COMPARABILITY PROTOCOLS ACPS March 12-13, 2003 Stephen K. Moore, Ph.D. Chemistry Team Leader CDER/Office of New Drug Chemistry Co-Chair, Comparability.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Project Quality Plans Gillian Sandilands Director of Quality
Advertisements

Reprocessing Biotech Products
1 Implementation of Quality by Design (QbD): Status, Challenges and Next Steps Moheb M. Nasr, Ph.D. Office of New Drug Quality Assessment (ONDQA), OPS,
Stability data required by WHO-PQP Mercy Acquaye.
VALIDATION What is the new guidance?. What is a Compliance Policy Guide? Explain FDA policy on regulatory issues CGMP regulations and application commitments.
Batch Reworking and Reprocessing
Integrating CMC Review & Inspection Industry Recommendations Joe Anisko April 24, 2003.
Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls (CMC) and Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs): The Big Picture of a Long-term Commitment Elizabeth Pollina Cormier,
World Health Organization
Implementation of Quality-by-Design: ONDQA Initiatives Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science October 5, 2006 Chi-wan Chen, Ph.D. Deputy Director.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH Working with FDA: Biological Products and Clinical Development Critical Path.
Pharmaceutical Product Quality Assurance Through CMC Drug Development Process Presented by Darlene Rosario (Aradigm) 21 October 2003 Meeting of the Advisory.
Manufacturing Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science July 20-21, 2004 Ajaz S. Hussain, Ph.D. Deputy Director Office of Pharmaceutical.
Assessing Quality-by-Design A CMC Review Perspective
Biomedical research methods. What are biomedical research methods? An integrated approach using chemical, mathematical and computer simulations, in vitro.
Processing and Product Quality Issues Keith Wonnacott Ph.D. Office of Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies E BC R Moving from Investigational to Licensed.
PAT Validation Working Group Process and Analytical Validation Working Group Arthur H. Kibbe, Ph.D. Chair June 13, 2002.
1 ACPS November 15, Update Nancy B. Sager, Associate Director Office of Pharmaceutical Science Center for Drug Evaluation & Research Food and.
1 Revisions to 21 CFR Supplements and Other Changes to an Approved Application PhRMA Perspective FDA Public Meeting – 7 Feb 2007.
1 DRUG QUALITY SYSTEM FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY PQRI/FDA April CHANGES WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL AN FDA PERSPECTIVE Dennis M. Bensley, Jr., Ph.D. Center.
Module 1, Part 1: Introduction and The VMP Slide 1 of 22 © WHO – EDM Validation Supplementary Training Modules on Good Manufacturing Practices.
Denise K. Gavin, Ph.D. Division of Cellular and Gene Therapies
Achieving and Demonstrating “Quality-by-Design” with Respect to Drug Release/dissolution Performance for Conventional or Immediate Release Solid Oral Dosage.
Nonclinical Studies Subcommittee Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science CMC Issues for Screening INDs Eric B. Sheinin, Ph.D. Acting Deputy Director.
Industry Perspective on Challenges for Product Developers - Drugs Christine Allison, M.S., RAC Associate Regulatory Consultant, Global Regulatory Affairs.
1 Supplements and Other Changes to an Approved Application By: Richard J. Stec Jr., Ph.D. February 7, 2007.
Ajaz S. Hussain, Ph.D. Deputy Director Office of Pharmaceutical Science, CDER, FDA ACPS Subcommittee on Manufacturing Science: Identification and Prioritization.
Investigational New Drug Application (IND)
PRODUCT TRANSFER.
Changes without Prior Approval Breakout Session Summary Rick Smith Aventis Pasteur, Inc.
Exploratory IND Studies
1 George Q. Mills, MD, MBA Vice President, Medical & Regulatory Relations Perceptive Informatics Workings of the SNM Clinical Trials Network Centralized.
Biomedical Research Objective 2 Biomedical Research Methods.
1 PAT and Biological Products Tom Layloff FDA-SGE Management Sciences for Health The views expressed here are those of the author and not necessarily.
Important informations
The SNM Centralized IND & Clinical Trials Network Enabling Implementation Investigational & Approved PET Imaging in Multicenter Clinical Trials George.
Stability of FPPs- Conducting, Bracketing, Matrixing Sultan Ghani.
Overview of FDA's Regulatory Framework for PET Drugs
1/33.  What is INDA ?  Types of INDAs  Objectives of INDAs  Format & Contents of an INDA  IND Safety reports  IND Annual Reports  IND Review Process.
The SNM Centralized IND & Clinical Trials Network Enabling Implementation Investigational & Approved PET Imaging in Large Multicenter Clinical Trials George.
Workshop Session 3 Questions 1 How would a control strategy look different in a traditional submission vs a QbD submission? How would parameters that are.
The New Drug Development Process (www. fda. gov/cder/handbook/develop
COMPARABILITY PROTOCOLUPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCE Manufacturing Subcommittee July 20-21, 2004 Stephen Moore, Ph.D. Chemistry Team.
1 FDA Guidance for Industry: ANDAs: Impurities in Drug Substances Published by US FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research June 2009.
Comparability Protocols Lore Fields MT(ASCP)SBB Consumer Safety Officer DBA/OBRR/CBER September 16, 2009.
1 Imaging Community Critical Need #1: Standardized and Harmonized Multisite Imaging George Q. Mills, MD, MBA Vice President, Medical & Regulatory Relations.
1 Office of Pharmaceutical Science on Jon Clark FDA/CDER/OPS Associate Director for Policy Development.
Comparability Protocols Nancy Sager Associate Director, QIS-Chemistry FDA/CDER/OPS.
Lawrence X. Yu, Ph.D. Director for Science Office of Generic Drugs, OPS, CDER, FDA ACPS Meeting, ACPS Meeting, Oct. 22, 2003 Office of Generic Drugs Research.
COPYRIGHT ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. LEGAL DISCLOSURE. November 25, 2002 PRESENTATION TO: Public Hearing: FDA Regulation of Combination Products November.
Peter Karlton 1 Regulatory Challenges A Diversity of Considerations Ethical Cultural Regulatory standards Strained resources Competing priorities Training.
VICH Guidelines: Stability Testing of New Veterinary Drug Substances and Medicinal Products Mai Huynh U.S. FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine Washington.
WORKSHOP ON ACCREDITATION OF BODIES CERTIFYING MEDICAL DEVICES INT MARKET TOPIC 9 CH 8 ISO MEASUREMENT, ANALYSIS AND IMPROVEMENT INTERNAL AUDITS.
ITFG/IPAC Collaboration CMC Leachables and Extractables Technical Team ITFG/IPAC TECHNICAL TEAM: CMC LEACHABLES AND EXTRACTABLES Presented by: Kaushik.
SEMINAR ON PRESENTED BY BRAHMABHATT BANSARI K. M. PHARM PART DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACEUTICS AND PHARMACEUTICAL TECHNOLGY L. M. COLLEGE OF PHARMACY.
David G. Donne, Ph.D. and Thomas J. DiFeo, Ph.D.
In the name of God. Common Technical Document On Biotech.
POST APPROVAL CHANGE MANAGEMENT PROTOCOLS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
Regulatory– Terms & Definitions רגולציה - מונחים והגדרות
CTD Content Management
WHO Technical Report Series, No. 953, 2009
Quality System.
Implementation of Quality by Design (QbD): Status, Challenges and Next Steps Moheb M. Nasr, Ph.D. Office of New Drug Quality Assessment (ONDQA), OPS, CDER.
Objective 2 Biomedical Research Methods
Compounded Drugs and Lack of Premarket FDA-Approval
Computer System Validation
Quality guidelines on impurities
Quality guidelines on impurities
GL8 (R) – Stability testing for medicated premixes
Presentation transcript:

COMPARABILITY PROTOCOLS ACPS March 12-13, 2003 Stephen K. Moore, Ph.D. Chemistry Team Leader CDER/Office of New Drug Chemistry Co-Chair, Comparability Protocol Working Group

SPECIFICS ON THE USE OF COMPARABILITY PROTOCOLS l When might a comparability protocol be useful for a CMC change? l Product-specific and process-specific considerations l When might a comparability protocol be inappropriate? l Basic elements of a comparability protocol l Specific issues to be considered for comparability protocols for different types of changes

WHEN MIGHT A COMPARABILITY PROTOCOL BE USEFUL FOR A CMC CHANGE? l Comparability protocols are applicable to a wide variety of CMC changes l Comparability protocols cover many of the types of changes described in SUPAC, BACPAC and Changes to an Approved NDA and ANDA guidances l Comparability protocols can also cover many types of changes not described in other CMC guidances

WHEN MIGHT A COMPARABILITY PROTOCOL BE USEFUL FOR A CMC CHANGE (CONT.)? l Single change or multiple related changes with each change being discrete and specific l Changes of a repetitive nature are particularly useful l Specify a priori the tests, studies, analytical procedures, and acceptance criteria for demonstrating that the CMC changes will not adversely affect the product

PRODUCT-SPECIFIC AND PROCESS-SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS l Complexity of the product structure l Ability to characterize the chemical, physical, microbiological, and biological properties of the product (e.g., routine testing, stability studies, characterization studies) l Degree to which differences in product structure and physical properties can be detected l Degree of product heterogeneity, if present l The effect on safety of changes in the impurities

PRODUCT-SPECIFIC AND PROCESS-SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS (CONT.) l The robustness of the product l Rigorousness of the manufacturing process controls l Approved drug substance and/or drug product specifications expected to be met l Appropriate and sensitive analytical procedures established and validated or qualified to detect the effect of the change on the product

WHEN MIGHT A COMPARABILITY PROTOCOL BE INAPPROPRIATE? l Broad, nonspecific plans for CMC changes l A change whose adverse effect on the product cannot be definitively evaluated by prespecified tests, studies, analytical procedures, and acceptance criteria l Any CMC change that warrants the submission of an IND or new original application. l A CMC change that requires efficacy, safety (clinical or nonclinical), or PK/PD data to evaluate the effect of the change (e.g., certain formulation changes, clinical or nonclinical studies to qualify new impurities)

SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF CHANGES THAT MAY BE DIFFICULT TO JUSTIFY UNDER A COMPARABILITY PROTOCOL l A change in the drug substance or drug product specifications l A change in the qualitative or quantitative formulation of the drug product l A change in the type of delivery system l A change from plant, animal, or multicellular source material to a different one

SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF CHANGES THAT MAY BE DIFFICULT TO JUSTIFY UNDER A COMPARABILITY PROTOCOL (CONT.) l A change from synthesis-derived to naturally sourced material and vice versa l A change from solid phase to liquid phase peptide synthesis and vice versa l A move to a manufacturing site, facility, or area when a prior approval supplement is recommended because a CGMP inspection is warranted

BASIC ELEMENTS OF A COMPARABILITY PROTOCOL l Description of the planned changes l Specific tests and studies to be performed l Analytical procedures to be used l Acceptance criteria l Data to be reported under or included with the comparability protocol l Proposed reporting category l Action when equivalence not demonstrated using the approved comparability protocol l Commitment

SPECIFIC ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED FOR COMPARABILITY PROTOCOLS FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF CHANGES l Manufacturing process (e.g., effect on physical characteristics, impurity profile, downstream process, in-process controls) l Analytical procedures (e.g., effect on characteristics used in methods validation) l Manufacturing equipment (e.g., effect on manufacturing process) l Manufacturing facilities (e.g., CGMP Inspection status, scope of changes involved)

SPECIFIC ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED FOR COMPARABILITY PROTOCOLS FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF CHANGES (CONT.) l Container closure systems (e.g., repetitive changes particularly useful) l Process analytical technology (PAT) (e.g., early dialog with Agency encouraged) l Changes covered under a DMF or VMF (e.g., cross-reference to a comparability protocol)

SUMMARY l Comparability protocols allow FDA and industry to agree early on specified CMC changes, plan for assessing the effect of these changes and the reporting category l Savings in time of implementation and resources for many types of changes l A new regulatory mechanism, therefore, FDA and industry experiencing a learning curve l Guidance is hoped to stimulate interest in the use of comparability protocols