product-specific data) should not be grouped.”

Supplements can be grouped when the following criteria are met:

  • The cover letter for the supplements clearly states the purpose of the proposed CMC changes and indicates that the supplement is one of multiple submissions for the same change.
  • Each supplement includes a list of the application numbers (NDA, BLA, and ANDA, as appropriate) and identifies the drug products that will be covered by the CMC changes.
  • The supplements have the same submission date on Form FDA 356h.

“On a case-by-case basis, the Center may also group supplements that do not meet some or any of the criteria described above, if grouping the supplements is advantageous to the review process,” FDA says.

Circumstances where this may occur include cases when an applicant submits a group of supplements for the same CMC change and then, at a later date, submits additional supplements for the same change and requests FDA officials to include the second set of supplements in the group.

The Regulatory Business Project Manager (RBPM) and Branch Chief (BC) of the relevant review division will decide on a case-by-case basis whether such changes will be allowed, though FDA notes that “consideration will be given to whether the goal date for the original group of supplements could still be met if the second set of supplements is added to the review.”

Additionally, seven new procedures were outlined by FDA in the MAPP (Manual of Policies and Procedures).

Source: Regulatory Affairs Proffessional Society – See more at:  OFFICE OF PHARMACEUTICAL QUALITY Review of Grouped Product Quality Supplements

//////// supplements, FDA, MAPP, supplements for CMC changes

EMA publishes Q A on data required for sterilized primary packaging materials used in aseptic manufacturing processes

The European Medicines Agency, EMA, recently published questions and answers on what data is required for sterilisation processes of primary packaging materials subsequently used in an aseptic manufacturing process. Read more about “What data is required for sterilisation processes of primary packaging materials subsequently used in an aseptic manufacturing process?“.


The European Medicines Agency, EMA, recently published questions and answers on quality of packaging materials (H+V April 2016):

“3. What data is required for sterilisation processes of primary packaging materials subsequently used in an aseptic manufacturing process?
Terminal sterilisation of the primary packaging, used subsequently during aseptic processing of the finished product, is a critical process and the sterility of the primary container is a critical quality attribute to ensure the sterility of the finished product. Both need to be assured for compliance with relevant Pharmacopoeial requirements for the finished product and product approval.

The site where sterilisation of the packaging materials takes place may not have undergone inspection by an EU authority and consequently may not hold an EU GMP certificate in relation to this activity1. When GMP certification is not available, certification that the sterilisation has been conducted and validated in accordance with the following ISO standards would be considered to provide an acceptable level of sterility assurance for the empty primary container:

  • I.S. EN ISO 20857:2013 Sterilization of Health Care Products – dry Heat – Requirements for the Development, Validation and Routine Control of a Sterilization Process for Medical Devices (ISO 20857:2010);
  • I.S. EN ISO 11135:2014 Sterilization of Health-care Products – Ethylene Oxide – Requirements for the Development, Validation and Routine Control of a Sterilization Process for Medical Devices (ISO 11135:2014);
  • I.S. EN ISO 17665-1:2006 Sterilization of Health Care Products – Moist Heat – Part 1: Requirements for the Development, Validation and Routine Control of a Sterilization Process for Medical Devices, and, ISO/TS 17665-2:2009 Sterilization of health care products — Moist heat — Part 2: Guidance on the application of ISO 17665-1;
  • I.S. EN ISO 11137-1:2015 Sterilization of Health Care Products – Radiation – Part 1: Requirements for Development, Validation and Routine Control of a Sterilization Process for Medical Devices (ISO 11137-1:2006, Including 1:2013);
  • I.S. EN ISO 11137-2:2015 Sterilization of Health Care Products – Radiation – Part 2: Establishing the Sterilization Dose (ISO 11137-2:2013);
  • I.S. EN ISO 11137-3:2006 Sterilization of Health Care Products – Radiation – Part 3: Guidance on Dosimetric Aspects.

It is the responsibility of the user of the manufacturer of the medicinal product, to ensure the quality, including sterility assurance, of packaging materials. The site where QP certification of the finished product takes place, and other manufacturing sites which are responsible for outsourcing this sterilisation activity, should have access to the necessary information to demonstrate the ongoing qualification status of suppliers of this sterilisation service. This should be checked during inspections. The Competent Authorities may also decide, based on risk, to carry out their own inspections at the sites where such sterilisation activities take place.

Dossier requirements:

The following details regarding the sterilisation of the packaging components should be included in the dossier:

1. The sterilisation method and sterilisation cycle;
2. Validation of the sterilisation cycle if the sterilisation cycle does not use the reference conditions stated in the Ph. Eur.;
3. The name and address of the site of sterilisation and, where available details of GMP certification of the site. Where the component is a CE-marked Class Is sterile device (e.g. sterile syringe), confirmation from the manufacturer that the component is a Class Is sterile device, together with a copy of the declaration of conformity from the Notified Body will suffice.

In the absence of GMP certification or confirmation that the component is a CE-marked Class Is medical device, certification that the sterilisation process has been conducted and validated in accordance with the relevant ISO standards should be provided.
1Sites located in the EU which perform sterilisation of primary packaging components only are not required to hold a Manufacturer’s/Importer’s Authorisation (MIA). Sites located in the EU, which carry out sterilisation of medicinal products, are required to hold a MIA in relation to these activities.”

Source: European Medicines Agency – Quality of medicines Q&A: Part 2 – Packaging.

///////////EMA,  Q&A, data, sterilized primary packaging materials,  aseptic manufacturing processes



Although relatively quiet in terms of any specific regulatory activities, the last 6 months have seen a plethora of publications that are associated with the ICH M7 guideline. Prominent within these was the Special Edition of Organic Process Research & Development in November 2015. This special edition focused on mutagenic impurities, examining the challenges and also opportunities faced when seeking to implement ICH M7.(5) This was timely as it aligned with the effective date for ICH M7 of January 2016; the guideline when finalized in June 2014 having a defined implementation phase of 18 months. ICH M7 is, in general, a well-written guideline that provides a flexible and pragmatic framework by which the risk posed by mutagenic impurities can be effectively managed. The flexibility provided by the guideline and the opportunities this presents in terms of science and risk based thinking are examined in depth through a series of articles within the special edition.
A tabulated summary of the special edition is described in Table 1.

Table 1

subject highlights authors
Is Avoidance of Genotoxic Intermediates/Impurities Tenable for Complex, Multistep Syntheses? A survey of over 300 synthetic publications in OPR&D over a 10 year period clearly demonstrated that the synthesis of synthetic APIs was untenable without the use reactive, potentially mutagenic reagents/intermediates. That the principle of avoidance was fundamentally flawed Elder, D. P.; Teasdale, A.(6)
Strategies To Address Mutagenic Impurities Derived from Degradation in Drug Substances and Drug Products The paper outlines a strategy for the systematic assessment of the risk posed by mutagenic degradants, describing how this relates to stress testing and long-term stability studies. Within this it seeks to define appropriate thresholds for identification directly related to the extent of degradation Kleinman, M. H.; Teasdale, A.; Baertschi, S. W. et al.(7)
Assessing the Risk of Potential Genotoxic Degradation Products in a Small Molecule Kinase Inhibitor Drug Substance and Drug Product The degradation profile resulting from stress testing of galunisertib is described, focusing on formation of two N-oxides, examining the site of oxidation and the relevance of the pathway under typical storage conditions. Strege, M. A.; Osborne, L. M.; Hetrick, E. M. et al.(8)
Mutagenic Alkyl-Sulfonate Impurities in Sulfonic Acid Salts: Reviewing the Evidence and Challenging Regulatory Perceptions Provides a comprehensive review of the existing evidence relating to sulfonate esters, examining the comprehensive mechanistic and kinetic studies and safety data. It also examines the current regulatory approaches and how this appears misaligned with the data. Snodin, D.; Teasdale, A.(9)
Mutagenic Impurities: Precompetitive Collaborative and Data Sharing Initiatives Examines the nature, impact, and successes of a series of cross industry initiatives covering areas such as structural evaluation (Q)SAR, data sharing–aromatic amines, boronic acids, purging and degradation. Elder, D. P.; Williams, R.; Harvey et al.(10)
Do Carboxylic/Sulfonic Acid Halides Really Present a Mutagenic and Carcinogenic Risk As Impurities in Final Drug Products? Examines evidence that indicates that in the case of both sulfonyl and acyl chlorides that Ames positive results relate to generation of a reactive species, halodimethyl sulphides (HDMSs) through reaction with DMSO and that this is the root cause of a positive response. Confirmatory negative data from other test solvents is also provided Amberg, A.; Harvey, J.; Spirkl, H.-P. et al.(11)
Boronic Acids and Derivatives—Probing the Structure–Activity Relationships for Mutagenicity The primary purpose is to raise awareness of the potentially mutagenic nature of boronic acids and stimulate further discussion/research in the areas. It provides mutagenicity data for some 40+ examples, examining the current status of in silico predictions and postulates a potential mechanism related to oxidation of boronic acids to yield oxygen radicals Hansen, M. H.; Jolly, R. A.; Linder, R. J.(12)
A Kinetics-Based Approach for the Assignment of Reactivity Purge Factors Details an experimental approach that utilizes kinetic analysis to facilitate assignment of reactivity purge values. Betori, R. C.; Kallemeyn, J. M.; Welch, D. S.(13)
A Generic Industry Approach to Demonstrate Efficient Purification of Potential Mutagenic Impurities (PMIs) in the Synthesis of Drug Substances Based on vortioxetine and its associated PMIs predicted purge values based on the system described by Teasdale et al.(15) are compared with experimental values. The results show good correlation concluding that theoretical purge values can be used to predict purging of PMIs. Lapanja N, Zupanĉiĉ B, Toplak Ĉasar R et al(14)
Evaluation and Control of Mutagenic Impurities in a Development Compound: Purge Factor Estimates versus Measured Amounts The purging of MIs associated with the synthesis of MK-8876 were assessed using the approach described by Teasdale et al.(15)These predicted values were compared to measured values and shown to be conservative in comparison to experimental data. McLaughlin, M.; Dermenijan, R. K.; Jin, Y. et al.(16)
Several papers focused on control options, specifically ICH option 4, involving evaluation of the impact of process conditions upon the purging of mutagenic impurities. This concept was first described by Teasdale et al. in 2010(17) and augmented by a cross-industry evaluation published in 2013.(15) The practical use of such tools is examined through two papers, that of Nevenka et al.(14) and McLaughlin et al.(16) This is augmented by a further publication by Welch et al.(13)that describes work now being undertaken by an industry consortium to develop this tool still further as a robust in silico tool (Mirabilis). Welch et al. describe the work being undertaken to fully evaluate the potential fate of MIs under a range of common chemical transformations. A critical finding of these studies, examined through the reaction of benzyl bromide with triethylamine, was alignment between the rate constants and half-lives of the reaction of benzyl bromide with triethylamine in isolation and as a low-level impurity in the TBS protection of benzyl alcohol (Figure 2). This established the proof of concept that the kinetic information obtained from the stand-alone reaction can be used to predict impurity conversion in a more complex reaction.


Figure 2. Alignment between the reaction of benzyl bromide with triethylamine in isolation and as a low-level impurity in the TBS protection of benzyl alcohol.

Another area addressed in the special edition is that of sulfonate esters. This relates to the use of a sulfonic acid, used to form an API salt and the potential formation of sulfonate esters through reaction with alcoholic solvents. Snodin and Teasdale(9) have reviewed the available literature information concluding that the extensive evidence supports the view that such concerns are grossly exaggerated. In parallel to this publication there have been a series of correspondences involving the EMA quality working party, the following points were released following discussion at the CVMP committee.(18)

“The Committee endorsed the QWP response to the EDQM request for an opinion on new information on alkyl sulfonates. The QWP reviewed the article from Snodin et al. QWP acknowledges the scientific rationale in this article and that the formation of alkyl sulfonates is very low and very much depends on the reaction conditions. This makes the presence of these mutagenic impurities at toxicologically significant levels unlikely. However, as the presence and formation of these alkyl sulfonates cannot be totally excluded, QWP proposes the following approach: marketing authorization holders should justify via Risk Assessment that alkyl sulfonates are not expected to be present for their product, which may be sufficient.”

Of concern within this text is the comment that the presence and formation cannot be totally excluded; this is despite the evidence pointing clearly to fact that it can.




  1. 3.Analysis of Oligonucleotides and their related substances; Okafo, G., Elder, D., and Webb, M., Eds.; Chapter 2, pp 2228; ChromSoc Separation Sciences Series ISBN 9781906799144.

  2. 5.ICH M7 Assessment and Control of DNA Reactive (Mutagenic) Impurities in Pharmaceuticals to Limit Potential Carcinogenic Risk.http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Multidisciplinary/M7/M7_Step_4.pdf (June 23, 2014).

  3. 6.Elder, D. E.; Teasdale, A. Org. Process Res. Dev. 2015, 19, 14371446, DOI: 10.1021/op500346q

  4. 7.Kleinman, M. H.; Teasdale, A; Baertschi, S. W. Org. Process Res. Dev. 2015, 19, 14471457, DOI: 10.1021/acs.oprd.5b00091

  5. 8.Strege, M. A.; Osborne, L. M.; Hetrick, E. M. Org. Process Res. Dev. 2015, 19, 14581464, DOI: 10.1021/acs.oprd.5b00112

  6. 9.Snodin, D; Teasdale, A. Org. Process Res. Dev. 2015, 19, 14651485, DOI: 10.1021/op500397h

  7. 10.Elder, D. P.; Williams, R; Harvey Org. Process Res. Dev. 2015, 19, 14861494, DOI: 10.1021/acs.oprd.5b00128

  8. 11.Amberg, A.; Harvey, J.; Spirkl, H.-P. Org. Process Res. Dev. 2015, 19, 14951506, DOI: 10.1021/acs.oprd.5b00106

  9. 12.Hansen, M. H.; Jolly, R. A.; Linder, R. J. Org. Process Res. Dev. 2015, 19, 15071516, DOI: 10.1021/acs.oprd.5b00150

  10. 13.Betori, R. C.; Kallemeyn, J. M.; Welch, D. S. Org. Process Res. Dev. 2015, 19, 15171523, DOI: 10.1021/acs.oprd.5b00257

  11. 14.Lapanja, N.; Zupanĉiĉ, B.; Toplak Ĉasar, R. Org. Process Res. Dev. 2015, 19, 15241530, DOI: 10.1021/acs.oprd.5b00061

  12. 15.Teasdale, A.; Elder, D.; Chang, S.-J. Org. Process Res. Dev. 2013, 17, 221230, DOI: 10.1021/op300268u

  13. 16.McLaughlin, M.; Dermenjian, R. K.; Jin, Y. Org. Process Res. Dev. 2015, 19, 15311535, DOI: 10.1021/acs.oprd.5b00263

  14. 17.Teasdale, A.; Fenner, S.; Ray, A Org. Process Res. Dev. 2010, 14, 943945, DOI: 10.1021/op100071n

  15. 21.Technical and Regulatory Considerations for Pharmaceutical Product Lifecycle Management.http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Quality/Q12/Q12_Final_Concept_Paper_July_2014.pdf (July 28, 2014).

  16. 24.Established Conditions: Reportable CMC Changes for Approved Drug and Biologic Products,http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM448638.pdf?_sm_au_=iNH61FD2WjHZP02F (May 2015).


ICH Q3D Implementation Working Group (IWG)—Training Modules

ICH Q3D Implementation Working Group (IWG)—Training Modules

ICH Q3D is a complex guideline. The overall requirement in terms of control is clear—there are defined limits for some 24 elements, and levels of the elements described must be controlled within these limits in the final drug product. Simple. The complexity comes when defining how this is achieved. The guideline provides a series of options to evaluate risk and effect control, ranging from control in each individual component based on a fixed dose for the product of 10 g (Option 1) to simply testing the final product (Option 3). A detailed description of the options and when/how these are applied as part of a risk assessment is beyond the scope of this review; the point is that there are significant challenges in applying the guideline practically solely using the guideline for that purpose. This was recognized by the ICH Expert Working Group responsible for the guideline, resulting in the establishment immediately after step 4 of an Implementation Working Group. A key objective of the IWG was to develop training materials to assist implementation.
In February ICH finally published the long awaited training modules.(2) These modules, produced by the ICH Q3D implementation working group, cover both safety and quality aspects, the areas covered are listed below:

Module 0

This provides an overview of the modules. Included within this is a very useful flow diagram,Figure 1, highlighting the anticipated overall process from the risk assessment through to definition of control strategy.

Modules 1–3 Cover Toxicology Aspects

Module 1—Different Routes of Administration

Module 2—Justification of Levels Greater than Permissible Daily Exposure Limits

Module 3—Non ICH Elements

Modules 4–7 Cover Chemistry (Quality) Aspects

Module 4—Large Volume Parenterals

Module 5—Risk Assessment

Module 6—Control

Module 7—Calculation Options

Highlighting some key points, module 5, relating to risk assessments, discusses the key role of GMP in assessing risk—this is an important and a helpful point relating to API manufacture. It emphasizes the importance of:


Design and qualification;


Maintenance procedures.

However, it also focuses on the risk arising from manufacturing equipment, making a relatively generic statement over the often more chemically aggressive nature of API manufacturing procedures compared to drug product manufacturing. It even suggests monitoring the drug substance for potential impurities arising from manufacturing equipment (e.g., stainless steel—Cr, Mn, Mo, V, Ni). It is a pity that this risk is highlighted without also making the point that it would be expected that such risk would be addressed as part of GMP and form part of the process accommodation procedure rather than rely on screening to verify.

Rightly the module makes the point that a significant potential source of elemental impurities arises from the use of metal catalysts in the synthesis of drug substances, especially if used in the latter stages of synthesis. It also states that:

“Knowledge of potential elemental impurities in synthetic steps prior to the final drug substance may provide information that can assist in the preparation of the risk assessment.”

This is an interesting point and one that cuts to the heart of the uncertainties around practical implementation. While a valid point, it raises key questions such as how many steps prior to the API should be assessed? Clearly this will be process/product specific, but it is a very real question any risk assessment will have to tackle.
Another interesting point made in the module is the potential for “platform” risk assessments. This is the concept of a risk assessment applicable across a series of products. One such platform may be for example, oligonucleotides.(3) In such instances, where the manufacturing process in terms of reagent type, equipment, and process conditions are similar irrespective of the precise end product, it should be possible to conduct an assessment based on one process and for this to relevant/transposable to comparable processes.


Figure 1
Module 6—Control of Elemental Impurities—also provides useful advice emphasizing the importance of control across the product lifecycle. In the context of the manufacture of the API, this requires oversight and governance over changes to the process that may affect the risk assessment, e.g., change in catalyst load, and so forth. Such changes require a re-evaluation and possibly confirmatory testing. Another point emphasized in the module is that routine testing of Class 1 metals, i.e., arsenic (As), mercury (Hg), cadmium (Cd), and lead (Pb), is NOT required unless there is an identified risk. This is a very important and helpful point clearly reiterating the core principle of ICH Q3D that any control strategy should be based on the risk assessment. This is especially important as several regulatory queries have been reported asking for data for Class 1 and also Class 2A metals for APIs.

One area described in Module 6 is the concept of periodic testing. This is an area of potential concern and ambiguity. It states that:

“Where the risk assessment indicates that routine testing is considered unnecessary but some additional assurance is needed post approval, periodic testing of the drug product or one or more individual components may be proposed by the applicant and implemented upon acceptance by the regional regulatory authority.”

An example is provided relating to use of a Pt catalyst in the manufacture of the API, this being the final step used in the API synthesis. In the example detectable levels of Pt at ∼ 20% of the PDE are observed (below the 30% limit stated in ICH Q3D), based on this periodic testing being proposed. In the case study described this may seem sensible but how close to reality is such an example? In such a case would an applicant simply not specify Pt on the API specification? The worry is that the option for periodic testing may be blunt instrument and be something that is regularly requested.

USP Chapter ⟨232⟩

USP very recently announced(4) a series of revisions to USP Chapter ⟨232⟩, Elemental Impurities, the revisions made being intended to align the general chapter more closely to ICH Q3D. One of the most significant is the removal of the need to routinely screen for Class 1 metals as part of any analysis, the final sentence in the text outlined below being deleted.

If, by process monitoring and supply chain control, manufacturers can demonstrate compliance, then further testing may not be needed. When testing is done to demonstrate compliance, proceed as directed in Elemental Impurities—Procedures ⟨233⟩.

This is a welcome and important amendment; the previous requirement making little scientific sense, there being no actual evidence that Class 1 metals would be more prevalent, for example, where a platinum catalyst was used than in the absence of a catalyst. Such catalysts are not a source of class 1 metals.


Overall there are likely to be challenges/uncertainties associated with ICH Q3D leading up to and for some period after the effective date as the guideline beds in, but the crucial fact is that all of the evidence to date indicates it is unlikely that there will be a widespread impact caused by issues of excessive levels of any elemental impurity whereby effective control cannot be realized.
/////////ICH Q3D, Elemental Impurities, Procedures ⟨233⟩, Training Modules