FDA Finalizes Guidance on Interoperable Medical Devices

On September 6, 2017, FDA finalized a guidance document entitled “Design Considerations and Pre-Market Submission Recommendations for Interoperable Medical Devices” (“Final Guidance”). In the Final Guidance, the agency outlines design considerations for manufacturers when developing interoperable medical devices, as well as recommendations about information to include in premarket submissions and device labeling. Interoperability of devices can encourage the availability and sharing of information across systems, even when products from different manufacturers are used. A draft of this guidance was issued on January 26, 2016.

The Final Guidance defines “interoperable medical devices” as medical devices “that have the ability to exchange and use information through an electronic interface with another medical/non-medical product, system, or device.” These functions can consist of a one-way data transmission to another device or product, or more complex interactions in which command and control is exercised over another device. An “electronic interface” is defined as the medium by which systems communicate with each other, and includes both the type of connection and the information content.

According to the Final Guidance, the agency considers the management of risks associated with an electronic interface incorporated into a medical device to be part of a comprehensive quality system under 21 C.F.R. Part 820. Manufacturers of interoperable medical devices should perform a risk analysis and conduct appropriate testing addressing the risks associated with interoperability, the anticipated users, reasonably foreseeable misuse, and reasonably foreseeable combinations of events that can result in a hazardous situation. In particular, the Final Guidance identifies the following considerations that manufacturers should take into account and “appropriately tailor[]” to the device’s interface technology, intended use, and use environments

Read More: http://snip.ly/jeird#https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=54c0daa5-aed0-4976-995b-5e0204c336c4

FDA Breaks New Ground With First Approved Gene Therapy for Cancer

FDA Breaks New Ground With First Approved Gene Therapy for Cancer.jpg

When oncologist Dr. Carl June heard the Food and Drug Administration’s decision to bring the first gene therapy to market in the US, he pinched himself, hard.

“It was so improbable that this would ever be a commercially approved therapy,” he said, voice breaking with emotion.

June was referring to a revolutionary cancer therapy that he helped bring from lab bench to market. Co-developed with the drug giant Novartis, the therapy, CAR-T, genetically alters a patient’s own immune cells to target and destroy cancer cells.

Recently, in a historic decision, the FDA threw their support behind Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel), a “living drug” that is designed to treat blood and bone marrow cancer in children that, even with aggressive chemotherapy, is often lethal.

An entire process rather than a packaged pill, the therapy harvests a patient’s own immune cells—T cells that patrol and destroy abnormal cells—retrains them with extra bits of genetic code, and turns them into torpedoes aimed at cancerous cells once reintroduced into patients’ bodies.

“We’re entering a new frontier in medical innovation with the ability to reprogram a patient’s own cells to attack a deadly cancer,” said FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb in a statement, adding that the therapy is “the first gene therapy available in the United States.”

Read More: http://snip.ly/bunjk#http://www.philly.com/philly/business/fda-advisors-give-a-thumbs-up-to-glaxosmithklines-shingles-vaccine-20170913.html

Article on “A Tour of the FDA”

A tour of the FDA is something like a snapshot of what the FDA does. The importance of the FDA can never be understated: It regulates products from the proverbial pin to airplane in the food, medical devices, pharma and healthcare industries, which touch almost every aspect of American lives. The products that the FDA regulates account for about a trillion dollars, which make up about a quarter of all goods traded in the US.

So, what is a tour of the FDA like?

A tour of the FDA helps to get a broad understanding of the this regulatory body and get some idea of the various departments it has, as well as the functions of these departments. To get an understanding of what the FDA does, a reference to its mission statement could give some direction:

“(The) FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation.” This is just the opening line of the FDA’s mission statement. Reference to its other statements, which have now included a reference to containing terrorism, will serve as a good guide to a tour of the FDA. In short, the FDA regulates nearly every item used and consumed by the American public.

The history of the FDA

The legal sanction for carrying out its mission is mandated by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). An amazing fact that a tour of the FDA reveals is that it is one of the oldest regulatory bodies in the world, with its earliest jurisdiction having covered regulation of drugs in the year 1848. The Department of Agriculture, to which President James Polk appointed noted chemist Charles Wetherill, can be considered the earliest endeavor to regulate medical products of daily use in the US.

How is the FDA organized?

