Pink Sheet is part of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction
UsernamePublicRestriction

FDA, EMA and TGA aim to strengthen ties with developing nations’ regulators

This article was originally published in The Gold Sheet

Executive Summary

Officials with FDA, the European Medicines Agency and Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration agreed in Washington last December on steps for improving overall GMP compliance in manufacturing of active pharmaceutical ingredients, EMA said April 12. Given that many APIs are made in countries that are still developing their domestic regulatory requirements, the three agencies agreed to encourage domestic regulatory authorities to become more involved in their overseas inspections. They also agreed on providing updated training on the International Conference on Harmonization's Q7 GMPs for APIs. The three agencies have found that they approach Q7 in slightly different ways that warrant further discussion. In late 2008, they launched a pilot to jointly inspect API facilities (1"The Gold Sheet," January 2009)

You may also be interested in...



Regulators start information-sharing agreement on API inspections

Regulators of the FDA, EMEA and Australia's TGA have announced the start of a pilot project aimed at collaborating on international inspections of active pharmaceutical ingredient manufacturers. The project, which was first outlined in July last year, aims to see "whether greater international collaboration and information sharing can help to better distribute inspection capacity, allowing more sites to be monitored and reducing unnecessary duplication," according to a "rules of engagement" paper issued by the three regulators. Under the pilot, participating authorities will agree to share inspection plans and inspection outcomes. Each regulator will outline inspections that they have conducted in the previous 24 to 36 months and their inspection plans for the next 18 months. This information sharing will allow regulators to determine whether they have already inspected the site, whether they plan to inspect it at the same time, or whether they have any interest in the site for some other reason. Expected deliverables and key performance indicators are increased transparency and visibility of inspections performed by participating authorities, decrease in duplicate inspections, and an overall increase in the number of API manufacturing sites inspected by participating authorities for all inspections. Since the ICH Guideline on Quality Risk Management was adopted in 2005, Australia, Europe and the U.S. have explored ways to strengthen international collaboration focused on minimizing pharmaceutical-related manufacturing risks. However, an industry observer said that the "rules of engagement" paper does not really specify whether regulators are obliged to accept the results of the other's inspections, but does "open the door" to this possibility. Negotiation of a mutual recognition agreement between the U.S. and the EU had faltered a few years ago over whether inspectorates would have to accept each others' conclusions. The observer further noted that it may be a challenge for FDA to disclose sites that it plans to inspect over the next 18 months as the agency tends to operate on a much shorter time frame

QUOTED. 23 September 2020. US FDA

Tests used to detect cytomegalovirus in organ transplant patients may face an easier path to market under a proposed rule that the US Food and Drug Administration released on 18 September. See what the regulatory agency said about it here.

Vaccine Hesitancy May Drive Distribution Priorities For Early COVID-19 Supply

ACIP defers vote on who should be inoculated first until it has data on a specific product, but vaccine acceptance among different groups could be weighed as factor in setting distribution priorities, committee members suggest.

UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

LL111109

Ask The Analyst

Please Note: You can also Click below Link for Ask the Analyst
Ask The Analyst

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel