Author: DR ANTHONY MELVIN CRASTO Ph.D

ICH Q11 Q and A Document

Posted on Updated on

Image result for ICH Q11

ICH Q11   Q and A Document


The topic of starting materials has been a vexed topic for some period. Indeed concerns relating to lack of clarity and issues pertaining to practical implementation led the EMA in Sept 2014 to publish a reflection paper—Reflection on the requirements for selection and justification of starting materials for the manufacture of chemical active substances.(10) The paper sought to outline key issues as well as authority expectations; specific areas of interest identified included the following:

1.

Variance in interpretation between applicant and reviewer.

2.

The registration of short syntheses that employ complex custom-made starting materials.

3.

Lack of details preventing authorities being able to assess the suitability of a proposed registered starting material and its associated control strategy.

Image result for ICH Q11Image result for ICH Q11

While the consensus was that overall this provided a useful perspective of at least the EMA’s interpretation of ICH Q11(2) and requirements for starting material selection, further discussion was required to address this subject to the satisfaction of both industry and regulators.
In November 2016 ICH released a Q&A document pertaining to ICH Q11, the purpose of which is to clarify the expectations regarding the selection and justification of starting materials for drug substance manufacture. This has reached Step 2,(11) a consensus document released for public comment, the deadline being March 2017.
The document comprises a series of sections, beginning with an introduction. This makes clear that the focus of the Q&A document is on chemical entity drug substances, excluding Biologics at least in the sense of definition of starting materials.
Another important proposal made within the introduction is that API starting materials that have already been accepted by regulatory authorities (e.g., for use in authorized medicinal products) would not need to be rejustified against the ICH Q11 general principles or the recommendations included in this Q&A document, unless significant changes are made to the manufacturing processes and controls.
This is important as a concern may have been that criteria defined in the document would be retrospectively applied. It is though caviated, stating that a starting material accepted for one manufacturer’s process may not be considered acceptable for a different manufacturer’s process.
It also states that designation of starting materials should be based on process knowledge for the intended commercial process. It emphasizes that all of the general principles in ICH Q11 Section 5 should always be considered holistically, together with the clarifications in this Q&A document, rather than applying a single general principle or Q&A clarification in isolation. This was a thread central to the argumentation within the earlier EMA guideline.

The questions and answers are aligned to specific sections within the guideline, although all questions are focused specifically on Section 5—Selection of starting material and source material. There are 16 questions in total covering the following aspects:

Image result for ICH Q11

1.

Significant Structural Fragment: how should this be interpreted

2.

Impact on Impurity profile of final product: this relates to the guidance within Q11 to include all stages that impact on impurity profile of the drug substance. This seeks to clarify what level would be defined as impactful.

3.

Clarification of persistence

4.

How an applicant should determine which steps impact the profile of mutagenic impurities in the drug substance.

5.

Do all steps that involve mutagenic reagents, impurities, or establish regio- or stereochemical configurations, need to be included in the process description?

6.

Clarification of the stated need to describe “enough” of the drug substance manufacturing

7.

Should all the ICH Q11 general principles be considered and met in selecting starting materials?

8.

Application of Q11 principles to telescoped processes

9.

Application of Q11 to linear and convergent syntheses

10.

Starting material specifications: key attributes

11.

Noncommercial starting materials

12.

Differences: Commercially available vs Custom Synthesis

13.

Requirements for justification of commercial availability

14.

Scope: postapproval change–preregistered starting materials

15.

Life cycle management

16.

Starting material Q11 vs Q7 definition: clarification that this is effectively the same

Image result for ICH Q11
It is beyond the scope of this review to examine the specific text associated with all 16 questions. In general though the position articulated throughout is pragmatic and also, in general, answers are clear and relatively concise.

Key points of note include

  • “Significant structural fragment”: the document highlights the frequent misconception that this means that a proposed starting material should be structurally similar to the drug substance. It makes clear that in fact the intent is simply to help distinguish between reagents, catalysts, solvents, or other raw materials (which do not contribute a “significant structural fragment” to the molecular structure of the drug substance) from materials that do.

