The stated mandate of the regulatory authorities (such as the FDA) and pharmacopeias (such as USP) is that they establish and monitor safety, efficacy, and quality of the manufactured drug products that patients need. It is important to note that at the manufacturing stage, safety and efficacy are seldom – in fact, almost never – established and/or measured. Establishing the quality of the manufactured products acts as a surrogate for the safety and efficacy; hence, claims are always limited to the quality aspect.
Health authority inspections are one of the most stress-inducing experiences a sponsor, CRO, or site will go through. The mere mention of inspections is enough to throw some people into full on panic-mode. While preparing for an inspection will never be a care- and stress-free process, there are appropriate ways to get your organization ready for one without adding another layer of stress and frustration.
Sampling plans are used extensively throughout organizations regulated by the FDA. Most organizations have a statistical procedure that specifies a certain acceptable quality level (AQL) based on risk. (If not, they should!) However, most individuals just follow the requirements of the procedure without fully comprehending how sampling plans actually work.
Pharmaceutical companies producing combination products or companion diagnostics may not have a clear idea of how the EU Medical Device Regulation (MDR) and the EU In Vitro Device Regulation (IVDR) will effect their products. However, under the new regulations, no medical device will escape regulatory scrutiny, regardless of whether its function is central or ancillary to the drug product.
For many years, the pharmaceutical industry meant “small (usually synthetic) molecules” mixed with various non-active materials and put into capsules or, in the old days, rolled into pills or pressed into tablets. While synthesizing the APIs (active pharmaceutical ingredients), formulating the dosage forms, and analyzing the materials at every step of the life cycle was not always trivial, it was relatively straightforward.
In response to the increasing opacity of the trial master file (TMF), clinical trial decision makers have embraced quantitative metrics as a way of characterizing and understanding the health of a TMF. Quantitative metrics are easily generated through the reporting functionality of a modern electronic TMF (eTMF) and appear to add value by leveraging the data passively generated through modern clinical applications. Although helpful to address specific concerns, especially those related to completeness, these metrics are often unintuitive and do not readily describe the aspects of a clinical trial most instrumental for TMF health.
New drug approvals are on the way up, as the FDA approved 11 percent more innovator therapies in 2018 compared to the previous year, spelling good news for both marketing authorization holders (MAHs) and CMOs. Data also shows that small- and mid-cap pharma companies are increasingly turning to outsourcers to manufacture newly approved drugs.
This is the second part of a two-part article exploring various types of prefilled syringes (PFSs) for biopharmaceutical products. Part 1 looked at needle-free and dual-chamber prefilled syringes, discussing the important aspects of those devices. In this part, we will examine the various aspects of prefilled syringes with staked-in needles and their impacts. We will conclude with some general thoughts on vendor selection for successful partnership.
Historically, patient involvement has been vital in the design and execution of clinical trials, but in recent years there has been an increased desire to engage patients from start to finish during the drug development process. Today, patients are empowered by technological advances that have given them access to more information than ever before, especially regarding diseases and drug development.
The FDA recently published GMP drug inspection data from CDER that addresses drug inspections conducted during the agency’s 2018 fiscal year. This article examines the FY2018 data and evaluate six years’ worth of trends in FDA GMP inspection enforcement.