Regulatory Affairs Archives - European Industrial Pharmacists Group (EIPG)

Real-world evidence for regulatory decision-making


by Giuliana Miglierini Digitalisation is rapidly advancing also in the regulatory field, as a tool to improve the efficiency and accuracy of processes used for the generation and use of data to inform the regulatory decision-making. To this instance, real-world Read more

Webinar: Implementation of Contamination Control Strategy Using the ECA template


The next EIPG webinar will be held in conjunction with PIER and University College Cork on Friday 21st of October 2022 (16.00 CEST), on the implementation of Contamination Control Strategy (CCS) using the ECA* template. This is the second Read more

ACT EU’s Workplan 2022-2026


by Giuliana Miglierini The implementation phase of the Accelerating Clinical Trials in the EU (ACT EU) initiative, launched in January 2022 by the European Commission, started with the publication of the2022-2026 Workplan jointly drafted by the Commission, the European Medicines Read more


ACT EU’s Workplan 2022-2026

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Giuliana Miglierini

The implementation phase of the Accelerating Clinical Trials in the EU (ACT EU) initiative, launched in January 2022 by the European Commission, started with the publication of the2022-2026 Workplan jointly drafted by the Commission, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the Heads of Medicines Agencies (HMA).

The final target is to renew how clinical trials are designed and managed, so to improve the attractiveness of Europe for clinical research and the integration of results in the current practice of the European health system.

The 2022-2026 Workplan details the actions and deliverables planned according to the ten priorities identified by ACT EU. The drafting of the document took as primary reference also the recommendations of the European Medicines Regulatory Network (EMRN) strategy to 2025 and the European Commission’s Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe.

Steps towards the full implementation of the CTR

The first priority of action should see the completion by the end of 2022 of the mapping of already existing initiatives within the EMRN and ethics infrastructure. This exercise represents a fundamental step to achieve a detailed picture of the current clinical trials regulatory landscape, characterised by the presence of various expert groups working in different areas.

The results of the mapping will form the basis to plan and implement a new strategy for the governance of the entire framework governing clinical trials, including the clarification of roles and responsibilities to the Network and its stakeholders. The expected outcome is the rationalisation and better coordination of the work done by different expert groups and working parties, as reflected by a new regulatory network responsibility assignment (RACI) matrix. The analysis and setting up of the new framework should start from the core governance bodies (Clinical Trials Coordination and Advisory Group (CTAG), Clinical Trials Coordination Group (CTCG), Commission Expert Group on Clinical Trials (CTEG) and Good Clinical Practice Inspectors Working Group (GCP IWG)), to then extend to other parts of the Network further.

The full implementation of the Clinical Trials regulation (Reg. (EU) 536/2014) by mean of the launch of monthly KPIs tracking of the planned activities is another key action. A survey to identify issues for sponsors and the consequent implementation of a process to prioritise and solve them are planned for the second half of 2022. The beginning of 2023 should see the launch of a scheme to better support large multinational clinical trials, particularly those run in the academic setting. One year later, at the beginning of 2024, a one-stop shop to support academic sponsors should also be launched.

An important action for the success of ACT EU should see the creation of a multi-stakeholder platform (MSP) to enable the interaction and regular dialogue of the many different stakeholders working in the field of clinical trials under different perspectives, both at the European and member state level. The platform should be launched by Q2 2023, with the first events run under its umbrella planned for Q3 and is expected to help in the identification of key advances in clinical trial methods, technology, and science.

Methodological updates in clinical trials

Another key step in the renewal of the European framework for clinical trials is linked to the updating of the ICH E6(R2) guideline on “Good Clinical Practice” (GCP). A targeted multi-stakeholder workshop on this theme is planned for Q1 2023, while the resulting changes should be implemented in EU guidance documents by Q3 2023. New GCPs should take into better consideration the emerging designs for clinical trials and the availability of new sources for data and are expected to “provide flexibility when appropriate to facilitate the use of technological innovations in clinical trials”. This action also includes the development of a communication and change management strategy to support the transition to the revised GCP guideline, and the updating of other relevant EU guidelines impacted by the change.

The opportunity to introduce innovative clinical trial designs and methodologies shall be addressed starting from decentralised clinical trials (DCT), with the publication of a DCT recommendation paper by the end of 2022. A workshop on complex clinical trials should be also organized to discuss issues linked to study design, such us umbrella trials and basket trials or master protocols. New technologies may support innovative approaches to the recruitment of eligible study participants and new ways to capture data during clinical trials. The publication of key methodologies guidance is an expected deliverable, together with a improved link between innovation and scientific advice.

A new EU clinical trials data analytics strategy is expected to be published by the end of 2022, while the first half of next year should see the development of a publicly accessible EU clinical trials dashboard and a workshop to identify topics of common interest for researchers, policy makers, and funders. These activities are targeted to fully exploit the opportunities offered by data analytics, so to identify complex trends from the large base of data about clinical trials collected by the EMRN. The existence of multiple data sources is a main barrier currently affecting the possibility to access, process and interpret these data.

Another priority is to plan and launch a targeted communication campaign to engage all enablers of clinical trials, including data protection experts, academia, SMEs, funders, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies and healthcare professionals. Up to 2024, this action will also support sponsors in remembering the importance of training linked to the application of the CTR and the mandatory use of the Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS). All other communication needs across all priority actions will also be handled under this action.

Scientific advice, safety monitoring and harmonised training

The current framework sees the involvement of different actors who interact with sponsors at different stages of product development to provide them with scientific advice. A simplification of the overall process should be pursued by grouping of key actors in clinical trials scientific advice in the EU, “with the aim of critically analysing the existing landscape in line with stakeholder needs”. The Workplan indicates several pilot phases should be run to identify the better way to address this topic, which should benefit especially academic or SMEs sponsors that may have less experience of regulatory processes. Planned activities include a enhanced intra-network information exchange, the running of a survey among stakeholders and the operation of a first pilot phase by Q4 2024, to then optimise and expand the advice process upon results.

The establishment of clinical trial safety monitoring is another central theme of action, that should see member states involved in a coordinated work-sharing assessment. Key activities should include the identification of safe CT KPIs by the end of 2022 and a review of IT functionalities for safety, and it will be run in strict connection with the EU4Health Joint Action Safety Assessment Cooperation and Facilitated Conduct of Clinical Trials (SAFE CT). Training of safety assessors and the development of a harmonised curriculum thereof shall be also considered, as well as the alignment of safety procedures for emerging safety issues potentially impacting clinical trials.

The development of a training curriculum informed by regulatory experience should support the creation of a renewed educational ‘ecosystem’ characterised by bidirectional exchanges to enable training on clinical trials. This action is target mainly to better engage universities and SMEs, and it should include also training provided by actors other than the regulatory network.


ICMRA, two pilot programmes to optimise regulatory assessment and inspections

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Giuliana Miglierini

New flexible modalities for the management of regulatory procedures are becoming progressively accepted even for routine activities, upon the experience built during the pandemic. Efforts are ongoing at the global level in order to better harmonise the new approaches. To this instance, the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities (ICMRA) has launched two pilot programmes focused, respectively, on the collaborative assessments of chemistry, manufacturing and control (CMC) and Post-Approval Change (PAC) submissions and related regulatory actions and on hybrid inspections.

Each programme is expected to last 1-1.5 years and should see the involvement of at least two regulatory regions, each one conducting three assessments or collaborative hybrid inspections. Recommendations resulting from the pilots shall be published in 2023, representing the basis of an initial common framework for collaborative assessment and hybrid inspections. The initiative follows the results of a workshop organised by ICMRA in July 2021, during which emerged the need for more convergence and reliance across regulatory authorities in order to support the timely supply of critical medicines.

ICRMA has invited industrial sponsors to participate to the initiative, with particular reference to those planning to file an application for a new product or for post approval changes of already approved products to more than one regulatory agency. All details and the procedure for application are available at this link.

Therapeutics which may be object of the submission include both small molecules and biological products. The submission may refer to products for the treatment of Covid-19, other medically necessary/critical medicines or products granted for access to fast-track procedures such as the Breakthrough (US), PRIME (EU) or Sakigake (JP) schemes.

Interested sponsors are required to check with the involved facility’s management to ensure readiness for inspection and possibility to host a collaborative hybrid inspection, with a particular attention to the availability of suitable IT infrastructures and interpretation services, and the possibility to coordinate at least two inspectorates across different time-zones.

Applications are open since 15 June 2022 and have to be forwarded using the EudraLink secure file transfer application provided by EMA. After a rolling review of the applications, starting of the first pilot is scheduled for September 2022.

The general objectives

The main goals of the initiative include the definition of best practices and standards in the quality assessment of CMC-related post-approval changes and collaborative hybrid inspections. A single list of questions to the sponsor or manufacturer should also be delivered, and answers be shared with the participating quality assessors and inspectors.

The exercise should lead to the identification of misalignments and potential areas of harmonization across participating regulatory regions. An improved convergence and collaboration among regulators in specific data expectations and assessment approaches for the assessment of manufacturing facilities for Pre-Approval and Pre-License Applications (PAIs & PLIs) and reviewing PACs and PAC Management Protocols may also be supported by the analysis of the data acquired during the two programmes.

Hybrid inspections

Hybrid inspections are based on the collaboration of at least two different National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs), one of which in charge of the on-site inspection activities, the second acting as a remote inspectorate. The respective tasks shall be coordinated and run using virtual technologies, so to enable real-time collaboration in the inspection activities, which should target facilities and products of interest for multiple regulatory agencies (see more details here and here).

The pilot is expected to reduce the need of multiple inspections or facility assessments and to support the identification of the best virtual platforms and information technology (i.e., video) to facilitate concurrent on-site inspection and distant assessment. Focus on the development of a common framework to accommodate time zone differences between the facility location and the distant inspectorates is also expected.

Best practices to prepare and conduct the hybrid inspection are another important outcome, as both the on-site and distant inspectorates needs to obtain from the activities all the information needed to run their respective assessments.

In the critical field of GMP expectations, a possible target of the pilot may be represented by how the inspection is reported and how deficiencies are classified by different regulators. Aligned reports and protocols may also support the sharing of information with other interested ICRMA inspectorates. In any case, each participating authority remains the sole responsible for the evaluation of the outcomes of the inspection and the enforcement of any consequent action, according to its own reference legal framework.

A final protocol describing how to execute a hybrid inspection is a main expected outcome of the fist pilot, to be then applied by the Working Group to evaluate at least 3-5 facilities with at least two regulatory agencies involved in the hybrid assessment.

Collaborative assessment

The second pilot aims to run collaborative quality assessment for a minimum of three different applications and a minimum of three regulatory agencies involved each time. The initial phase of the pilot should see a limited number of regulatory agencies (3-5) participating to the project, on the basis of specific confidentiality agreements.

Sponsors participating to the pilot shall submit a single application for the proposed CMC changes for assessment by multiple regulatory authorities; the initial focus is expected to be on post-approval change management protocols (PACMPs; chapter 4 of ICH Q12) for Covid-19 therapeutics. More in detail, participating regulatory agencies will agree on the procedure to be used for the collaborative assessment. They are expected to share and discuss in advance any information request or comment, prior to the interaction with the applicant. Any participating authority can maintain its independence to issue information requests, but in any case, the so obtained answers shall be shared with other NRAs and assessed on the basis of a common approach, so to avoid the need of multiple independent lists of clarification seeking comments.

The project also aims to achieve a single regulatory decision regarding the joint assessment (see more details here and here).

More specifically, priorities to be addressed should include for example the evaluation of information or data on specifications, stability, and/or PACMP that support site changes or additions.

As for the hybrid inspections, expected outcomes are represented by the identification of the best practices and standards in the quality assessment of post approval changes, including PACMPs, and of potential areas for alignment or harmonisation across regions.

A forum of discussion should be also created in order to facilitate convergence on the basis of such best practices. Each evaluation should lead to the preparation of lessons-learned summaries to share the acquired knowledge; new quality assessment guidance and standards might also be proposed, where appropriate.


The transition towards EMA’s new Digital Application Dataset Integration (DADI) user interface

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Giuliana Miglierini

The Digital Application Dataset Integration (DADI) network project is aimed to replace the current PDF-based electronic applications forms (eAFs) used for regulatory submissions with new web-forms accessible through the DADI user interface.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has released the updated timeline for the implementation of the project, which will at first affect variation forms for human medicinal products. The ongoing phase of User Acceptance Testing (UAT) by members of the DADI Subject Matter Expert (SME) Group (including representatives of EMA, national competent authorities and the industry) is expected to close in August 2022, followed by a second round of testing with external users, representatives of the different stakeholders.

The final release of the new form is currently scheduled for October 2022; a six month transition period shall then apply, during which both the PDF eAF and the web-based form can be used in parallel. Further information of the scope and implementation of the new DADI interface is available in the Q&A document published by EMA. An updated Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) mapping spreadsheet is also available, containing all attributes that are required by the Notice to Applicants; the attributes have been made consistent with the ISO Identification of Medicinal Products (IDMP), so that the DADI form also supports the submission of structured data to EMA’s Product Management Service (PMS).

A short history of the project

The DADI project is aimed to improve the interoperability of data; it builds upon the Common European Single Submission Portal (CESSP) Phase 1 project (2016-2020). Seven national competent authorities (NCAs), from Austria, Germany, Spain, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden are also collaborating to the setting up of the DADI project.

Some results from the Horizon 2020’s UNICOM project (with no contractual obligations for EMA towards the UNICOM Consortium and the European Commission) also supported the DADI’s development; UNICOM is specifically targeted to ensure the availability of pan-European ISO IDMP compliant forms and IDMP implementation at national agencies.

The use of ISO IDMP rules is compulsory as for Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 520/2012 (articles 25 and 26) for both marketing authorisation holders (MAHs), EMA and member states. These standardised definitions for the identification and description of medicinal products for human use shall facilitate the reliable exchange of information between the different parties involved in the regulatory processes. However, it should be noted that ISO IDMP covers human medicinal products only, not veterinary ones, and refers to the entire product lifecycle, including development. This differs from the PMS module, which covers only the Authorised Medicinal product part of IDMP.

How the DADI interface works

EMA’s plan is to gradually replace during 2022 and 2023 all the eAF forms for the various types of regulatory procedures, starting with the variation form for human medicinal products, so to achieve the availability of standard product master data for human and veterinary medicinal products. It is important to note that both the old forms based on the PDF format and the new web-forms are “electronic application forms”; EMA warns to expect that “the web-based forms will still be called electronic application forms (eAF)”, while in DADI communications, reference can be made to web-based application forms to distinguish them from the current PDF-based eAFs.

The implementation of the FHIR data exchange standard shall make possible to generate human- readable output (PDF files, with an attached FHIR XML) as well as machine-readable output for digital processing. Exchangeable contents based on FHIR are called “resources”. They all share some common characteristics, including how they are defined and represented on the basis of reusable patterns of elements, a common set of metadata, and a human readable part.

Some form fields could also be pre-populated with available product master data from the PMS for human medicines and the Union Product Database (UPD) for veterinary ones, so to facilitate applicants with the filling of the form. Additional metadata may be included in the FHIR XML backbone in order to facilitate regulatory activities.

Users will be able to download forms containing relevant product data, but it won’t be possible to export only product data nor to perform bulk exports in the web UI. Digital signature tools should be used to sign the PDF rendition of the web-form (details will follow from EMA).

Other expected benefits include shorter times to load substances drop down lists and a lower administrative burden for regulators, so to speed up the validation of applications and lowering the number of errors and discrepancies.

The main expected changes

No changes in the process to apply for or submit marketing authorisation applications will occur following the implementation of the DADI project. The current PDF output will remain, as well as the content of the output form included in the application.

The DADI project was developed on the basis of the Safe Agile principles of the Network Portfolio, and it will impact both centralised, decentralised, mutual recognition and national procedures. Ownership of the new web-forms is shared between EMA and NCAs, to acknowledge the collaborative work done to develop them.

At the level of national competent authorities, the new FHIR compliant XML shall be implemented by NCAs which are currently using the PDF forms’ Extensible Markup Language (XML) functionalities.

Specific guidance, training and webinars on the use of the new variation form should be made available by EMA close to its final adoption. Support in the use of the new web-forms will be available through the EMA Service Desk; the existing eAF Maintenance Group shall also continue its activities and act as an expert body.

Access to the new DADI interface should be based on EMA’s Identity and Access Management (IAM) system, and make use of specific access privileges. Consultants may be granted access by marketing authorisation holders (MAHs) to all products from that MAH, or only to specific applications containing products.

EMA also clarifies that the new DADI portal will remain distinct from the IRIS platform supporting product-related scientific and regulatory procedures, and it will be governed differently.

The challenges for the industry

The challenges and opportunities for the pharmaceutical industry linked to the implementation of the new DADI interface by April 2023, at the end of the transition period, has been addressed by an article by Amy Williams in Pharmaceutical Online.

Namely, the decision to implement the DADI has overwritten the expected publication of the IDMP’s EU Implementation Guide 2.2, thus asking the industry an effort to redefine its priorities along its entire regulatory portfolio to include all types of EU procedures. Submission of structured PMS data should also be accelerated by the adoption of the DADI, thus asking for an improved approach to data capture and alignment across the entire company. The need to resubmit post-approval data using EMA’s Extended EudraVigilance Medicinal Product Dictionary (xEVMPD) should be also considered.

The new phase of the DADI implementation indicates that “full IDMP-based regulatory data exchange, via a system-to-system interface between pharmaceutical companies and EMA, now won’t come into effect any time soon”, writes Renato Rjavec in Pharmaceutical Technology Europe. Compliance to data granularity requirements of IDMP should also be ensured, together with the availability of tools to extract relevant information from complex IDMP data model to appropriately generate the xEVPRM format of data exchange.


Joint implementation plan for the IVDR regulation

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Giuliana Miglierini

Regulation (EU) 2017/746 (IVDR), establishing the new legislative framework for in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVDs), will entry into force on 26 May 2022. The Medical Device Coordination Group (MDCG) has published an updated version of the Joint implementation and preparedness plan, discussing the priority actions to be implemented and monitored at the level of member states, Commission and MDCG.

The implementation of the IVDR is highly complex, as it requires a strict coordination between all the different stakeholders, including manufacturers, notified bodies, authorised representatives and laboratories. The IVD regulation has introduced a completely new device classification system for in vitro diagnostics, as well as a greater involvement of notified bodies in conformity assessment and new regulatory structures such as the EU reference laboratories and expert panels.

The Joint implementation plan is aimed to support the harmonised implementation of the new framework, a process led by the Commission and where member states are called to ensure the new provisions are effectively applied and enforced at national level.

Ongoing actions and future goals

As of January 2022, six notified bodies were already designated and the examination of other applications is undergoing. The Unique Device Identifier system that will support the punctual tracing of the devices has also been set up, while the Eudamed database is still under development. From the regulatory perspective, a number of new common specifications are being drafted; some guidance documents are already available while others are under development.

To smooth the impact of the transition and to prevent disruption in the supply of essential IVDs, Regulation (EU) 2022/112 has established the calendar for the transition of different classes of devices, i.e. 26 May 2025 for IVDs that fall in class D under the IVDR, 2026 for class C, 2027 for class B and A sterile.

The Joint implementation plan identifies two sets of priorities to be tackled by the stakeholders, on the basis of public health’s goals, patient safety and transparency. Set A includes essential actions to enable IVDs to maintain access to the market. Set B includes the development of other new pieces of legislation and guidance documents needed to better support the transition and the designation of EU reference laboratories for high-risk IVDs.

Set A, essential actions

Contingency planning and monitoring are the first priority to be met under Set A essential actions, in order to anticipate possible risks of IVDs’ shortages arising from the transition to the new framework. The MDCG will closely follow this process to monitor its progress and identify systemic risks and mitigation actions, with a particular attention to the availability of particularly critical IVDs.

Regular updates are also expected from the industry and notified bodies to inform member states and the Commission about the need of specific actions. This type of activity would also support the identification of barriers that could result in shortages of devices, e.g. with reference to the designation of notified bodies or the certification process. Stakeholders are also requested to be ready to manage some uncertainty in areas where guidance is still not available, thus requiring the provision of sound justifications to maintain critical IVDs on the market.

The second highest priority is the availability of a sufficient number of notified bodies to support the expected very high volume of applications for the certification of medium and high-risk IVDs. The plan indicates the need to make available national experts for the joint assessment of notified bodies. Member states should also address the need to improve the notified body capacity, discussing this issue within the MDCG and its specialised working groups as well as with the Commission. According to the Joint plan, the percentage of IVDs requiring certification under the new IVDR will rise up to 80-90%, from approx. 10% devices requiring involvement of a notified body under Directive 98/79/EC.

To facilitate this part of the transition, Regulation (EU) 2022/112 establishes that certificates issued under the Directive 98/79/EC are valid, under certain conditions, until May 2025. Renewals of existing certificates by a set of nineteen notified bodies designated under the current Directive is possibile, if necessary, up to 26 May 2022.

The plan also takes into consideration the possible occurrence of new Covid-19 restrictions, that may highly impact the work of the notified bodies (for example, due to the need to run first-time audits of many manufacturers). The Commission and the MDCG are thus called to consider how notified bodies can perform conformity assessment activities in such circumstances.

Set B, high priority actions

Actions included in set B are not essential for manufacturers to market their IVDs, but their implementation would support a smoother transition.

The EU reference laboratories are a new type of independent scientific body designated by the Commission to carry out additional tests on the performance and compliance with any common specifications of class D devices, before placing them on the market. If the Commission would not designate a EU reference laboratory for a particular device in class D, those requirements are not applicable. According to the Joint plan, a call for application to member states and the Joint Research Centre shall be issued by the Commission to nominate candidate laboratories. New implanting acts on tasks and criteria and on fees to be levied by the EU reference laboratories are also expected.

According to the IVDR, the adoption of common specifications (CS) is optional; nevertheless, the Joint plan indicates the intention of the Commission to propose some sets of common specifi cations and reach an agreement on the text that should enter the first adoption round. This should also lead to the adoption of the first implementing act containing the common specifications. This round should include common specifications relative to Kidd and Duffy blood grouping, Chagas and syphilis, and cytomegalovirus/Epstein-Barr virus devices, for which the drafting process is at an advanced phase.

New common specifications should be targeted to class D devices and will be developed by the IVD sub-group of the MDCG. Already existing CS under the old Directive should be transposed without major modifications.

A new implementing act on the MDR/IVDR standardisation request should be adopted by the Commission and accepted by relevant bodies (CEN/Cenelec). The Commission should also adopt the implementing acts on the publication in the Official Journal of references of harmonised European standards in support of the IVDR requirements.

Set B of actions include also the drafting and endorsement of a guidance on notified body designation codes, as well as of guidance on batch testing for notified bodies. New guidance may be also developed on significant changes and on appropriate surveillance, as referred to in Article 110(3) of IVDR. The MDCG should also complete the issuing of a new guidance on clinical evidence for IVDs, which is part of the documents needed to support the evaluation of the devices’ performances and the work of expert panels.

To this instance, the plan also indicates the need for a clarification on what constitutes a “type of device” and on the process to be followed by notified bodies in context of views of the expert panel. A template for summary of safety and performance should be also released, together with a template for the application/notification of performance studies. The issuing of an IVDR-specific guidance on harmonised administrative practices and alternative technical solutions until Eudamed is fully functional is also planned.

The joint plan also includes sections on actions required in the field of companion diagnostics, legacy devices and in-house devices.


A new joint work plan to 2023 for EMA and EUnetHTA 21

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Giuliana Miglierini

The new Regulation (EU) 2021/228 on Health Technology Assessment (HTA) will assume full validity in January 2025, at the end of the 3-year transition period. To this instance, it is time to define the actions needed to establish the new framework for HTA in the field of medicinal products.

A central point of the new approach is represented by joint scientific consultations (JSCs) to be carried out in coordination between the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the bodies entitled of HTA at the level of single member states.

After the termination of the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) initiative, in 2021, the new consortium EUnetHTA 21 has been created grouping thirteen HTA agencies from The Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Austria, Germany, France, Portugal, Belgium, Ireland, Hungary and Norway. EUnetHTA 21 signed a contract service in 2021 with the Health and Digital Executive Agency (HaDEA) for the provision of joint health technology assessment up to September 2023.

On this basis, EMA and EUnetHTA 21 have now published a joint work plan of the activities to be put in place until 2023; the initiative represents the continuation of the EUnetHTA Joint Actions, started in 2010 and concluded in May 2021.

The document identifies the priority areas of future collaboration between regulators and HTA bodies at European level, with the final goal to “improve efficiency and quality of processes, whilst respecting the respective remits of different decision makers, and ensure mutual understanding and dialogue on evidence needs”.

The transition to the new legislative framework shall be based on a flexible approach to the different tasks; the work plan includes both methodological and operative actions, and it will be monitored in close cooperation with the EU Commission. Progresses will be discussed during the four bilateral meetings planned until September 2023.

Under the new framework, high priority HTA activities related to the service contract will be delivered by EUnetHTA 21. Other voluntary activities can be actioned through individual HTA bodies from a European (EU/EEA) member state that expressed their interest to participate. Should this be the case, the work plan clarifies that the position is that of the individual HTA body, not of EUnetHTA 21. A public consultation on deliverables part of the EUnetHTA’s mandate is also planned.

Actions in support of JSCs

Joint scientific consultations are the core of the new approach to HTA, aimed to generate a robust evidence relative to the entire life cycle of medicinal products, including the post-licensing and launch.

The work plan establishes a new European process of “parallel joint scientific consultation” involving both HTA bodies and EMA, that will take the place of the current procedures of parallel scientific advice, parallel consultation and early dialogue. This action shall make available a single assessment process, reflecting both regulatory and HTA’s needs.

Interested parties can apply to access the EMA/EUnetHTA parallel JSC procedure; a joint guidance on how to apply and the dates of EMA’s Scientific Advice Working Party (SAWP) meetings are available at the dedicated page of the Agency’s website, together with the template of the parallel consultation briefing document and submission deadlines. The joint guideline also provides details for applicants on how to respond to a EUnetHTA 21 open call for joint scientific consultation.

Exchange of information

The setting up of the JSC procedure includes the optimisation of the use of registries to facilitate post-licensing evidence generation (PLEG) and/or launch evidence to support decision making. To this instance, and depending on the specific products selected during the JSC, advice may be provided on requirements for data collection and analysis of disease registries in the context of development plans, or for qualification of registries in disease areas of particular mutual interest (including advanced therapies, ATMPs).

This exchange of information between EMA and EUnetHTA 21 may lead to discussions in order to monitor progress in the identification of PLEG. Under this action, a voluntary pilot might be activated to explore the feasibility of earlier engagement with an HTA agency during regulatory assessment, including evidence sharing and managing of uncertainties. A main outcome of this area of cooperation shall see the initial drafting of the rules for the exchange of information on the preparation and update of joint clinical assessment of medicinal products.

Capturing patient relevant data and information

The ability to generate patient relevant data and information is key to support the process of decision making. The joint work plan aims to develop new methodologies to improve reliance of patient relevant data. To this instance, the cooperation with EUnetHTA is expected to contribute to EMA’s initiative to establish an EU network of experts on Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs). The work plan also includes voluntary actions focused on the discussion and exchange of relevant data in bilateral meetings, in parallel with the development of the respective guidelines, and a workshop on patient experience data planned in June 2022.

The work plan shall also favour a better engagement of patients and healthcare professionals in areas of mutual interest. To this regard, EMA and EUnetHTA 21 will share their best practices as for compensation for expert participation and how to incorporate the input received in regulatory and HTA deliverables.

Preparedness for future challenges

The need to better understand challenges arising from the development of innovative treatments will benefit the sharing of horizon scanning activities between EMA and EUnetHTA 21. This may include, on a voluntary basis, joint discussions on data requirements and preparative measures relative to high-impact innovative medicines for patients with high unmet needs. Other voluntary activities by individual HTA bodies may focus on the optimisation of regulatory assessment reports in order to facilitate the uptake of their outcomes as part of the HTA process. Sharing of experience and guidance on the optimisation of information on subpopulations (e.g. labelling and EPARs) may also be considered, as well as the improvement of Orphan Medicines Assessment Reports (OMARs). Under the methodological perspective needed to make real-world evidence more available, a main goal of the plan shall achieve HTA representation in the advisory board of Darwin EU, the Data Analysis and Real World Interrogation Network established and coordinated by EMA to provide timely and reliable evidence on the use, safety and effectiveness of medicines for human use from real-world healthcare databases across the EU.

Other voluntary activities in this area may include multi-stakeholder discussions aimed to optimise the design, quality and utilisation of disease registries and the training on new guidance on registry-based studies. Joint methodological work may be also carried out to identify key concepts supporting the acceptance of extrapolation and/or evidence transfer, and to share best practices and experiences in the field of the integrated assessment of companion diagnostics, or other diagnostics for targeting therapeutics not directly related to the use of specific medicines.


The new Annex 21 to GMPs

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Giuliana Miglierini

The new Annex 21 to GMPs (C(2022) 843 final) that EIPG gave a significant contribution in reviewing the original draft and thoroughly presented it within a webinar to its members on August 2020, was published by the European Commission on 16 February 2022; the document provides a guideline on the import of medicinal products from extra-EU countries. The new annex will entry into force six months after its publication, on 21 August 2022. Its contents should be read in parallel with the EU Guide to Good Manufacturing Practice for Medicinal Products and its other annexes, those requirements continue to apply as appropriate.

Annex 21 details the GMP requirements referred to human, investigational and/or veterinary medicinal products imported in the European Union and European Economic Area (EEA) by holders of a Manufacturing Import Authorisation (MIA). The new Annex does not apply to medicinal products entering the EU/EEA for export only, as they do not undergo any process or release aimed to place them on the internal market. Fiscal transactions are also not considered as a part of the new annex.

The main principles

According to Annex 21, once a batch of a medicinal product has been physically imported in a EU/EEA country, including clearance by the custom authority of the entrance territory, it is subject to the Qualified Person (QP) certification or confirmation. Manufacturing operations in accordance with the marketing authorisation or clinical trial authorisation can be run on imported bulk and intermediate products prior to the QP certification/confirmation. To this regard, all importation responsibilities for both medicinal products and bulks/intermediates must be carried out at specific sites authorised under a MIA. These include the site of physical importation and the site of QP certification (for imported medicinal products) or QP confirmation (for bulk or intermediate products undergoing further processing).

Marketing authorisation holders (MAHs) for imported products authorised in the EU remain in any case the sole responsible for placing the products in the European/EEA market. Annex 21 requires sites responsible for QP certification to verify an ongoing stability program is in place at the third country site where manufacturing is performed. This last one has to transmit to the QP all the information needed to verify the ongoing product quality, and relevant documentation (i.e. protocols, results and reports) should be available for inspection at the site responsible for QP certification. QP’s responsibilities also extend to the verification that reference and retention samples are available in accordance to Annex 19 of the GMPs, and that safety features are placed on the packaging, if required.

Importation sites should be adequately organised and equipped to ensure the proper performance of activities on imported products. More specifically, a segregated quarantine area should be available to store the incoming products until the occurrence of release for further processing or QP certification/confirmation.

European GMP rules or equivalent standards shall be followed for the manufacturing of medicinal products in third countries due to be imported in the EU. The manufacturing process has to comply to the one described in the Marketing Authorisation (MA), the clinical trial authorization (CTA) and the relevant quality agreement in place between the MAH and the manufacturer. The respect of EU GMP rules or equivalent standards should be documented through regular monitoring and periodic on-site audits of the third country manufacturing sites, to be implemented by the site responsible for QP certification or by a third party on its behalf.

The QP of the importation site is also responsible for the verification of testing requirements, in order to confirm the compliance of the imported products to the authorised specifications detailed in the MA. The verification of testing requirements can be avoided only in the case a Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) or an Agreement on conformity assessment and acceptance of industrial products (ACAA) is in place between the European Union and the third country where the production of the medicinal product is located.

All agreements between the different entities involved in the manufacturing and importation process, including the MAH and/or sponsor, should be in the written form, as indicated by Chapter 7 of the EU GMP Guide.

The Pharmaceutical Quality System of the importing site

According to the European legislation (Chapter 1 of the EU GMP Guide), all activities performed in the EU with reference to the manufacturing and distribution of pharmaceutical products should fall under to umbrella of the company’s Pharmaceutical Quality System (PQS). This is also true for sites involved with importation activities, those PQS should reflect the scope of the activities carried out. A specific procedure should be established to manage complaints, quality defects and product recalls.

More in detail, the new Annex 21 establishes that sites responsible for QP certification of imported products (including the case of further processing before export with the exception of investigational medicinal products) have to run periodic Product Quality Reviews (PQR). In this case too, the respective responsibilities of the parties involved in compiling the Reviews should be specified by written agreements. Should the sampling of the imported product be conducted in a third country (in accordance with Annex 16 of the GMPs), the the PQR should also include an assessment of the basis for continued reliance on the sampling practice. A review of deviations encountered during transportation up to the point of batch certification should be also available, and a comparison should be run to assess the correspondence of analytical results from importation testing with those listed by the Certificate of Analysis generated by the third country manufacturer.

Full documentation available at MIA sites

The QP’s certification/confirmation step for an imported batch has to be paralleled by the availability of the full batch documentation at the corresponding MIA holder’s site; in case of need, this site may also have access to documents supporting batch certification, according to Annex 16. Other MIA holders involved in the process may access batch documentation for their respective needs and responsibilities, as detailed in the written agreements. A risk assessment is needed to justify the frequency for the review of the full batch documentation at the site responsible for QP certification/confirmation; the so established periodicity should be included in the PQS.

Annex 21 also lists the type of documents that should be available at the importation sites, including the details of transportation and receipt of the product, and relevant ordering and delivery documentation. This last one should specify the site of origin of the product, the one of physical importation and shipping details (including transportation route, temperature monitoring records, and customs documentation). Appropriate documentation should be also available to confirm reconciliation of the quantities of batches which underwent subdivision and were imported separately.

Requirements set forth in Chapter 4 of the GMPs apply to the retention of the documentation; the availability at the third country manufacturing site of an adequate record retention policy equivalent to EU requirements shall be assessed by the site responsible for QP certification. Should it be appropriate, translations of original documents and certificates should be provided to improve understanding.


Revision of the CDMh’s Q&As document on nitrosamine impurities

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Giuliana Miglierini

The review process of medicinal products started in 2018 to assess the presence of nitrosamine impurities is still ongoing. The Coordination Group for Mutual Recognition and Decentralised Procedure (CMDh) last updated in December2021 its Questions & Answers document (Q&A) proving guidance on how to approach the revision procedure.

The US’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also updated its guidance on how to minimise the risks related to nitrosamine through formulation design changes. We summarise the latest news of the topic of nitrosamine impurities.

The CMDh’s update of the Q&A document

The CMDh Questions & Answers document (CMDh/400/2019, Rev.5) specifically refers to the implementation of the outcome of Art. 31 referral on angiotensin-II-receptor antagonists (sartans) containing a tetrazole group. According to the indications released in November 2020 by EMA’s human medicines committee (CHMP), these outcomes should now be aligned with those issued for other classes of medicines. This provision impacted on the allowed limits for nitrosamines, which are now applied to the finished products instead than to the active ingredient. The limits are determined on the basis of internationally agreed standards (ICH M7(R1)).

Companies are called to implement an appropriate control strategy to prevent or limit the presence of nitrosamine impurities as much as possible and to improve their manufacturing processes where necessary. A risk assessment should be run to evaluate the possible presence of N-nitrosamines in medicinal products, and tests carried out if appropriate.

Four different conditions (A-D) are set for the marketing authorisation (MA) of tetrazole sartans, with specific dates to be met for their fulfilment by marketing authorisation holders (MAHs). Revision 5 of the Q&As document specifically addresses conditions B and D.

Condition B asks the MAH to submit a step 2 response in the general “call for review”. To lift the condition on the risk assessment for the finished product, and provided no nitrosamine was detected in step 2 or levels are below 10% of acceptable intake (AI), submission of the step 2 response must now be followed by the submission of the outcome of the risk assessment. To this instance, the relevant template “Step 2 – No nitrosamine detected response template” should be used to fill a type IA C.I.11.a variation.

A further amendment to Condition B refers to nitrosamines being detected in step 2 above 10% AI. In this case, a variation application should be submitted as appropriate to support changes to the manufacturing process and the possible introduction of a limit in the specification of the finished product.

Condition D now specifies that it applies only to N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) and N nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA) impurities. Thus, to lift the condition on the change of the finished product specification, and if the MAH wants to apply for omission from the specification, supporting data and risk assessments should be submitted via a type IB C.I.11.z variation referring only to these two impurities. Should any other nitrosamine impurity be potentially present, data should be submitted under separate variation (also grouping them together). Conditions A and C remain unchanged. The former refers to the three different possibilities for lifting the condition on the risk assessment for the active substance and with specific reference to the manufacturing process used to prepare it, the second to lifting the condition on the control strategy.

The guidance from the FDA

The US regulatory agency Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released in February 2021 the first revision of the “Guidance for Industry Control of Nitrosamine Impurities in Human Drugs”, establishing a three-step process to demonstrate the fulfilment of requirements.

The guideline widely discusses the structure of nitrosamine impurities and the possible root causes for their presence in medicinal products. While not binding for manufacturers, recommendations contained in the document should be applied in order to evaluate the risk level for the contamination of both active ingredients and finished products. This exercise should be run on the basis of a prioritisation taking into consideration the maximum daily dose, the duration of treatment, the therapeutic indication, and the number of patients treated.

The FDA provides also the acceptable intake limits for a set of different nitrosamine impurities (NDMA, NDEA, NMBA, NMPA, NIPEA, and NDIPA); the approach outlined in ICH M7(R1) should be used to determine the risk associated with other types of nitrosamines.

Manufacturers do not need to submit the results of the risk assessment to the FDA, the relevant documentation has to be made available just upon specific request.

The second step refers to products showing a risk for the presence of nitrosamine impurities. In this case, highly sensitive confirmatory testing is needed to confirm the presence of the impurities.

The implementation of all changes to the manufacturing process for the API or final product have then to be submitted to the FDA in the form of drug master file amendments and changes to approved applications.

The Agency also provides specific guidance for API manufacturers to optimise the route of manufacturing in order to prevent the possible formation of nitrosamine impurities. API manufacturers should participate to the risk assessment run by the MAH; this last exercise should include the evaluation of any pathway (including degradation) that may introduce nitrosamines during drug product manufacture or storage.

Additional points to be considered

A Communication issued in November 2021 by the FDA specifies the terms for the recommended completion dates of the above mentioned three steps and adds some additional points to be considered in the evaluations. MAHs should have already completed by 31st March 2021 all risk assessments, while there is time up to 1st October 2023 for confirmatory testing and reporting changes. According to the FDA, the time left is enough to include in the development of the mitigation strategies also new considerations on how formulation design may prove useful to control nitrosamine levels in drug products.

More in particular, manufacturers are asked to evaluate the presence of nitrosamine drug substance-related impurities (NDSRIs), that may be produced if nitrite impurities are present in excipients (at parts-per-million amounts) or may be generated during manufacturing or shelf-life storage. Should NDSRIs be present, FDA recommends the mitigation strategy should include a supplier qualification program that takes into account potential nitrite impurities across excipient suppliers and excipient lots.

Formulation design is another possible approach to solve the issue. This may use, for example, common antioxidants – such as ascorbic acid (vitamin C) or alpha-tocopherol (vitamin E) – that according to the scientific literature inhibit the formation of nitrosamines in vivo. The kinetic of the reaction leading to the formation of nitrosamine impurities may be also addressed by using a neutral or basic pH for formulation, to avoid acidic conditions which favours the side reaction.

Formulation changes may be submitted to the FDA through supplements or amendments to the applications, also following a preliminary meeting with the Agency to better discuss the approach to be used. Should this be the case, applicants or manufacturers are asked to prepare a comprehensive meeting package with the appropriate regulatory and scientific data on the selected approach to be submitted to the FDA in advance of the meeting.


EMA’s Q&A on the integration of EudraGMDP and OMS

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Giuliana Miglierini

A new step in the integration at the central level of data needed to manage regulatory procedures is going to be activated on 28 January 2022: starting from this date, member states’ national competent authorities (NCAs) shall use the data available in EMA’s Organisation Management System (OMS) to issue all type of certificates regulated under the EudraGMDP database, for human, veterinary and experimental medicines, as well as active substances (API).

A Questions & Answers guideline on the integration of EUdraGMDP and OMS has been released by EMA; the document reflects the points of discussion which arose in the course of a webinar organised by EMA to better inform about the new modalities for the release of the certificates and other services provided through the OMS system, and how to face the change request process.

The new procedures to uniquely identify the interested parties

As discussed few weeks ago on this blog, the use of the OMS dictionary became mandatory for all centrally authorised products (CAPs) since 1st November 2021. The integration of OMS with EudraGMDP database is a specific requirement arising from the new Veterinary Medicinal Products Regulation ((EU) 2019/6), which will become fully applicable on 28 January 2022.

The new procedures refer to different types of certificates, including the Manufacturing and Importation Authorisations (MIA), the Wholesale Distributor Authorisations (WDA), GMP and GDP certificates and API Registration certificates. GDP certificates will maintain their current validity, with re-inspections to occur after 5 years at the latest. Any new GMP certificate/authorisation for Clinical trials issued after 28 January 2022 will be also impacted. CEP certificates of suitability issued by the EDQM fall out of the scope of EudraGMDP, and are thus not impacted.

Should there be two different organisations with the same legal address, each of them will have a distinct ORG ID in the system; a single organisation with two different locations will have two LOC IDs. Multiples ORG IDs will be generated for marketing authorisation holders (MAHs) located in one country and having subsidiaries in other countries, as the identification is specific to the single subsidiary/location. A particular case may be represented by India, where some plots are recognised as one address by National postal services. In that case, just one LOC ID will be available; on the contrary, should the plot be not recognised as a single address, different LOC IDs will be generated.

In case of a single warehouse for human and veterinary medicines for a single company with a single address, the OMS will only have 1 contact; in these instances, NCAs will select if the certificate applies to human or veterinary medicinal products.

In the case of transfer of the location under another organisation, the OMS system is provided with the technical functionality to move the location from an organisation to another. Nevertheless, advices EMA, the activation of this procedure requires a careful verification and validation of the supporting documentation in order to avoid breaking the business rules of both EudraGMDP and OMS.

Changes requests and Super users

Since the end of January, NCAs shall extract from the OMS database all data relative to the specific organisation (i.e. name and location address details, including the legally registered address).

It is thus of paramount importance that all interested parties which appear on documents recorded in EudraGMDP – i.e. pharmaceutical companies, contract manufacturing organisations (CMOs), importers and distributors, both EU and non-EU – shall verify the correctness of their data registered in the database prior to the submission of any new or updated application for manufacturing or wholesale distribution authorisation with national competent authorities.

Should the submission of a change request be needed, anyone among the interested parties may provide to file it with EMA. Change requests can be submitted starting from 28 January 2022; the requests have to be validated by EMA against the reference sources (e.g. Trade registry and Postal services) before the OMS Data stewards can proceed to change the data in the system.

The availability of the correct information is particularly important in the case of CMOs located in extra-EEA countries, and which may request inspections or need to update their GMP certificates. EMA’s advices companies to promptly liaise with their partners to manage in due time any change request needed to correct data recorded in the OMS.

The “Organisation Super users” can verify all of the users affiliated to their respective organization through the EMA’s Account management portal; they can also change the user roles and users affiliated at any point in time. EMA suggests companies to have at least two Super users, in order to guarantee one of them is always available and active. A single Super user can be affiliated with different organisations.

Other answers provided by the guideline

The Q&As guideline published by EMA consists of 87 questions and their corresponding answers. Question n°2 addresses the issue of the legal basis of GDP certificates for Veterinary medicines: as the new Regulation and its associated secondary legislative acts still do not include such a legal basis, EMA will update the GDP module of EudraGMDP after January 2022 in order to provide consistency in the approach. It shall thus be possible for NCAs to voluntary use the database to record GDP certificates for companies distributing veterinary medicines. The guideline also indicates that national competent authorities are prepared to the handle the new framework and can plan in advance activities needed in the near time to issue WDA and API Registration certificates for veterinary Organisation.

Even if the use of OMS is yet mandatory for CAPs only, the Q&As guideline indicates that NCAs need to ensure that the relevant organisations are available in OMS before submitting information into the system, both for CAPs and non-CAPs. The suggestion is thus to ensure that the OMS data is present and correct for all organisations/sites, even if its use in electronic application forms (eAF) is not mandatory for the time being.

Details of manufacturing sites such as buildings or plots are not registered in OMS, but they have to be included in the GMP certificate; this extra information will be inserted in the ‘Restrictions’ section of the certificate. There is no change to the procedures for the issuing of GMP certificates.

When a change to an organisation occur in the OMS, the dictionary part of EudraGMDP gets refreshed, but no change is reflected in the documents already issued unless there is a specific action on them. The synchronisation between the two databases occurs on the following business day after the change was registered.

In case of transfer of the company to a new location, the change has to be registered in the OMS before new certificates can be issued; according to the guideline, this should not represent a problem while the current certificate are still valid.

During the webinar some doubts have been expressed as for the possible confusion arising from the guidance document “Manufacturer organisations in the OMS dictionary” (EMA/465039/2018), which divides OMS data responsibility for manufacturers and MAHs/Applicants. This document shall be reviewed by the Agency, says EMA’s guideline.


EMA’s OMS has turned mandatory for centrally authorised products

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Giuliana Miglierini

Since November 1st, 2021, the use of the Organisation Management Service (OMS) became mandatory for all Centrally Authorised Products (CAPs). The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has published a Questions & Answers document to better explain the new procedures, that will impact the source of data to be used to exactly identify the organisations filing CAP procedures with EMA.

The progression in the implementation of the new provisions

The use of the OMS system is now compulsory for all organisations filing CAP submissions, with the final goal to improve the interoperability of data and the overall efficiency of the regulatory process. Should applicants lack to use OMS data, the relevant applications will be filtered out of the EMA’a validation procedure and sent back to the applicant for remedial action.

The OMS data management service was launched in 2015, and applied to electronic application forms (eAFs) since 2017, and then to many other types of procedures. The availability of OMS data may prove critical to allow the smooth implementation, in early 2022, of the new Clinical Trial Information System (CTIS) and of the Clinical Trial application procedure; during the next year, EMA plans to integrate the OMS also with the Union Product Database (UPD), Variation applications (via DADI project) and Manufacturing/Importers Authorisations (MIAs), Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) inspections and Wholesale distribution authorisations (via EudraGMDP).

Validated OMS data also need to be used with reference to the “applicant” and “contact person affiliated organisation” sections of pre-submission applications. With the new eAF release (eAF V.1.25.0.0) for Medical Devices, the compulsory use of OMS data will also refer to the “Device Manufacturer”, “Notified Body” and “Companion diagnostic” sections.

Remediation in case of lack to use OMS data includes the insertion of all relevant information in the OMS database before updating and re-submitting the application form. Should applicants not provide sufficient responses, the application may be completely or partially invalidated.

Discussions are undergoing to further extend the use of OMS data also to National Procedures (NP); according to EMA, this may be turn inevitable in the next couple of years, as current eAF forms will be progressively replaced by web-based application forms (through the DADI project), being the latter the same for centrally and nationally authorised products by design.

Any question on the use of the OMS can be sent to EMA’s e-mail addresses specified in the Q&As document.

What is new for applicants

The use of OMS master data (the so-called “OMS Dictionary”) is now mandatory for both Human and Veterinary centralised procedures, namely those making use of eAFs (initial marketing authorization applications, variations applications, and renewals) and well as other procedures (see the Q&A document for more detail). The name and contact details of the contact person are not OMS data, and do not need to be registered with the system; historical organisational data do not have to be registered as well.

To manage a CAP procedure, applicants now need to first register their organisation data with the OMS, or request the update of data already registered by submitting a “Change Request” before filing of the regulatory application.

All requests will be assessed by EMA OMS Data stewards, that will also update data in the systems if the requirements are met. This validation step is fundamental to avoid duplication of data, as all information is checked against the same reference sources (i.e. national business registry, DUNS and/or GMP/MIA certificates) and standardised according to the OMS rules agreed with the Network. The Service Level Agreement provide for EMA to process 75% of OMS requests within five working days and 90% within ten working days. Changes will become visible in the eAF the day after they had been processed, and only upon active refresh of the relevant lists.

The business process which makes use of OMS data is usually responsible to submit such a request, but it can arise also form other parties. More specifically, EMA advises the user who needs to use the data should take the lead in updating it. This may prove relevant, for example, to ensure all manufacturer organisations are included in the OMS Dictionary as needed.

EMA warns applicants to consider the turnaround time for processing the OMS change request when planning to submit applications: even if the application forms will not immediately change and everything may appear as usual, the background process has been now modified and may need additional activities to validate the change requests.

Changes in the eAF templates are planned to remove the free text fields for CAP applications, but until the new models will be available, the free text field for “organisations” should not be used. Planned availability and entry into force of the new versions are December 2021 for Human procedures (v1.26.0.0) and January 28th, 2022 for Veterinary procedures (in line with the veterinary regulation).

How to access the OMS

EMA’s data management system refers to four different domains of data, including the substance, the product, the organisation and referential (SPOR) master data in pharmaceutical regulatory processes.

The SPOR portal provides access to the respective four specific areas of service (e.g. SMS for substances, PMS for products, OMS for organisations and RMS for referential). SPOR is the mechanism used by EMA to implement the ISO IDMP standards, as required by articles 25 and 26 of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 520/2012. Organisation master data, even if not covered by ISO IDMP, have been considered by EMA, National Competent Authorities and Industry in Europe to be essential in order to make the master data operating model work.

Applicants need to create an EMA account with SPOR user roles to conduct additional tasks, such as requesting changes to data, translating data or managing user preferences. Already granted credentials to access other active accounts for any EMA-hosted website or online application can also be used. OMS data can now no longer be captured in other EMA databases.

OMS master data include the organisation name and address, labelled by mean of unique identities (ID) (i.e. ‘Organisation_ID’ and ‘Location_ID’). Different categories of organisations are possible (i.e. ‘Industry’, ‘Regulatory Authority’ or ‘Educational Institution’), and of different size (i.e. ‘Micro’, ‘Small’, or ‘Medium’). The role played by a certain organisation is context-specific and cannot be defined within the OMS.