  • Questions 5.2, 5.4, and 5.5 relate to mutagenic impurities. The answers provided should be useful in assisting an applicant in applying the risk based approach defined within ICH M7.(5)Prior to this there was a general misconception that a step that involved a mutagenic impurity needed to be part of the registered process. Such an assertion took no account of the highly reactive nature of such impurities and their propensity to be effectively purged.(12) The answer to question 5.2 makes clear the framework for defining the impact of an MI on the quality of the final drug substance, aligning this directly to M7 and the adoption of the widely applied 30% of the limit principle, i.e. prove levels in the final active drug substance are below 30% of the acceptable limit. The answer to question 5.4. provides a commentary of the actual practical steps involved in assessing the impact of an MI. Importantly within this it contextualizes the actual risk posed by low level MIs with the following important statement

    • “Such mutagenic impurities and by-products are usually present at much lower concentrations than reagents, solvents, and intermediates. Therefore, the risk that such impurities will carry over significantly into the drug substance from early reaction steps is lower than for reagents, solvents, or intermediates from the same steps.”

In essence, provided any MI associated with a starting material is demonstrably controlled it is not necessary to register stages that simply employ the use of mutagenic reagents.

  • Another important point addressed within the document is ‘persistency.’ It seeks to make clear that even where an impurity associated with a starting material does impact on the quality of the drug substance that control can be defined at the stage of the starting material. A classic example would be a stereoisomer. General downstream processing would have little impact on levels. In many cases this has led to a view that the step where such an impurity might arise must form part of the registered process, i.e. the stage of introduction of chirality. This now makes clear that, provided this is effectively controlled within the starting material, registration of earlier stages is not required.

Again, the key concerns raised by the EMA reflection paper(10) are reflected on, i.e. registration of short syntheses that employ complex custom-made starting materials and a lack of details preventing authorities being able to assess the suitability of a proposed registered starting material and its associated control strategy. Arguably in that context the answer provided to question 5.6 is the most critical in the Q&A document.
Question 5.6 ICH Q11 states that “enough of the drug substance manufacturing process should be described in the application···” What considerations should an applicant apply in the selection of the proposed starting materials to ensure that enough of the drugs substance manufacturing process will be described in the process description in Section 3.2.S.2.2 of the application?

The response highlights several key aspects

Of primary importance is that the applicant must first evaluate which chemical transformation steps in the manufacturing process impact the impurity profile of the drug substance. With the clarification now provided in respect to MIs and “persistency” this should be more straightforward than previously was the case.

Another key point made is the need for an applicant to examine steps immediately upstream of those identified as critical and within those upstream to consider if:

  • They include a unit operation that has been added to the manufacturing process to control specific impurities that would otherwise impact the impurity profile of the drug substance.

The key point made here is that you cannot simply add multiple purification steps prior to a proposed starting material.

  • Tight control (e.g., within narrow parameter ranges) is required to prevent generation of impurities that would otherwise impact the impurity profile of the drug substance.

If either are the case then these should be included within the registered synthesis.

Perhaps the most contentious aspect of the response though is the caveat that if having conducted the assessment described and if based on this the result is that only a small number of chemical transformation steps need to be registered, the Q&A document articulates a need to include one or more additional steps. The reasons stated for this needing to be considered are

  • Due to the risk of contamination arising from a late starting material and the impact this would have on drug substance quality and

  • The risk of changes made to the route/process for the starting material impacting again on drug substance quality.

Many organizations will I’m sure challenge this, as it seems to suggest little or no control around quality of starting materials; in reality that is far from the case.
Ultimately does the response to this question and the overall document adequately address regulatory concerns, in particular those outlined EMA? Only time will tell, but overall this is a welcome development.
Image result for ICH Q11

References


  1. 1.Guideline on setting health based exposure limits for use in risk identification in the manufacture of different medicinal products in shared facilities EMA/CHMP/ CVMP/ SWP/169430/ 2012,http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2014/11/WC500177735.pdf.

  2. 2.ICH Q11 – Development and Manufacture of Drug Substances (Chemical Entities and Biotechnological/Biological Entities)Q11http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Quality/Q11/Q11_Step_4.pdf.

  3. 3.TeasdaleA.Regulatory Highlights Org. Process Res. Dev. 201519 ( 4494– 498DOI: 10.1021/acs.oprd.5b00085

  4. 5.Assessment and Control of Dna Reactive (Mutagenic)Impurities in Pharmaceuticals to Limit Potential Carcinogenic Risk M7(R1) March 2017,http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Multidisciplinary/M7/M7_R1_Addendum_Step_4_31Mar2017.pdf.

  5. 8.HarveyJ.TeasdaleA.FleetwoodA.Management of organic impurities in small molecule medicinal products: Deriving safe limits for use in early development Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 201784116– 123,DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2016.12.011

  6. 9.Questions and answers on implementation of risk based prevention of cross contamination in production and ‘Guideline on setting health based exposure limits for use in risk identification in the manufacture of different medicinal products in shared facilities’ (EMA/CHMP/CVMP/SWP/169430/ 2012) .http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Other/2017/01/WC500219500.pdf.

