harmonisation Archives - European Industrial Pharmacists Group (EIPG)

European Council’s conclusions on the European Innovation Agenda and research infrastructures


by Giuliana Miglierini The European socio-economic framework is undergoing a profound transformative moment, as a result of the new vision impressed by the von der Leyen Commission, with its goals in the field of the Digital and Green transitions. The Read more

EMA’s new Quality Innovation Expert Group (QIG)


by Giuliana Miglierini Innovative approaches to the development manufacturing and quality control of medicines are becoming the new paradigm to be faced both from an industrial and regulatory perspective. Not only innovative technologies for delivery, such as mRNA vaccines, many Read more

ICMRA report on best practices against antimicrobial resistance


by Giuliana Miglierini Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is the consequence of mutations that allow microbes to survive pharmacological treatment. Resistant strains can often be tackled only by a limited number of therapeutic options: according to a systematic analysis published in The Read more


Comments to the draft ICH guidelines Q2(R2) and ICH Q14

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

by Giuliana Miglierini

The public consultation on the two draft guidelines ICH Q2(R2) on the validation of analytical procedures and ICH Q14 on analytical procedure development closed at the end of July 2022.The European Medicines Agency published in August two documents summarising comments received (ICH Q2(R2) and ICH Q14).

Many industrial organisations contributed to the consultation with their point of view on the two draft guidelines. In the next phase of the procedure (step 3 of the ICH process), comments will be reviewed by the ICH Q2(R2)/ICH Q14 Expert Working Group (EWG). We summarise for readers some of the main comments received from industrial stakeholders. A webinar organised byEIPG on the implications and opportunities of the revision of ICHQ2 and the ICHQ14 was presented by Dr Phil Borman, Senior Fellow & Director Product Quality at GSK on 15thJune 2022 (recording and slides are available at the webinars page of EIPG’s website).

Key principles from the EIPG’s webinar

During the webinar, Dr Borman gave a comprehensive picture of the process of Analytical Quality by Design (QbD). The systematic approach to method development starts with the identification of the predefined objectives (Analytical Target Profile, ATP). The understanding and control of the analytical procedure are at the core of the process, and they should be pursued according to principles of ICH Q8. Analytical QbD covers both the drug product (ICH Q8) and the active ingredient (Q11). This means that a similar framework to ICH Q8 and Q11 can be applied also for analytical procedures. The ATP is made up of the sum of performance characteristics, precision, range (including sensitivity), and bias/accuracy.

According to ICH Q2(R1), published in 1994, the objective of validation of an analytical procedure is to demonstrate its suitability for the intended scope. Revision of both guidelines started in 2019, based on a Concept paper published in 2018. ICH Q2(R2) covers the validation of the analytical protocols and reports, while ICH Q14 refers to the development of the analytical procedure and its lifecycle management.

Key features of the new drafts include the fact that no additional expectations / mandated requirements for pharmaceutical analytical scientists are present, the possible use of “enhanced approaches” and the clear link between performance characteristics and their related criteria and the validation study. The Q2(R2) guideline shall apply to both small molecules and biologics and includes the possibility to use prior knowledge (e.g., from development or previous validation) as a part of the validation exercise. Assay for the determination of robustness can be conducted, for example, during development. Other key features highlighted by Dr Borman include the possible use of Platform analytical procedures to reduce the number of validation tests and the possibility to use any type of calibration model (including multivariate calibration).

The expected benefits refer to the possibility to reduce the existing burden associated with post-approval changes to analytical procedures and the use of Established Conditions.

As Dr Borman explained, the ATP could form the basis of a Post Approval Change Management Protocol (PACMP), thus favouring the reporting of changes between technologies at a lower reporting category. A more performance driven and flexible approach to validation is expected following the entry into force of the new ICH Q2(R2) guideline. The selection of validation tests shall be based on the concrete objective of the analytical procedure.

Comments to ICH Q2(R2)

The overview of comments relative to the draft ICH Q2(R2) published by EMA consists of a 72-page document, divided into a first section containing general comments and a second focused on specific comments.

APIC, representing manufacturers of active ingredients and API intermediates, focused on the fact that “uncertainty is not part of the validation whereas it has a reality in practice and part of the discussion between laboratories”. The measurement of uncertainty is also considered linked to the Total analytical error (TAE), a concept that would not be adequately addressed in the guideline.

EFPIA, on behalf of the biopharmaceutical industry, asked for a better connection between the two guidelines ICH Q2 and Q14, starting from the alignment of the respective titles. Improved consistency in the use of some terms was also suggested (e.g. ‘performance criteria’). Improved clarity and greater flexibility should be applied to the concept of working and reportable ranges. The association also asked to provide more examples for multivariate analytical procedures using different models to facilitate the understanding of their validation and lifecycle management.

Medicines for Europe, representing manufacturers of generic and biosimilars, asked to provide a more specific methodology for reportable range validation. The association requested some clarification about the possibility of using the minimal requirements of the performance characteristics for the addendum method validation strategy.

The European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) focused its intervention of radiopharmaceuticals, a class of substances that should be considered a special case and therefore be excluded from the scope of the guidance. The request assumes that other approaches different that those discussed may be applicable and “acceptable with appropriate science-based justification”. The same request also applies to the draft ICH Q14 guideline. The EANM contribution also highlighted aspects specific to radiopharmaceuticals that should be considered, including the strength of the radioactivity content, the unavailability of radioactive standards of the active substance, and the need of specific techniques for radioactivity determination. The suggestion is to refer to the specific guideline on the validation of analytical methods for radiopharmaceuticals jointly developed by the EANM and the EDQM.

According to the International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering (ISPE), there are many sections of the draft Q2(R2) guideline that may pose challenges due to lack of alignment and fragmentation of contents. A revision of the structure is thus suggested, together with the harmonisation of terms with those listed in the Glossary. ISPE also highlighted the opportunity to better clarify the distinction between validation elements and recommended data applicable to multivariate analytical procedures vs traditional analytical methods.

The ECA Foundation/European QP Association reported a very critical position on the two draft guidelines, clearly stating that ICH Q2 and Q14 should integrate with one another. According to ECA, the corresponding US guideline “USP <1220> is far superior”. Many of the points reported above with respect to the general section of the overview are discussed in more deep detail within the part of the document listing specific comments.

Comments to ICH Q14

The same structure of the document also applies to the 54-page overview summarising the results of the consultation on ICH Q14 guideline.

According to the Plasma Protein Therapeutics Association (PPTA), representing manufacturers of plasma-derived and recombinant analog therapies, the draft would be too focused on chemical methods, with just a residual attention to biological methods.

APIC asked for improved discussion of the capability (and uncertainty) of the method of analysis, a fundamental parameter to assess its appropriateness for the intended use within the defined specification range. According to the association, more specific reference should be made in relation to development data that can be/cannot be used as validation data.

ISPE suggested adopting a more detailed title for the guideline; something similar has also been suggested by EFPIA. ISPE also addressed the issue of reproducibility, that may be influenced by external factors across multiple laboratories. Multivariate analysis is also discussed, suggesting adopting additional requirements for the multivariate elements while maintaining the same approach to other analytical procedures.

EFPIA would prefer to avoid the use of the term “minimal” in favour of other expressions denoted by a less negative connotation (e.g., traditional, suitable/historic, classical, fit for purpose) with reference to the validation approach. The availability of training case studies is considered important to support the alignment between industry and regulatory agencies on expectations for regulatory change management, especially with reference to multivariate models. EFPIA asked that the paragraph discussing the relationship between ICH Q2 and Q14 should not address what should be submitted to regulatory agencies. Discussion of OMICS methods used in quality control of complex biological products should be included in the annexes.

ISPE asked to avoid reference to geographic regions, as the final goal is to reach harmonisation. A clearer statement of the scope would be advisable (a possible example is provided), as well as a better linkage to the ICH Q12 guideline on pharmaceutical product lifecycle management.

Specific comments include the suggestion of the PPTA to define all acronyms at first use in text and to include them in the Glossary. According to Medicines for Europe, it would be advisable to add characterisational assays (other than release/stability) for biosimilars. Furthermore, the scope of the guideline should focus on the risk assessment and availability of the analytical knowledge needed to select the most appropriate method for a specific application. Activities deemed to the submission of the regulatory CTD dossier should remain confined to the complementaryQ2 guideline.


MDCG, a position paper on the capacity of notified bodies

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

by Giuliana Miglierini

The lack of a suitable capacity of notified bodies (NBs) is one of the main issues still pending after the entry into force of the new Medical Device Regulation (MDR) (EU) 2017/745 and In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR) (EU) 2017/746. The Medical Devices Coordination Group (MDCG) discussed some suggestions on how to address the problem within a position paper published in August 2022.

Even if the document does not represent an official guideline, it describes some critical points to be considered by manufacturers and notified bodies in order to face the great challenge of the re-certification of medical devices and in vitro diagnostics according to the new rules. Should this not occur in time, many products may exit the market at the end of the transition period, potentially leading to a supply crisis greatly impacting on the health of patients and the normal functioning of healthcare institutions.

The MDCG position paper answers the request of EU Health ministers advanced during the EPSCO Council meeting on 14 June 2022 to figure out some immediate measures to face the problem. The final goal of the document is to improve the efficiency in the application of the current regulatory framework, with no reduction of requirements to be fulfilled by manufacturers. Waivers from applicable conformity assessments procedures should be considered only in relation to an interest of public health, patient’s safety, or health.

The position paper consists of nineteen points addressing the issue under its different perspectives, the first eleven of which refer to the increase of notified bodies’ capacity. The MDCG calls on all stakeholders to collaborate in order to smoothly implement the suggested actions, a process that will be monitored by the MDCG itself.

How to increase the capacity of NBs

Hybrid audits should be the elective tool notified bodies may use where appropriate to timely and efficiently run conformity assessment. Duplication of activities should be also avoided. To this instance, the suggestion is to “develop a framework for leveraging evidence, or components thereof, from previous assessments” run according to previous Directives. A pre-condition to activate this possibility is that the previous assessment has been judged “valid and properly substantiated also with regard to the MDR/IVDR requirements and the device” by a duly qualified notified body personnel.

A flexible approach may also apply to the combination of audits for legacy devices and actions needed to guarantee their ‘appropriate surveillance’. Combined audits may be used particularly for legacy devices whose application for MDR/IVDR certification is under review by a NB, thus moving the focus more towards the assessment of compliance with the new rules. To this instance, the MDCG also announced the intention to produce a specific guidance on ‘appropriate surveillanceunder Article 110(3) IVDR and to update MDCG 2022-4.

Already existing guidance may also be reviewed to reduce the administrative burden for NBs, and remove limitations related to the scope of documentation not required by MDR/IVDR.

A fundamental piece of the new European infrastructure for medical devices and IVDs is represented by the centralised Eudamed database, which should be timely fed by NBs with all relevant information using machine-to-machine procedures. Double registrations should be avoided as much as possible.

New notified bodies are essential in order to increase capacity. To this instance, the MDCG suggests supporting training, coaching and internship activities for their personnel. The rationalisation of internal administrative procedures is also deemed important.

Time for re-assessment of NBs is undergoing a review by the European Commission, which is expected to result in the publication of new Delegated Acts. The proposal is to move from the current first re-assessment at three years after notification (and then every 4th year) to up to five years after notification, on the basis of a flexible approach. There are currently ten re-assessments planned in 2022, twelve in 2023 and 11 in 2024. According to the MDCG, the new timeframe for re-assessment would allow national designating authorities to free resources to assess new NBs, while existing ones could process higher numbers of first MDR/ IVDR certifications.

