Quality Assurance Implications for Computerized Systems following the Able Laboratories FDA Inspection
|
|
- Rose Hubbard
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Quality Assurance Implications for Computerized Systems following the Able Laboratories FDA Inspection R. D. McDowall* McDowall Consulting, 73 Murray Avenue, Bromley, Kent BR1 3DJ, UK Summary The quality assurance implications for hybrid systems (electronic records with handwritten signatures on the paper copies) following an inspection of a computerized system by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are explored. The major compliance problem occurred because the paper copies differed, sometime radically, from the electronic records contained within a chromatography data system. These non-compliances ultimately caused the inspected company to go bankrupt. Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Key Words: Able Laboratories FDA Inspection; 483 observations; differences between paper and electronic records; chromatography data system records Introduction The FDA carried out an inspection of Able Laboratories, a New Jersey-based generic pharmaceutical manufacturer between 2 May and 1 July As a result of finding discrepancies between paper and electronic records in the analytical laboratory and due to the firm s failure to investigate out-of-specification (OOS) results, the company ceased manufacturing operations, recalled 3184 batches of product (its entire product line) and withdrew seven abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs). The resulting problems and a failure to resolve the issue with the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) resulted in a USD 100 million bankruptcy filing in October 2005 and a fire sale of the company s assets. *Correspondence to: R. D. McDowall, McDowall Consulting, 73 Murray Avenue, Bromley, Kent BR1 3DJ, UK. r d mcdowall@compuserve.com The issues raised by this inspection and the failure of the quality unit and senior management to spot and resolve the issue highlights some lessons that all companies need to learn to ensure that the issues are prevented from occurring again. The material in this paper has been interpreted by the author from the FDA Form 483 observations, dated 6 July 2005 presented to the company at the end of the inspection [1]. This case highlights a major problem of using hybrid computerized systems (electronic records with signed paper results) coupled with lax procedural controls and lack of operator training. Form 483 Observations The issues involved with this inspection centered on a chromatography data system (CDS) that was used in the quality control (QC) laboratories. This is a networked data system supplied by the major vendor of these systems. However, DOI: /qaj.357
2 16 R D McDowall the use of the system was such that the controls developed by the vendor were either not used or ignored when analyzing the results from analysis of routine batches of production material. In contrast, the same CDS features developed to ensure compliance with regulations appeared to have been very helpful to the FDA inspectors in their investigation. The system contained all the data necessary to uncover the multiple discrepancies between the paper and electronic records from each individual analysis. There were 12 observations on the Able Laboratories Form 483; only seven are discussed in this paper as being directly relevant to the issue of electronic records and hybrid systems. There are five other observations on the Form 483, but these are not directly relevant to the debate and have not been presented and discussed in this article. Observation 1: The QC unit lacked authority to investigate errors The main issue is that ALL drug products distributed by Able Laboratories failed to have the safety, identify, quality and purity that they are represented to have. The Quality Unit failed to: * review electronic data as part of batch release; * review computer audit trails in the CDS; and * provide adequate training to analytical chemists. As a result, product was released when it failed to meet specifications. This appeared to be a systematic failure across all analysis carried out by the QC laboratories. The examples quoted in the 483 covered inprocess, finished product and stability testing samples. More importantly, data generated by the laboratories was submitted to the FDA in seven ANDAs. This observation triggered the ceasing of manufacturing, complete recall of all batches for all products and withdrawal of the ANDAs by Able Laboratories. There is a difference between the FDA and European Union (EU) good manufacturing practice (GMP) in this context, there is a clear distinction between QC and quality assurance (QA) under EU GMP in comparison to the quality unit within US GMP. Under EU GMP, the qualified person (QP), the Head of Production and the Head of Quality Control have specific responsibilities for GMP and compliance with the marketing authorization for products. However, there are requirements for QA under the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), but there is no equivalent to the QP. Observation 2: Products failing specifications were not rejected or investigated A major problem was that samples were routinely resampled, reinjected or reanalyzed when OOS results were obtained. This is virtually the same observation as made by FDA when they inspected Barr Laboratories [2] in the early 1990s. The CDS helped the FDA inspectors identify these problems following a review of the CDS audit trail entries for each batch. It was helped considerably by the fact that the data system retains within its database the individual results each time a data file is reprocessed: no data are overwritten but each result is retained and uniquely identified within the CDS database. For example, if a data file is reprocessed three times there will be three individual results with corresponding entries in one of the audit trails of the system. The saving of these intermediate results, each uniquely identified, allows the reconstruction of all events that have occurred from the initial acquisition of the data file. In contrast, if the CDS only saved the final result, then the inspectors would have had to recreate the data-processing method as it was on the day of test and then reprocess the data to see all the results that were identified in the 483. However, when a result was not within specification, the QC laboratory took the existing chromatographic data, which were reinterpreted to an acceptable result. If this did not work, then same sample was reanalyzed; and if
3 Quality Assurance Implications for Computerized Systems 17 this failed, a new sample was taken and analyzed. After the Barr ruling, the FDA issued a draft Guidance for Industry for the Investigation of OOS results [3]. Although the QC laboratories had a standard operating procedure (SOP) for the investigation of OOS, as we shall see later, it was not effective. However, Able Laboratories did not carry out the required OOS investigation, but chose instead to test compliance into their products. Again, like Barr, any OOS results were not reported and ONLY the withinspecification results for in-process, final product analysis and stability study testing were documented in the reports for these analyses. Some of the discrepancies documented in the Form 483 were: * Acetaminophen and codeine tablets: The original result for codeine phosphate content uniformity was 8.3% RSD (relative standard deviation) versus a specification of 56.0%, but the result that was finally reported was 5.5%. * Atenolol tablets: The dissolution test had a specification of not less than 85%, one original result was 30.9%, but when reported was 102.8%. The Form 483 does not make it clear, if the final result was obtained by reintegration, reanalyzing or resampling. * Diphenoxylate and atropine tablets: In-process blending had a specification for one stage of %. The original results were in the range of %, but miraculously data in the range of % were reported. There are three pages of discrepancies as shown above listed in the Form 483 showing that this was not just an isolated instance, but a systematic issue. Given the Barr ruling dates from 1993 plus the draft FDA Guidance on OOS and the general chapter h1010i from the United States Pharmacopoeia 28 [4] on OOS testing, why did this occur? It is incompetence at best or fraud at worst. Observation 3: Annual reports did not contain investigations about the safety or effectiveness of a drug As a result of the failure to investigate any OOS results, information about material that should have been in Annual Product Reviews and submitted to the FDA was not there. As the Form 483 notes, only passing data points were submitted. Examples quoted included: * Propoxyphene napsylate tablets had a dissolution specification for the stability samples of not less than 80%. For one batch the initial results were 72.8 and 73.2%; but were reported as 98.5 and 96.9%. This is not merely checking the positioning of baselines or the modification of integration parameters within the CDS, but something far more significant. Therefore, the immediate impact was the withdrawal of a number of pending ANDA submissions and all existing approved ANDAs. As a result, the company now had no licensed products. Observation 4: Failure to file field alerts As required by the FDA, NDA field alerts were not submitted within three working days when one or more distributed batches of a drug failed to meet the specifications established for it in the application. This was partly due to the fact that when a specification failed it was retested until it passed, but also due in part to Able Laboratories not having a SOP for issuing field alerts. Observation 5: Laboratory records do not include complete data The US cgmp regulations (21 CFR Part ) require that laboratory records contain complete data in contrast to production records (21 CFR Part ) that only require complete information. The citation in the Form 483 states laboratory records do not include complete data derived from all tests, examinations and assay necessary to assure compliance with established specifications and standards.
4 18 R D McDowall This observation is a simple compounding of the initial issue where OOS results are not investigated. To quote the 483: The QC laboratory notebooks and binders lacked data from all analytical testing conducted in the QC laboratory. Laboratory records did not include all data such as OOS results, chromatograms, sample weights, and processing methods. However, there was much more uncovered by the inspectors. OOS results were substituted with passing results by Analysts and Supervisors. The substitution of data was performed by cutting and pasting of chromatograms, substituting vials, changing sample weights and changing (CDS) processing methods. Here is where the CDS helped the inspectors: * OOS results not documented in laboratory records. Unreported OOS results were found in electronic data files. * Changed chromatogram headers by cutting and pasting, so during review all sample injections would appear to be in sequence. * Original sample weights not recorded in notebook. Sample weights were changed by the analyst until a passing result was obtained. * Processing methods changed by analyst until the processing method resulting in a passing result. Original processing method not recorded in laboratory notebook. For a regulated method, it can be argued that if you reprocess the data for the active compound then the method is out of control, with the exception of impurity testing. However, you do need a SOP that states where and where not an analyst can reintegrate chromatograms [5]. The situation at Able Laboratories appears to be somewhat different in that there was a regime dedicated to passing material regardless. When discussing the level of compliance to implement within any regulated function, there is always an argument that we rely on the ethics and integrity of the staff. However, ethics and integrity appear to be conspicuous by their absence in this instance from reading this 483 observation. Observation 6: Inputs and output from the computer are not checked for accuracy This is a GMP predicate rule citation from section 21 CFR Part (b) which states Input to and output from the computer or related system of formulas or other records or data shall be checked for accuracy. The degree and frequency of input/output verification shall be based on the complexity and reliability of the computer or related system. However, there is also a requirement in the laboratory records section that has an implication, and this is section 21 CFR Part (a) (8): The initials or signature of a second person showing that the original records have been reviewed for accuracy, completeness, and compliance with established standards. Typically, the check required by this section is performed by the QC laboratory staff and there is no stated requirement for QA to do anything. In many organizations, QA staff does not wish to review electronic records and are quite content to review the signed paper output from a computerized system. However, the 483 observation notes that audits were not conducted of the CDS used to control the chromatographs and acquire the data during the analysis of products. Sample injections, processing methods and sample weights were not reviewed or verified for accuracy of reported sample results during testing of samples from in-process, product and stability samples. Therefore, as we become more and more electronic, there will be a requirement to review electronic records and documentation electronically and not on paper. Perhaps this is a wakeup call for QA to gear-up and acquire the skills for this new direction. Observation 8: Failure to train employees in cgmp Employees were not given training in cgmp and written procedures required by the regulations: QC laboratory analysts were not routinely
