AUTHOR OF THIS BLOG

DR ANTHONY MELVIN CRASTO, WORLDDRUGTRACKER

Generics: FDA´s New Guidance on Prior Approval Supplements

 regulatory  Comments Off on Generics: FDA´s New Guidance on Prior Approval Supplements
Nov 242016
 

Image result for Prior Approval Supplements

Generics: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently published a new Guidance regarding Prior Approval Supplements (PAS). Read more about FDA´s Guidance for Industry “ANDA Submissions – Prior Approval Supplements Under GDUFA“.

http://www.gmp-compliance.org/enews_05634_Generics-FDA%B4s-New-Guidance-on-Prior-Approval-Supplements_15721,Z-RAM_n.html

On October 14, 2016, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a new Guidance regarding Prior Approval Supplements (PAS).
FDA says that “this guidance is intended to assist applicants preparing to submit to FDA prior approval supplements (PASs) and amendments to PASs for abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs)”.

Specifically, the guidance describes how the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012 (GDUFA) performance metric goals apply to:

  • A PAS subject to the refuse-to-receive (RTR) standards;
  • A PAS that requires an inspection;
  • A PAS for which an inspection is not required;
  • An amendment to a PAS;
  • Other PAS-related matters.

GDUFA is designed to speed the delivery of safe and effective generic drugs to the public and reduce costs to industry. That requires that FDA and human generic drug manufacturers meet certain requirements and commitments. “FDA committed to review and act on a certain percentage of PASs within a specified period from the date of submission for receipts in fiscal year (FY) 2015 through FY 2017. The percentage of PASs that FDA has committed to review and act on increases with each fiscal year; the deadlines for review also depend on whether consideration of a PAS requires an inspection.”

Changes to an approved application:
The criteria laid down in FDA regulations for submitting information as a PAS (major change), as a Changes Being Effected-Supplement (CBE-supplement, moderate change), or in an annual report (minor change) were not changed by GDUFA.

Timelines depending on inspections for PAS submissions:
The GDUFA goal date for a PAS depends on whether the PAS requires an inspection. If a PAS does not require an inspection, the goal date is 6 months from the date of submission; but if a PAS requires an inspection, the goal date is 10 months from the date of submission. An initial goal date of 6 months occasionally may change to a 10-month goal date if, during the review, FDA determines an inspection is necessary. If an amendment is made to a PAS, the GDUFA goal date associated with that PAS may be revised. FDA strongly recommends that, at the time of submission, a supplement should be complete and ready for a comprehensive review.

Submission of Supplements:
The following information should be provided on the first page of the PAS:

  • A statement indicating whether the PAS is for a new-strength product;
  • A statement indicating whether the submission is an amendment to a PAS, and if so the corresponding tier classification;
  • A statement indicating whether the PAS contains any manufacturing or facilities changes;
  • A list of the specific review disciplines to review the PAS (Chemistry, Labeling, DMF, Bioequivalence, Microbiology, or Clinical);
  • If expedited review is requested, the label Expedited Review Request should be placed prominently at the top of the submission. The submission should include a basis for the expedited review request.

It is possible to submit multiple PASs for the same chenge as “grouped supplements”. These are submitted to ANDAs by a single applicant for the same chemistry, manufacturing, and controls (CMC) change to each application. Because the grouped supplements are being reviewed together, generally they will have the same GDUFA goal date. Although the submissions are considered a group, each supplement in the group is considered its own individual submission and therefore would require a GDUFA PAS fee for each ANDA identified in the group.

Alternative Submissions:

  • Identify a lead ANDA for a group of PASs (only one fee is paid, or fewer than all the fees for the group are paid);
  • For some changes (e.g., widening of an approved specification or introduction of a new API supplier) once a PAS is submitted and approved, subsequent supplements for the same change to other ANDAs may be classified as CBE-30s;
  • comparability protocol submitted in a PAS to an ANDA for a specific drug product, once approved, may justify a reduced reporting category for the same change in subsequent supplements to that ANDA.