  7. 10.Reflection paper on the requirements for selection and justification of starting materials for the manufacture of chemical active substanceshttp://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2014/10/WC500175228.pdf.

  8. 11.ICH guideline Q11 on development and manufacture of drug substances (chemical entities and biotechnological/biological entities) – questions and answershttp://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Quality/Q11/Q11_Q_A_Step_2.pdf.

  9. 12.TeasdaleA.Risk Assessment of Genotoxic Impurities in New Chemical Entities: Strategies to Demonstrate Control Org. Process Res. Dev. 201317221– 230DOI: 10.1021/op300268u

  10. 13.EU Guidelines for Good Manufacturing Practice for Medicinal Products for Human and Veterinary Usehttps://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/files/eudralex/vol-4/chapter_5.pdf.

///////////ICH Q11,   Q and A Document

Advertisements

Lanabecestat (formerly known as AZD3293 or LY3314814)

Posted on

New Drug Approvals

str1str1

Lanabecestat.svg

str1str1

Lanabecestat

  • Molecular FormulaC26H28N4O
  • Average mass412.527 Da

ChemSpider 2D Image | Lanabecestat | C26H28N4O

Dispiro[cyclohexane-1,2′-[2H]indene-1′(3′H),2”-[2H]imidazol]-4”-amine, 4-methoxy-5”-methyl-6′-[5-(1-propyn-1-yl)-3-pyridinyl]-, (1α,1′R,4β)-

(1r,1’R,4R)-4-Methoxy-5”-methyl-6′-[5-(1-propin-1-yl)-3-pyridinyl]-3’H-dispiro[cyclohexane-1,2′-indene-1′,2”-imidazol]-4”-amin[German][ACD/IUPAC Name]
(1r,1’R,4R)-4-Methoxy-5”-methyl-6′-[5-(1-propyn-1-yl)-3-pyridinyl]-3’H-dispiro[cyclohexane-1,2′-indene-1′,2”-imidazol]-4”-amine[ACD/IUPAC Name]
(lr,l’R,4R)- 4-methoxy-5″-methyl-6′-[5-(prop-l-yn-l-yl)pyridin-3-yl]-3’H- dispiro[cyclohexane-l,2′-inden-l’2′-imidazole]-4″-amine
(lr,4r)-4-Methoxy-5″-methyl-6′-(5-prop-l-yn-l-ylpyridin-3-yl)-3’H-dispiro[cyclohexane- l,2′-indene-l’,2″-imidazol]- “-amine
CAS 1383982-64-6[RN]
AZD3293
Dispiro[cyclohexane-1,2′-[1H]indene-1′(3’H),2”-[2H]imidazol]-4”-amine, 4-methoxy-5”-methyl-6′-[5-(1-propyn-1-yl)-3-pyridinyl]-, (1’R)-
Lanabecestat
LY3314814
UNII:X8SPJ492VF
  • (1α,1’R,4β)-4-Methoxy-5”-methyl-6′-[5-(1-propyn-1-yl)-3-pyridinyl]dispiro[cyclohexane-1,2′-[2H]indene-1′(3’H),2”-[2H]imidazol]-4”-amine
  • (1,4-trans,1’R)-4-methoxy-5”-methyl-6′-[5-(prop-1-yn-1-yl)pyridin-3-yl]-3’H-dispiro[cyclohexane-1,2′-indene-1′,2”-imidazol]-4”-amine
  • (1r,1’R,4R)-4-methoxy-5”-methyl-6′-[5-(prop-1-yn-1-yl)pyridin-3-yl]-3’H-dispiro[cyclohexane-1,2′-indene-1′,2”-imidazol]-4”-amine

Lanabecestat (formerly known as AZD3293 or LY3314814) is an oral beta-secretase 1 cleaving enzyme (BACE) inhibitor. A BACE inhibitor in theory would prevent the buildup of beta-amyloid and may help slow or stop the progression of Alzheimer’s disease.

In September 2014, AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly and Company announced an agreement to co-develop lanabecestat.[1] A pivotal Phase II/III clinical trial of lanabecestat started in late 2014 and is planned to recruit 2,200 patients and end in June 2019.[2] In April 2016 the company announced it would advance to phase 3 without modification.[3]

  • OriginatorAstex Pharmaceuticals…

View original post 5,870 more words

A review of fungal contamination in pharmaceutical products and phenotypic identification of contaminants by conventional methods

Posted on Updated on

str1
Article (PDF Available)inEuropean Journal of Parenteral and Pharmaceutical Sciences 17(1):4-19 · January 2011
Abstract
Microbial contamination of pharmaceutical products is one of the major reasons for product recall and manufacturing problems. Knowledge of the distribution of survival microorganisms in pharmaceutical environments is critical in the process control of non sterile and sterile pharmaceutical products. This knowledge is somewhat limited by the ubiquitous distribution of microorganisms in manufacturing facilities particularly fungal distribution. Identification of these fungi isolates from pharmaceutical environments using standard identification procedures requires experienced skilled technologists. To develop the proper corrective action when out of specification results are obtained, accurate fungal identification is needed if the contamination source has to be determined and tracked. Corrective action may not be effective if erroneous information is used to solve a given problem. This review provides guidance about knowledge of fungal contamination in pharmaceutical products and outlines an economic approach to phenotypic identification using conventional methods.

A review of fungal contamination in pharmaceutical products and phenotypic identification of contaminants by conventional methods (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275335972_A_review_of_fungal_contamination_in_pharmaceutical_products_and_phenotypic_identification_of_contaminants_by_conventional_methods [accessed Jun 12, 2017].

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275335972_A_review_of_fungal_contamination_in_pharmaceutical_products_and_phenotypic_identification_of_contaminants_by_conventional_methods

REFERENCES

http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/40641/5/chapter%202.pdf

Any pharmaceutical product, whether manufactured in the hospital or industrial environment, has the potential to be contaminated with microorganisms. With sterile products, any microbial contamination presents an unacceptable risk; with non-sterile products, the implication of the contamination is dependent upon whether the microorganism can be considered ‘objectionable’, and then to the extent that it can cause patient harm (and here a risk assessment is ordinarily required)1.

There are different types of microorganisms associated with product recalls. At this stage into the 21st century, fungal contamination of nonsterile products is one of the major reasons for product recalls, production shutdowns, and losses in labour and manufacturing. This can result in a reduced shelf life by compromising product integrity or present potential health hazard to patients2. Many of the reasons are due to the lack of quality control, process control and proper testing.

Most reports relating to the contamination of pharmaceutical products centre on bacterial contamination rather than fungi. The reasons for this may relate to few ‘microbiology’ laboratories in pharmaceutical organisations having trained mycologists; to an underestimation of the association between fungi and product contamination incidents; and due to a lack of appreciation of the risks that fungi can pose to cleanrooms and controlled environments3. This article considers some of these issues and, in doing so, argues that the contamination risk posed by fungi to pharmaceutical products is greater than the level of industrial and academic interest would suggest.

Fungal contamination risks

Fungi are more evolutionarily advanced forms of microorganisms, as compared to the prokaryotes (such as bacteria). Fungi are commonly divided into two distinct morphological forms: yeasts and hyphae (or filamentous). Yeasts are unicellular fungi which reproduce asexually by blastoconidia formation (budding) or fission4. Fungal contamination in pharmaceutical products represents a potential hazard for two reasons. First, it may cause product spoilage; the metabolic versatility of fungi is such that any formulation ingredient from simple sugars to complex aromatic molecules may undergo chemical modification in the presence of a suitable organism. Spoilage will not only affect therapeutic properties of the product but may also discourage the patient from taking the medication. Second, product contamination represents a health hazard to the patient, although the extent of the hazard will vary from product to product and patient to patient, depending on the types and numbers of organisms present, the route of administration, and the resistance of the patient to infection. https://www.europeanpharmaceuticalreview.com/24118/topics/microbiology-rmm/fungal-contamination-pharmaceutical-products-growing-menace/

Image result for fungal contamination in pharmaceutical products

Image result for fungal contamination in pharmaceutical products

Image result for fungal contamination in pharmaceutical products

Image result for fungal contamination in pharmaceutical products

Tim Sandle

Microbiology, Biotechnology

PhD
Vijayakumar Rajendran

Vijayakumar Rajendran

Immunology, Biotechnology, Mycology

Ph.D

Report from the EMA-FDA QbD pilot program

Posted on Updated on

Image result for QBDReport from the EMA-FDA QbD pilot program

In March 2011, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) launched, under US-EU Confidentiality Arrangements, a joint pilot program for the parallel assessment of applications containing Quality by Design (QbD) elements.

The aim of this program was to facilitate the consistent implementation of QbD concepts introduced through International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) Q8, Q9 and Q10 documents and harmonize regulatory decisions to the greatest extent possible across the two regions.

To facilitate this, assessors/reviewers from US and EU exchanged their views on the implementation of ICH concepts and relevant regulatory requirements using actual applications that requested participation into the program. The program was initially launched for three years. Following its first phase, both agencies agreed to extend it for two more years to facilitate further harmonization of pertinent QbD-related topics.

The program officially concluded in April 2016. During this period, the agencies received 16 requests to participate. One submission was rejected because the approach presented was not limited to QbD applications, and another application was not reviewed because it was never filed by the applicant.

In total, two Marketing Authorisation Applications (MAA)/New Drug Applications (NDA), three variation/supplements and nine scientific advice applications were evaluated under this program. One MAA/NDA was assessed under the parallel assessment pathway, with the rest following the consultative advice route. Based on the learnings during the pilot, FDA and EMA jointly developed and published three sets of Question and Answer (Q&A) documents.

These documents also addressed comments from the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA), which participated as an observer, offering input to further facilitate harmonization. The objective of these Q&A documents was to generate review guides for the assessors/reviewers and to communicate pilot outcomes to academia and industry.

Additionally, these documents captured any differences in regulatory expectations due to regional requirements, e.g. inclusion of process validation information in the dossier. The following topics were covered in each of the three Q&A documents: –

Q&A (1) published on Aug 20, 2013 included the following topics: (a) Quality target product profile (QTPP) and critical quality attributes (CQA), (b) Criticality, (c) Level of detail in manufacturing process descriptions, and (d) QbD for analytical methods1 –

Q&A (2) published on Nov 1, 2013 on Design Space Verification, that included definition, presentation, justification (including potential scale-up effects) and verification of design spaces both for active substances and finished products2 –

Q&A (3) published on Dec 19, 2014 included the following topics: (a) Level of detail in the dossier regarding Risk Assessment (RA), (b) Level of detail in the dossier regarding Design of Experiments (DOE) and Design Space3 R

 

Additionally, the FDA-EMA pilot provided the agencies an opportunity to harmonize regulatory expectations for the following precedent-setting applications that were reviewed under the consultative advice pathway: – The first continuous manufacturing (CM) based application submitted to both agencies.

Based on the learnings from this application, the following areas related to CM were harmonized: batch definition; control of excipients; material traceability; strategy for segregation of nonconforming material; real-time release testing (RTRT) methods and prediction models; and good manufacturing practice (GMP) considerations for RTRT, validation strategy, models, and control strategy. – A post approval supplement that included a broad based post-approval change management plan/comparability protocol.

Both agencies were harmonized on the expected level of detail in the protocol and considerations for implementation of a risk based approach to evaluate the changes proposed in the protocol. In line with the scope of the QbD pilot program, joint presentations of key findings were publically presented and discussed with stakeholders at different conferences.

These included the Joint EMAParenteral Drug Association QbD workshop4 organized in 2014 which also included participation from FDA and PMDA.

Overall, it is concluded that, on the basis of the applications submitted for the pilot, there is solid alignment between both Agencies regarding the implementation of multiple ICH Q8, Q9 and Q10 concepts. The FDA/EMA QbD pilot program opened up a platform for continuous dialogue which may lead to further communication on areas of mutual interest to continue the Agencies’ support for innovation and global development of medicines of high quality for the benefit of patients.

Both agencies are currently exploring potential joint activities with specific focus on continuous manufacturing, additional emerging technologies, and expedited/accelerated assessments (e.g. PRIME, Breakthrough). Additionally, EMA and FDA are hosting experts from each other’s organisations to facilitate dialog and explore further opportunities.

References: 1. EMA-FDA pilot program for parallel assessment of Quality-by-Design applications: lessons learnt and Q&A resulting from the first parallel assessment http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Other/2013/08/WC500148215.pdf

2. FDA-EMA Questions and Answers on Design Space Verification http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Other/2013/11/WC500153784.pdf

3. FDA-EMA Questions and answers on level of detail in the regulatory submissions http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Other/2014/12/WC500179391.pdf

4. Joint European Medicines Agency/Parenteral Drug Association quality-by-design workshop http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/news_and_events/events/2013/12/event_detai l_000808.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058004d5c3

EMA publishes Q&A on Health Based Exposure Limits – Does the 1/1000 dose criterion come again into play in Cleaning Validation?

Posted on

STR1

In 2014 the European Medicines Agency (EMA) issued the Guideline on setting health based exposure limits for use in risk identification in the manufacture of different medicinal products in shared facilities. This publication triggered a discussion about the Permitted Daily Exposure (PDE) values in the Pharmaceutical and even in the API Industry, especially regarding crosscontamination and cleaning validation. Now a draft of a Q&A paper from the EMA provides some concretisation.

Image result for Cleaning Validation

http://www.gmp-compliance.org/enews_05736_EMA-publishes-Q-A-on-Health-Based-Exposure-Limits—Does-the-1-1000-dose-criterion-come-again-into-play-in-Cleaning-Validation_15560,15661,15963,Z-VM_n.html

In 2014 the European Medicines Agency (EMA) issued the Guideline on setting health based exposure limits for use in risk identification in the manufacture of different medicinal products in shared facilities. As mentioned in the publication itself, this document triggered a discussion about the Permitted Daily Exposure (PDE) values in the Pharmaceutical and even in the API Industry, especially regarding crosscontamination and cleaning validation. Now, the draft of a question & answer paper from the European Medicines Agency provides some concretisation of the guideline.

The document altogether comprises five pages with 14 questions and answers.

The questions – and even more the answers – are very interesting, as shown in question 1 already: Do companies have to establish Health Based Exposure Limits (HBELs) for all products?

The answer is: Yes, but there are references to question 2 and 4 (and their respective answers). Question 2 clarifies what products/active substances are considered as highly hazardous. There are, among others, 5 groups listed, which products should be classified as highly hazardous (e.g.compounds with a high pharmacological potency, daily dose < 1 mg/day (veterinary dose equivalent 0.02 mg/kg)). For highly hazardous substances the answer yes in question 1 is expected. Even more interesting is the link to question and answer 4: Can calculation of HBELs be based on clinical data only (e.g. 1/1000th of the minimum therapeutic dose)? And the answer is yes, but only at designated circumstances. This means the products should have a favourable therapeutic index (safety window) and the pharmacological activity would be the most sensitive/critical effect.

Some further clarification regarding LD 50 is provided in Question 5 and the respective Answer: The use of LD 50 to determine health based limits is not allowed.

There are also more questions and answers regarding Veterinary Medicinal Products, the inspection of the competence of the toxicology expert developing HBELs, Occupational Exposure Limits, cleaning limits, Investigational Medicinal Products and paedric medicinal products and about Cross Contamination. Details will follow.

The document is still a draft and the industry has the opportunity to comment it until the end of April 2017. Let´s see what the final version will bring.

Please also see the draft Questions and answers on implementation of risk based prevention of cross contamination in production and ‘Guideline on setting health based exposure limits for use in risk identification in the manufacture of different medicinal products in shared facilities’on the EMA website.

At ECA´s Cleaning Validation Course, 9-10 February 2017 in Heidelberg, Germany the EMA Q&A draft will also be discussed.

some pics

Image result for Cleaning Validation
Image result for Cleaning Validation
Image result for Cleaning Validation
Image result for Cleaning Validation
Image result for Cleaning Validation
Image result for Cleaning Validation

///////////EMA, Q&A , Health Based Exposure Limits, 1/1000 dose , criterion,  Cleaning Validation,

Thailand Drug regulatory Update, Take a peep

Posted on

STR1

http://www.fda.moph.go.th/eng/index.stm

[PDF]Regulatory Requirement for the Approval of generic Drug in Thailand …

Apr 13, 2014 – Thailand has its own drug registration format and also follows. ASEAN CTD. … Transparency in the regulatory authorities of member countries.

THAILAND PHARMACEUTICAL REGISTRATION AND APPROVAL

The Thai FDA (TFDA), one of several agencies under the Ministry of Public Health (MPH), is the regulatory body administering drugs in Thailand. The Drug Control Division of the TFDA is responsible for registration, licensing, surveillance, inspection and adverse event monitoring for all pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical companies in Thailand. Foreign pharma companies dominate the Thai drug market. Due in part to trade negotiations, regional harmonization and positive economic trends, the pharmaceutical market in Thailand is predicted to double by 2022.There are several versions of the Drug Act currently in effect, and the Thai government is working on a revised version with updated regulations. Under the current laws, pharmaceuticals are categorized as either traditional or modern medicines, with different applications and oversight. Modern medicines are subdivided into three categories, each of which has separate registration requirements. Licenses currently do not require renewal.

