Author: Brandon Miller

FDA Inspectional Approach

Posted on by Brandon Miller

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is likely going to continue to use remote inspection alternatives in a “hybrid approach” with in-person inspections, supplemented by audit and FDA inspection tools like remote interactive assessments.

 

In a recent Accessible of Accessible Medicine’s (AAM) conference Elizabeth Miller, Assistant Commissioner in FDA’s Office of Medical Products and Tobacco Operations within the Office of Regulatory Affairs (FDA’s inspectorate) stated “Ideally, inspections supplemented by additional tools, including records requests and remote interactive evaluations, would provide FDA with the greatest depth of information”.

 

What is an FDA Inspection “Hybrid Approach”?

 

It is part onsite work and part offsite/remote work to conduct an assessment. The FDA uses tools like video chat for inspection activities like virtual interviews. They also use technology like secure shared online folders for offsite FDA 483 document review.

 

The FDA audit could start with a record request and then come onsite, or vice versa. Remember, FDA doesn’t consider remote evaluations to be a replacement for inspections. Inspections are onsite and will start with the lead FDA investigator providing the most senior ranking person at the site a Form FDA 482, Notice of Inspection.. The Form 482s is not issued for remote interactive evaluations.

 

Instead, your company will receive an FDA Form 4003, FDA Inspection Records Request. Having the term “inspection” in the title of the form can be a little confusing, but it is not considered or counts as an inspection. However, the FDA’s remote work will likely inform their onsite work during the actual inspection. Companies who prepare to manage these FDA  remote evaluations stand the best chance of success in an inspection. This is for all companies, whether you are conducting remediation because you’re having FDA compliance issues or not.

Need Help preparing for a Hybrid Inspection? Contact Us Now →

 

Will the FDA inspection changes be permanent?

 

Signs currently point to these changes moving down the path to permanency. FDA remote inspections and reviews can and do allow for more efficient onsite inspections. Conducting remote records reviews can help the investigators save time on site by not having to sit in a conference room and read. It also reduces their COVID exposure (and yours) by potentially reducing FDA facility inspection onsite time.

 

It must be pointed out that having a remote review does not immediately equate to a shorter onsite inspection. The onsite time will be dependent on what the investigator is covering and what they are or not finding. For example, an FDA GMP inspection may still take a different amount of time than a FDA surveillance inspection, and so on. 

 

The US Congress has even weighed in on the matter. For example, in a March 2021 Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee Hearing, Sen. Richard Burr, a member of the HELP Committee, suggested that the technology adoption for FDA virtual inspections should become more permanent in nature.

 

“The pandemic, I believe, has altered the model at FDA and the agency should not go back to its historical approach,” he said.

 

Risk-Based Model used to Identify FDA Inspections

 

The FDA’s risk-based criteria for prioritizing and selecting mission-critical inspections during the pandemic can be found in their Resiliency Roadmap for FDA Inspection Oversight. In the publication, they outline the factors helping to determine whether or not the inspection is mission-critical. These controls help FDA best utilize their already limited resources in protecting public health. The four specific factors the Agency is using are:

 

  • The product receiving a breakthrough therapy or regenerative medicine advanced therapy designation;
  • The product is used to treat a serious disease or medical condition and there is no substitute;
  • The product requires follow-up due to recall or there is evidence of serious adverse events or outbreaks of a foodborne illness; or
  • The product is related to the FDA’s COVID-19 response (e.g., drug shortages).

 

It is expected that this prioritization will be used during the remainder of the pandemic and that some will continue after travel restrictions and other impediments to inspections are eased or lifted.

 

FDA Inspection Hybrid Approach

 

Remote evaluations are time-consuming and take time to prepare and facilitate. Partner this with an onsite inspection and the time and effort quickly compound. Because of these activities are so time-consuming nature companies have had to improve how they efficiently and effectively manage these regulatory interactions.

 

One way to prepare is to look at your overall CGMP and quality system documentation and records to determine what needs to be scanned and uploaded to a secure shared folder prior to the start of the FDA remote review. The scanning process is time-consuming and if done ahead of time helps decrease the cycle time between the investigator’s request and the time you’ll have it ready to present to the investigator.

 

Another helpful hint is to ensure someone reviews the scanned file to ensure the entire document or record is scanned. With auto feeders on scanners, the dreaded folded page or previously stapled page getting jammed and not scanned properly is a common phenomenon. This can slow down any FDA pre-approval process meetings happening in real-time and can be avoided with focused preparation. 

 

The preparation effort can also assist you in being prepared for, as well as hosting your own hybrid internal audits (ex: corporate quality audits), as well as customer and notified body audits (if you’re in medical devices and deal with ISO 9001 and other ISO certification). 

 

What Our Experts Have to Say

 

Speculating on what the world might look like in terms of the use of alternative tools, industry representatives seemed in agreement that a hybrid approach would be most effective going forward.

Steven Lynn, RCA’s Executive Vice President of Pharmaceutical said:

 

“I don’t think the hybrid approach is going FDA Inspectionaway anytime soon. It just makes better sense from a public health efficiency perspective to be able to look at documents and records remotely and then go onsite.”

 

“If I look at it from an FDA perspective, the hybrid approach gives the Agency a way to ensure investigators can review items prior to putting boots on the ground. The remote reviews also enable the Agency to pull in other scientific disciplines easier than it would be, had the investigator been onsite. From the industry perspective, it means we must spend more time preparing in order to successfully host these remote reviews and onsite inspections.”

 

 

To begin the Regulatory Compliance Associates scoping process today, please enter your information in the blue form below and click the submit button at the bottom of the webpage. You may also email us at [email protected].

 

FDA Guidance: Product Lifecycle

Posted on by Brandon Miller

The USA Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently provided updated regulatory guidance for Product Lifecycle Management in the pharmaceutical industry. The guidance helps pharmaceutical companies and manufacturers better understand the administration of post-approval chemistry, manufacturing, and controls changes.

 

Lifecycle Management

 

The guidance provides new insights into lifecycle management concepts for both new and existing pharmaceutical products, including chemical and biologics. The FDA regulatory team looked to synchronize its updated guidance more closely to ICH guidelines used with other global regulatory agencies.

 

The benefit realized by pharmaceutical companies would be options for reducing duplicate clinical studies and increasing the standardization of safety information reporting. By revising facets of FDA marketing application submissions as well, the Agency appears to be taking a more holistic approach to improving drug development quality and pharmaceutical manufacturing strategy.

 

Looking for help Managing your product’s Life Cycle? Talk to our Experts →

 

Manufacturing Process

 

Changes include language revisions to surrounding regional legal frameworks, an expanded clarification of critical process parameters, and identifying established conditions for manufacturing processes. One important revision for regulatory affairs employees is the new recommended content of the product lifecycle management document and its location within the technical file. Clarity revisions were also made to further expand on the use of available tools described in the guideline for master files.

 

Regulatory Submission

 

The new FDA guidance also expanded its language on post-approval chemistry, manufacturing, and controls changes. With additional tools and principles intended to improve the industry’s management of post-approval changes, FDA leadership is hoping to increase transparency between both industry employees and regulatory authorities.

 

The benefit to pharmaceutical companies should be a deeper understanding of how product and process knowledge will contribute in the real world to post-approval changes that require a regulatory submission. By defining the level of reporting categories, industry experts should experience a deeper understanding of risk compared to product quality.

 

Quality Management System

 

The new tools and principles are designed to improve data input into a company’s quality system. The goal is to enhance the industry’s ability to manage many chemistry, manufacturing, and controls changes that have a lower priority needed of regulatory oversight.

 

At the same time, many at the FDA are hopeful the tools and principles could result in fewer Marketing Authorization Application submissions that increase the associated regulatory burden. The guidance should increase both operational efficiency and regulatory flexibility when implemented with the proper regulatory framework and applied with widely accepted risk management principles in the pharmaceutical industry.

 

To begin the Regulatory Compliance Associates scoping process today, please enter your information in the blue form below and click the submit button at the bottom of the webpage. You may also email us at [email protected].

FDA Guidance: Data Integrity

Posted on by Brandon Miller

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently announced a new guidance program for the life science industry regarding data integrity. This FDA guidance draft is currently open & available for the industry to comment on and provide feedback. Additionally, the FDA regulatory process that looks to be initially targeted by the food and drug authority includes:

 

  • Investigational New Drug Application (IND)
  • New Drug Application (NDA)
  • Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA)
  • Biologic License Application (BLA)

 

Code of Federal Regulations

 

The guidance draft cites several different code of federal regulation (CFR) that are being reviewed and analyzed during this process. Specific CFR federal regulations mentioned include:

 

  • 21 CFR 11
  • 21 CFR 50
  • 21 CFR 56
  • 21 CFR 58
  • 21 CFR 210
  • 21 CFR 211
  • 21 CFR 312
  • 21 CFR 601
  • 21 CFR 820

 

Data Integrity

 

Specific use cases mentioned by FDA include data integrity throughout the clinical data management process in bioavailability (BA) & bioequivalence (BE) studies. Further, the FDA guidance provides initial suggestions to optimize data integrity success by focusing on three specific drivers:

 

  • Users or applicants in clinical trial
  • Site management of clinical trial
  • Quality management system for clinical trial

 

Finally, FDA provides best practices & recommendations for risk control and risk management. Understanding how to maintain good lab practice & clinical research success is essential for all participants.

 

FDA Guidelines

 

One of the primary objectives of the data integrity draft is to align FDA expectations with the clinical data being submitted in pharmacologic studies. Additionally, clinical data submitted by a drug sponsor for FDA drug approval must be:

 

“accurate, complete, and reliable, and that industry maintain data integrity throughout the data lifecycle of the product(s) or biologic therapeutic(s).”

 

Finally, new concerns are being raised about the evaluation of bioequivalence and bioavailability study data submitted during the FDA regulatory process. FDA highlights specific comments about regulatory concerns during in vivo pharmacology studies. The regulatory documentation lists specific areas adding to the erosion of data integrity based on FDA inspection experiences in the field:

 

  • Patient testing sites
  • Clinical testing sites
  • Analytical testing sites

 

Legal Regulation

 

The FDA guidance begins with reminding drug sponsors that they bear the responsibility of quality assurance even if a contact manufacturing organization (CMO) is engaged. Additionally, confirming a contract development and manufacturing organization (CDMO) has confidentiality processes in place is essential. 

 

For drug sponsors who are submitting a FDA new drug application, ICH guidelines and FDA guidance should be followed by external vendors who are conducting the elements of study-related activity. Finally, clinical data being generated through bioavailability and bioequivalence studies must be durable & reliable in nature, and properly documented in a quality management system (QMS).

 

Testing Site

 

The regulatory guidance goes on to elaborate about the monitoring and oversight strategy needed for clinical testing. Specific drivers listed for analysis when selecting a drug manufacturing partner include:

 

  • Personnel Education
  • Personnel Experience
  • Personnel Training

 

Manufacturing standards and expectations should be documented clearly in a formal agreement. Additionally, FDA highlights that regulatory requirements for clinical study activities should be documented and followed, including:

 

  • Clinical study protocol
  • Clinical study procedure
  • Clinical study process

 

Finally, FDA recommends that bioanalytical analysis should include closer oversight and monitoring. Any CMO or CDMO must have documented analytical methods in their quality management system. Further, all analytical methodologies must follow applicable FDA regulations and be included in the QMS standard operating procedures (SOP).

 

Quality Management System

 

The FDA guidance transitions to describe database integrity and why any clinical services provider you choose must “use a quality management system to help ensure data integrity”. This includes testing sites managing a quality management system and efficacy of “data governance throughout the data lifecycle”.

 

Records Management

 

The operations team supporting the clinical research management should review the QMS using a pre-planned schedule, per the FDA guidance. All data governance used to store and retrieve information in the clinical trial management system should replicate the reliability & durability of the QMS. 

 

Additionally, data integrity across the QMS would focus on each unique phase of the collection process. FDA recommends employees responsible for quality updates consider isolating job responsibilities between the separate data lifecycle phases to help reduce unintentional mishaps.

 

Clinical Technology

 

Using modern technology is recommended for all employees who are responsible & can impact data quality. Specific systems mentioned in the regulatory guidance that can improve data integrity include:

 

  • Computer hardware or related systems
  • 362 software for security or performance
  • Peripheral devices, networks or cloud infrastructure for connectivity
  • Any associated IT documents for usability (e.g. SOP manual)

 

Metadata

 

The guidance goes on to explain more about classification & ensuring that metadata is correct. Metadata, as described by FDA, is “data about data” and provides clarifying information to the agency. Common types of metadata quality concerns are listed as examples:

 

  • Missing date/time stamp for when data was acquired
  • Incorrect measurement units or documentation
  • Missing user ID’s of the team who conducted data testing or data analysis

 

Sample Analysis

 

An important facet of the FDA guidance discusses sample analysis & if the clinical evaluation is completed at a location different from the original testing site. Employees conducting the clinical evaluation should be familiar with good clinical practice & fully understand the study protocol, various test methods that were used, and any quality management system SOPs to follow.

 

Further, different types of instruments & clinical equipment used during the sample analysis should be “calibrated, maintained and serviced” per FDA. The regulatory guidance cites several examples that should follow manufacturer service guidelines, including:

 

  • Balances & pipettes
  • Centrifuges & spectrometers
  • Liquid chromatographs
  • Refrigerators & storage freezers

 

Quality Assurance and Quality Control

 

Managing the risk associated with a QMS is an important facet of the FDA guidance. A quality assurance program should be implemented, including standard operating procedures that limit access control & processes to isolate a data breach. Further, implementing a quality control program can help find and remedy data integrity flaws. An efficient quality control program should include:

 

  • Mapping of standard processes & risk control
  • Employee training & knowledge gaps
  • Difference between unintentional & intentionally compromised data

 

Corrective Action and Preventative Action

 

If data integrity deviations are identified in a quality control analysis, FDA recommends a corrective and preventative action (CAPA) program be launched. Additionally, the CAPA would look at all relevant processes and tasks as a whole rather than isolating a repeat occurrence. The recommended best practices for a quality control plan include:

 

  • Assemble & examine information for review
  • Identify real & possible problems during the review
  • Explore problems & create appropriate CAPA
  • Verify & validate the success of the CAPA
  • Communicate updated CAPA success to applicable teams
  • Document activity & intelligence for management review

 

 

To begin the Regulatory Compliance Associates scoping process today, please enter your information in the blue form below and click the submit button at the bottom of the webpage. You may also email us at [email protected].

FDA Machine Learning

Posted on by Brandon Miller

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Health Canada, and the United Kingdom’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) have recently identified 10 guiding principles for the development of Good Machine Learning Practice (GMLP).

 

These guiding software development principles should be used to:

 

  • Adopt good practices that have been proven in other sectors
  • Tailor practices from other sectors so they are applicable to medical technology and the health care sector
  • Create new practices specific for medical technology and the health care sector

 

Need help putting these principles into action? Talk to our Experts →

 

What is Artificial intelligence and FDA machine learning (AI/ML)?

Artificial intelligence and machine learning use software algorithms to learn from real-world use of the device to help improve the product’s performance.