A tour of the FDA is incomplete without a reference to the way it is organized. Its structure consists of this hierarchy:

  • Office of the Commissioner
  • Office of Foods and Veterinary Medicine
  • Office of Global Regulatory Operations and Policy
  • Office of Medical Products and Tobacco
  • Office of Operations

Under these broad heads, a tour of the FDA shows the way into which it is divided into several offices and organizations. Important among these include:

  • Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA)
  • Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN)
  • Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)
  • Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER)
  • Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH)
  • Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH)
  • National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR)

Want to know more: Article on “A Tour of the FDA”

USP method transfer

USP method transfer underwent a change when the US Pharmacopoeia published the final version of its informational chapter 1224, which deals with the transfer of analytical procedures mentioned in the document entitled USP 35-NF 30. This became official in May 2012.

How is the new document different?

The US Pharmacopoeia had earlier issued the 1224 stimuli document in response to comments it received from users and professionals globally. The new version of chapter 1224, which is the general article, is different in one fundamental way in that it makes risk based assessment the criterion for the nature and scope of transfer activities. So, this new version of USP method transfer is different in one small, but very significant way.

What are the major elements of the new USP method transfer version?

The May 2012 USP method transfer recommends many new elements. Some of these are listed below:

  • The laboratories have to prepare a detailed analytical procedure with instructions that are sufficient and explicit enough to allow a trained analyst to perform it painlessly
  • All questions regarding the transfer process have to be clarified at a pre-transfer meeting between the transferring and the receiving units
  • The written analytical procedure and development validation reports have to be transferred to the receiving unit from the transferring unit
  • The transferring unit has to train staff of the receiving unit
  • A dry run of the procedure has to be conducted at the receiving unit
  • Issues that may need resolution have to be identified before the signing of the transfer protocol
  • All the required identification, calibration and qualification needed of respective analytical instruments have to be carried out
  • Compliance with relevant regulations of the laboratory systems of the two units has to be confirmed

What are the implications of failure to meet acceptance criteria?

According to the USP method transfer; failure of the sending or receiving fails to meet acceptance criteria qualifies as a serious, but not fatal error. It does not get classified under Out-of-Specification (OOS) result whose desired action is investigation into the root of the OOS. However, this requires discussion and justification of any deviation. Either of the laboratories –the sending or receiving –should investigate the reason for which the predicted acceptance criteria were not reached, and should take corrective measures. This process makes USP method transfer complete. The transfer can take place only when the acceptance criteria are met, the failure of which prevents the transfer from taking place.

Reference:

http://www.drugregulations.org/2012/05/new-usp-requirement-for-analytical.html

 

Contact Detail
GlobalCompliancePanel
webinars@globalcompliancepanel.com
http://www.globalcompliancepanel.com
Phone:800-447-9407
Fax:302-288-6884
43337 Livermore Common | Fremont| CA | USA | 94539

 

USP 1058 analytical instrument qualification

USP 1058 analytical instrument qualification is about ensuring that an instrument is suitable for its intended use and application. While system suitability and method validation activities have specific guidelines and procedures; analytical instrument qualification is not so specific. There are conflicting opinions and viewpoints regarding USP 1058 analytical instrument qualification.

Though subjective, analytical instrument qualification is central

Analytical Instrument Qualification (AIQ) stands at the base of the components that go into data quality; the other three components being Analytical Method Validation, System Suitability Tests and Quality Control Check Samples. Why is this so? This is because a sound AIQ lies at the root of the ability of an instrument to meet its intended application. AIQ is not a standalone event in the analytical instrument qualification process. It consists of many related activities.

The four phases of AIQ

USP 1058 analytical instrument qualification requires activities to be grouped into four phases: Design Qualification (DQ), Installation Qualification (IQ), Operational Qualification (OQ), and Performance Qualification (PQ).In brief, these are what these phases are:

Design Qualification

According to USP 1058 analytical instrument qualification; a DQ is the documented set of activities that lay out the functional and operational specifications of the instrument. It also mentions the criteria for selection of the vendor, based on the intended purpose of the instrument. The DQ can be performed by both the manufacturer and the user.

Installation Qualification

IQmay be described as the documented collection of activities that are necessary to establish that an instrument is a) delivered as designed and specified; b) it is properly installed in the selected environment, and c) this is done in an environment that is suitable for the instrument. Whether an instrument is new or was pre-owned, or exists on site but has not been previously qualified; IQ is required.

Operational Qualification

OQ testing follows IQ. It concerns the operational part of AIQ. It is the documented set of activities with which to demonstrate the ability of an instrument to function according to its operational specification in the selected environment.