STR2

Image result for thailand animated flag

STR1

link……….http://drug.fda.moph.go.th/eng/

FIRST ASEAN COUNTRY WITH A NATIONAL eCTD PROGRAM

News_2

Thai FDA intends to accept dossier in eCTD format: The Drug Regulatory Authority of Thailand (Thai FDA) has initiated the acceptance of Pilot eCTD from October 2014.Read More

eCTD requirements

http://drug.fda.moph.go.th/eng/files/2_eSubmission%20FAQ1_0921.pdf

http://drug.fda.moph.go.th/eng/files/1_TH%20Module%201%20and%20Regional%20Specification_0921_Tch.pdf

http://drug.fda.moph.go.th/eng/files/TH%20Regional%20Specification%20and%20Validation%20Criteria.pdf

STR1

STR1

Step to be followed to submit eCTD application

Taken from

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/deep-dive-thai-ectd-overview-requirement-amar-tandon?trk=hp-feed-article-title-like

Regulatory Scientist at Kinapse

A) Prepare Application to get a eSubmission Identifier for every application issued. A request to the THAI FDA online service should be submitted to obtain an eSubmission identifier which will require following details.

  • Licensee Number
  • Description of Application
  • Dosage Form
  • INN or Generic Name
  • Strength
  • WHO ATC Code
  • Sequence Type
  • Application form
  • CPP (In case of Importer)

The eSubmission Identifier will be issued within 10 days of application. The Applicant must then make an appointment for submission within 30 days.

B) Prepare valid application along with validation reports as per country (Thailand) specific requirement with regional eSubmission Identifier provided.

The M1 requirements to be kept in consideration while compiling the Submission.

  • Enhanced granularity for each sections
  • Country code is not required in filenames
  • Information relating to orphan market is not mandatory
  • For LCM (Life cycle management) submissions the Operation attribute should be “Replace” in Tracking Table
  • Validation report should be submitted along with the sequence
  • 1.3.1 Product Information has been broken down into three specific sections for Labelling, SPC and the Package leaflet. No other product types are expected. If one file is submitted for this section, it should be submitted under 1.3.1.1 Labelling.
  • 1.3.1.3 Package Leaflet has been broken down into language sections for English, Thai and Other languages.
  • It is recommended that separate files should be submitted for each language.
  • Applicants can re-use the content submitted in other regions (including STF).
  • The identifier is a combination of a letter and seven digits.
  • Working documents are not needed and do not need to be provided within the eCTD framework for Thailand
  • Section 1.5.2 “Information for Generic, ‘Hybrid’ or Bio-similar Applications” has been broken down into three sections and given a section number to make expectations and cross referencing clearer.
  • Only one file should be provided for 1.6 Environmental Risk Assessment. It is not allowed to provide content in both 1.6.1 and 1.6.2.
  • During lifecycle, 1.8.2 Risk management plan should always use the lifecycle operator replace.

C) Dispatch Activity Delivery of the application at Thai FDA in CD/DVD (make an prior appointment with HA at drug_esubmissions@fda.moph.go.th

Thai FDA has proposed a set of media formats to be used while submission of eCTD

  • (CD-R) i.e. Compact Disc-Recordable
  • Digital Versatile Disc-Random Access Memory (DVD-RAM)
  • Digital Versatile Disc-Recordable (DVD+R/-R) recorded

Future Aspect-Import: The eCTD will be validated and imported into the THAI FDA Review System

Feedback: Application feedback (if there are problems experienced during the upload) and review of application by Thai FDA

Ensure that you do not use. 1. Double-sided discs 2. Re-writable disc (protection, authenticity and Stability of information cannot

Ensure that you do not use:

  • Double-sided discs,
  • Re-writable discs (protection, authenticity, and stability of information cannot be guaranteed)
  • Compressed or zipped files (except for validation reports)

FDA publishes Final Guideline on GMP for Combination Products

Posted on Updated on

Image result for CGMP for Combination Products.

In the beginning of 2015 the FDA has published a draft guideline about GMP for Combination Products. Now the final version has been published. What are the differences between the draft and the final version of the FDA Guideline for Combination Products?

http://www.gmp-compliance.org/enews_05738_FDA-publishes-Final-Guideline-on-GMP-for-Combination-Products_15649,16021,15963,Z-VM_n.html

In the beginning of 2015 the FDA has published a draft guideline about GMP for Combination Products. Now the final version has been published. What are the differences between the draft and the final version? In the following you will find an overview:

The final guideline has expanded to now 59 pages (draft: 46 pages). And also the number of footnotes increased from 85 (draft) to 147 (final).