 

Good Machine Learning Practice Guiding Principles

 

  1. Multi-Disciplinary Expertise Is Leveraged Throughout the Total Product Lifecycle. Helps ensure that ML-enabled medical devices are safe and effective and address clinically meaningful needs over the lifecycle of the device.
  2. Good Software Engineering and Security Practices Are Implemented. Implementation with attention to the “fundamentals”: good software engineering practices, data quality assurance, data management, and robust cybersecurity practices.
  3. Clinical Study Participants and Data Sets Are Representative of the Intended Patient Population. Manage bias, promote appropriate and generalizable performance across the intended patient population, assess usability, and identify circumstances where the model may underperform.
  4. Training Data Sets Are Independent of Test Sets. Training and test datasets are selected and maintained to be appropriately independent of one another.
  5. Selected Reference Datasets Are Based Upon Best Available Methods. Using the best available methods for developing a reference dataset ensures that clinically relevant and well-characterized data is collected and the limitations of the reference are understood.
  6. Design Is Tailored to the Available Data and Reflects the Intended Use of the Device. Design is suited to the available data and supports the active mitigation of known risks, like overfitting, performance degradation, and security risks.
  7. Focus Is Placed on the Performance of the Human-AI Team. Human factors considerations and human interpretability are addressed with emphasis on the performance of the Human-AI team.
  8. Testing Demonstrates Device Performance during Clinically Relevant Conditions. Developed and executed statistically sound test plans to generate clinically relevant device performance information independently of the training data set.
  9. Users Are Provided Clear, Essential Information. Users are provided ready access to clear, contextually relevant information that is appropriate for the intended audience.
  10. Deployed Models Are Monitored for Performance and Re-training Risks are Managed. Models have the capability to be monitored in “real world” use with a focus on maintained or improved safety and performance, as well as periodic training after deployment.

 

To begin the Regulatory Compliance Associates scoping process today, please enter your information in the blue form below and click the submit button at the bottom of the webpage. You may also email us at [email protected].

FDA Publishes Updated Biologics Guidance

Posted on by Brandon Miller

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently issued final guidance for Biologics industry executives to help define modifications to existing products and update submission procedures.  The primary focus of the guidance is to help biologics industry employees responsible for reporting understand which type of risk category is appropriate for updated variations in chemistry, manufacturing, and controls (CMC).

 

The guidance is applicable to CMC products with an existing biologics license application (BLA) currently approved by the FDA. It’s a critical update since any Biologics company or regulatory partners must notify the FDA about every change to an approved BLA under the Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR 601.12).

Need help adhering to the New Guidance? Contact Us Now →

FDA submission data

 

FDA Guidance

The final FDA guidance goes into detail about each post-approval change in the product, including production process, quality controls, equipment and facilities, responsible employees, and established labeling. Expanded submission data will potentially provide greater detail about the the risk profile related to the changes, and how revised changes impact the intended safety or efficacy of the product.

 

Assessing and implementing manufacturing changes is laid out in great detail in the FDA guidance. Comparability data will be used to show variations of the product pre- and post- changes. The comparability analysis is necessary to help gauge possible effects of the product changes. Data from the analysis will be represented through a variety of sources, including a combination of testing, validation studies, and non-clinical or clinical studies.

 

FDA submission procedure

 

More importantly, the guidance provides a greater amount of detail about the updated FDA submission procedure. A significant focus of the guidance acknowledges the opportunity for adverse effects and how to measure and minimize based on data about the revised formulation. The biologic submission must show reference information that considers the new identity, strength of the product, quality of the product, and purity or potency of the product.

 

The three unique types of Biologics reporting includes Prior Approval Supplement, Changes Being Effected in 30 Days/Changes Being Effected (CBE30/CBE) and an Annual Report:

 

Prior Approval Support (PAS)

  • This includes changes that have significant potential for an adverse effect on product quality. The PAS must be approved by the FDA before a Biologics company can distribute any updated BLA approved product to the market involving the changes.

 

Guidance Changes Being Effected in 30 Days/Changes Being Effected (CBE30/CBE)

  • This includes changes that have a moderate potential to have an adverse effect on product quality. The CBE30/CBE requires an applicant to report the change to the FDA in a supplement at least 30 days before distribution of the product to the market.

 

Annual Report (AR)

  • This includes changes that have a minimal potential to have an adverse effect on product quality.

 

FDA process validation

 

Assessing the impact of the change on product quality is critically important in the reporting submission.  Reporting data should include prior knowledge and findings from product development activity. Documentation surrounding process validation activities and manufacturing expertise of the approved BLA product are also requested.

 

Quality risk management activities or pre-commercial studies that provide expanded awareness of the effects of the changes can also be very valuable for FDA decision makers. Finally, a cumulative impact assessment of multiple changes on the updated BLA product can help ensure post-market surveillance activities are aligned between the FDA and Biologics company.

 

Quality Management System

 

References to a robust quality culture appear throughout the guidance, including developing of robust manufacturing processes and process controls. Innovative process validation techniques and analytical testing are listed as critical drivers Biologics companies should practice to help mitigate risks associated with manufacturing changes.

 

Having an effective quality risk management system allows Biologics industry executives to make knowledgeable choices regarding manufacturing variations. The quality system data increases the confidence of product quality and process consistency for both executives and the FDA. Formal and informal risk assessments to support of post-approval manufacturing changes increases the accuracy of a more effective assessment of the change, which can increase the speed of the FDA’s decision.

 

To begin the Regulatory Compliance Associates scoping process today, please enter your information in the blue form below and click the submit button at the bottom of the webpage. You may also email us at [email protected].

Cannabis Regulation

Posted on by Brandon Miller

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) held a public meeting in May 2019 to get comments and feedback about the making, marketing, sale and promotion of products with CBD (cannabidiol). The meeting generated much interest from businesses in the cannabis, cannabidiol and marijuana industry, with many wondering what new cannabis regulation may arise from those open meetings.

 

There is no doubt cannabis is a growing industry, with many states already legalizing the use of CBD and related products. As the industry evolves, there is more interest at the federal, state and consumer levels to regulate the industry. In November 2019 alone, there were 137 bills at the state level being considered for regulating hemp derivative and CBD products. Bipartisan efforts at the federal level have been calling for more controls, as have consumer groups.

 

Preparing for Regulations

 

There are a few things companies can do to prepare themselves for changes in this regulatory environment:

 

  • Read up: The FDA has information on their website, and there are industry publications trying to stay current with rules and regulations. It can be challenging to know where to start, especially since there are so many sources and so much information. Nevertheless, reading can give you some overall impressions of regulatory trends.
  • Look at current guidelines: You need to stay current with drug regulations for tracking, manufacturing and distribution. You will also want to use the Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) regulations set by the FDA to compare with your own processes and products. The CGMP rules are guidelines created for products that transform botanicals to drug products, so they apply to CBD and cannabis products.
  • Create controls: Create consistent products and take the time to develop quality control processes. Create documentation systems so you always have the data you need to meet current regulatory guidelines. Current drug regulations place great emphasis on processes for quality control, so it makes sense to put extra focus on this area.

 

FDA Cannabis Regulations

 

The FDA is currently focusing on marketing language of cannabis-related products. In fact, the agency is sending out warning letters to companies making such products, in some cases based only on a business’s marketing strategy. For instance, the Federal Trade Commission sent one of those letters to a company that was claiming the CBD products they were offering were “proven” treatments for AIDS, autism and other conditions. In addition, the FDA has been warning the public about misleading or inaccurate claims of cannabis products.

If you make a product with CBD or cannabis and are considering any health claims for your product, be extra vigilant. Make sure you have the research and tests to back it up and work to create controls. Keep strict documentation on all your processes, marketing efforts and testing.

 

Cannabis Regulation

 

Developing solutions for regulation challenges does not have to be complicated in the cannabis industry. Regulatory Compliance Associates works with companies, helping them stay compliant. In the face of changing FDA regulations, we help you resolve regulatory and quality issues. Contact us at Regulatory Compliance Associates to find out more.

 

To begin the Regulatory Compliance Associates scoping process today, please enter your information in the blue form below and click the submit button at the bottom of the webpage. You may also email us at [email protected].