If FDA finds that a supplement submitted as a CBE supplement should have been submitted as a PAS, it will notify the applicant. The applicant is not required to withdraw the CBE supplement because when FDA sends a letter explaining that the applicant’s submission is not accepted as a CBE supplement, FDA administratively closes the CBE supplement, and it is considered withdrawn. The applicant may resubmit the supplement as a PAS for FDA approval before distribution of the drug product, along with the required GDUFA user fee. The GDUFA performance metric goals and applicable user fees will apply to that PAS and the GDUFA review clock will start from the date of submission of that PAS.

For more information please see the FDA Guidance for industry “ANDA Submissions – Prior Approval Supplements Under GDUFA“.

 

///////////Generics, FDA,  New Guidance,  Prior Approval Supplements

Share

Now online – Stimuli article on the proposed USP General Chapter “The Analytical Procedure Lifecycle <1220>“

 regulatory  Comments Off on Now online – Stimuli article on the proposed USP General Chapter “The Analytical Procedure Lifecycle <1220>“
Nov 222016
 

Image result for The Analytical Procedure Lifecycle 1220

 

Now online – Stimuli article on the proposed USP General Chapter “The Analytical Procedure Lifecycle <1220>”
A Stimuli Article to the Revision Process regarding the proposed New USP General Chapter “The Analytical Procedure Lifecycle <1220>” has been published. Read more about the new concept for the lifecycle managment of analytical methods.

http://www.gmp-compliance.org/enews_05629_Now-online—Stimuli-article-on-the-proposed-USP-General-Chapter-%22The-Analytical-Procedure-Lifecycle–1220-%22_15438,Z-PDM_n.html

Image result for The Analytical Procedure Lifecycle 1220Image result for The Analytical Procedure Lifecycle 1220

The General Chapters—Chemical Analysis Expert Committee is currently developing a new general chapter <1220> The Analytical Procedure Lifecycle. The purpose of this new chapter will be to more fully address the entire procedure lifecycle and define concepts that may be useful.

A Stimuli article on the proposed General Chapter <1220> has been approved for publication in Pharmacopeial Forum 43(1) [Jan.-Feb. 2017]. USP is providing this Stimuli article in advance of its publication to provide additional time for comments.

In addition to offering a preview of the proposed general chapter, the General Chapters—Chemical Analysis Expert Committee and the Validation and Verification Expert Panel are seeking specific input from users in the pharmaceutical industry regarding the following questions:

  • Would a general chapter on the lifecycle approach be valuable?
  • Is the information presented herein sufficient for implementation of an analytical procedure under the quality by design (QbD) approach?
  • Would incorporation of references to statistical tools, either in this chapter or in another chapter, be valuable?
  • Can you provide input or approaches that would improve this proposed general chapter?

The content and scope of the proposed general chapter will be refined on the basis of responses to this Stimuli article. Because stakeholders may have differing views, the objective of this Stimuli article is to identify and build areas of consensus that may be included in <1220>.

The approach is consistent with the concept of quality by design (QbD) as described in International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) Q8-R2, Q9, Q10, and Q11.

In order to provide a holistic approach to controlling an analytical procedure throughout its lifecycle, one can use a three-stage concept that is aligned with current process validation terminology:

  • Stage 1: Procedure Design and Development (Knowledge Gathering, Risk Assessment, Analytical Control Strategy, Knowledge Management, Preparing for Qualification)
  • Stage 2: Procedure Performance Qualification
  • Stage 3: Continued Procedure Performance Verification (Routine Monitoring, Changes to an Analytical Procedure)

A fundamental component of the lifecycle approach to analytical procedures is having a predefined objective that stipulates the performance requirements for the analytical procedure. These requirements are described in the analytical target profile (ATP) which can be considered as analogous to the quality target product profile (QTPP).

The Download Stimuli Article is available on the USP website since October 14, 2016: Proposed New USP General Chapter: The Analytical Procedure Lifecycle <1220>.

Comments will be accepted until March 31, 2017, the end of the comment period for Pharmacopeial Forum 43(1). This Stimuli article provides the framework for the proposed general chapter “The Analytical Procedure Lifecycle <1220>” and describes the current thinking of the USP Validation and Verification Expert Panel which advises the General Chapters—Chemical Analysis Expert Committee with regard to future trends in analytical procedures development, qualification, and continued monitoring.

