FDA POST-APPROVAL CHANGE GUIDANCES
This article was originally published in The Gold Sheet
on packaging components and analytical methods will move forward based on a June workshop at which FDA and industry shared ideas and expectations for the two documents. Participants agreed that there should be less rigorous regulatory standards when changing to packaging components used in similar, approved products. While the workshop discussions on AMPAC did not benefit from a preconceived draft like the one presented by PhRMA for PACPAC, a consensus did emerge on the general handling of basic types of method changes. FDA is revising its existing SUPACs to reflect the FDAMA legislation and CFR 314.70 revisions, and is refocusing on completing its bulk drug and sterile product PAC documents.
You may also be interested in...
Drug manufacturers are adopting QbD but there are exceptions, especially among some generics firms, McKinsey finds in industry survey. The top challenge to further adoption: misalignment between R&D and commercial operations. Second is a lack of belief in the business case. However, the cost turns out to be low and the financial reward high, McKinsey says.
Using QbD to set specs that make a difference to patients is hard but important work, FDA's Woodcock says. Prasugrel, levothyroxine, pallodone examples explored. How to establish a 'work space.' How to make the right correlations.
As biotech firms begin to pilot QbD they wrestle with FDA over non-critical process parameters, postapproval changes and more. They are exploring how to define design spaces, change them, identify their edges. And they're still wondering what regulatory relief they might get in return for investing in quality-by-design studies.