5 Quality Assurance Implications for Computerized Systems 19 trained in QC procedures such as SOP QC , Laboratory Deviation Investigations and SOP QC , Acceptance/Rejection criteria for OOS Analytical Test Results. This lack of training and oversight by management contributed to the non-reporting of OOS results in QC laboratory. Lessons Learnt There are a number of checks and balances that are required to be present that appear to have failed in the case of the QC department of Able Laboratories. However, rather than focus on a laboratory-centric discussion, the author believes that a discussion covering the wider perspective and issues will develop a set of QA principles that can be applied to any regulated process. Reliance on paper records If not immediately apparent to every reader of this article, the regulated world is going to be electronic sooner or later and paper will no longer be the master of the house. The reasons for this are two-fold: * Regulatory drivers are moving to electronic submission of new drug applications (electronic Common Technical Document (ectd)) or serious or life-threatening adverse events (E2B). This is as much to avoid re-entering data by regulatory authorities as removing the mountains of paper from their facilities. This will only extend to other areas. In the future regulatory inspections could be conducted remotely via the Internet to review the records in conjunction with a video link with the healthcare facility staff. * Business drivers: healthcare margins are under pressure as providers such as governments seek to reduce the price paid for medicinal products. Effective electronic processes with electronic signatures where appropriate are faster, cheaper and less error-prone than any corresponding paper-driven process. Therefore, hybrid systems need to be managed from three perspectives: 1. Paper records and their integrity. 2. Electronic records and their integrity. 3. Linkage and integrity between the paper and electronic records. To do otherwise is ostrich QA. Furthermore, hybrid systems should be replaced as firms go electronic in both research and development (R&D) and manufacturing. Otherwise, there is the ludicrous situation of using an electronic system to create paper records that are scanned into a document management system to create an electronic submission. Good business sense all round? Fear of auditing computer systems The Form 483 notes that the quality unit failed to review electronic data and the associated audit trail entries. However, let us look in a wider context than just Able Laboratories. There is an unspoken fear among quality professionals about auditing electronic systems because they are much happier dealing with paper. In part this is due to the fact that paper is a tangible medium and is a known quantity rather than the intangible media that constitute electronic records (see Table 1 for more detail of the comparison between paper and electronic records). Instead of a linear pile of paper that can be audited to check data integrity, there are hyperlinked electronic records that appear to disappear into the database. This is compounded by the failure of system developers to design audit trails that facilitate effective auditing. The audit trail in many applications is apparently gibberish, unless the reader has a good understanding of the overall application, which is often unrealistic. Therefore, many computerized systems are not really designed to facilitate effective quality auditing. Ironically, the CDS system at the heart of the QC department at Able Laboratories can be set up by a trained administrator to highlight where human intervention in the chromatographic
6 20 R D McDowall Table 1. Comparison of paper and electronic media Paper media Tangible medium Robust medium Known and defined long-term storage conditions Standardization (except size letter/a4) Quality review follows paper trail Electronic media Intangible medium Friable magnetic media (disks) Lack of standards for optical media, e.g. DVD Short-term storage known (magnetic media) Long-term storage unknown (optical media) Proprietary standards for most electronic records Quality review being developed or unknown process has occurred [5]. However, this served merely to help the inspectors rather than the laboratory that it was originally designed to serve. Definition of complete data When working to GMP in laboratories there is the requirement, as noted earlier, for complete data. When working with a hybrid system, this can be difficult if not explicitly defined and documented. Therefore, as a minimum, laboratories need to define what constitutes complete data in a hybrid situation to comply with the regulation. In contrast, however, when working electronically and using an appropriately designed database application, complete data can be automatically collected and stored within the database. All that is required is the definition of electronic records captured and maintained by the system. Trust us our employees are trained When looking at any debate on how detailed the controls should be for any electronic system there is always a human element. A number of technical controls of various degrees of complexity can be implemented within a system to ensure data integrity; it just depends on how paranoid a company is, and how deep their budget runs. However, technical controls can only go so far, as computerized systems need to be operated by humans. Here the combination of education, experience and training of individuals comes to the fore. Users need to understand not only the operation of the computer system as required by their access privileges, but also the ethics and integrity required operating under any of the GXP quality systems. Therefore, there is a need, in the words of Ronald Reagan, to trust but verify and here the twin roles of line management coupled with independent audit are the keys to success. Obviously, in the case of Able Laboratories, there was a failure in this process. As noted in the 483, both management and quality failed in their tasks to ensure integrity of the laboratory operations. References 1. Able Laboratories. FDA Form 483 Inspectional Observations. 6 July United States District Court for The District of New Jersey, United States of America. Civil Action No , Opinion 4. V. Barr Laboratories Inc., February Draft FDA Guidance for Industry. Investigating Out of Specification (OOS) Test Results for Pharmaceutical Production, United States Pharmacopoeia 28. General Chapter h1010i Outlier Testing. United States Pharmacopoeial Convention Inc., Rockville, MD, McDowall R D, Validation of Chromatography Data Systems: Meeting Business and Regulatory Requirements. Royal Society of Chemistry: Cambridge, 2005.