 

Image result for The Analytical Procedure Lifecycle 1220

Image result for animationsImage result for animations

/////////////Stimuli article, proposed USP General Chapter, The Analytical Procedure Lifecycle,  <1220>

Share

Opportunities for Reducing Sampling and Testing of Starting Materials

 regulatory  Comments Off on Opportunities for Reducing Sampling and Testing of Starting Materials
Nov 222016
 

Image result for EC GMP Guide

Chapter 5 of the EC GMP Guide for the area of production was updated last year. This chapter contains concrete information about the conditions when testing and sampling of APIs and excipients can be reduced. Read more here about the sections 5.35 and 5.36 of the EU GMP Guide.

http://www.gmp-compliance.org/enews_05655_Opportunities-for-Reducing-Sampling-and-Testing-of-Starting-Materials_15461,15911,15462,Z-QCM_n.html

Chapter 5 of the EC GMP Guide for the area of production was already updated last year. However, not everybody really knows that it contains concrete information about the conditions when testing and sampling of APIs and excipients can be reduced. Particularly sections 5.35 and  5.36 include requirements and thus show possibilities for a reduction.

Basically, the manufacturers of finished products are responsible for every testing of starting materials as described in the marketing authorisation dossier. Yet, part of or complete test results from the approved starting material manufacturer can be used, but at least their identity has to be tested – as described in the in the marketing authorisation dossier.

If one chooses to outsource the testing activity to the supplier, this has to be justified and documented. Moreover, a few additional measures have to be fulfilled, like:

  • Particular attention should be paid to the distribution controls (transport, wholesaling, storage, delivery) to ensure that ultimately the test results are still applicable to the delivered material.
  • Performance of risk-based audits at the sites executing the testing and sampling of starting materials to verify the GMP compliance and to ensure that the specifications and testing methods are used as described in the marketing authorisation dossier.
  • The certificate of analysis of the manufacturer/supplier of the starting material should be signed by a designated person with appropriate qualifications and experience. The signature confirms the compliance with the agreed product specification.
  • The medicinal product manufacturer should have adequate experience in dealing with the starting material manufacturer – including assessment of batches previously received and the history of compliance before reducing own, internal testing.
  • At appropriate intervals, the medicinal product manufacturer or another approved contract laboratory has to carry out a full analysis to compare the test results with the results of the certificate of analysis of the material manufacturer or supplier, and thus to check their reliability. In case of discrepancy, an investigation has to be performed and appropriate measures taken. The certificates of analysis cannot be accepted until those measures are completed.

You can access the complete Chapter 5 “Production” of the EU GMP Guide here.
////////Opportunities,  Reducing,  Sampling, Testing, Starting Materials, EC GMP Guide

Share

New EDQM’s Public Document informs about the Details required in a New CEP Application for already Referenced Substances

 regulatory  Comments Off on New EDQM’s Public Document informs about the Details required in a New CEP Application for already Referenced Substances
Nov 222016
 

 

str1

 

A Policy Document recently published by the EDQM describes regulations for referencing already existing CEPs in an application for a new CEP. Read more about how the certificates of an intermediate or starting material have to be used in new applications for a CEP.

http://www.gmp-compliance.org/enews_05624_New-EDQM-s-Public-Document-informs-about-the-Details-required-in-a-New-CEP-Application-for-already-Referenced-Substances_15429,15332,15982,15721,S-WKS_n.html

str2

When applying for a Certificate of Suitability (CEP) for an API, detailed information has to be provided regarding the synthesis stages, the starting material and the intermediates. In the event that the starting materials or the intermediates are already covered by a CEP, the EDQM has recently published a “Public Document” entitled “Use of a CEP to describe a material used in an application for another CEP”. The document contains regulations on how to reference the “CEP X” of a starting material or an intermediate in the application for the “CEP Y” of an API. The requirements for both scenarios are described as follows:

  • CEP X belongs to an intermediate or a starting material within the synthesis route of a substance Y for which a CEP is submitted.
    1. The submission must make clear that X is really an intermediate or a starting material and is covered by a valid CEP (“CEP X”). A copy of this CEP X has to be attached.
    2. The complete specification described in the CEP X must be the basis for the release of the intermediate or the starting materials X for use in the synthesis of Y.
    3. The lifecycle of CEP X is directly coupled with the lifecycle of CEP Y. For example, a revision of CEP X also triggers a revision of CEP Y so that the revised CEP X has to be included to the revision application of CEP Y.
    4. If the CEP X looses its validity (e.g. due to expiry or withdrawal) the application for CEP Y has to be updated, for example the CEP of a substance from an alternative source has to be submitted.
    5. The application for CEP Y has to include complete details about the supply chain and/ or about all the manufacturing sites involved in the process described on CEP X.