In the table of content there are one new subchapter (II B  Quality and Current Good Manufacturing Practice) and one new chapter (VII Glossary). Subchapter III C was expanded to definitions and terminology. In the following the table of content is listed:

I. Introduction

II. Background
A. Definition of a combination product
B. Quality and Current Good Manufacturing Practices
C. Overview of the final rule
D. The role of the lead center and other agency components

III. General Considerations for CGMP Compliance
A. Demonstrating compliance
B. Investigational products
C. Definitions and terminology
D. What CGMP requirements apply to a product or facility?
E. Control of changes to a combination product

IV. What do I need to know about the CGMP requirements specified in 21 CFR 4.4(b)?
A. Provisions from the device QS regulation specified in 21 CFR 4.4(b)(1)
B. Provisions from the drug CGMPs specified in 21 CFR 4.4(b)(2)
C. Combination products that include biological products and HCT/Ps

V. Application of CGMP requirements to specific types of combination products
A. Prefilled syringe
B. Drug-coated mesh
C. Drug Eluting Stent (DES)

VI. Contact Us

VII. Glossary

VIII. References

In the introduction it is explicitly stated, that “The final rule did not establish any new requirements”. In a footnote the guideline gives an explanation why the term “legacy” combination product has not been used.

In the new subchapter II B  (Quality and Current Good Manufacturing Practice) the guideline mentions, that “the core requirements embedded in these regulations provide for systems that assure proper design, monitoring, and control of manufacturing processes and facilities. This includes establishing a strong quality management system, using appropriate quality raw materials, establishing robust manufacturing and control procedures based on sound design principles, and detecting and investigating product quality deviations. In addition, these regulations call for ongoing assessment of systems and the implementation of corrective actions where appropriate”.

The final document introduces in Section C the new term “CGMP operating system”. This means the operating system within an establishment that is designed and implemented to address and meet the current good manufacturing practice requirements applicable to the manufacture of a combination product. A clarification about constituent parts of cross-labeled combination products is also implemented. Further, there is a new passage about the choice of the GMP-approach (QS regulation vs drug CGMPs) also regarding a streamlined approach and for companies manufacturing different products. Completely new is the passage with the title “Documentation of CGMP Approach”. Here you can also find hints that manufacturerers with products that have been on the market since before GMP for Combination Products (21 CFR 4) came into operation, have to be compliant too. The guideline requires that the information about the “CGMP operating system” should be shared with FDA investigators in the beginning of an inspection.

In the “Demonstrating compliance” subchapter (III A) there is additional information about crossreferenced approaches (21 CFR 820 vs 21 CFR 211 and vice versa). For investigational products (III B) you can find more detailed information about exemptions from part 820 regarding 21 CFR 820.30 (Design).

In the Definition and terminology section (III D) there are amendments regarding container closure aspects and kits. Section III D (What CGMP requirements apply to a product or facility?) details the responsibility of the owner of a combination product and CAPA procedures in shared facilities.

In section III E. (Control of changes to a combination product) information for single entity and co-packed combination product manufacturers has been amended. The passages in IV A (Provisions from the device QS regulation specified in 21 CFR 4.4(b)(1) with regard to 21 CFR 820 about Management Responsibility, Design Controls, Purchasing Controls and CAPA have been extended – including examples – and “modernised”. Terms like quality oversight and QTTP are now mentioned there. Vice versa the passages with regard to 21 CFR 211, 211.84. 211.103, 211.132, 211.137, 211.165, 211.166, 211.167, and 211.170,  (IV B  Provisions from the drug CGMPs specified in 21 CFR 4.4(b)(2)) have also been extended – likewise with examples – and have been “modernised” as well (e.g. parametric release is mentioned).

In the example about prefilled syringes (V A) one can find an amended passsage about Design Controls and a new section about Design History File. In the example about drug-coated mesh (V B) there has also been included a new section about Design History File. In the drug eluting stent example (V. C) there are amendments in the section about 21 CFR 211.184, 21 CFR 211.103 and 21 CFR 211.170. Furthermore all examples comprise editorial changes.

Completely new is the chapter VII (Glossary). The number of references (Chapter VIII) increased to 31 (draft: 19).

Summary:
There are a lot of changes from the draft to the final document. One chapter (Glossary) and a subchapter ( Quality and Current Good Manufacturing Practices) are new, but there are also new passages and amendments in the final document. Helpful are the examples that have been integrated.

Please also see the Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff: Current Good Manufacturing Practice Requirements for Combination Products for more details.

///////////