Able Laboratories, Inc., Cranberry, NJ, FDA 483 Inspectional Observations, dated 05/02 07/01/2005
U.S. Food and Drug Administration Protecting and Promoting Your Health Able Laboratories, Inc., Cranberry, NJ, FDA 483 Inspectional Observations, dated 05/02 07/01/2005 Return to: Frequent/FOI Start (/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofGlobalRegulatoryOperationsandPolicy/ORA/ORAElectronicReadingRoom/default.htm)
More informationISPE-FDA 3 rd Annual CGMP Conference 2 4 June 2014 Baltimore, MD. Detecting GMP Data Integrity Issues
Detecting GMP Data Integrity Issues Elaine Eborall Senior Director, GMP Compliance, Americas and Asia Pacific Compliance and External Collaboration ISPE-FDA cgmp Conference Baltimore, Maryland 2-4 June
More informationLessons from Pharmaceutical Laboratory related FDA Warning Letters
Lessons from Pharmaceutical Laboratory related FDA Warning Letters The Agilent Critical Compliance Seminar 2016 Ludwig Huber Ludwig_huber@labcompliance.com Overview FDA Inspections and reports GMP compliance
More informationInspections, Compliance, Enforcement, and Criminal Investigations
1 of 7 6/10/2009 12:50 PM Inspections, Compliance, Enforcement, and Criminal Investigations Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service Food and Drug Administration Central Region Waterview
More informationPrequalification Team WHO PUBLIC INSPECTION REPORT (WHOPIR) Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) Manufacturer
Prequalification Team WHO PUBLIC INSPECTION REPORT (WHOPIR) Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) Manufacturer PART 1: GENERAL INFORMATION Name of Manufacturer Calyx Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd Unit:
More informationAnnual FDA 483 Citation Reports
April 1, 2013 Spectroscopyonline.com How Complete Are Your Data? By R.D. McDowall United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) good manufacturing practice (GMP) regulations for quality control laboratories
More informationPAI Inspections, Observations and Data Integrity
PAI Inspections, Observations and Data Integrity Krishna Ghosh, Ph.D. Office of Pharmaceutical Quality Office of Process and Facilities Center for Drug Evaluation and Research November, 2017 20 November
More informationInspection Trends. American Society for Quality Richmond, VA Section March 8, 2016
Inspection Trends American Society for Quality Richmond, VA Section March 8, 2016 Brooke K. Higgins, Senior Policy Advisor CDER / Office of Compliance Office of Manufacturing Quality Division of Drug Quality
More informationINTRODUCTION TO THE QUALITY SYSTEMS APPROACH TO CGMP COMPLIANCE
001_005.qxd 24/2/06 19:46 Page 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE QUALITY SYSTEMS APPROACH TO CGMP COMPLIANCE 1.1 OVERVIEW OF QUALITY SYSTEMS The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mandates that a drug firm,
More informationEnsure Data Integrity Compliance Enterprise-Wide
Ensure Data Integrity Compliance Enterprise-Wide PharmaQual 360 º Conference February 24, 2017 Chris Wubbolt QACV Consulting, LLC www.qacvconsulting.com 1 Objectives What is data integrity and the definition
More informationGMP The Other Side of Chemistry, Manufacturing & Controls (CMC)
Overview of USFDA Drug Regulatory Requirements Pharmaceutical Quality and Facility Inspections (GMP) Session II 19 February 2014 Casablanca, Morocco GMP The Other Side of Chemistry, Manufacturing & Controls
More informationThe integrity of data generated
FDA s Focus on Laboratory Data Integrity Part 2 A further look at this current emphasis and a few problems inspectors have identified R.D. McDowall The integrity of data generated by a regulated laboratory
More informationLaboratory OOS Investigations The Missing Link
Laboratory OOS Investigations The Missing Link India Pharmaceutical Alliance Carmelo Rosa, Psy.D Director Division of Drug Quality I November 6-17, 2017 Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance DISCLAIMER: The views
More informationGuidance for Industry
Guidance for Industry Investigating Out-of-Specification (OOS) Test Results for Pharmaceutical Production U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation
More informationProcess development and basic GMP
Process development and basic GMP Aulton Chapter 45, handouts Specification, stability, inprocess controls and validation Product development Process development Critical Product Qualities issues Critical
More informationEU and FDA GMP Regulations: Overview and Comparison
THE QUALITY ASSURANCE JOURNAL, VOL. 2, 55 60 (1997) EU and FDA GMP Regulations: Overview and Comparison The increasing emphasis on global supply of drug products, as well as starting materials and investigational
More informationCUSTOMER AND SUPPLIER ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR 21 CFR 11 COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT. 21 CFR Part 11 FAQ. (Frequently Asked Questions)
21 CFR Part 11 FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) Customer and Supplier Roles and Responsibilities for Assessment of METTLER TOLEDO STARe Software Version 16.00, including: - 21 CFR 11 Compliance software
More informationOOS: Back to Basics. Compliant, Effective, Efficient PATH
OOS: Back to Basics Even with the number of trainings, seminars, online webinars and consultant guided investigations, companies are still seeing FDA 483 observations around how they are handling and investigating
More informationIntroduction to 21 CFR 11 - Good Electronic Records Management
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN PHARMACY, BIOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY Review Article Introduction to 21 CFR 11 - Good Electronic Records Management Pal Tapas Kumar* and Maity Subhasis NSHM Knowledge Campus,
More informationLABORATORY COMPLIANCE
1 LABORATORY COMPLIANCE Jeanne Moldenhauer Vectech Pharmaceutical Consultants, Inc. Farmington Hills, MI INTRODUCTION Implementation of the Systems-Based Inspection Guideline for drug manufacturers in
More informationPharmaceutical Reference Standards: Overview and Role in Global Harmonization
Matthew Borer, Ph.D., Advisor Pharmaceutical Reference Standards: Overview and Role in Global Harmonization 3rd DIA China Annual Meeting Beijing, China, 16-18 May, 2011 What is a Pharmaceutical Reference
More informationAutomating HPLC and GC Analytical Method Validation Fusion AE Software Program White Paper
Automating HPLC and GC Analytical Method Validation Fusion AE Software Program White Paper S-Matrix Corporation 1594 Myrtle Avenue Eureka, CA 95501, USA www.smatrix.com Introduction Chromatographic analytical
More informationOvercome the Top Challenges of Handling OOS Results by Knowing FDA Observations
Overcome the Top Challenges of Handling OOS Results by Knowing FDA Observations Jerry Lanese Ph.D. The Lanese Group, Inc. 2015 The Lanese Group, Inc. 1 Who decided you should come to this conference? On
More informationAutomating HPLC and GC Analytical Method Validation Fusion AE Software Program White Paper
Automating HPLC and GC Analytical Method Validation Fusion AE Software Program White Paper Varian, Inc. 2700 Mitchell Drive Walnut Creek, California 94598, USA www.varianinc.com Introduction Chromatographic
More informationMEASURE FOR MEASURE: QUALITY METRICS
MEASURE FOR MEASURE: QUALITY METRICS PDA Midwest Chapter Dinner Meeting, Northbrook, IL-9 November 2017 Felicia Ford-Rice, Director, Strategic Compliance 2017 PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL CORP. AGENDA Robust
More informationData Integrity: Identifying and Resolving the Issues. Gary Bird, Ph.D. Vice President, Regulatory Affairs and Quality
Data Integrity: Identifying and Resolving the Issues Gary Bird, Ph.D. Vice President, Regulatory Affairs and Quality Why is Data Integrity Important? Provides confidence that data supports Safety Identity
More informationIDT Australia Ltd. 5/23/18
IDT Australia Ltd. 5/23/18 10903 New Hampshire Avenue Silver Spring, MD 20993 Via UPS Warning Letter 320-18-55 Return Receipt Requested May 23, 2018 Dr. Graeme R. Kaufman CEO, Acting, and Chairman of the
More informationGuidance for Industry
Guidance for Industry Q8, Q9, and Q10 Questions and Answers U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Center for Biologics
More informationDrug Quality Assurance: Systems at ChemCon Author: Dr. Peter Gockel
Drug Quality Assurance: Systems at ChemCon Author: Dr. Peter Gockel On February 13th, 2006, the FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA) implemented a revision to the Compliance Program Guidance Manual for active
More informationWhile the recognition
Designing the Perfect Change Control System Change control systems today are expected to be designed in a way that provides a system to not only document and approve changes, but also to anticipate change
More informationGlobal Compliance Trends and Warning Letters
Contact: Charles Lu Director, Quality Carlsbad Tech Phone: (760) 431-8284 Fax: (203) 555-0101 5928 Farnsworth Ct Carlsbad, CA, 92008 www.carlsbadtech.com Global Compliance Trends and Warning Letters Governance
More informationQUALITY AGREEMENT. The following Agreement has been concluded between
QUALITY AGREEMENT The following Agreement has been concluded between LLC LABORATORIES The contract laboratory and service provider 1625 Trinity Dr., Unit 11 Mississauga, Ontario Canada L5T 1W9 Hereinafter
More informationISPE NORDIC COP CLEAN UTILITIES SEPTEMBER TUUSULA FINLAND. Timo Kuosmanen STERIS Finn-Aqua
ISPE NORDIC COP CLEAN UTILITIES SEPTEMBER 7 2016 TUUSULA FINLAND Timo Kuosmanen STERIS Finn-Aqua Timo_Kuosmanen@steris.com AUDIT TRAIL IN CRITICAL UTILITIES MONITORING CURRENT TRENDS CONTENTS BACKGROUND
More informationUSP Chapter 823 USP 32 (old) vs. USP 35 (new)
USP Chapter 823 USP 32 (old) vs. USP 35 (new) Sally W. Schwarz, MS, BCNP Research Associate Professor of Radiology Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis, MO Why USP Chapter ? FDA has
More informationEnabling Improvement through the Product Lifecycle: Change Management within a PQS
Enabling Improvement through the Product Lifecycle: Change Management within a PQS Denise DiGiulio, Senior Advisor OPQ Office of Process and Facilities PDA Chapter Meeting Melbourne, Australia April 3,
More informationCRITICAL ASPECT ANALYTICAL TEST REVIEW
CRITICAL ASPECT ANALYTICAL TEST REVIEW Jakarta 14 December 2017 Speaker: HERU PURNOMO, ST QC WORK FLOW Start Sample Received (In-Process & Finished Good) Testing Review Lab Result Yes No Non Conformance
More informationRegulatory Expectations, Standards & Guidelines
Regulatory Expectations, Standards & Guidelines Regulatory Requirements Pharmacopeias Good Automated Manufacturing Practice (GAMP) 21 CFR Part 11 and Annex 11 Consequences of Non-Compliance 22 Regulatory
More informationDocumenta tion and Records
Documenta tion and Records Page 1 of 30 Training Outcome of the Module: After completing this module, you will be able to: Recognize the importance of procedures Recognize the importance of record keeping
More informationHandling OOS, OOT and Unexpected Results. Karen Ginsbury PCI Pharmaceutical Consulting Israel Ltd for IFF, October 2017
Handling OOS, OOT and Unexpected Results Karen Ginsbury PCI Pharmaceutical Consulting Israel Ltd for IFF, October 2017 What is an OOS What is an OOT What is an Unusual, Questionable, Atypical Result Objective:
More informationSubpart B Organization and Personnel, 21 CFR Responsibilities of the quality control unit.
FDA inspections continue to focus on CGMP violations related to basic GMP controls. A survey of Warning Letters issued in 2013 on CMC (Chemistry / Manufacturing / Controls) violations reveals an emphasis
More informationEnsure Data Integrity Compliance in the Analytical Laboratory A Life Cycle Approach
Ensure Data Integrity Compliance in the Analytical Laboratory A Life Cycle Approach Paresh Patel Director, Scientific Operations Johnson& Johnson QS&S 12/14/2016 1 1 Topics GMP regulatory requirements
More informationJournal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Research
Available online www.jocpr.com Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Research ISSN No: 0975-7384 CODEN(USA): JCPRC5 J. Chem. Pharm. Res., 2011, 3(6):88-98 Conduct of Inspections for Pharmaceutical Manufactures
More informationPublic Health Service Food and Drug Administration Silver Spring, MD WARNING LETTER VIA UPS WL:
Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service Food and Drug Administration Silver Spring, MD 20993 WARNING LETTER VIA UPS WL: 320-16-04 December 17, 2015 Mr. Avinash Joshi Quality Head
More informationSun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. 12/17/15
1 of 7 02/18/2016 11:34 AM U.S. Food and Drug Administration Protecting and Promoting Your Health Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. 12/17/15 Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service
More informationLIMS interfaces. R.D. McDowall. The role of a LIMS MA R C H/ A P RI L
3 8 LIMS interfaces To obtain sufficient tangible benefits from a Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS), the system must be interfaced to analytical instruments inside the laboratory and to other
More informationCOMPLIANCE BY DESIGN FOR PHARMACEUTICAL QUALITY CONTROL LABORATORIES INSIGHT FROM FDA WARNING LETTERS
COMPLIANCE BY DESIGN FOR PHARMACEUTICAL QUALITY CONTROL LABORATORIES INSIGHT FROM FDA WARNING LETTERS Primer CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...3 QUALITY AND COMPLIANCE IN QUALITY CONTROL LABORATORIES...5 Compliance
More informationPublic Health Service Food and Drug Administration Silver Spring, MD WARNING LETTER VIA UPS WL: December 17, 2015
12/23/2015 1:37 PM 1 of 10 U.S. Food and Drug Administration Protecting and Promoting Your Health Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service Food and Drug Administration Silver Spring,
More informationAugust 28, WARNING LETTER (07-ATL-1 0)
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration Atlanta District Offic e 60 8th Street, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 3030 9 August 28, 200 7 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS WARNING LETTER (07-ATL-1 0)
More informationPerspectives on Method Validation: Importance of Adequate Method Validation
Perspectives on Method Validation: Importance of Adequate Method Validation Heather Bridwell, Vikas Dhingra, Daniel Peckman, Jennifer Roark and Thomas Lehman The appropriate validation of analytical methods
More informationClarity CDS since version 7.2 supportive tools for compliance with Title 21 CFR Part 11, EudraLex Chapter 4, Annex 11 and other similar legislation
Clarity CDS since version 7.2 supportive tools for compliance with Title 21 CFR Part 11, EudraLex Chapter 4, Annex 11 and other similar legislation Datasheet Introduction US Part 11 in Title 21 of Code
More informationA Comprehensive Approach to Find and Remediate Data Integrity Problems
A Comprehensive Approach to Find and Remediate Data Integrity Problems June 14, 2017 Copyright 2017 QuintilesIMS. All rights reserved. What is data integrity? Whom does it apply to? Definitions matter
More informationFDA Drug Compliance. Pepe Rodriguez-Perez, PhD Business Excellence Consulting Inc / BEC Spain SL.
FDA Drug Compliance Presented by Pepe Rodriguez-Perez, PhD Business Excellence Consulting Inc / BEC Spain SL www.calidadpr.com email pepe@calidadpr.com Agenda 1. FDA s Strategic Priorities 2014-18 2. CDER
More informationThe FDA Just Arrived... Are You Ready? Presented By Sandra Lueken Sr. Director, Quality AstraZeneca Biologics
The FDA Just Arrived... Are You Ready? Presented By Sandra Lueken Sr. Director, Quality AstraZeneca Biologics Objectives Review Quality Systems Audit Approach and cgmp fundamentals Logistical Audit Preparation
More informationDeficiencies found in Inspections and QP Responsibilities
Deficiencies found in Inspections and QP Responsibilities Ciara Turley, HPRA Inspector QP Forum, Trinity College, Dublin 25 th April 2017 Dublin Key QP Responsibilities Chapter 1, 1.4 (xv) Medicinal products
More informationPharmaceutical cgmps for the 21st Century February 2004
Pharmaceutical cgmps for the 21st Century February 2004 Ludwig Huber Compliance Fellow for Life Sciences and Chemical Analysis Chairperson: Rob Sample FDA GxP Regulations Along the Drug Life Basic Research
More informationImpacto de las Nuevas Tendencias Regulatorias en la Producción de Parenterales. Innovacion en Packaging Primario
Impacto de las Nuevas Tendencias Regulatorias en la Producción de Parenterales Innovacion en Packaging Primario 1 Contents Company Highlight What s Changing in Pharma Pharma Trends Harmonisation New Requirements
More informationInspections, Compliance, Enforcement, and Criminal Investigations
Page 1 of 6 Home Inspections, Compliance, Enforcement, and Criminal Investigations Enforcement Actions Warning Letters Inspections, Compliance, Enforcement, and Criminal Investigations Aarti Drugs Limited
More information[ WHITE PAPER ] A Basic Overview: Meeting the PIC/S Requirements for a Computerized System INTRODUCTION GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICES
A Basic Overview: Meeting the PIC/S Requirements for a Computerized System Lynn Archambault Waters Corporation, Milford, MA, USA INTRODUCTION The Pharmaceutical Inspection Convention and Pharmaceutical
More informationCurrent Trends in Data Quality and Integrity Issues in Inspections and Risk Based Approach to Investigations; EU perspective
Current Trends in Data Quality and Integrity Issues in Inspections and Risk Based Approach to Investigations; EU perspective Mark Birse / Richard Andrews, MHRA Data Integrity has no relationship with product
More informationCould Poor Temperature Data Management be Putting Your GxP Facility at Risk for Data Integrity Violations? we prove it.
1 How to Meet New MHRA, FDA and WHO Data Integrity Guidelines WHITE PAPER Could Poor Temperature Data Management be Putting Your GxP Facility at Risk for Data Integrity Violations? we prove it. 2 How to
More informationGxP Auditing, Remediation, and Quality System Resourcing
GxP Auditing, Remediation, and Quality System Resourcing TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 Introduction 4 GxP Auditing 4 GMP Auditing 5 GCP Auditing 6 GLP Auditing 7 Pharmacovigilance Auditing 7 Vendor/Supplier Auditing
More informationNew Data Integrity Regulations and Practical Advice for Life Science Laboratories. we prove it.
1 How to Meet New MHRA, FDA, EMA and WHO Data Integrity Guidelines white paper New Data Integrity Regulations and Practical Advice for Life Science Laboratories we prove it. 2 How to Avoid Poor Temperature
More informationValidation, Verification and Transfer of Analytical Methods (Understanding and implementing guidelines from FDA/EMA, USP and ICH)
Validation, Verification and Transfer of Analytical Methods (Understanding and implementing guidelines from FDA/EMA, USP and ICH) *** LIMITED TIME OFFER: FREE $100 AMAZON GIFT CARD! *** REGISTER TODAY!
More informationInspection. Implementation of ICH Q8, Q9, Q10
Implementation of ICH Q8, Q9, Q10 International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use Outline Aim of - as a key part of the regulatory
More informationPreventing, Detecting, and Responding to Data Integrity Events. Background, Recent Findings, and Agency Expectations
Preventing, Detecting, and Responding to Data Integrity Events Background, Recent Findings, and Agency Expectations Paula Katz Office of Manufacturing Quality Director, Guidance and Policy Staff FDA/PQRI
More informationGCP Basics - refresher
p. 01 GCP Basics - refresher Agenda: p. 02 Brief History of GCP GCP Regulations Principles of ICH E6 Sponsor Responsibilities Computer Systems Common Compliance Issues Brief History of GCP 3 Brief History
More informationEquipment cleaning and use record
DOCUMENTATION Documentation is an essential part of the quality assurance system and, as such, should be related to all aspects of GMP. Its aim is to define the specifications for all materials and the
More informationA.1 Contents file 4 to 5 A.1 (1)
Contents file 4 to 5 Contents file 4 to 5 A Information Contents file 4 to 5 A.2 Index file 4 to 5 A.3 List of Abbreviations A.4 Glossary A.5 Adress-Register A.6 References B Japanese Regulations B.1 MHW
More informationCSV Inspection Readiness through Effective Document Control. Eileen Cortes April 27, 2017
CSV Inspection Readiness through Effective Document Control Eileen Cortes April 27, 2017 Agenda Background CSV Readiness CSV and Change Management Process Inspection Readiness Do s and Don ts Inspection
More informationData Integrity Compliance Project
Data Integrity Compliance Project RISK FACTORS FOR DI ISSUES Outsourcing Supply Chain Data Review Practices Increasing use of electronic systems Economic Stressors 2 Fully Integrated into QMS DATA INTEGRITY
More informationValidation of Commercial Computerised Systems using a Single Life Cycle Document (Integrated Validation Document)
Validation of Commercial Computerised Systems using a Single Life Cycle Document (Integrated Validation Document) R. D. McDowall McDowall Consulting, 73 Murray Avenue, Bromley, Kent, BR1 3DJ, UK Summary
More informationChromeleon CDS delivers efficiency gains and compliance and data integrity improvements to UK CRO/CMO
CASE STUDY Sterling Pharma Solutions Chromeleon CDS delivers efficiency gains and compliance and data integrity improvements to UK CRO/CMO Brian Alliston is currently a Data Integrity Expert and CDS Specialist
More informationTEMPLATE FOR AN EXAMPLE METHODS VALIDATION STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE (SOP)
APPENDIX II TEMPLATE FOR AN EXAMPLE METHODS VALIDATION STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE (SOP) SOP EXAMPLE TEMPLATE 1. PURPOSE 1.1 This procedure is intended to provide general guidelines for the validation
More informationICH Q8/Q8(R)
Pharmaceutical Quality for the 21 st Century Temple University May 06, 2008 Joseph Famulare, Deputy Director FDA CDER Office of Compliance CDER Office of Compliance and the Critical Path Initiative Since
More informationGood Manufacturing Practices Purpose and Principles of GMP. Tony Gould
Good Manufacturing Practices Purpose and Principles of GMP Tony Gould Why GMP? Provides a high level assurance that medicines are manufactured in a way that ensures their safety, efficacy and quality Medicines
More informationInspection of Quality Control Laboratories
Inspection of Quality Control Laboratories PQP Manufacturer's Meeting April 4-5 th 2011, Geneva, Switzerland Stephanie Croft, M.Sc. Technical Officer (Inspector), WHO Prequalification of Medicines Programme
More informationAIMCAL R2R Conference 11/15/2018 1
Coating Line Operations for the Production of Drug-Containing Transdermal Patches Presented by: Ken Glade Director of Engineering LTS Lohmann Therapy Systems Kenneth.glade@lts-corp.com +1 (973) 396-5384
More informationINVESTIGATE OOT AND OOS IN STABILITY STUDIES
INVESTIGATE OOT AND OOS IN STABILITY STUDIES Kim Huynh-Ba Executive Director Pharmalytik LLC www.pharmalytik.com BIOGRAPHY Kim Huynh-Ba has over 25 years of experience in analytical development, project
More informationChange Control Overview
Change Control Overview Kelly Thomas Atlantic Technical and Validation Services Copyright 2014 by Atlantic Technical and Validation Services, LLC. 1 Session Outline Discuss Regulations Governing Change
More informationQuo Vadis 21 CFR 11. R.D. McDowall, McDowall Consulting, Bromley, Kent, UK.
Quo Vadis 21 CFR 11 R.D. McDowall, McDowall Consulting, Bromley, Kent, UK. Introduction 21 CFR 11, the Electronic Records and Electronic Signatures final rule 1 applicable to pharmaceutical and other US
More informationGxP Auditing, Remediation, and Staff Augmentation
GxP Auditing, Remediation, and Staff Augmentation TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 Introduction 4 GxP Auditing 4 GMP Auditing 5 GCP Auditing 5 GLP Auditing 6 Pharmacovigilance Auditing 6 Vendor/Supplier Auditing 7
More informationInspections, Compliance, Enforcement, and Criminal Investigations
Inspections, Compliance, Enforcement, and Criminal Investigations Nostrum Laboratories Inc 4/27/09 Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service Food and Drug Administration Kansas City
More informationVALIDATION OF ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES: METHODOLOGY *)
VALIDATION OF ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES: METHODOLOGY *) Guideline Title Validation of Analytical Procedures: Methodology Legislative basis Directive 75/318/EEC as amended Date of first adoption December 1996
More informationFocused Trends from the FDA
Focused Trends from the FDA GXP INSPECTION READINESS Jolly Bhatia Sr. Director, QA Alnylam September 21, 2017 Credits: Tim Maines, Arya Tavana, John French, Roan Martin 13% of FDA Complete Response Letters
More informationThe Future of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use in Europe Cefic Input to the Consultation Process: Deadline for Submission 12/10/2007 Date: 10/10/07
The Future of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use in Europe Cefic Input to the Consultation Process: Deadline for Submission 12/10/2007 Date: 10/10/07 CEFIC is the organisation that represents national federations,
More informationWhite paper: Code of GMP Chapter 4 Documentation - PIC/S versus EU
White paper: Code of GMP Chapter 4 Documentation - PIC/S versus EU Numerous articles are available comparing the current and previous EU Code of GMP Chapter 4: Documentation, but no comparison exists between
More informationInterpharm Praha A.S. 10/18/16
Interpharm Praha A.S. 10/18/16 Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service Food and Drug Administration 10903 New Hampshire Avenue Silver Spring, MD 20993 Via UPS Return Receipt Requested
More informationGMP On Site Series. GMP Essentials
GMP On Site Series GMP Essentials GMP Basics Objectives 1. State the critical definitions of the pharmaceutical industry. 2. Describe the law as it applies to various critical functions. 3. State the history
More informationGuidance for Industry Process Validation: General Principles and Practices. F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd.
Guidance for Industry Process Validation: General Principles and Practices D M k T k Dr. Mark Tucker, F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd. Disclosures I am currently a Senior Technical Advisor at F. Hoffman -La Roche.
More informationData Integrity for Your Laboratory Computerized Systems
Data Integrity for Your Laboratory Computerized Systems Lynn Archambault, Informatics and Regulatory Compliance Product Marketing Manager, Waters Corporation INTRODUCTION Electronic data and computerized
More informationGxP Auditing, Remediation, and Staff Augmentation
GxP Auditing, Remediation, and Staff Augmentation TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 Introduction 4 GxP Auditing 4 GMP Auditing 5 GCP Auditing 6 GLP Auditing 7 Pharmacovigilance Auditing 7 Vendor/Supplier Auditing 8
More informationALCOA AND DATA INTEGRITY: PASTAND FUTURE
ALCOA AND DATA INTEGRITY: PASTAND FUTURE Marina Figini, PCA S.p.A./Aschimfarma Data Integrity: reliability, quality and competitiveness factors of API manufacturers Pavia, 10 Novembre 2017 Good data management
More informationGood Manufacturing Practice for Investigational Medicinal Products
CHAPTER 29 Good Manufacturing Practice for Investigational Medicinal Products V. EDY 1 AND M. GAMLEN 2 1 Newland GxP Consultancy, Witney, Oxon, UK 2 Pharmaceutical Development Services Ltd, UK 29.1 INTRODUCTION
More informationContinuous Pharmaceutical Manufacturing: CGMP, Process Validation, and Inspectional Considerations for Implementation
Continuous Pharmaceutical Manufacturing: CGMP, Process Validation, and Inspectional Considerations for Implementation Christina Capacci-Daniel, Ph.D. Consumer Safety Officer / Acting Quality Assessment
More informationMahendra Chemicals 7/13/15
Mahendra Chemicals 7/13/15 Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service Food and Drug Administration Silver Spring, MD 20993 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED July 13, 2015 Mr. Rajnibhai
More informationCompliance Considerations in Pharmaceutical Product Development
Compliance Considerations in Pharmaceutical Product Development John C. (Jack) Garvey, Esq. THE WEINBERG GROUP INC. PRINCETON, NJ Compliance in Drug Development The Drug Development Challenge A Sampling
More informationData Integrity in Pharma QC Labs
1 Data Integrity in Pharma QC Labs What You Need to Know Richard Mutkoski Agilent Technologies 1 2 The current regulatory environment in historical context Myths and critical thinking skills Auditing your
More informationChapter 1. Pharmaceutical Industry Overview
Chapter 1 Pharmaceutical Industry Overview 1.1 Introduction 2 1.2 Regulations 2 1.2.1 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act 2 1.2.2 The Code of Federal Regulations 3 1.2.3 Guidance for Industry
More informationLifecycle Product Quality Risk Management
Lifecycle Product Quality Risk Management Richard L. Friedman, M.S. Associate Director Office of Manufacturing and Product Quality Office of Compliance IFPAC Annual Meeting (Arlington, VA) January, 21-24,
More information