Details about all manufacturing sites involved in the process described in the CEP X will also be mentioned in the annex 1 of the new CEP Y when X is an intermediate for the synthesis of Y. However, this doesn’t apply when X is the starting material for the synthesis of Y.

Please see the Public Document “Use of a CEP to describe a material used in an application for another CEP” for further details.

str1

STR1

////////// EDQM,  Public Document,  New CEP Application, already Referenced Substances

Share

EMA/ FDA Mutual Recognition Agreement on drug facility inspections moving forward

 regulatory  Comments Off on EMA/ FDA Mutual Recognition Agreement on drug facility inspections moving forward
Nov 222016
 

 

Image result for signing animations

 

Image result for FDA

 

Image result for EMA

EMA/ FDA Mutual Recognition Agreement moving forward
A possible agreement between the EMA and the US FDA on mutual recognition agreement on drug facility inspections could already be signed in January 2017.

http://www.gmp-compliance.org/enews_05650_EMA–FDA-Mutual-Recognition-Agreement-moving-forward_15642,15660,15656,Z-QAMPP_n.html

A possible agreement between the European Medicines Agency EMA and the US Food and Drug Administration FDA on mutual recognition of drug facility inspections could already be signed in January 2017. This is noted in a report of the EU Commission: “The state-of-play and the organisation of the evaluation of the US and the EU GMP inspectorates were discussed. In light of the progress achieved, the conclusion of a mutual recognition agreement of Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) inspections by January 2017 is under consideration.”

But, according to the Commission, some issues are still not resolved – like, for example, the exchange of confidential information and the inclusion of veterinary products in the scope of the text.

The “Report of the 15th Round of Negotations for the Transatlantic Trade and Invesment Partnership” summaries the 15th round of negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) from 3rd to 7th October 2016 in New York.

////////EMA, FDA,  Mutual Recognition Agreement, drug facility inspections

Share

Statistical DoE Approach to the Removal of Palladium from Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) by Functionalized Silica Adsorbents

 QbD, regulatory  Comments Off on Statistical DoE Approach to the Removal of Palladium from Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) by Functionalized Silica Adsorbents
Nov 032016
 

Abstract Image

The influence of four parameters (temperature, scavenging time, amount of scavenger, and concentration of palladium in the solution) on the efficiency of Pd removal from a cross-coupling reaction, using a commercially available Pd scavenger, SPM32, was studied. The DoE-based method employed yielded more information than is readily attainable from standard adsorption isotherms and kinetics experiments. The optimal regime of scavenging was identified; intuitive and nonintuitive effects of temperature, scavenging time, and scavenger amounts were highlighted; and a mathematical model quantifying predicted Pd removal from the synthetic intermediate was built.

link http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/op5000336

Statistical DoE Approach to the Removal of Palladium from Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) by Functionalized Silica Adsorbents

PhosphonicS Ltd., 44c Western Avenue, Milton Park, Abingdon, OX14 4RU, United Kingdom
Org. Process Res. Dev., 2014, 18 (5), pp 626–635
DOI: 10.1021/op5000336
Publication Date (Web): April 14, 2014
Copyright © 2014 American Chemical Society
str0

Preparation of tert-butyl 2-[(4-cyanophenyl)amino]propanoate (3).

