investigational medicinal products 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

How to approach drug substance supply in new product introduction (NPI) processes

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

by Giuliana Miglierini

A key issue to be faced during pharmaceutical development refers to the supply of the active pharmaceutical ingredients and other raw materials to be used for the manufacturing of the first batches of investigational medicinal products, and then up to commercial production once approved.

Changes of specifications can frequently occur during experimentation, thus leading to the need to modify supply requirements for clinical programs. This is more true when dealing with biopharmaceutical investigational products, for which the traditional models for forecasting and demand processes may prove unfitted. The result is a lower robustness and predictability at early stages of the new product introduction (NPI) manufacturing processes. The complexity of the NPI supply chain is also impacting on manufacturing operations, with possible delays in the clinical program and launch schedule.

These issues have been addressed in the document “Guidelines for materials introduction supporting drug substance delivery”, published by the B2B organisation BioPhorum. A summary of its contents has been published in Bioprocess Online.

A good internal communication is fundamental

The ability to produce robust supply forecasts for new product introduction bases on a detailed knowledge of the planning of different activities to be run for a timely launch. Role and responsibilities have to be clear, as well as the information to be collected and timely shared between the manufacturing and commercial departments of biopharmaceutical companies.

The availability of such information is crucial to reduce the variability intrinsic in the NPI process for a biopharmaceutical product, which costs much more compared to a traditional smallmolecule based one. Reducing variability also impacts on the ability to better compete in the often highly dynamic market for biosimilars, or to address the launch of a new biotherapeutic under the correct perspective. Issues may be encountered also with respect to the regulatory approval processes, which may require different time lengths in different geographic areas or countries. This adds another uncertainty factor to estimates of the quantities of product to be manufactured.

Upon this considerations, the BioPhorum document identifies four key issues to be addressed to provide for a timely NPI process, including capacity and lead-time restrictions or oversupply, late change evaluation and implementation, governance issues and network complexity and in-licensed (or non-platform) products.

The availability of a good NPI process may avoid to incur many problems once operations are in place; all the needed master data information to support the use of raw materials should also be present and correct. BioPhorum’s suggestion is to include NPI processes in the creation of master service and supply agreements for the supply of raw materials, as they help to reach clarity on what a supplier can deliver and what it cannot.

A four steps methodology and roadmap

The document by the BioPhorum describes the results of a project aimed to develop a materialsbased methodology and roadmap to support improved NPI processes, on the basis of a collaborative industry approach to identify and implement best practices.

The result is a four steps process referring to the different activities needed to set up materials introduction and supply. The proposed different steps include the establishment of product lifecycle materials requirements, materials evaluation, supplier selection and qualification, and a manufacture and business review. Each of them should be supported by specific tools and checklists to be developed internally by the company. The governance of the process should involve senior supplier/manufacturer nominees to formally approve the package of deliverables at each stage gate.

Establishing product lifecycle material requirements

For each of the four steps of the NPI process, the BioPhorum document offers detailed lists of information to be collected and of expected outcomes.

Stage gate 1 addresses the establishment of product lifecycle material requirements, usually corresponding to the activation of first time in human studies (FTIH). Data to be collected include specifications of raw materials (e.g. order of magnitude, grade, supply options, environmental-health-safety (EHS) or geographic issues, etc.) as well as master data such as recipe information, plant diagram, list of equipment and process information. At the clinical level, information on the demand sensitivities on indication and clinical milestones and decision points should support the first estimates of the supply and demand plan, to be then expanded to agree on lifecycle forecasts.

The output may take the form of a ‘Product Lifecycle Demand and Supply Strategy’, a document discussing the long-term supply, demand and manufacturing of the product. Starting from the initial planning, the strategy should evolve through the creation of a data store specific for biopharmaceuticals, and the execution of gap analysis for in-licensed products. The strategy should also include a rough capacity modelling and description of ownership and the definition of a RACI matrix (responsible, accountable, consult, inform) to clarify roles and responsibilities with respect to each task, deliverable, or action. Information should be also available on high level technology requirements (both at the internal and external level). Strategic suppliers should be involved in early activities and materials risk analysis should be initiated.

Materials evaluation

Stage gate 2 refers to the information to be gathered from suppliers on the basis of requests for information (RFI) on materials. This should include all the different aspects relevant to the selection of the supplier, including capacity and costs, contacts, technical specifications and audit history, availability of samples, EHS aspects and business systems (e.g. availability of an appropriate ERP system).

This information should facilitate the identification of supplier that might be able to support the predicted or proposed growth of the product over its lifecycle. Stage gate 2 is also part of the risk management process to be run to validate the activation of full production.

Outputs include the sharing of forecasts and sensitivities with suppliers as needed, the establishment of a standard industrial master data set for biopharmaceuticals, as well as of business acceptance criteria.

Supplier selection and qualification

Stage gate 3 addresses the qualification process to finally select the most suitable suppliers and close the corresponding material supply agreements. The RFI and other information gathered in the previous step represent the basis of this exercise, aimed to develop a supply chain resilience strategic approach. The signature of the initial contracts is the final mark of formal selection, and should be supported by an agreement with the supplier on forecast and schedule for the supply, as well as of the business acceptance criteria.

Manufacture and business review

Stage gate 4 refers to the assessment of the operational performance of the supply chain for raw materials, a key activity in order to ensure continuity of supply and to promptly intercept any emerging issue on the basis of trends analysis.

