I have recently touched upon the subject of nitrosamines in drug products as part of a blog on Extraneous Peaks (here). The concern about nitrosamines in drug products continues to grow, and it will be a significant challenge for the regulators and pharmaceutical industry to establish meaningful policies and procedures to ensure there are no safety concerns for marketed products.
Recently, the United States Pharmacopeia and National Formulary (USP-NF) announced a three-month public consultation period on a proposal to change the approach to impurity reporting thresholds for drug products and drug substance monographs[i]. This activity is part of the USP-NF’s ongoing efforts to ensure that monographs reflect technical advances and current regulatory expectations.
When it comes to ice cream and desserts, I must admit the more the better in my opinion. The same, however, doesn’t hold true for laboratory testing and the resultant data. All testing performed and data generated must be accountable to ensure the integrity of the data. Performing extra testing, even if with all good intentions,
Like death and taxes, eventually every pharmaceutical testing laboratory will get a regulatory agency inspection. The anticipation of a regulatory inspection will instill great angst even within the most compliant laboratories. The anticipated inspection might be a periodic inspection, but most often is a Pre-Approval Inspection (PAI). The anxiety about an impending inspection often triggers a request for an independent third-party audit of the facility including the laboratory.
A quick survey of recent FDA Form 483s shows that firms are struggling to meet FDA expectations for timeliness of stability testing. During the last twelve months, the FDA has issued at least sixteen Form 483s for observations related to the timeliness of stability sample testing.
Neither the current guidance ICH Q1A(R2) “Stability Testing of New Drug Substances and Products” nor the FDA November 2003 Guidance for Industry “Q1A(R2) Stability Testing of New Drug Substances and Products” details the expectations for the timeliness of stability sample testing.
Since the 1938 United States Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act was put in place, legal requirements have existed mandating the integrity of the manufacturing and laboratory data supporting product quality and ensuring patient safety. However, only within the last 10 years has the topic of data integrity been widely discussed and numerous guidance documents (draft and final) have been published.
As stated in the FDA November 2016 draft Guidance, Submission of Quality Metrics Data – Guidance for Industry (here), one of the Quality Metrics that the FDA intends to monitor is the Invalidated Out-of-Specification (OOS) Rate (IOOSR). The IOOSR quality metric is the number of OOS test results for lot release and long-term stability invalidated by the covered establishment due to an aberration of the measurement process divided by the total number of lot release and long-term stability OOS test results.
It’s late, do you know where your data is? Are you really sure? Would you be able to assure a regulatory agency that you fully understand and control the flow of data from data generation through processing, reporting, data review, archive and retrieval? If the answer to all the above questions is yes, congratulations! Unfortunately,
Data integrity issues have cost pharmaceutical and healthcare companies millions of dollars in direct and indirect costs and led to potential risks to patient safety. Companies are in a frenzy responding to regulatory citations and preparing for inspections. The industry, mostly from “lessons learned”, generally understands the issues; and the regulatory expectations have been communicated through a number of recent guidances (drafts,
The integrity of all GxP data used to ensure the quality and efficacy of drugs is paramount to a drug’s safety and efficacy and can have a great impact on public health. To that point, the MHRA has published a draft version for consultation of a guidance titled “MHRA GxP Data Integrity Definitions and Guidance for Industry” This draft is intended to update and broaden the scope of the existing March 2015 “MHRA Data Integrity Definitions and Guidance for Industry” to all GxP data.
The integrity of data used to ensure the quality of drugs is paramount to a drug’s safety and efficacy and can have a great impact on public health. The topic of “Protecting and Promoting Data Integrity” was presented by Kathleen Culver from FDA (Field Investigator and Drug Preapproval Manager, FDA Cincinnati District), Tracy Moore (Senior GMDP Inspector and GMDP Operations Manager, MHRA), and Paul Vogel (Chairman, Lachman Consultant Services, Inc.) at the recent PharmaLink Conference, which was co-sponsored by Xavier Health and the FDA, held on March 16-17, 2016 in Cincinnati, Ohio.