4-Bromobenzonitrile (18.20 g, 100 mmol), L-alanine tert-butyl ester hydrochloride (21.73 g, 120 mmol), ±BINAP (1.25 g, 2 mmol) and cesium carbonate (48.87 g, 150 mmol) were added to a 3-neck round bottom flask containing a magnetic stirrer. Toluene (167 mL) was added and a reflux condenser, thermometer and a rubber septum were attached. Argon gas was bubbled through as the heterogeneous mixture was warmed to reflux temperature with slow agitation from the magnetic stirrer. Palladium acetate (0.45 g, 2 mmol) was added quickly through one of the side-arm joints and de-gassing was continued for 5 min. The reaction mixture was kept under argon at reflux and the disappearance of 4-bromobenzonitrile was monitored by GC-MS. After 16-24 h, the reaction mixture was filtered through a sinter funnel, washed with toluene and then filtered through a nylon membrane (Sigma Aldrich catalogue no. Z290793, 0.45 µm pore size) and washed with toluene. This crude reaction mixture was used in the DoE matrix without further purification.

Experimental results

NMR δC (62.9 MHz, CDCl3): 172.7, 150.0, 133.7, 120.4, 112.7, 99.3, 82.3, 51.7, 28.0, 18.5 ppm.

NMR δH (250 MHz, CDCl3): 7.39 (2H, d, J = 8.8 Hz, Ph), 6.52 (2H, d, J = 8.8 Hz, Ph), 4.85 (1H, d, J = 7.4 Hz, NH), 4.01 (1H, quintet, J = 7.4 Hz, CH(Me), 1.43 (9H, s, tBu), 1.42 (3H, d, J = 7.4 Hz, Me).

GC/MS: GC method used: hold at 50 °C for 4 min; increase temperature from 50 to 280 °C at 30 °C / min; hold at 280 °C for 5 min. Peaks were recorded and identified as follows: 4-Bromobenzonitrile: 10.05 min. Molecular peak observed at m/z = 181 for the 79Br isotope, m/z = 183 for the 81Br isotope L-alanine tert-butyl ester hydrochloride: not observed. Retention time less than 5 min, peak lost within the solvent front. Product: 13.64 min. Molecular peak observed at m/z = 246, main fragment at m/z = 146 (M – CO2 t Bu) Side product (not identified or quantified, minor peak): 14.56 min.

str0 str2

Jan Recho

Jan Recho

Jan Recho

Systems developer at Clearsy

Corresponding Author *E-mail: jan.recho@phosphonics.com.

Experience

Systems Developer

Clearsy

– Present (1 year 6 months)

Scientist

PhosphonicS

(3 years 6 months)

• Design and synthesis of silica supported transition metals scavengers and catalysts (Pd, Rh, Ru) for the pharmaceutical industry.
• Management of fine chemistry customer projects
• Process optimisation (Quality by Design – QbD, Design of Experiments – DoE).
• Business development activities for the French market

Junior researcher

Institut des Matériaux de Nantes

(4 years 8 months)Nantes Area, France

Synthesis and characterisation of a cellulose derived, organosilane-based, bio-material for cartilage growth.
Work in imidazolium and pyridinium ionic liquids.

Share

Critical Impurities in Pharmaceutical Water

 regulatory  Comments Off on Critical Impurities in Pharmaceutical Water
Oct 272016
 

Image result for Pharmaceutical Water

The quality of the source water used to produce pharmaceutical water plays an important role for both the design of the treatment and the validation of the water system. FDA Warning Letters over the past few years have shown that compliance with the specification of pharmaceutical water is not enough. A validation of the treatment process is expected. This includes documentation of the process capacity to produce pharmaceutical water according to specification. If we do not know the quality of the source water, however, the purification capacity is not known either. As a consequence, fluctuations of the quality of the source (feed) water quality may lead to water that does not comply with the specification after purification. Or it is not known up to which quality level of the source water pharmaceutical water that complies with the specification can be produced. Therefore, it is important to know the impurities respectively their concentration in the source (feed) water.
The production of pharmaceutical water is always based on drinking water. The specifications for drinking water however (for Germany, stipulated in the Trinkwasserverordnung; for the U.S., in the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation) are defined very broadly compared to Pharmacopoeial specifications.

The quality of the drinking water varies widely as well, as drinking water may come from different sources (ground water or surface water). Even the ground water quality varies locally, e. g., depending on the season. This is why water purification plants for the pharmaceutical industry are not ready-made goods, but individual solutions that have to be developed by the future user and the plant supplier together. The plant supplier will always ask about the quality of the drinking water so that he can offer the appropriate processing technologies.