Tools needed to this instance include the definition of appropriate metrics to monitor supplies (e.g. adherence to schedule, “On time in full”-OTIF, “Cost of poor quality”-COPQ). Information on the innovation potential of the supplier and the provision of a feedback on its performance is also deemed important. Any issue should be timely discussed between the supplier and the biopharmaceutical company, and confirmation of the production schedule agreed upon.


EMA’s consultation on draft Q&As on remote certification of batches by QP

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

by Giuliana Miglierini

The last two years saw the implementation of a high degree of regulatory flexibility as a mean to respond to the many challenges posed by the travel bans consequent to the pandemic. After this “experimental” phase, regulatory authorities are now considering the possibility to allow the routine implementation of some remote procedures in the field of pharmaceutical production.

It is the case of the remote certification/confirmation of batches by the Qualified Person (QP): after the publication of a draft guideline in the form of Q&As (EMA/INS/169000/2022), the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has launched a short public consultation which will remain open up to 13 June 2022. Comments may be sent by email.

The guideline offers EMA’s point of view on the requirements for the physical attendance at the authorised manufacturing site applying to QPs in order to routinely run the remote certification of batches, outside emergency situations. The document has been drafted by the GMDP Inspectors Working Group; it is composed of four questions and their relative answers and it addresses some considerations arising from the experience gained on the application of the guidelines for human and veterinary medicines issued during the pandemic. These last ones were elaborated in cooperation between the European Commission, the Coordination group for Mutual recognition and Decentralised procedures – human (“CMDh”), the Inspectors Working Group, the Coordination group for Mutual recognition and Decentralised procedures – veterinary (“CMDv”) and EMA.

The Agency also warns that the contents proposed by new Q&As’ guideline may be subject to any other interpretation by the European Court of Justice, which is the ultimate responsible for the interpretation of the EU legislation.

The contents of the Q&As

The routine remote certification or confirmation of batches may in future apply to the activities carried out by the QPs within the EU and European Economic Area (EEA), with reference to manufactured or imported human and veterinary medicinal products and investigational medicinal products.

The first answer clarifies that it could be possible for the QP to routinely run remote batch certification or confirmation only if this type of practice is accepted by the relevant national competent authority (NCA) of the member state where the authorised site is located. To this instance, it should be noted that some NCAs may request some specific requirements to authorise the routine remote certification procedure, for example with reference to the location of the QPs.

Should the remote certification be allowed on a routine basis, specific requirements should be met in order to validate this practice, starting from its full compliance to the EU legislation and EU GMP guidelines.

The answer to question 2 specifies that all activities should take place in an EU/EEA country, and that the time spent by the QP at the authorised site should be commensurate with the risks related to the processes” hereby taking place. To this instance, it is of paramount importance the ability to demonstrate that the QP acting from remote has maintained full knowledge of the products, manufacturing processes and pharmaceutical quality system (PQS) involved in the remote certification/confirmation of batches. That also means that the QP should be highly reliant on the PQS of the authorised site, and this would be only possible by spending an adequate time on-site to verify the adequacy of the PQS with respect to the processes of interest. The pharmaceutical quality system should also include details of all the procedures used for the routine remote certification/confirmation of batches. The possible use of this type of remote procedure by the QP should be also clearly mentioned in the technical agreement governing the relationship between the authorisation holder and the QP, which should also specify all cases requiring the presence on-site of the QP. A robust IT infrastructure should be in place to guarantee the remote access of the QP to all the relevant documentation in the electronic format needed to achieve bath certification/confirmation, according to the provisions described in Annex 16 to the GMPs (Certification by a Qualified Person and Batch Release). To this instance, presence on-site should be always considered to solve issues that cannot properly be addressed from remote. The demonstration of the presence on-site of the QP falls under the responsibility of the Manufacturing/Importers Authorisation (MIA) holders.

These are also responsible to make available to the QPs all the hardware and software needed to guarantee the remote access to the relevant documentation (e.g. manufacturing executions systems, electronic batch records system, laboratory information systems etc.) as well as batch registers. All IT systems used for remote batch release should comply with the requirements of Annex 11 to the GMP (Computerised Systems).

On the same basis, it should be possible for NCAs to contemporaneously access for inspection all documentation and batch registers involved in routine remote certification/confirmation at the authorised site of batch release. MIA holders should also guarantee the QP is the only allowed person to access the batch certification/confirmation function and batch register, that the transferred data are complete and unchanged, and that an adequate system for electronic signatures is in place.

Question 3 simply clarifies that some members states may have some specific requirements about the country of residence of the QP, for example it should be the same where the authorised site involved in the remote certification procedure is located.

The last question discusses technical requirements linked to IT-security and data integrity for remote access, a type of procedure presenting a higher intrinsic risk in comparison to the same activities carried on-site. Here again, the main reference is Annex 11; all equipment and software used for remote certification of batches should always reflect the current technological developments.

Among the suggestions made by the Q&A draft guideline is the precise identification of all hardware transferred off-site to the QP, that should be inventoried and kept updated. Hard disks should be encrypted, and ports not required, disabled.

Attention should also be paid to the configuration of any virtual private network (VPN) used by the QP to improve the security of the connection to the IT infrastructure of the authorised site and to prevent unauthorised accesses. Authentication should be based on recognised industry standards (e.g. two-factor or multifactor authentication, with automatic date of expiry). The transfer of data should be secured by strong transport encryption protocols; assignment of individual privileges and technical controls falls under the responsibility of the MIA holder


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.