替换
查找内容:
替换为:
全部替换
插入链接
链接网址:
链接显示标题:
请选择网址类型
点我插入链接
插入文件
文件名称:
文件显示标题:
请选择文件类型
点我插入文件
发现错误 发表观点

原文内容

反馈意见

提交 正在提交..... 反馈历史

复制下面的地址分享给好友

确定 正在提交.....
train

你好,

关闭
提交 重做 重新开始 关闭
跳转
  • 新建同级
  • 新建子级
  • 删除
  • 重命名
选择收藏夹
新建收藏夹
公开

取消 确定

1. 基本信息
姓名:
企业:
职位:
联系方式:
邮箱:
2. 请在此填写您的问题,我们将优先安排答疑
提交

报名成功!
课程观看链接如下:
请添加课程助理微信,获得更多信息:
确认
确定
取消 确认

识林

  • 知识
  • 视频
  • 社区
  • 政策法规
    • 国内药监
    • FDA
    • EU
    • PIC/S
    • WHO
    • ICH
    • MHRA
    • PMDA
    • TGA
  • 研发注册
    • 概览
    • 监管动态
    • 研究专题
  • 生产质量
    • 概览
    • 监管动态
    • 各国GMP
    • 中国GMP
    • 中国GMP指南
    • GMP对比
    • 检查缺陷
    • 研究专题
  • 主题词库
  • 帮助中心
  • 关于识林
    • 识林介绍
    • 识林FAQs
    • 功能介绍
    • 团队诊断
    • 联系我们
  • 30天免登录

    忘记密码?

现场检查到期与ANDA批准

首页 > 资讯 > 现场检查到期与ANDA批准

页面比对

出自识林

现场检查到期与ANDA批准
ANDA
页面比对
笔记

2013-07-15 Lachman CONSULTANTS

跳转到: 导航, 搜索

Written by Joan Janulis • July 15, 2013
While the passage of the long awaited GDUFA legislation brings the ultimate promise of shorter ANDA review times, the GDUFA-prescribed timing goals will not go into effect until cohort year 3 (2015). Consequently, ANDA sponsors will need to weather the impact of extensively long ANDA review times in the interim period. With the median ANDA review time approaching 34 months, an ANDA sponsor runs the risk that one or more of the facilities referenced in its application will need to be re-inspected as a prerequisite to the approval of the ANDA, even if the facility had achieved satisfactory cGMP status, at some previous point during the pendency of the ANDA. The effective "expiry" of a satisfactory inspection and the need to re-inspect a facility before granting of ANDA approval has become a practical problem for the generic industry, which carries the risk of potentially significant consequences including marketing delays, loss of projected revenues and forfeiture of exclusivity entitlement in a worse-case scenario.

Lachmann.jpg

In light of this continuing challenge, and in light of some existing ambiguities regarding FDA inspection policy, Lachman contacted CDER’s Office of Compliance to determine its current policy regarding conduct of inspections required in support of approval of ANDAs. Our goal was to determine the following:

1) How much time may elapse from the date of the last acceptable inspection of a dosage form manufacturing facility, before the Agency deems the inspection not sufficiently "current" for purposes of supposing an ANDA approval?

2) Is the time period different for API manufacturing facilities versus facilities that produce the finished dosage form?

3) Are there any exceptions to general rules/approaches that apply?

We received the following response to a written inquiry on this subject matter:

CDER ensures that each facility identified in a pending application has received a timely and appropriate GMP inspection as a prerequisite to application approval. For many applications, CDER does not perform an application-specific pre-approval inspection and instead relies on a recent GMP surveillance inspection. Generally, among other considerations, an application-specific facility inspection is waived for a finished dosage facility inspected within 2 years of application review, an API facility inspected within 3 years, and certain ancillary sites (e.g., a control-testing laboratory or packaging-only facility) for an even longer period since last GMP surveillance inspection. There are exceptions to this general rule. For example, CDER will inspect during application review a new facility and a facility that is making a significant change from previously approved drugs (e.g., using a new or novel unit operations and/or control test). FDA intends to continue the practice of using a risk-based assessment in determining the length of time since the last inspection. Under GDUFA, FDA has committed to assure comparably robust inspections and parity in the risk-adjusted inspection frequency between all facilities, regardless of location.

Application sponsors should be aware of this policy and should assess the state of cGMP compliance (as determined by FDA inspection) for each of the facilities referenced in an ANDA initially and throughout the duration of the review period, with the above in mind. Sponsors must be keenly aware of situations where an acceptable inspection is at risk of expiring while an application in under review, and should bring this situation to the attention of OGD Regulatory Project Management, especially in cases where an exclusivity entitlement may be at risk of forfeiture.