Assessment, designation and notification of conformity assessment bodies (including the European Commission) are also called to reduce their timeframes and improve the efficiency of their processes, keeping unaltered the requirements to be met. The possibility to add specific codes to the designation of NBs shall be also explored by the MDCG. The Group is also committed to prioritise some ongoing actions which may impact on NB’s capacity (i.e. revision of section III.6. of MDCG 2019-6 revision 3).

MDCG’s guidance documents should be seen as an aid “to apply the legal requirements in a harmonised way, providing possible solutions endorsed by the MDCG”. Nevertheless, demonstration of the compliance to requirements should always benefit of a certain flexibility. A reasonable time should also be granted to integrate the new guidance in the relevant systems and/ or to apply them, suggests the MDCG.

Suggestions for the manufacturers

Under the perspective of manufacturers of MDs and IVDs, costs to access NBs may play an important role, especially for small-and-medium companies (SMEs). The MDCG position paper recalls NBs to the obligation to make their standard fees publicly available, possibly in a way that might be easily compared. Specific access schemes should be also in place to make available some capacity to SMEs and other first-time applicants for conformity assessment.

Manufacturers should also refer to notice MDCG 2022-11 to ensure timely compliance with MDR requirements. IVDs should not left behind, even if this category of products benefits of one more year for the transition to new rules compered to medical devices.

Structured dialogue is the suggested tool to improve the collaboration between manufacturers and notified bodies along the entire process of conformity assessment aimed at regulatory procedures, should this approach turn to be useful in order to improve the overall efficiency and predictability.

A timely communication to manufacturers by mean of webinars, workshops, targeted feedback and informative sessions is also deemed important in order to allow for a better preparedness, with a particular attention to SMEs and first-time applicants. The MDCG also suggest NBs to develop common guidelines for manufacturers to assist them in the application phase, containing explicative examples of typical non-conformities and details on he preparation and content of technical documentation. National authorities and industry associations are called as well to contribute to the dissemination of relevant information across their stakeholders.

Specific guidance should be issued by the MDCG to support a simpler conformity assessment of some aspects of legacy and orphan devices denoted by a demonstrable track record of safety. The development of a specific definition of “orphan devices” is also planned.

An improved dialogue between NBs and medicines authorities, and cases where expedited review would be possible is also supported in order to speed up consultations on medical devices incorporating an ancillary medicinal substance and companion diagnostics.



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.


Revision of the PIC/S GMP Guide: Annex 13 and Annex 16

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

by Giuliana Miglierini

The entry into force of EU Regulation 536/2014 “Clinical trials”, at the end of January, resulted in the parallel updating of some international guidelines. In particular, a new version of the GMP Guide PE016 was published by PIC/S (Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme) on 1st February 2022. The revision included Annex 13 on the manufacturing of Investigational Medicinal Products (IMPs), and the new Annex 16 on the certification and batch release to be performed by Authorised Persons (AP) (click here to access all PIC/S guidance related to GMP). The revision of PIC/s guidelines is aimed to reflect the last changes occurred in the corresponding EMA documents, so to maintain the alignment between the two regulatory references (as established by the cooperation agreement between EMA and PIC/S). PIC/S has invited all non- EEA Participating Authorities and applicants to transpose the new Annexes 13 and 16 into their own GMP Guides.

The new Annex 16

Annex 16 represents a completely new addition to the PIC/S GMP guide; the EU Annex 16 (part of the EU GMP Guide) was initially considered to be too EU-specific and difficult to transpose for PIC/S purposes. Following a consultation in 2017, PIC/S Participating Authorities agreed to make an attempt to transpose EU Annex 16, as the adaptation may support a better harmonisation of GMP standards at the international level.

Annex 16 refers to both human and veterinary medicinal products which are subject to the PIC/S Participating Authority or are made for export. Furthermore, the Annex applies to investigational medicinal products for human use, “subject to any difference in the legal provisions and more specific guidance published by PIC/S Participating Authorities under national law”. With reference to imported medicinal products, each PIC/S Participating Authority may independently and voluntary decide whether to adopt the guidance as a legally-binding standard.

