Changes without Prior Approval Breakout Session Summary Rick Smith Aventis Pasteur, Inc.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Strengthening the Medical Device Clinical Trial Enterprise
Advertisements

Reprocessing Biotech Products
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.
Manufacturing Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science July 20-21, 2004 Ajaz S. Hussain, Ph.D. Deputy Director Office of Pharmaceutical.
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.
ONDQA Perspective on Post Approval Changes Eric P. Duffy, PhD Director, Division of Post-Market Evaluation, ONDQA, CDER, FDA Public Meeting: Supplements.
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.
FDA’s Perspective Continued - Where We Are ?. GMP Task Groups.
The New Product and Services Development Process By SK Winning Innovations for Tomorrow (WIT)
Executive summary prepared by some members of the ICH Q9 EWG for example only; not an official policy/guidance July 2006, slide 1 ICH Q9 QUALITY RISK MANAGEMENT.
Growth and Success through Partnering & Outsourcing.
Developing Enterprise Architecture
Quality In Investigational Drugs Presented by: Larry Parker, BSMT (ASCP), MHSA, ASQ CQA American Society for Quality Central Arkansas Section 1407.
1 Manufacturing Processes and Validation for Next Generation Implants.
ITIL & COBIT O6PLM Kevin Lisay – Rendy Winarta –
LAA Judging Criteria & Process 2015
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.
ISO 9000 & TOTAL QUALITY ISO 9000 refers to a group of quality assurance standards established by the International Organization for Standardization.This.
Ajaz S. Hussain, Ph.D. Deputy Director Office of Pharmaceutical Science, CDER, FDA ACPS Subcommittee on Manufacturing Science: Identification and Prioritization.
PRODUCT TRANSFER.
Second Annual Japan CDISC Group (JCG) Meeting 28 January 2004 Julie Evans Director, Technical Services.
CONFIDENTIAL ©2014 PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL CORP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE PRACTICE OF REGULATORY INTELLIGENCE: CASE STUDIES OMICS 5 th International Pharmaceutical.
© 2011 Underwriters Laboratories Inc. All rights reserved. This document may not be reproduced or distributed without authorization. ASSET Safety Management.
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.
FDA’s Perspective on the “Pharmaceutical cGMPs for the 21st Century” Initiative David J. Horowitz, Esq. Director, CDER/FDA, Office of Compliance Advisory.
A Qualitative Decision Making Tool to Aid in Defining the Number of Lots for a Process Validation Campaign Leslie Sidor — Amgen Inc Midwest Biopharmaceutical.
Enterprise Risk Management Chapter One Prepared by: Raval, Fichadia Raval Fichadia John Wiley & Sons, Inc
Implementation Strategy July 2002 STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT LIFECYCLE PROCESS ORP Publishes & Maintains 8 Standing Committee Recommends Approval / Disapproval.
PhRMA Perspective on FDA Final Report FDA Advisory Committee on Pharmaceutical Sciences October 20, 2004 G.P. Migliaccio, Pfizer Inc.
Risk-Based CMC Review - OGD Perspective Gary J. Buehler, R.Ph. Director Office of Generic Drugs July 21, 2004 Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science.
Molecule-to-Market-Place Quality
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.
COMPARABILITY PROTOCOLUPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCE Manufacturing Subcommittee July 20-21, 2004 Stephen Moore, Ph.D. Chemistry Team.
Generic Industry’s Perspective on the New GMP Initiative May 21, 2003 Generic Pharmaceutical Association Kenneth Lavin, M.Sc. Director, Regulatory Compliance.
An Update of COSO’s Internal Control–Integrated Framework
Progress in FDA’s Drug Product Quality Initiative Janet Woodcock, M.D. November 13, 2003.
1 Office of Pharmaceutical Science on Jon Clark FDA/CDER/OPS Associate Director for Policy Development.
General Aspects of Quality assessment of multisource interchangeable medicines Rutendo Kuwana Technical Officer, WHO, Geneva Training workshop: Assessment.
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Subcommittee of the ACPS Ajaz S. Hussain, Ph.D. ACPS Meeting October 22, 2002.
Comparability Protocols Nancy Sager Associate Director, QIS-Chemistry FDA/CDER/OPS.
Info-Tech Research Group1 Manage the IT Portfolio World Class Operations - Impact Workshop.
Drug Quality Regulations for the 21 st Century PhRMA Perspective Manufacturing Subcommittee Meeting – May 21, 2003 Gerry Migliaccio Pfizer Inc.
1 Manufacturing Processes and Validation for Next Generation Implants.
Webinar On Transfer of Analytical Methods and Procedures according to USP 1224 Presented By Dr. Ludwig Huber Webinar On Transfer of Analytical Methods.
Contemporary Business Issues Change Management Theory Module Tutor: Nigel Bryant Session th February 2016.
Generic Industry’s Perspective on the New GMP Initiative 2002 Generic Pharmaceutical Association Kenneth Lavin, M.Sc. Director, Regulatory Compliance TEVA.
Product & Process Working Group February 26, 2002.
Patient Engagement in Drug Development: Experiences, Good Practices and Lessons Learned Lana Skirboll VP Science Policy Sanofi October 28, 2016, National.
POST APPROVAL CHANGE MANAGEMENT PROTOCOLS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
Introduction Review and proper registration of Human Gene Transfer protocols is very complex. A protocol goes through rigorous review by multiple Committees.
LAA Judging Criteria & Process
External Verification Report 2014/15
CTD Content Management
Contracting Officer Podcast Slides
Identify the Risk of Not Doing BA
The FDA Early Feasibility Study Pilot and the Innovation Pathway
Uncontrolled variation is the enemy of quality
Improve Business Satisfaction by 10% Through Business Relationship Management Relationship management is the #1 driver of business satisfaction with IT.
Quality System.
Maintaining the Clinical & Nonclinical Study Data Reviewer’s Guides
Analytical Method Validation PAI Readiness / Certification
Linda M. Chatwin, Esq. RAC Business Manager, UL LLC
LAA Judging Criteria & Process
An Update of COSO’s Internal Control–Integrated Framework
Presentation transcript:

Changes without Prior Approval Breakout Session Summary Rick Smith Aventis Pasteur, Inc.

Issues Discussed Risk Analysis for Post Approval Changes Comparability Protocols Development Reports Other Risk-Based Approaches and Next Steps

Risk Analysis Cost / market availability / approvability Team approach to risk assessment Change control True risk comes from an assessment of whether product has changed from the product used to generate clinical data Risk assessment capability is directly related to process knowledge and product experience

Concerns and Suggestions Industry wants a decision tree to assess risk (white paper from industry to FDA) Dilemma: can’t afford some changes, can’t afford not to change (keep up with cGMPs) Harmonization Develop a system to identify low risk changes that were successful to lessen the change category To bundle or not to bundle

Comparability Protocols Types of Comparability Protocols: General Comparability Protocols Product Specific Technology Specific Single Product

Experiences with Comparability Protocols Protein drugs – wide use Chemical drugs < 10 % use CVM, GphA – no use Application: Single change for multiple products Major changes to single product Planned changes Used during development

Advantages with Comparability Protocols Implementation timing can be immediate and consistent Early FDA input Greater assurance of acceptability and predictability Increased efficiency for Comparability Protocols covering multiple products Helps with changes not covered by SUPAC Most useful for complex molecules

Problems or Limitations with Comparability Protocols Time required is not always worth the effort Uncertainty regarding review time for non- PDUFA products Not useful for unplanned changes (due to timing) Draft guidance has too many exclusions Does require extra submissions unless in original NDA (Agency and Company)

Suggestions for Future One CP guidance for all types of products Utilize experiences from CPs to expand SUPACs Do not try to use CP for large numbers of changes most of which will not be executed

Development Reports Positive Feedback Development report needed to explain development strategy, data and why something was done. Easier to justify future changes Proactively identify critical parameters and impact of changes on those parameters. Gives FDA confidence that firms understand product and process

Development Reports Positive Feedback Helpful to maintain product history especially if employees leave the company Description of full story – failures and successes are valuable Helpful to have justification why certain tests are relevant and others not

Development Reports Negative Feedback May not be applicable for older products or generics Additional work or filing requirement with no obvious benefit Goes against goals of filing less or reducing burden Sharing failures is a concern All development data isn’t relevant to commercial product

Development Report Concerns How will FDA use the data? Which data should be submitted? Will development reports be reviewed by FDA and found to be deficient thereby holding up approval? Would not want to submit data because it may contain data generated in non GMP lab.

Other Risk-Based Approaches Develop system to permit less burdensome filing requirements based on company: Compliance history Robustness of quality system Quality of filings

Specific Recommendations for Opportunities for Less Burdensome Filing Requirements: SUPAC Guidances Analytical changes Packaging Sterile Products Common / repetitive changes Concurrent validation / stability Use of decision trees Comparability Protocol Templates

Other Systems European procedure for Type I and Type II Variations Re-registration every 5 years Canadian system Use as learning experience

Next Steps Need to be more global, not US centric Prioritize activities based on FDA and industry impact More dialogue with FDA / Industry on development data

Next Steps Guidances Have industry draft guidance for FDA Finalize draft guidances Draft more guidances Update existing guidances

Future Workshops Risk assessment of aseptic processing changes Development reports: value, what is needed, how used and benefit to industry Risk management systems and different approaches