In particular, he will need the following information. For this purpose, it is useful to provide the plant engineer with various drinking water analyses over a minimum period of twelve months.

For the design of a pharmaceutical water plant, the indicator parameters according to the Trinkwasserverordnung (conductivity, iron, manganese, sulphate and pH value) are important, as the amount of the ionic load determines the treatment process. For instance, a single-stage or double-stage reverse osmosis may be sufficient to obtain adequate quality at low conductivity levels. Iron and manganese are limited by the drinking water ordinance, but will lead to irreversible membrane damage at the reverse osmosis plant when their limits (according to the Trinkwasserverordnung) are exceeded.

Image result for Pharmaceutical Water

Furthermore, information on the total hardness is indispensable, as it has a major influence on the design of the softening plant – as well as on carbonate hardness or base capacity which are used to calculate the amount of dissolved carbon dioxide. This parameter restricts the use of EDI or may require further treatment, such as membrane degassing.

Depending on the origin of the drinking water, a responsible plant engineer should measure the colloid index (SDI 15) before designing the plant. Especially with surface water, higher amounts are to be expected. A colloid index of more than 5%/min can already have a negative impact on the operation of a reverse osmosis plant (membrane blocking and/or fouling) and may require additional treatment techniques, such as ultrafiltration before the main plant. While the colloid index is never determined via the water supplier, the silicate content is often indicated in the drinking water analysis. A silicate content of more than 25 ppm can become critical for a combination of reverse osmosis and EDI and should also be determined in case it is not indicated in the analysis.

All microbiological parameters have been regulated in the Trinkwasserverordnung. However, you should always remember that the supplier guarantees the quality only up to the point of transfer. With regards to the total bacteria count in particular, regular tests are necessary in order to identify seasonal fluctuations.

http://www.gmp-compliance.org/enews_5532_Critical-Impurities-in-Pharmaceutical-Water_n.html

 

Image result for Pharmaceutical Water

 

 

Image result for Pharmaceutical Water

////////////Critical Impurities, Pharmaceutical Water

Share

FDA presentation at the ECA Conference Particles in Parenterals

 regulatory  Comments Off on FDA presentation at the ECA Conference Particles in Parenterals
Oct 272016
 

Image result for visual inspection of medicinal products for parenteral use.

At the Particles in Parenterals Conference Dr Stephen Langille from the US FDA gave a talk on the FDA’s current thinking with regard to the visual inspection of medicinal products for parenteral use.

http://www.gmp-compliance.org/enews_05610_FDA-presentation-at-the-ECA-Conference-Particles-in-Parenterals_S-PTK_n.html

 

Dr Stephen Langille from the US FDA gave a talk on the FDA’s current thinking with regard to the visual inspection of medicinal products for parenteral use. In his presentation he showed the number of recalls caused by visible particulate matter over the last 11 years. For him, most of the recalls were justified when the types of particles found were taken into consideration. He also emphasized that something is possibly wrong in the visual inspection process if particles found in the market are bigger than 1000 µm.

The prevention of particles is very important to him. From his perspective the best particle is one which is not in the product. Also important to him are threshold studies, meaning to show the minimum particle size which can still be detected (dependent of product and type of container). These threshold studies are crucial for the setup of the test sets and the qualification of the inspectors of the manual inspection. He also mentioned the semi-automated inspection process. For him semi-automated inspection is good for detecting container-closure issues, like missing stoppers. But he also questioned whether an inspection time of about one second is suitable to detect particles with a size of 200µm for example. In the discussion he was asked about FDA’s opinion on the USP chapter <790>. In his opinion, USP chapter <790> can be an effective tool for ensuring that the manufacturing process and 100% inspection process are adequate to limit visible particle contamination. However, cGMPs must be followed during the manufacturing and visual inspection process. Meeting the requirements of USP <790> should not be used to excuse not meeting cGMPs.

You will find the complete presentation in the members area of the ECA webpage.

 

.///////////FDA presentation, ECA Conference , Particles in Parenterals

Share

The impact of the FDA Combination Products Guidance on Nasal and Oral Inhalation Drug Products

 regulatory  Comments Off on The impact of the FDA Combination Products Guidance on Nasal and Oral Inhalation Drug Products
Oct 272016
 

Image result for Oral Inhalation and Nasal Drug Products

The FDA draft guidance for combination products has a substantial impact on the development of Oral Inhalation and Nasal Drug Products (OINDPs) as it requires that the manufacturers have to be compliant not only with CGMPs for the drugs (21 CFR Parts 210 and 211) but also with the quality system (QS) regulations for devices (21 CFR Part 820). Find out more about the FDA Draft Guidance for Combination Products.

http://www.gmp-compliance.org/enews_05639_The-impact-of-the-FDA-Combination-Products-Guidance-on-Nasal-and-Oral-Inhalation-Drug-Products_15462,Z-QCM_n.html

Based on the CGMP requirements for single-entity and co-packaged combination products (21 CFR Part 4) the manufacturers of Oral Inhalation and Nasal Drug Products (OINDPs) have to be compliant with CGMPs for the drug constituent part(s) (21 CFR Parts 210 and 211) and the quality system (QS) regulations for device constituent part(s) (21 CFR Part 820).

This can be achieved either by a drug CGMP-based streamlined approach (21 CFR 4.4(a)) or a QS regulation-based streamlined approach (21 CFR 4.4(b)).  Following the first approach the combination product manufacturers have to be compliant with the drug CGMP and device QS regulation requirements:

– 21 CFR 820.20 – Management responsibility
– 21 CFR 820.30 – Design controls
– 21 CFR 820.50 – Purchasing controls
– 21 CFR 820.100 – Corrective and preventive actions
– 21 CFR 820.170 – Installation
– 21 CFR 820.200 – Servicing

The OINDP manufacturers have to be clearly stated in their submission and at the initiation of a pre-approval inspection (PAI) whether they are operating under the drug CGMP or QS regulation-based approach.

Here you can see the complete FDA Draft Guidance on Combination Products including the requirements for Oral Inhalation and Nasal Drug Products.
////// FDA Combination Products Guidance, Nasal and Oral Inhalation,  Drug Products

Share

Counterfeit of medicines causes 37,000 job losses in EU Pharma Industry

 regulatory  Comments Off on Counterfeit of medicines causes 37,000 job losses in EU Pharma Industry
Oct 272016
 

Image result for Counterfeit medicine

 

Counterfeit medicine is an increasing problem for public health and economy. This is no longer a problem of certain regions such as Asia and Africa. It has now also become an issue in the EU and US. The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) published a press release on 29 September 2016 in which they state that fake medicines cost the EU pharmaceutical sector 10.2 billion Euro every year. Read more about the latest figures on counterfeit medicines

http://www.gmp-compliance.org/enews_05605_Counterfeit-of-medicines-causes-37-000-job-losses-in-EU-Pharma-Industry_15356,S-QSB_n.html

 

str1 str2

Counterfeit medicine is an increasing problem for public health and economy. This is no longer a problem of certain regions such as Asia and Africa. It has now also become an issue in the EU and the US. In the past, counterfeit medicines could not enter the legal supply chain in the EU and US. But the problem has now also been arising in western countries. A number ofcases of counterfeit medicines were detected recently. In order to cope with this increasing problem, the EU has introduced a regulation which requires that as of 9th February 2019 certain medicinal products can only enter the EU market if a 2D barcode is used as a safety feature. This code must be applied on the packaging in readable form.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) published a press release on 29 September 2016 in which they state that fake medicines cost the EU pharmaceutical sector 10.2 billion Euro every year. The counterfeit products cause a loss of 4.4% of the legitimate sales of pharmaceuticals. This means “37,700 jobs directly lost across the pharmaceutical sector in the EU” according to the report. Only for Germany, an annual loss of 1 billion Euro has been calculated which caused a direct job loss of 6,951. Regarding other countries, the figures are: Italy 1.59 billion, France 1 billion, Spain 1,17 billion and UK 605 million loss annually.

Source: Press Release EUIPO, September 29, 2016

 

//////////Counterfeit of medicines, 37,000 job losses,  EU Pharma Industry

Share
Follow

Get every new post on this blog delivered to your Inbox.

Join other followers: