New Drug Approvals

Home » Posts tagged 'supplier qualification'

Tag Archives: supplier qualification

DRUG APPROVALS BY DR ANTHONY MELVIN CRASTO .....FOR BLOG HOME CLICK HERE

Blog Stats

  • 4,186,061 hits

Flag and hits

Flag Counter

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 2,792 other subscribers
Follow New Drug Approvals on WordPress.com

Archives

Categories

Recent Posts

Flag Counter

ORGANIC SPECTROSCOPY

Read all about Organic Spectroscopy on ORGANIC SPECTROSCOPY INTERNATIONAL 

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 2,792 other subscribers
DR ANTHONY MELVIN CRASTO Ph.D

DR ANTHONY MELVIN CRASTO Ph.D

DR ANTHONY MELVIN CRASTO, Born in Mumbai in 1964 and graduated from Mumbai University, Completed his Ph.D from ICT, 1991,Matunga, Mumbai, India, in Organic Chemistry, The thesis topic was Synthesis of Novel Pyrethroid Analogues, Currently he is working with AFRICURE PHARMA as ADVISOR, earlier assignment was with GLENMARK LIFE SCIENCES LTD, as CONSUlTANT, Retired from GLENMARK in Jan2022 Research Centre as Principal Scientist, Process Research (bulk actives) at Mahape, Navi Mumbai, India. Total Industry exp 32 plus yrs, Prior to joining Glenmark, he has worked with major multinationals like Hoechst Marion Roussel, now Sanofi, Searle India Ltd, now RPG lifesciences, etc. He has worked with notable scientists like Dr K Nagarajan, Dr Ralph Stapel, Prof S Seshadri, etc, He did custom synthesis for major multinationals in his career like BASF, Novartis, Sanofi, etc., He has worked in Discovery, Natural products, Bulk drugs, Generics, Intermediates, Fine chemicals, Neutraceuticals, GMP, Scaleups, etc, he is now helping millions, has 9 million plus hits on Google on all Organic chemistry websites. His friends call him Open superstar worlddrugtracker. His New Drug Approvals, Green Chemistry International, All about drugs, Eurekamoments, Organic spectroscopy international, etc in organic chemistry are some most read blogs He has hands on experience in initiation and developing novel routes for drug molecules and implementation them on commercial scale over a 32 PLUS year tenure till date Feb 2023, Around 35 plus products in his career. He has good knowledge of IPM, GMP, Regulatory aspects, he has several International patents published worldwide . He has good proficiency in Technology transfer, Spectroscopy, Stereochemistry, Synthesis, Polymorphism etc., He suffered a paralytic stroke/ Acute Transverse mylitis in Dec 2007 and is 90 %Paralysed, He is bound to a wheelchair, this seems to have injected feul in him to help chemists all around the world, he is more active than before and is pushing boundaries, He has 100 million plus hits on Google, 2.5 lakh plus connections on all networking sites, 100 Lakh plus views on dozen plus blogs, 227 countries, 7 continents, He makes himself available to all, contact him on +91 9323115463, email amcrasto@gmail.com, Twitter, @amcrasto , He lives and will die for his family, 90% paralysis cannot kill his soul., Notably he has 38 lakh plus views on New Drug Approvals Blog in 227 countries......https://newdrugapprovals.wordpress.com/ , He appreciates the help he gets from one and all, Friends, Family, Glenmark, Readers, Wellwishers, Doctors, Drug authorities, His Contacts, Physiotherapist, etc He has total of 32 International and Indian awards

Personal Links

Verified Services

View Full Profile →

Archives

Categories

Flag Counter

What are the current Rules for Supplier Qualification?


Supplier Qualification is more than auditing. Supplier qualification can be seen as a risk assessment tool. But what are the exact requirements for qualifying suppliers?

http://www.gmp-compliance.org/enews_05231_What-are-the-current-Rules-for-Supplier-Qualification_15159,15099,15179,Z-QAMPP_n.html

Supplier Qualification is more than auditing. Supplier qualification can be seen as a risk assessment tool. It should provide an appropriate level of confidence that suppliers, vendors and contractors are able to supply consistent quality of materials, components and services in compliance with regulatory requirements. An integrated supplier qualification process should also identify and mitigate the associated risks of materials, components and services. But what are the exact requirements?