Certain types of medicinal products (e.g. blood and immunological products) are not addressed by the Annex, as they are regulated by national laws and fall under the competences of National authorities; to this instance, Annex 16 applies to the certification process performed by the AP and to the subsequent release of the batches.

The marketing authorisation holder (MAH) remains the sole responsible for the safety, quality and efficacy of the marketed products. Authorised Persons are required to check each single batch to verify compliance to national and GMP requirements, as well as to those detailed within the marketing authorisation (MA). After certification by the AP, batches of finished products can be transferred to saleable stock and/or export. Specific and documented agreements are needed should this require transfer to a site different from the certification’s one. Authorised Persons should be clearly identifiable, with reference to any quality defect leading to investigation or batch recall. APs certifying the release of the finished product are responsible for verifying the conditions of storage and transport for the batch and the sample, if sent separately, and of all testing required upon importation (including sampling, where needed).

A formal Quality Risk Management (QRM) process is required when sampling is performed at a manufacturing site located in another jurisdiction; Annex 16 provides detailed guidance on the elements to be considered in this exercise. Documentation of the continuous training received by the AP in charge of certification and batch release should be always available, with specific reference to the product type, production processes, technical advances and changes to GMP.

Annex 16 provides detailed guidance on how to conduct the process of certification of each batch of finished product, independently of the number of sites involved. With reference to specific manufacturing or control steps performed at different sites, their respective AP has to provide confirmation of the performed activities, sharing responsibilities with the AP in charge of the final batch release.

The certification process should take into consideration the entire supply chain of both the active substance and the finished product, including manufacturing sites of the starting and packaging materials. The AP responsible for certification should be able to access results of the audits performed at the sites involved, in order to check the consistency of all activities with those described in the MA and within GMPs. Audits run by third parties should reflect requirements set forth in Chapter 7 of the PIC/S GMP Guide.

In particular, suppliers of active substances should comply with GMP and GDP requirements relating to the supply of the active ingredient used to the finished product manufacturing. Excipients should also fulfil GMP requirements, and be possibly manufactured and supplied in accordance with the PI 045-1 guideline. Specific guidance may also apply for other types of products, i.e. biological active substances and medicinal products for human use or radiopharmaceuticals. Annex 16 provides templates for the confirmation letters to be used for the partial manufacturing of a medicinal product and for the content of Batch Certificates.

The revision of Annex 13

Annex 13 has been revised in order to reflect the contents of the new EU Regulation n. 536/2014 on clinical trials, which will replace EU Annex 13. PIC/S Annex 13 discusses the manufacturing of Investigational Medicinal Products (IMP), apart from the reconstitution phase, which is not considered to be part of the process. Provisions set forth by Annex 13 should be taken into consideration with reference to the re-labelling or re-packaging of IMPs and to the preparation of radiopharmaceuticals used as diagnostic investigational medicinal products, occurring in hospitals, health centres or clinics and performed by pharmacists or other persons legally authorised in the country concerned.

All activities should refer to an appropriate Pharmaceutical Quality System to be in place, according to requirements set forth in Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the PIC/S GMP Guide.

 The characteristics of IMPs may intrinsically evolve along the development process, as new data become available that may require changes to, for example, the formulation or the dosage form. This has to be reflected into the respective product specifications and manufacturing instructions, that should also evolve in parallel and be fully traceable and documented. Annex 13 indicates that all deviations should be registered and investigated, and preventive and corrective actions put in place. The new Annex provides detailed guidance on the different items to be considered within the product specification file, as well as for the proper management of personnel, premises and equipment.

All the documentation generated during the clinical development phases should fulfil requirements specified by the PIC/S GMP Guide, Part I, Chapter 4. To this instance, relevant documentation includes specifications and instructions, orders, manufacturing formulae and processing instructions, packaging instructions and batch records. Detailed guidance is provided also for production, including packaging materials and manufacturing operations, the modification of comparator products, blinding operations, and the packaging and labelling of the IMP. Annex 13 also offers guidance on how to perform quality control and batch release, and how to address outsourced operations, complaints and recalls and or the destruction of batches of IMP products.