Performance Qualification

PQ is the last stage of USP 1058 analytical instrument qualification. PQ is the documented collection of activities that is necessary to show that an instrument consistently performs according to the specifications defined by the user, and is appropriate for the intended use.

References:

http://www.drugfuture.com/Pharmacopoeia/USP32/pub/data/v32270/usp32nf27s0_c1058.html

 

Contact Detail
GlobalCompliancePanel
webinars@globalcompliancepanel.com
http://www.globalcompliancepanel.com
Phone:800-447-9407
Fax:302-288-6884
43337 Livermore Common | Fremont| CA | USA | 94539

 

Sterilization

In lay terms, sterilization is understood in a number of ways. We have sterilization in economics, in family planning and in many other fields. When it comes to this term as used by the FDA; there is a specific purpose and definition. For the FDA, sterilization process controls are indispensable for validation.

Sterilization is part of inspections

Sterilization is essentially linked to inspectional objectives. The FDA states the following:  “for sterilization processes, the primary device specification is the desired Sterility Assurance Level (SAL). Other specifications may include sterilant residues and endotoxin levels.”

Important processes labs have to comply with

The FDA has a detailed set of processes that laboratories have to comply with. These are some of the more important ones:

  • The laboratory has to confirm that the sterilization process was validated after the validation study was reviewed
  • It has to review and verify the specific procedure or procedures for the said sterilization process, as well as for the methods that were used to control and monitor the process
  • If during the review of the Device History Records (which include process control and monitoring records, acceptance activity records, etc.) it is discovered that the sterilization process falls beyond the organization’s stated threshold for operating or performance parameters, the company has to do these:

–        It has to determine whether anynonconformance was taken care of in the prescribed manner; and

–        Once this is done, it has to review the equipment adjustment, calibration and maintenance

  • If the laboratory has a system in which the sterilization process is software controlled, it has to confirm that the software was validated
  • The company has to ensure that only appropriately qualified and trained personnel have to implement the sterilization process

Reference:

http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Inspections/InspectionGuides/ucm170829.htm

Contact Detail
GlobalCompliancePanel
webinars@globalcompliancepanel.com
http://www.globalcompliancepanel.com
Phone:800-447-9407
Fax:302-288-6884
43337 Livermore Common | Fremont| CA | USA | 94539

 

Q7 guidelines

Q7 guidelines are those guidelines issued by the ICH (International Conference on Harmonization) in relation to Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API).

Q7 guidelines are very comprehensive

More than 12 years after they were mooted in November 2000; Q7 guidelines continue to be the driving force for API GMP regulations around the world. These relate a large number of areas concerning API, some of which are:

  • Quality management, which covers principles, responsibilities of the Quality Unit(s), internal audits, product quality review and others;
  • Personnel, which takes into account personnel qualifications, hygiene and so on;
  • Qualifications of Consultants;
  • Building and facilities;
  • Process equipment;
  • Documentation and records;
  • Materials management;
  • Packaging and labeling, and so on.

Need for change

Despite the good intention and comprehensiveness of these guidelines; in October 2012, the ICH Working Group issued a concept paper on the working of these guidelines. The areas of concern were about harmonization as well as some ambiguities that had crept in into the working of this guideline.

The essence of the Working Group’s observations was summed up thus: “It has become apparent, based on the approval and implementation of ICH Q8, Q9, Q10, Q11 principles into GMP of APIs that certain individual implementation approaches are leading to non-harmonized interpretation and new expectations beyond the intention of ICH Q 7”.

Many areas need reform

According to the committee, many Q7 guidelines had issues that needed to be addressed and requiring review. These include supply chain control, outsource management, monitoring of impurity profiles, quality systems, the application of the guidance to biological medicines and biotechnology products, Q7’s relationship to the Q5D Guideline on the Quality of Biotechnological Products, and expectations for manufacturing done specifically for clinical trials.

More corrective action needed

It has said at the time of the release of this report that it will suggest changes to these Q7 guidelinesafter a new working group, formed for the purpose of assessing and recommending changes, will offer its advice on suggested issues.

References:

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/regulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm129098.pdf

http://www.raps.org/focus-online/news/news-article-view/article/2520/ich-working-group-calls-for-revisions-to-q7-guideline.aspx

 

Contact Detail
GlobalCompliancePanel
webinars@globalcompliancepanel.com
http://www.globalcompliancepanel.com
Phone:800-447-9407
Fax:302-288-6884
43337 Livermore Common | Fremont| CA | USA | 94539