They are wide-ranging and complex. There are different directives and regulations for medicinal drug products for human or veterinary use and for investigational medicinal drug products. Certain requirements in different directives and the EU-GMP Guidelines define expectations. Here are some examples:

Article 8 of EU-Directive 2001/83/EC
“The application [of a marketing authorization] shall be accompanied […] by […] a written confirmation that the manufacturer of the medicinal product has verified compliance of the manufacturer of active substance with principles and guidelines of good manufacturing practice by conducting audits.”

Article 46 of EU-Directive 2001/83/EC
“The holder of a manufacturing and/or import authorisation shall at least be obliged […] to use only active substances, which have been manufactured in accordance with GMP for active substances and distributed in accordance with GDP for active substances and … to ensure that the excipients are suitable for use in medicinal products by ascertaining what the appropriate GMP is.”

Article 46b of EU-Directive 2001/83/EC
“Active substances shall only be imported if they have been manufactured in accordance with standards of good manufacturing practice at least equivalent to those laid down by the European Union”. This can be shown by a written confirmation, or the exporting country is included in the so called white list, or a waiver has been granted.

EU-GMP Guidelines Chapter 5:
5.25 “The purchase of starting materials is an important operation which should involve staff who have a particular and thorough knowledge of the supplier.”
5.26 “Starting materials should only be purchased from approved suppliers …”
5.40 “…printed packaging materials shall be accorded attention similar to that given to starting materials.”

The revised Chapter 7 of the EU-GMP Guidelines describe the responsibilities of the Contract Giver when it comes to contract manufacturing and testing. He needs to assure the control of the outsourced activities, incorporating quality risk management principles and including continuous reviews of the quality of the Contract Acceptor’s performance. Audits are a helpful tool to asses the “legality, suitability and the competence of the Contract Acceptor“. The new Chapter 7 was obviously designed to intensify the control of Contract Acceptors by the Contract Giver and extend those controls to subcontractors.

The holder of the manufacturing authorisation is responsible for the supplier qualification by law but in fact the supplier qualification is one of the duties of the Qualified Person (which can be delegated) as defined in Annex 16 of the EU-GMP Guidelines. The QP of the marketing authorisation holder is responsible for certifying the drug product for the market place and is now being held accountable to ensure that all aspects of the supply chain have been made under the appropriate GMPs. However, according to Chapter 2 of the EU-GMP Guidelines, the heads of Production, Quality Control and Quality Assurance share the responsibility of approving and monitoring suppliers of materials (2.9).

So how to proceed? At the beginning of a supplier qualification process, the regulatory requirements regarding the type of material, component or service and the type of product (human/veterinary drug product or IMP) should be identified and specified. Audits, if required, should be planned and executed. The compliance of the selected supplier(s) with the requirements and user requirement specification should be demonstrated. The scope of an audit should cover this. But a successful audit is not the end of the qualification process. After finalising the contract, the compliance of the selected supplier(s) with the applicable requirements should be evaluated periodically. Changes at the supplier´s site (for example manufacturing process etc.) that pose a particular risk to the compliance with the requirements should be assessed. There needs to be a mechanism in place so that any change made by the supplier which could have an impact on the GMP status or the production or testing parameters have to be agreed to before any such changes are implemented. A supplier must also notify the contract giver immediately upon discovery of any deviation/non-conformance/complaint that may have an impact on the services provided. Those need to be assessed and respective actions need to be defined.

The use of Brokers:
Some raw materials are only available at reasonable costs if purchased through an intermediary, i.e. a Broker. If the material is critical to the process, e.g. an API or a key excipient this can give an added complexity to the process and this must be fully investigated with the Quality and Regulatory units being involved, before any orders are placed.

////////

Insufficient failure investigations, supplier qualification, stability testing – the most common GMP violations in the FDA warning letters


 

An analysis of warning letters issued in the past fiscal year essentially shows the same pattern of frequently cited GMP violations. It also shows a noticeable increase in the GMP deficiencies relating to the qualification of suppliers and their certificates of analysis. Find out more

http://www.gmp-compliance.org/enews_4390_Insufficient%20failure%20investigations%2C%20supplier%20qualification%2C%20stability%20testing%20-%20the%20most%20common%20GMP%20violations%20in%20the%20FDA%20warning%20letters_8500,8489,S-QSB_n.html

 

 

The analysis of the warning letters issued in the last fiscal year shows no surprise at a first glance: as in recent years the FDA detected an insufficient investigation of unexplained discrepancies and deviations from defined standards and specifications in their inspections. The corresponding paragraph 21 CFR 211.192 requires that the drug maker clarifies the reason for the deviation, takes corrective actions and also creates a complete documentation. In the last 5-year period on average annually about 22 companies received a warning letter listing this GMP deficiency. This fact shows that many quality assurance departments’ understanding of deviations handling, failure investigations and corrective actions is frequently fragmentary.