The above pertains to facilities that perform manufacturing and testing operations relative to APIs and finished dosage forms. However, ANDA sponsors must also be aware that a CRO that performs clinical and/or bioanalytical work in support of bioequivalence studies contained in an ANDA must also have satisfactory inspection status at the time of ANDA approval. Once a CRO has completed a satisfactory inspection, the satisfactory status will generally hold for a period of 3 years. (see MAPP 5210.7) (This may not apply if the CRO is performing a nonconventional study and/or if there is a question regarding the integrity of data submitted in the ANDA. In these cases, a specific inspection would likely be requested even if the 3 year period has not elapsed). There is some additional positive news on the horizon in regard to these types of inspections. Specifically, FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) have agreed to expand an ongoing good clinical practice inspection and information sharing program to bioequivalence/bioanalytical inspections. Speaking at a Drug Information Association Annual Meeting Compliance Session on June 26 in Boston, CDER Office of Scientific Investigations Senior Medical Officer Cynthia Kleppinger stated that the Agencies have agreed to share inspection reports with negative outcomes and to participate in joint inspections at this time. This might be an important step towards eventual full mutual recognition, which would mean that the Agencies could use each other's inspection reports to support approval of an application in their respective regions.

原文请见 Will My Satisfactory Inspection Status Expire Before My ANDA Is Approved??

必读岗位及工作建议:

  • QA(质量保证):负责确保原料药生产全过程符合质量管理规范,监控质量体系运行。
  • QC(质量控制):负责原料药的质量检测,确保产品质量符合标准。
  • 生产:负责按照GMP要求进行原料药的生产操作,确保生产过程合规。
  • 工程:负责厂房设施和设备的维护保养,确保生产环境和设备符合要求。

适用范围:
本文适用于化学药领域的原料药生产,包括创新药和仿制药,适用于大型药企、跨国药企以及CRO和CDMO等企业类别,发布机构为国际通用标准。

文件要点总结:
原料药的生产质量管理规范强调了从质量管理到生产控制的全过程管理。首先,文件明确了质量管理的原则和机构职责,特别强调了质量保证和质量控制的重要性,并规定了自检、产品质量回顾以及质量风险管理的具体要求。在人员方面,规定了资质、培训和卫生要求,确保员工符合岗位需求。厂房与设施章节详细规定了设计建造、公用设施和特殊隔离要求,以保证生产环境的适宜性。设备章节则涉及设计建造、维护保养、校准和计算机化系统的要求,确保设备运行的可靠性。文件还特别提到了无菌原料药的生产特点,包括生产工艺、厂房设施设备设计、生产过程管理以及环境控制等,这些都是确保原料药质量的关键环节。

以上仅为部分要点,请阅读原文,深入理解监管要求。

岗位必读指南:

  • QA:确保公司生产流程符合FDA CGMP要求。
  • 生产:了解生产过程中的CGMP规定,确保产品质量。
  • 研发:在产品开发阶段考虑CGMP要求,确保研发成果的合规性。
  • 注册:熟悉CGMP法规,为产品注册提供法规支持。

适用范围说明:
本文适用于美国境内的化学药、生物制品、疫苗等药品的生产、控制和质量保证。适用于创新药、仿制药、生物类似药、原料药等注册分类,由FDA发布,适用于大型药企、Biotech、跨国药企等各类企业。

文件要点总结:

  1. 组织与人员(Subpart B): 明确了组织结构和人员资质要求,强调了关键人员的责任和培训的重要性。
  2. 设施与设备(Subpart C & D): 规定了生产设施和设备的设计与维护标准,以保证生产环境的控制和产品质量。
  3. 成分与包装材料控制(Subpart E): 强调了对药品成分和包装材料的控制,确保其质量和安全性。
  4. 生产与过程控制(Subpart F): 规定了生产过程中的控制措施,包括生产记录和过程验证。
  5. 实验室控制(Subpart I): 强调了实验室测试和数据分析的重要性,确保药品质量的准确性和可靠性。

以上仅为部分要点,请阅读原文,深入理解监管要求。

取自“https://login.shilinx.com/wiki/index.php?title=%E7%8E%B0%E5%9C%BA%E6%A3%80%E6%9F%A5%E5%88%B0%E6%9C%9F%E4%B8%8EANDA%E6%89%B9%E5%87%86”
上一页: GDUFA下行业更透明化?
下一页: 源于麻疯树甘油的毒性
相关内容
相关新闻
  • 缺乏杂质限度依据可能导致ANDA...
  • OGD计划在处方相似性审评中隐...
  • 印度Marck Biosience公司收到F...
  • 印度仿制药目标:从全球领跑者...
  • 印度因本国700种药品被禁推迟...
热点新闻
  • ICH 发布新 Q1 稳定性指南...
  • 【直播】25年4月全球法规月报...
  • 【识林新文章】中国无菌附录对...
  • 【识林新工具】AI知识助手,AI...
  • VHP(过氧化氢蒸汽)的“脆弱...

 反馈意见

Copyright ©2011-2025 shilinx.com All Rights Reserved.
识林网站版权所有 京ICP备12018650号-2 (京)网药械信息备字(2022)第00078号
请登录APP查看
打开APP