FDA publishes Technical Guide on Quality Metrics

The FDA has published a supplementing Guide on Quality Metrics. This is a very unusual step as the contents of the guide are planned to be integrated into the Guideline on Quality Metrics which hasn’t been finalised yet. Read more about the Technical Quality Metrics Guide.

see http://www.gmp-compliance.org/enews_05437_FDA-publishes-Technical-Guide-on-Quality-Metrics_15515,S-QSB_n.html

The FDA has published a supplementing Guide on Quality Metrics. This is a very unusual step as the contents of the guide are planned to be integrated into the Guideline on Quality Metrics which hasn’t been finalised yet.

The so-called FDA Quality Metrics Technical Conformance Guide should supplement the Guidance for Industry: Request for Quality Metrics published on 28 July 2015 which is currently still in the draft version. We have recently published a GMP News about a Quality Metrics Case Study at Aenova regarding a possible implementation. Now, the Technical Guide defines how the industry should submit Quality Metrics to the FDA. Technical standards and fields are defined. Basically, the FDA is oriented towards the data standards which are already established in other areas. FDA‘s so-called Study Data Technical Conformance Guide serves as a basis. Largely widespread in the industry, the XML format is used by the FDA and other authorities for the exchange of data and the submission of data within the marketing authorisation procedure (e.g. for eCTD).

Composed of 10 pages, the Guide primarily provides a definition of the variables necessary for the submission of Quality Metrics. The last page of the Guide refers to “Data Validation Rules”. Data Validation is defined as “a process that attempts to ensure that submitted data are both compliant and useful”. It should be ensured that the data are submitted in accordance with the required standard. The FDA recognises that the standardisation of data doesn’t ensure the quality of data, but it helps verify certain aspects of data quality thanks to automated checks. When finalising the Guidance for Industry on Quality Metrics, the FDA also wants to set validation requirements on the quality of data in the guideline and thus achieve that companies first perform a validation of their metrics before they submit them.

Source: FDA Quality Metrics Technical Conformance Guide

Figure 1: Types of images quality metrics.

////////FDA, Technical Guide,  Quality Metrics

Advertisement

Annex 16: How a QP should handle unexpected Deviations

In a recent blog of the MHRA, the inspectorate looks at one aspect of the new Annex 16 – the handling of unexpected deviations.

see http://www.gmp-compliance.org/enews_05428_Annex-16-How-a-QP-should-handle-unexpected-Deviations_15432,15354,15367,Z-QAMPP_n.html

In a recent blog of the U.K. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the inspectorate looks at one aspect of the new Annex 16 – the handling of unexpected deviations.

Before Annex 16 was revised, the handling of minor deviations from defined processes was discussed in the European Medicines Agency’s “reflection paper” EMEA/INS/GMP/227075/2008. However, the status of this paper was not always clear, and its use was not consistently applied. Now section 3 of the new Annex 16 provides guidance on when a Qualified Person (QP) may consider confirming compliance or certifying a batch where an unexpected deviation (concerning the manufacturing process and/or the analytical control methods) from the MA and/or GMP has occurred.

Pre-requisites

Before a QP releases a batch these pre-requisites need to be considered:

• All registered specifications must be met! This includes specifications for active substances, excipients, packaging materials and medicinal products with all defined in-process, bulk and finished product specifications. If any registered specification is not met, the QP must not release the batch.
• Only unexpected deviations fall under the scope of section 3. That does also mean that repeated deviations cannot be accepted for certification, because they no longer meet the “unexpected” criteria.
• The deviation must be thoroughly investigated, the root cause determined and the necessary actions defined.
• A risk management process should be used to determine the impact on quality, safety and efficacy.

Quality Management System

Quality Management System failures are not covered by this section. But the quality management system of the manufacturer should maintain a record of which batches have been certified under the respective provisions. And it should also be considered in the management review and annual product quality reviews.

Notification of the Authorities

If the handling of the deviation is in accordance with the Annex 16 restrictions, the competent authority does not need to be informed (see also Chapter 8 of the EU Guide). But manufacturers and importers are required to notify competent authorities of quality problems and non-compliance affecting the Marketing Authorisation (MA).

Please also see the MHRA Inspectorate’s blog for more detailed information.

//////Annex 16, QP, unexpected Deviations, mhra

ECA Visual Inspection Groups works on new FAQ Document

The advisory board of ECA’s Interest Group for Visual Inspection is working on a revision of a document with frequently asked questions with regard to visual inspection of parenterals.

see

http://www.gmp-compliance.org/enews_05379_ECA-Visual-Inspection-Groups-works-on-new-FAQ-Document_15266,15265,15221,15160,Z-PEM_n.htmlregard to visual inspection of parenterals.

The webpage of ECA’s Interest Group for Visual Inspection contains several sources for giving advice in the field of visual inspection of parenterals. Besides the practical guidance paper, it contains an online discussion forum and a document with frequently asked questions. It has become clear though, that many of the questions in the forum recur and that these questions have already been answered in the FAQ document. It was therefore decided to restructure the FAQ document:  the questions will now be sorted by topic to make the document easier to read. Also, in a group survey in February 2016 everybody was asked to send additional questions. The advisory board is now working on selected new questions which will be added to the restructured questions & answers document. The revised document will contain the following elements:

• Manual inspection
• Automated inspection
• Qualification/Validation
• Test sets
• Requalification
• AQL Testing
• Defect categorisation
• Special products
• Regulatory affairs

It is planned to finish the document in summer 2016, but at the latest during a face-to-face meeting at the next group event in September 2016 in Barcelona. It will be made available to all group members afterwards.

//////////ECA Visual Inspection Groups,  FAQ Document, visual inspection of parenterals,

Indian API Manufacturers remain in the Focus of European GMP Inspectors

Some time ago three Non-Compliance Reports have been published in quick succession in the EudraGMDP database. Those reports deal with inspections performed at pharmaceutical APIs production sites located in India. Read more about the fundamental violations of the requirements for GMP-compliant API manufacturing in those facilities.

http://www.gmp-compliance.org/enews_05414_Indian-API-Manufacturers-remain-in-the-Focus-of-European-GMP-Inspectors_15339,15332,S-WKS_n.html

The EudraGMDP database contains more and more frequently Non-Compliance Reports of API facilities located in India. Three of these reports were published in April and May this year. The companies inspected (Krebs Biochemicals & Industries Ltd, J P Laboratories Private Ltd and Dhanuka Laboratories Ltd) were accused of major violations of the GMP rules (in one case even a critical violation was observed). All in all, the GMP inspectors came to the conclusion that – in their current states – those facilities are not able to manufacture APIs in a GMP-compliant way.

At all three companies, deficiencies against the fundamental requirements for GMP-compliant manufacturing and testing of pharmaceutical APIs were identified – like for example:

• Poor deviation management and change control
• Insufficient storage and handling of starting materials, intermediates and finished products with risks of mix-up
• Technical building defects favouring cross-contaminations
• Use of non-qualified equipment in production and quality control
• Inadequate management of electronic documents and data integrity not guaranteed

One critic – which is not specific to those cases but common to many other Non-Compliance Reports regarding facilities in the Far East – refers to inadequate personnel training and their lack of GMP understanding. In two cases, the EDQM has already withdrawn the CEPs for the APIs; in the third case which is currently being examined by the EDQM, a suspension of the CEP seems to be only a matter of time.

 

The Italian National Competent Authority which inspected the companies Krebs and J P Laboratories recommends the prohibition of supply, whereas the Authority of Croatia which inspected the facility Dhanuka even recommends the withdrawal of the GMP certificate as well as the removal from the corresponding marketing authorisation dossier.

Source: EudraGMDP Database

 

//////////European GMP Inspectors, Indian API Manufacturers, Krebs Biochemicals & Industries Ltd, J P Laboratories Private Ltd and Dhanuka Laboratories Ltd

Revision of the general Chapter on Pharmaceutical Water in the US Pharmacopoeia

The 2nd supplement of USP39 NF34 comprises the revised version of the chapter on pharmaceutical water of the US Pharmacopoeia <1231> Water for pharmaceutical purposes.

http://www.gmp-compliance.org/enews_05410_Revision-of-the-general-Chapter-on-Pharmaceutical-Water-in-the-US-Pharmacopoeia_15160,15266,15221,15612,Z-PEM_n.html

The 2nd supplement of USP39 NF34 comprises the revised version of the chapter on pharmaceutical water of the US Pharmacopoeia <1231> Water for pharmaceutical purposes. The first draft version had already been published in September 2015 in the USP Pharmacopeial Forum 41(5).

First of all: there are no new or revised specifications of individual test parameters or new requirements. But the chapter has been revised structurally to ensure better readability. In addition there are now also details regarding feed water as well as for the validation and on action and warning limits. With a chapter number greater than 1000 the Chapter <1231> is not binding, but has a recommending character. The recommended temperature for hot sanitising was changed. So far temperatures of 80 ° C and greater were recommended. Now these are 65-80 ° C. Regarding the action and warning limits the USP now comprises proposals how these can be set 2 – and 3-stepped and which rationale can be used for the limit-setting. Further, the revised chapter now also provides assistance for organising sampling plans for the validation and operational phases.

The revised version of the Chapter <1231> will become effective in December 2016 and can be found in the 2nd supplement to the USP39 NF34.

///////

Final WHO Guidance Document on Good Data and Record Management Practices

The WHO has just released the  the final version of the important guideline “Good Data and Record Management Practices“.

http://www.gmp-compliance.org/enews_05418_Final-WHO-Guidance-Document-on-Good-Data-and-Record-Management-Practices_15488,15637,Z-COVM_n.html

We recently informed you about the WHO Draft Guidance on Good Data and Record Management Practices. Now, the WHO has just released the  the final version of this important guideline “Good Data and Record Management Practices”.

The final version is sectioned rather similar to the draft version:

– Introduction
– Aims and objectives of this guidance
– Glossary
– Principles
– Quality risk management to ensure good data management
– Management governance and quality audits
– Contracted organizations, suppliers and service providers
– Training in good data and record management
– Good documentation practices
– Designing and validation systems to assure data quality and reliability
– Managing data and records throughout  the data lifecycle
– Addressing data reliability issues
– References and further reading

Although the individual chapters were kept rather unchained the content of these chapters was updated throughout the whole document.

For instance the term “good documentation practices” has now been expanded to “good data and record management practices” and is defined as follows in the glossary:

“The totality of organized measures that should be in place to collectively and individually ensure that data and records are secure, attributable, legible, traceable, permanent, contemporaneously recorded, original and accurate and that if not robustly implemented can impact on data reliability and completeness and undermine the robustness of decision-making based upon those data records.”

Some of the former content has been put into Appendix 1 now: Here you can find expectations and examples of special risk management considerations for the implementation of ALCOA (-plus) principles in paper-based and electronic systems. The tables in this appendix provide further guidance on the implementation of the general ALCOA requirements. In addition, examples of special risk management considerations as well as several illustrative examples are provided of how these measures are typically implemented.

However, these examples should not be taken as setting new normative requirements.

For further information please see the final WHO Guidance on Good Data and Record Management Practices.

//////Final , WHO Guidance Document,  Good Data and Record Management Practices

WHO defines Requirements on Zones E and F

In May, the WHO published a draft guideline which describes the recommendations for ventilation systems used in the manufacture of non-sterile dosage forms. It also contains for the first time a definition for microbial requirements with regard to the zones E and F. Read more about the ventilation sytems recommendations.

http://www.gmp-compliance.org/enews_05367_WHO-defines-Requirements-on-Zones-E-and-F_15221,15231,15612,15266,Z-PEM_n.html

In May 2016, the WHO published a draft guideline which describes the recommendations for ventilation systems used in the manufacture of non-sterile dosage forms. From a technical point of view, the guideline is very interesting and includes a detail which may be overlooked: it contains – as first international GMP guideline – a proposal for the definition of microbiological requirements concerning the zones E and F. So far, the approach to extend the zoning via the zones A-D defined in Annex 1 to the zones E and F and thus define microbial limits had only been available in an Aide Memoire of the ZLG (in German language). Now for the first time, this information is available in an international guide. As there are far less regulations in the area of non-sterile medicinal products than in sterile manufacturing, the proposal should be of great interest.

Access the draft Supplementary Guideline on GMPs for Heating, Ventilation and Air-Conditioning Systems for non-sterile Dosage Forms on the WHO webpage to find more detailed information. The deadline for comments ends on 12 July 2016.

////////WHO, microbial requirements,  zones E,  F

Results of a Survey on ICH Q3D “Elemental Impurities”

For most companies manufacturing APIs and pharmaceutical products, the implementation of ICH Q3D has a serious impact – as shown in a survey recently carried out by the ECA. Read more about the issues encountered by many companies regarding the assessment and control of elemental impurities and the kind of support they wish.

SEE

http://www.gmp-compliance.org/enews_05395_Results-of-a-Survey-on-ICH-Q3D-%22Elemental-Impurities%22_15499,15332,S-AYL_n.html

One and a half years after the official entry into force of the ICH Q3D Guideline for “Elemental Impurities” and several supporting documents from the ICH (e.g. “Training Package: Modules 0-7“) a number of questions as regards implementation remain.

In a survey recently performed by the ECA, questions were posed about the issues relating to the fulfilling of the requirements laid down in ICH Q3D. The feedback from almost 80 participants from medium and large pharmaceutical companies and API manufacturers located in Germany and other EU Member States shows remarkable results which harsh light on the aspects companies have to struggle against with regard to the implementation of the guideline. Please find an extract of this survey below:

• How strong is the impact of the ICH 3D Guideline on your Company?

For more than half of the respondents, ICH Q3D has a strong impact on the company.

• Where do you see the main problems for implementation of ICH Q3D?

For most companies, not only the establishment of safety assessment of potential elemental impurities is seen as problematic but also the analytical procedures for elemental impurities testing required for proving elemental impurities as well as the application of the requirements of ICH Q3D to old products.

• Application of ICH Q3D to existing products is not expected until 36 months after publication. How do you judge this deadline?

Whereas a quarter of the companies surveyed judge the time for application of ICH Q3D to existing products as too short, half of them consider it nevertheless feasible – with great effort though.

The following question clearly shows what support companies especially wish with regard to the problematic:

• What kind of information would you like to receive from ECA in case that ECA would establish an Interest Group?

Examples for risk assessment for elemental impurities would be highly appreciated; besides, also procedure descriptions i.e. SOPs on how to handle the establishment of risk assessment as well as conferences, workshops or forum on that topic have been assessed as very useful.

///////Results, Survey,  ICH Q3D, Elemental Impurities

EDQM’s new Guideline on Electronic Submissions for CEP Applications

EDQM’s new Guideline on Electronic Submissions for CEP Applications

As of today (June, 1st 2016), the EDQM doesn’t accept any CEP application in paper format. Read more here about the structure of the electronic submission of an application for a Certificate of Suitability and the errors to avoid.

SEE

http://www.gmp-compliance.org/enews_05380_EDQM-s-new-Guideline-on-Electronic-Submissions-for-CEP-Applications_15429,15332,S-WKS_n.html

The EDQM has recently published a document entitled “Guidance for electronic submissions for Certificates of Suitability (CEP) applications” (PA/PH/CEP (09) 108, 3R) in which the authority describes the requirements to be considered for the submission of an application for a CEP. Let us give you the most important message straight away: the EDQM now only accepts CEP applications in the electronic format since June 1st 2016.

Only the following formats are authorised within an application procedure: PDF, NeeS (non-eCTD electronic submission), VNeeS (the respective application format for veterinary purposes) and eCTD. A change of format during an ongoing application procedure is allowed whereas coming back to the original format isn’t. Basically, the EDQM recommends the use of the eCTD with an exception though: CEP applications for the TSE risk of an API have to be submitted in the PDF format.

The guideline extensively describes how a CEP application should look like with regard to its content and structure. This is illustrated by 5 annexes which present the structure and level of granularity (degree of division in subchapters) of the different formats. The sixth annex (“Main issues which may lead to blocking a submission for its format and causing delays”) lists the problems which may lead to delays in the application procedure with the respective reasons and solutions presented in a table. For example, typical errors in the electronic submission are on the one hand those which complicate the navigation through the application (inappropriate level of granularity, annexes not incorporated in the CTD structure, incorrect designation of PDF bookmarks, etc.) and on the other hand those which disrupt the lifecycle of the application in the eCTD format (wrong sequence of the chapters, incorrect attributes, e.g. “New” instead of “Replace” when replacing a leaf).

Generally, the standards applicable for the electronic submission of an application for a marketing authorisation of medicinal products must also be fulfilled in a CEP application. The “Electronic Standards for the Transfer of Regulatory Information” (ESTRI) have been elaborated by ICH’s M2 Expert Working Group and are available on a separate website: the ESTRI webpage.

Now, the electronic submission of a CEP application can be done via the “Common European Submission Platform” (CESP) of the EDQM. First, a registration on the “Common European Submission Portal” is necessary. If it’s not possible, there are other alternatives: secured drop-box (the EDQM provides the access data on request), CD-ROM, DVD and USB stick. Password protection or encodings must be removed first.

//////////// EDQM,  Guideline, Electronic Submissions, CEP Applications