Category: Uncategorized

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].

Quality Control & Data Integrity

Posted on by Brandon Miller

To learn more about quality control and data integrity, you need to understand what these terms mean and how they can affect your company.

 

What Is Quality Control and Data Integrity?

 

The Good Practices for Data Management and Integrity in Regulated GMP/GDP Environments document from PICS offers perhaps the most comprehensive explanation of what a quality culture is. According to that document, this type of culture is a work environment that is open and transparent, allowing team members to fully and openly communicate mistakes and failures. This open culture is also a work environment where there are processes and structures that allow information about mistakes and problems to flow between team members at different levels.

 

Why Quality Culture?

 

Quality culture and its importance to the World Health Organization, MHRA and PICS recognizes that data quality is reliant on type of workplace. An organization that punishes team members who come forward with mistakes or issues is likely to have fewer reportable issues and less transparency, which can mean less accurate data. By allowing team members to speak freely and permitting the information to flow to different tiers of the organization, you’ll ensure that data can be accurately collected and acted upon.

 

Improving Organizational Quality Culture and Data Integrity through Risk Management

 

If you would like to create a quality culture, your organization can take several steps, including:

  • Creating a quality risk management plan: A written quality risk management plan should include your potential risks and a detailed plan on how to address problems and mistakes. This plan should make it clear that every team member is part of the solution and can report problems without risk of retaliation.
  • Evaluating your risks: Run an organization-wide audit to evaluate which risks could negatively impact product quality. As you start to write your quality risk management plan, begin by evaluating the risks that could impact your product. Could a supplier issue compromise the product? What other problems have arisen in the past or affected others in your industry?
  • Having a remediation plan: Create a written plan on what to do if something happens. How will an issue be reported? Once an issue is reported, what will the next steps be? How can you begin the remediation process?
  • Maintaining your plans as living documents: The goal of a quality risk management plan isn’t to create a document that sits on a computer. Present the document to your team and use it every day. Add to the document as new challenges come to light, and encourage your team to abide by the plan.

 

How We Can Help

 

A quality culture will help you pave the way for success because you’ll be enjoying better data. When you need to submit to global regulatory agencies, having more robust data can also help.

 

While having data integrity and good metrics is a crucial factor for biologics, medical device, pharmaceutical, compounding pharmacy and other organizations, an open quality culture is also important. In addition, it will help you to notice issues and address them in a timely fashion as well as enable you to plan what to do when problems arise.

 

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].

US FDA Inspection

Posted on by Brandon Miller

Amanda Pedersen, senior editor for MD+DI magazine, interviewed Susan Schniepp, Troy Fugate, and Steven Niedeleman to discuss “some of the craziest things FDA investigators hear during a US FDA inspection”. Below is an excerpt of her widely circulated column. 

 

One pearl of wisdom I often hear from regulatory and quality experts on the subject of managing FDA inspections is to answer the investigator’s questions and then zip it – do not offer more information than what is asked. For this reason alone, I would be a terrible “front room” person during an FDA inspection.

 

While I typically work best under pressure, uncomfortable silence is my kryptonite. I can easily see myself getting nervous and word-vomiting all over the investigator. There’s been a rash of medical device recalls and regulatory snafus in recent weeks, so it seems like a good time for some tried and true tips for interacting with FDA. 

 

1. “You don’t know what you’re talking about.”

 

It should go without saying, but never argue with the FDA investigator or insult their intelligence. It’s not going to lead anywhere good. If you do happen to find yourself in a disagreement during the inspection, do your best to de-escalate the situation. Whatever you do, don’t choose violence.

 

Troy Fugate, co-founder and vice president at Compliance Insight, recently shared a wild story from the field about an FDA inspection at a foreign site that went horribly wrong. The plant manager didn’t like that the investigator was finding problems and a heated argument ensued. The plant manager became so angry that he punched the investigator in the face.

 

2. “During the last inspection, the FDA investigator saw the same thing and did not put it on the Form 483.”

 

That would be like telling a police officer that you’ve been pulled over before for the same violation, but you got off with a warning. Don’t expect the investigator to second-guess their FDA 483 observation just because you got away with the same issue in the past.

 

3. “The last investigator was crazy.” Or “The last investigator did not know what they were doing.”

 

Best case scenario, the FDA investigator agrees with you, but wonders if you’ll badmouth them during your next US FDA inspection. Worst case, you just insulted their favorite colleague.

 

4. “I told them not to do it this way…”

 

Don’t be that person. Present a united front as a company and simply acknowledge the issue and express a willingness to address it. Don’t throw your colleagues under the bus in front of FDA because you’re only going to make yourself look bad.

 

5. “The management of this firm is only concerned with profits and does not take quality seriously.”

 

Even if this is true, nothing good will come from sharing the company’s dirty laundry with FDA. If you have legitimate concerns about your firm’s quality assurance, there is surely a more appropriate time and place to bring it up than during an FDA inspection. If your concerns get brushed off, maybe consider going the whistleblower route.

 

6. “We don’t have enough people or time to review all those complaints…”

 

Manufacturers must prioritize their resources. Being a small or understaffed company is no excuse to turn a blind eye to quality complaints, especially in medtech where people’s lives may be at stake. Don’t waste time during an FDA inspection trying to justify poor handling of complaints.

 

7. “That is the way we have always done it.”

 

If I was an FDA investigator, this sad excuse for any FDA observation, however big or small, would make me wonder what other procedures the manufacturer has “always” done the wrong way.

 

8. “That’s not my fault. It was the previous person who did that…”

 

Don’t point fingers. It’s childish and annoying. The investigator doesn’t care whose fault something is, they just want it fixed.

 

9. Don’t lie to FDA … but that doesn’t mean you should have to put such a statement in writing anywhere that an FDA investigator might see it.

 

This one comes from an embarrassing story Susan Schniepp of Regulatory Compliance Associates shared with Medtech Insight a few years back. She had just started working as VP of a small company when FDA came knocking. The company’s director of quality handled the audit while Schniepp observed. The director proudly handed the investigator the company’s standard operating procedure (SOP) document on how the firm handled inspections. That seemed like a great first step until she saw the line on the SOP that read: Don’t lie to the FDA.

 

As Schniepp said, surely the FDA investigator wondered exactly what the firm is doing the rest of the time that it needs to remind its employees not to lie to FDA. So, she said, FDA inspections are all about perception and putting the company’s best foot forward, so to speak. Don’t write SOPs like you’re reading them, she advised, but like someone else is going to read them. But it wouldn’t be fair to point out all the ways manufacturers have screwed up during FDA audits without acknowledging that FDA inspectors are human too and have been known to act inappropriately and even downright creepy at inspection sites.

 

Click now to read the full article here.

 

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: Drug Approval

Posted on by Brandon Miller

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has released an updated draft for the life science industry regarding communicating directly with health care professionals. This FDA guidance draft will go to industry for comment and feedback with the long term goal of streamlining the FDA regulatory process.

 

A specific use case mentioned in the FDA guidance is how HCPs use scientific information about unapproved uses (SIUU) for approved/cleared medical products. From the pharmaceutical or medical device perspective, are life science companies providing this scientific information in the context of clinical decision making? For example, are there off label uses of the FDA approved treatment for patients that may be going under investigated for both efficacy or compliance?

 

Scientific Information on Unapproved Uses (SIUU)

 

Particularly, this FDA guidance targets life science firms and how companies are sharing specific approval drug communications for medical products. Further, the following types of communications with HCPs were specifically mentioned by the Food and Drug Administration:

 

  • Published scientific or medical journal articles (reprints)
  • Published clinical reference resources:
    • Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs)
    • Scientific or medical reference texts (reference texts)
    • Materials from independent clinical practice resources
  • Firm-generated presentations of scientific information from an accompanying published reprint

 

Clinical Drug Trials

 

The FDA guidance speaks consistently to the delivery and context of medical trials data. Further, scientific information from clinical trials for approved products should be truthful, non-misleading, factual, and unbiased. The clinical research center should be in good standing from an FDA compliance perspective as well. 

 

Finally, there is a legal responsibility for industry employees to communicate information that is generally regarded as safe. Those who communicate unapproved indications or create medical labeling should not be associated with different types of unresearched clinical outcomes.

