Assessing Quality-by-Design A CMC Review Perspective

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
U.S. Food and Drug Administration Notice: Archived Document The content in this document is provided on the FDAs website for reference purposes only. It.
Advertisements

2-4 ICH Quality Guidances: an overview
Finished Pharmaceutical Product Specifications
Anticounterfeiting of Solid Oral Dosage Forms Hemant N. Joshi, Ph.D., MBA Tara Innovations LLC Parsippany, NJ
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.
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,
Determine impurity level in relevant batches1
Implementation of Quality-by-Design: ONDQA Initiatives Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science October 5, 2006 Chi-wan Chen, Ph.D. Deputy Director.
Pharmaceutical Development and Review Process Rev. 10/21/2014 APGO Interaction with Industry: A Medical Student Guide.
Office of New Drug Chemistry, OPS, CDER, Food and Drug Administration Establishing Dissolution Specification Current CMC Practice Vibhakar Shah, Ph.D.
Pharmaceutical Product Quality Assurance Through CMC Drug Development Process Presented by Darlene Rosario (Aradigm) 21 October 2003 Meeting of the Advisory.
COMPARABILITY PROTOCOLS ACPS March 12-13, 2003 Stephen K. Moore, Ph.D. Chemistry Team Leader CDER/Office of New Drug Chemistry Co-Chair, Comparability.
Training Workshop on Pharmaceutical Development with a Focus on Paediatric Medicines / October |1 | Regulatory Requirement on Dossier of Medicinal.
1 Revisions to 21 CFR Supplements and Other Changes to an Approved Application PhRMA Perspective FDA Public Meeting – 7 Feb 2007.
FDA Nasal BA/BE Guidance Overview
Post approval changes- Variations Mercy Acquaye. Presentation Outline Introduction to Guidance Classification of changes Approval of changes Definitions.
Tanzania, August, 2006 Dr. Barbara Sterzik, BfArM, Bonn 1 Guidelines and Tools available TRS 937 and BTIF (Bioequivalence Trial Information Form)
Ensuring Physical Stability of Pharmaceuticals: Can/should we improve our ability to identify and prevent physical changes? Ajaz S. Hussain, Ph.D. Deputy.
Sultan Ghani WHO Prequalification Programme of Priority Essential Medicines, October 2010, Abu Dhabi, U.A.E. Dossier Requirements for Generic Medicines.
Achieving and Demonstrating “Quality-by-Design” with Respect to Drug Release/dissolution Performance for Conventional or Immediate Release Solid Oral Dosage.
Risk-Based CMC Review Paradigm
Nonclinical Studies Subcommittee Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science CMC Issues for Screening INDs Eric B. Sheinin, Ph.D. Acting Deputy Director.
ITFG/IPAC Collaboration CMC Specifications Technical Team ITFG/IPAC TECHNICAL TEAM: CMC SPECIFICATIONS Presented by: Bo Olsson, PhD 26 April 2000 Rockville,
ACPS Advisory Committee Meeting October , 2002 ACPS Advisory Committee Meeting October , 2002 Scientific Considerations of Polymorphism in.
Industry Perspective on Challenges for Product Developers - Drugs Christine Allison, M.S., RAC Associate Regulatory Consultant, Global Regulatory Affairs.
Quality by Design Application of Pharmaceutical QbD for Enhancement of the Solubility and Dissolution of a Class II BCS Drug using Polymeric Surfactants.
Establishing Drug release/Dissolution Specifications – QBD Approach Moheb M. Nasr, Ph.D. Office of New Drug Quality Assessment (ONDQA), OPS, CDER Advisory.
1 Supplements and Other Changes to an Approved Application By: Richard J. Stec Jr., Ph.D. February 7, 2007.
ICH V1 An FDA Update Min Chen, M.S., RPh Office of Drug Safety Center for Drug Evaluation and Research FDA January 21, 2003.
OVERVIEW OF DACA BIOEQUIVALENCE REPORT EVALUATION Presented by Solomon Shiferaw 31Augst 2010.
Applications of Analytical Chemistry in Pharmaceuticals Corey M. Chong 10Mar10.
Sultan Ghani WHO Prequalification Programme of Priority Essential Medicines, October 2010, Abu Dhabi, U.A.E. Dossier Requirements for Generic Medicines.
1-7.The ICH Q8 “Minimal Approach” to Pharmaceutical Development
1 Regulatory Aspects of Pharmaceutical Excipients PQRI Workshop Nick Buhay Acting Director Division of Manufacturing and Product Quality Office of Compliance.
Stability of FPPs- Conducting, Bracketing, Matrixing Sultan Ghani.
Proposal for End-of-Phase 2A (EOP2A) Meetings Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Sciences Clinical Pharmacology Subcommittee November 17-18, 2003 Lawrence.
Quality by Design & Question-Based Review: Observations by the Generic Pharmaceutical Industry Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science October 5,
Predicting Physical Stability in Q1A(R) Chi-wan Chen, Ph.D. Office of New Drug Chemistry Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Food and Drug Administration.
Overview of FDA's Regulatory Framework for PET Drugs
PhRMA Perspective on FDA Final Report FDA Advisory Committee on Pharmaceutical Sciences October 20, 2004 G.P. Migliaccio, Pfizer Inc.
Molecule-to-Market-Place Quality
HELM AG Module 3 Christa Clasen Ankara, 6./7. April 2006.
COMPARABILITY PROTOCOLUPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCE Manufacturing Subcommittee July 20-21, 2004 Stephen Moore, Ph.D. Chemistry Team.
Bioequivalence of Locally Acting Gastrointestinal Drugs: An Overview
Satish Mallya January 20-22, |1 | 2-3. Pharmaceutical Development Satish Mallya Quality Workshop, Copenhagen May 18-21, 2014 May 18-21,2014.
10:00 A.M. – Noon 7 June 2004 ICH Quality Plenary Meeting.
General Aspects of Quality assessment of multisource interchangeable medicines Rutendo Kuwana Technical Officer, WHO, Geneva Training workshop: Assessment.
Using Product Development Information to Address the Bioequivalence Challenges of Highly-variable Drugs Lawrence X. Yu, Ph. D. Director for Science Office.
Introduction What is a Biowaiver?
Comparability Protocols Nancy Sager Associate Director, QIS-Chemistry FDA/CDER/OPS.
Bioequivalence Criteria Research Plan Stella G. Machado, Ph.D. Office of Biostatistics and the Replicate Design Technical Committee Advisory Committee.
Evaluation of quality and interchangeability of medicinal products - WHO Training workshop / 5-9 November |1 | Prequalification programme: Priority.
Topic #2: Quality by Design and Pharmaceutical Equivalence Ajaz S. Hussain, Ph.D. Office of Pharmaceutical Science Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
Orally Inhaled and Nasal Drug Products (OINDP) Subcommittee Report to the Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Sciences Rockville, Maryland November 15,
开发报批美国 FDA 的仿制药 与相关问题探讨 上海复星普适医药科技有限公司何平. 内容提要 开发仿制药的重要性和机遇 开发仿制药的重要性和机遇 开发仿制药的挑战 开发仿制药的挑战 申报仿制药的分类 申报仿制药的分类 仿制药研发团队 仿制药研发团队 仿制药的研发过程 仿制药的研发过程 QbD 在制剂开发中怎么体现.
ITFG/IPAC Collaboration CMC Leachables and Extractables Technical Team ITFG/IPAC TECHNICAL TEAM: CMC LEACHABLES AND EXTRACTABLES Presented by: Kaushik.
David G. Donne, Ph.D. and Thomas J. DiFeo, Ph.D.
The First Conference for Medicines Regulatory Authorities In Sudan and Neighboring Countries Khartoum December 2014 Alain PRAT, Technical Officer,
DIA ERS SIAC IND CMC eCTD Submissions Part II – IND to NDA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CENTER FOR BIOLOGICS AND HUMAN SERVICESEVALUATION and RESEARCH AND HUMAN SERVICES EVALUATION and RESEARCH Update on the Somatic Cell.
Tanzania, August 2006 Dr. Barbara Sterzik, BfArM, Bonn 1 Bioequivalence dossier requirements for the prequalification project WHO Training Workshop.
Dorota Matecka, Ph.D. Office of Pharmaceutical Quality (OPQ), CDER
STF-Study tagging file
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.
Quality guidelines on impurities
Quality guidelines on impurities
Presentation transcript:

Assessing Quality-by-Design A CMC Review Perspective Norman R. Schmuff, Ph.D. CMC Team Leader, ONDC Manufacturing Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science September 17, 2003

Outline Current model Development Reports CTD’s P.2 “Pharmaceutical Development” Proposed contents for P.2 Future model

Assessing Quality-by-Design The Current Model IND Safety – major emphasis Product consistency & quality – minor emphasis CMC amendments usually brief NDA (1987) Original submission “Investigational Formulations” “In-process Controls” Supplements Annual Reports (1994)

Quality-by-Design Currently Available Information Not much Traditionally not shared – Why? Regulatory concerns Increased resources & size of submissions BUT, if available provides an opportunity to down-regulate post-approval changes

Development Reports ICH CTD EU Pre-CTD “Notice to Applicants” (//pharmacos.eudra.org/F2/eudralex/vol-2/home.htm) Development Chemistry Development Pharmaceutics FDA Product Development Report “Guide to Inspections of Oral Solid Dosage Forms Pre/Post-Approval Issues For Development And Validation” Jan 1994 (//www.fda.gov/ora/inspect_ref/igs/solid.html) ICH CTD Pharmaceutical Development (P.2)

P.2 Pharmaceutical Development P.2.1 Components of the Drug Product P.2.1.1 Drug Substance P.2.1.2 Excipients P.2.2 Drug Product P.2.2.1 Formulation Development P.2.2.2 Overages P.2.2.3 Physicochemical and Biological Properties

P.2 Pharmaceutical Development P.2.3 Manufacturing Process Development P.2.4 Container Closure System P.2.5 Microbiological Attributes P.2.6 Compatibility

P.2.1.1 Drug Substance CTD-Q says: The compatibility of the drug substance with excipients listed in P.1 should be discussed. Additionally, key physicochemical characteristics (e.g., water content, solubility, particle size distribution, polymorphic or solid state form) of the drug substance that can influence the performance of the drug product should be discussed. For combination products, the compatibility of drug substances with each other should be discussed.

Three Key Topics for P.2.1.1 “Discussion” of the compatibility of the DS with excipients “Discussion” of the physicochemical characteristics of the DS that can influence the performance of the DP “Discussion” of the compatibility of drug substances with each other (if combination product)

DS Physicochemical Characteristics What data and/or discussion goes where? How does this section differ from other related/similar sections of the CTD-Q? P.2.2.3 “Physicochemical and Biological Properties” (mentions polymorphism) S.3.1 “Elucidation of Structure and other Characteristics” (mentions polymorphs) S.4.5 “Justification of Specification” (justification for control of polymorphs?)

DS Physicochemical Characteristics (cont’d) One proposal: Data (parallel to ICH Q6A decision tree 4) Testing on DS - S.3.1 Testing of DP (e.g., dissolution) - P.2.1.1 Testing of polymorph ratios in DP - P.2.2.3 Discussion Summary of DS characterization in S.3.1 Data in P.2.1.1 can be used to justify DS specification (S.4.1 & S.4.5) Summary of bioequivalence testing in P.2.1.1

Q6A DS Particle Size Decision Tree P.2 Pharmaceutical Development Q6A DS Particle Size Decision Tree

DS Physicochemical Characteristics (cont’d) (Drug Substance Testing) S.3.1 Elucidation of Structure and Other Characteristics

DS Physicochemical Characteristics (cont’d) S.4.5 Justification of Specification (Drug Product Testing) P.2.1.1 Drug Substance S.4.1 Specification S.4.5 Justification of Spec

DS Physicochemical Characteristics (cont’d) (More Drug Product Testing) P.2.2.3 Physicochemical and Biological Properties

DS Physicochemical Characteristics (cont’d) Alternative proposal: Any kind of once-only testing should be in P.2 Polymorph screening on DS should be in P.2.1.1 instead of S.3.1 because it’s part of “pharmaceutical development”? Discussion and data? Only discussion (data goes in S.3.1)? All stress testing (a form of once-only testing)? Except maybe DS accelerated stability and stress testing performed as part of methods validation? Includes DS photostability?

Compatibility: DS w/ Excipients What data/discussion should we expect? Expect to see compatibility testing always, or only when interaction is likely? Who decides whether it is likely? Would it be acceptable to test all excipients at once, or should they be tested individually? What’s the difference between compatibility testing in P.2.1.1 and drug product stress testing performed as part of the method validation for DP degradation products? Assuming DP stress testing is performed—should it be?

P 2.1.2 Excipients (Pharmaceutical Development) CTD says: “The choice of excipients listed in 3.2.P.1, their concentration, and the characteristics that can influence the drug product performance should be discussed relative to their respective functions.”

P 2.1.2 Excipients (Pharmaceutical Development) Draft Drug Product Guidance adds: Excipient range justification Functional excipient performance Novel excipient* information Suitability/safety for excipients: Used at higher levels than approved products With inherent pharmacological activity Tracer information * defined as one used for the first time in the US or by a new route of administration

Other Excipient Sections P.4 Control of Excipients P 4.1 Specifications P 4.2 Analytical Procedures P 4.3 Validation of Analytical Procedures P 4.4 Justification of Specifications P 4.5 Excipients of Human or Animal Origin P 4.6 Novel excipients Appendix A3: Novel Excipients

P.2.2 Drug Product P.2.2.1 Formulation Development CTD says: Development history considering: Route of administration Usage Differences in clinical vs. to-be-marketed product Component & composition Manufacturing Dissolution Bioequivalence

P.2.2.1 Formulation Development Draft Drug Product Guidance adds: Scored-tablet data Appropriateness to labeled dosing Content uniformity Dissolution Overfill Amount Supportive studies [Polymorph decision tree (Q6A) — DP studies]? Diluent selection

P.2.3 Manufacturing Process Development CTD Says: “The selection and optimization of the manufacturing process described in P3.3, in particular its critical aspects, should be explained. Where relevant, the method of sterilization should be explained and justified.” “Differences between the manufacturing process(es) used to produce pivotal clinical batches and the process described in P3.3 that can influence the performance of the product should be discussed.”

P.2.3 Manufacturing Process Development CTD Says: “The selection and optimization of the manufacturing process described in P3.3, in particular its critical aspects, should be explained. Where relevant, the method of sterilization should be explained and justified.” “Differences between the manufacturing process(es) used to produce pivotal clinical batches and the process described in P3.3 that can influence the performance of the product should be discussed.”

P.2.3 Manufacturing Process Development Describe MP and in-process controls Describe changes to process during clinical trials Explain selection & optimization of MP Critical aspects of MP Explain & justify sterilization process Explain differences between MP and pivotal clinical batch process What influence on product performance?

Development Data Identification of critical steps and variables Science-based specification and controls allow focus on high risk Lack adequate development data suggests Possibility of unidentified critical steps Higher risk in post-approval changes When “best practices” are employed Risk of poor product quality is minimized Lower risk in post-approval changes will allow down-regulation of reporting category

Quality-by-Design in the Future P.2 Pharmaceutical Development Further refined in Drug Product Guidance Second concept paper to be presented to ICH Steering Committee November in Osaka Closer co-operation between ORA and Center Review Chemists P.2 parts in post-approval submissions? Portions of the GMP “Product Development Report” included in P.2?

Quality-by-Design in the Future XML-based document management, and the eCTD will promote information reuse Information from “Annual Product Review” submitted in NDA “Annual Report”? Number of batches manufactured Observed trends