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