 

Medical Manufacturers

 

The FDA guidance makes it a point to note the types of life science firms and industry employees who can be held legally responsible. Medical labeling and the labeling of medical products can include:

 

  • Applicants
  • Sponsors
  • Requestors
  • Manufacturers
  • Packers
  • Distributors
  • Licensees
  • Any person communicating on behalf of these entities.

 

Clinical Evaluation

 

There has been some clinical research concerns across the healthcare industry about data integrity and organizations or publications that have issued clinical studies. The FDA guidance describes what it considers a source publication for legitimacy as:

 

  • The clinical problem is scientifically sound
  • The clinical study provides relevant information
  • Clinical data is relevant to HCPs who make clinical decisions
  • Clinical treatment must be relevant to the the care of a patient

 

The FDA guidance is written so industry employees focus towards:

 

  • Interpreting strengths and weaknesses of clinical research
  • Interpreting validity and utility of the therapeutic information

 

Healthcare Providers (HCPs)

 

The FDA guidance goes on to elaborate about professionals who are engaged with clinical decision making during patient treatment. Additionally, special focus is given to individuals licensed or authorized by law to prescribe, order, administer, or use medical products during their daily job.

 

Regulatory Compliance

 

The FDA goes on to comment that medical product regulation has progressed over time and is shaped via real world clinical evidence. Additionally, there can be significant hazards to society when uses of medical products do not follow the clinical process for regulatory approval.

 

FDA’s premarket review process decides if a medical product is safe and effective for the specified use(s) in an recognized patient profile. Yet, after the premarket review process is complete and a product is approved/cleared, questions may arise.

 

Intended Use

 

These questions can be investigated during clinical use of the medical product for the intended patient. Specifically, FDA premarket review for medical products includes:

 

  • Safety and effectiveness for each intended use needs to be appropriately studied by firms
  • Independently evaluated by FDA before a medical product is introduced into interstate commerce
  • Evidence that demonstrates effectiveness and safety for one product does not guarantee the clinical effectiveness or safety for additional uses

 

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].

EU IVDR Deadlines

Posted on by Brandon Miller

 

 

The application date of May 26, 2022, is coming up for the EU In-Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Regulation (2017/746) (IVDR) has created a huge challenge for IVD medical device firms planning to introduce or continue to market their IVD products to any of the European Union Member States. 

 

One of the biggest changes from IVDD to IVDR is the move from list-based IVD device classifications to a rule-based IVD medical device classification resulting in 4 new device classes: class A (lowest risk) to class D (highest risk), where class B, C, and D would require Notified Body involvement.

 

Need help with your transition to the EU IVDR? Contact Us Now →

 

The EU Commission has recommended that the application date be extended due to the bottleneck within the EU notified bodies caused by the pandemic.

 

  • General EU MDR Class 1 Low-risk devices that are non-measuring, non-sterile, non-reusable, non-surgical, and that do not require review from a notified body will still go into effect in 2022.
  • Non-sterile Class A and B Devices (low risk) – May 26, 2022
  • Class D (Highest Risk) – May 26, 2025
  • Class C (Medium Risk) – May 26, 2026
  • Sterile Class A and B Devices (low risk) – May 26, 2027

 

Companies need to learn from their experience with EU MDR and start transitioning sooner than later to avoid not being able to sell their products in the EU.

 

Partner With RCA to Transition from IVDD to IVDR

 

At Regulatory Compliance Associates® Inc. (RCA), we have subject matter experts who start with a gap analysis of the quality system and the technical documentation per IVDR requirements to identify the compliance gaps and develop an execution plan to help you become IVDR compliant. 

 

We can help with your device classification according to the classification rules, update of your quality system to address and remediate any gaps. Including but not limited to:

 

  • Post-Market Surveillance (PMS)
  • Performance Evaluation
  • Post-Market Performance Follow-Up (PMPF). 

 

We can also help you with your technical documentation for the PMS Plan, PMS Report, PMPF Plan, PMPF Report, or help you remediate any other technical documentation gap(s).

 

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].