Quite interesting is the detailed study of the warning letters referring to GMP violations with regard to 211.192. These warning letters take into account the drugs’ dosage forms. In particular manufacturers of oral dosage forms were addressees of warning letters containing citations with regard to 211.192, followed by parenteral drugs manufacturers, companies in the area of blood/blood products and manufacturers of topical drugs. The respective scenarios are quite different. However, main shortcoming is always the inadequate education and documentation in each incident.

A rather unexpected finding in the lineup of the most common GMP violations is the high number of citations with regard to 21 CFR 211.84 “Testing and approval or rejection of components, drug product containers, and closures”. This quote appears so frequently as never before: 16 out of the 32 companies that received a warning letter in the fiscal year 2013 for violations of part 211 had not implemented the provisions of paragraph 211.84 as expected by the FDA investigators. Interestingly, in this case most of these companies (12 of the 16) are manufacturers of topical products (ointments, creams, etc.).

The formulations in the warning letters in this regard are very similar (in some cases identical) and are usually limited to the following standard wording: “Your firm has not established the reliability of the supplier’s analyses through appropriate validation of the supplier’s test results at appropriate intervals” or “Your firm failed to withhold from use each lot of components, drug product containers, and closures until the lot had been sampled, tested, or exampled, as appropriate, and released for use by the quality control unit.”

Under the addressees of warning letters with quotations in the area of quality control – 21 CFR 211.166 “Stability Testing” and 21 CFR 211.160 “General Requirements” – there are also many of the companies that were already criticised due to non-compliances with regard to 211.84. This is not surprising as the thematic connection of all three paragraphs has a reference to the function of quality control. These two paragraphs 211.166 and 211.160 – just as 211.192 – have been in the top ten of GMP deficiencies for many fiscal years. Main shortcoming relating to 211.166 is the lack of a written stability test programme. Therefore, the following sentence can be read in almost all warning letters: “Your firm does not have an adequate written testing program designed to assess the stability characteristics of drug products in order to determine appropriate storage conditions and expiration dates.”

Information on infringements of 211.160 are more differentiated. Partly some interesting scenarios are described, as, for instance, “inappropriate visual particle inspection” or “switched off audit trail function in the chromatography system”. Here too Topika makers make the majority of addressees – even though not as clear as in the previous paragraphs of part 211. Main shortcoming in the implementation of the guidelines in 211.160 is the lack of scientifically sound and appropriate specifications, standards, test plans and test methods for products, intermediates, components etc.

The analysis of the warning letters of last fiscal year has shown that the FDA increasingly focuses on the subject “supplier qualification” and in this context on critically questioning analysis results and certificates of the suppliers. A detailed examination of the warning letters of the current fiscal year will show whether this trend further continues.

A more detailed analysis of the warning letters of the previous fiscal year will be available in the October issue of the GMP Journal.

http://www.gmp-compliance.org/enews_4390_Insufficient%20failure%20investigations%2C%20supplier%20qualification%2C%20stability%20testing%20-%20the%20most%20common%20GMP%20violations%20in%20the%20FDA%20warning%20letters_8500,8489,S-QSB_n.html

 

 

« New York Times Attack on ADHD Treatment: The Treatment as the Disease | Main | IFPMA Millennium Development Goals »

December 23, 2013

– See more at: http://www.policymed.com/2013/12/trends-in-fda-cgmp-violations.html#sthash.AXCBK0wx.dpuf

 

« New York Times Attack on ADHD Treatment: The Treatment as the Disease | Main | IFPMA Millennium Development Goals »

December 23, 2013

– See more at: http://www.policymed.com/2013/12/trends-in-fda-cgmp-violations.html#sthash.AXCBK0wx.dpuf

« New York Times Attack on ADHD Treatment: The Treatment as the Disease | Main | IFPMA Millennium Development Goals »

December 23, 2013

– See more at: http://www.policymed.com/2013/12/trends-in-fda-cgmp-violations.html#sthash.AXCBK0wx.dpuf

emailme——-amcrasto@gmail.com

%d bloggers like this: