manufacturing process Archives - European Industrial Pharmacists Group (EIPG)

Home  /  EMA’s consultation on draft Q&As on remote certification of batches by QP  /  manufacturing process

EMA, new features for the PRIority Medicines (PRIME) scheme


By Giuliana Miglierini Based on the review of results obtained in the first five years of implementation of the PRIority Medicines (PRIME) scheme, the European Medicines Agency has launched a set of new features to further enhance the support to Read more

The proposals of the EU Commission for the revision of the IP legislation


By Giuliana Miglierini In parallel to the new pharmaceutical legislation, on 27 April 2023 the EU Commission issued the proposal for the new framework protecting intellectual property (IP). The reform package impacts on the pharmaceutical industry, as it contains proposals Read more

Webinar: Pharmacovigilance as a specialization and the role of the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC)


EIPG webinar Next EIPG webinar is to be held on Wednesday 31st of May 2023 at 17.00 CEST (16.00 BST) in conjunction with PIER and University College Cork. Sofia Trantza, a pharmacist with long experience as a Qualified Person for Pharmacovigilance Read more

•••

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

June 3, 2022 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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


Key issues in technical due diligences

May 6, 2022 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Giuliana Miglierini

Financial due diligence is a central theme when discussing mergers and acquisitions (M&A). Not less important for the determination of the fair value of the deal and the actual possibility to integrate the businesses are technical due diligences, assessing the technological platforms and product portfolios to be acquired. A series of articles published in Outsourced Pharma discussed, under different perspectives, the main issues encountered in technical due diligences. We provide a summary of main messages to be kept in mind while facing this type of activity.

Technical due diligence of pharmaceutical products

The third millennium is being highly characterised by the closure of many M&A operations in the biopharma sector as a way to support the transfer of new technological platforms from their originators – usually an innovative start-up or spin-off company – to larger multinational companies. The latter are usually managing advanced clinical phases of development and regulatory procedures needed to achieve market authorisation in the territories of interest.

Furthermore, the acquisition of already marketed products often represents a way to renew the product portfolio or to enter new markets. Should this be the case, an article by Anthony Grenier suggests that a main target is represented by the understanding of how the products were maintained on the market by the seller company.

The restructuring of assets following acquisition may require the transfer of products manufacturing to sites of the acquiring company, or the possibility to use the services of a Contract Manufacturing Organisation (CMO). These are all issues that should enter the technical due diligence, that usually includes the exchange of information about the product, equipment, manufacturing, quality, and regulatory aspects of the deal.

The regulatory and quality perspectives

Regulatory due diligence takes into consideration the approval status of the interested products in target markets. Relevant documentation to be examined include the CMC dossier (Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls) and/or the Common Technical Document (CTD), and the current status of approval procedures undergoing, for example, at the FDA in the US or the European Medicines Agency in the EU. A possible issue mentioned by Anthony Grenier refers to the assessment and management of dossiers relative to unfamiliar markets, that may differ as for regulatory requirements and thus need the availability of dedicated internal resources or consultants. This type of considerations may impact also on the selection of CMOs; the transfer of older dossiers is also challenging, as they often do not reflect current requirements and standards and may require significant investments (including the request of additional studies) to support the submission of variations.

A visit to the facility manufacturing the product during the second round of bidding, in order to better understand issues related to the technology transfer, is also suggested. Technical documentation available to assessors should include copies of batch records and specifications for raw materials, active ingredients, and drug products. Analysis of the annual trends in manufacturing may be also useful, as for example a high number of rejected batches may indicate the need for a reformulation of the product.

From the quality perspective, the due diligence should also examine issues with supply or quality agreements, and the date of the last revision of documents. Examples of relevant documentation to be examined include process validation reports, change control lists, stability studies, inspection reports, etc.

The manufacturing perspective

In a second article, A. Grenier examined technical due diligence from the perspective of manufacturing, equipment and logistics.

The manufacturing process is key to ensure the proper availability of the product in the target markets, and it should be correctly transferred to the acquiring company or the CMO. To this instance, executed batch records are important to provide information on actual process parameters, processing times, and yields. Here again, process validation reports and master supply agreements provide information on the robustness of the processes and the steady supply of raw materials.

Consideration should also be paid to the transfer of any product-dedicated equipment involved in the manufacturing or packaging process, including its actual ownership. The time period for technology transfer should be long enough (at least 12 months) to ensure for the proper execution of all operations.

From the logistics point of view, it is important to understand the need to update printed components to reflect the new ownership of the product, a task that may result complex should it be marketed in many different countries and/or in many different dosage forms. Inventories of all raw materials, APIs, and packaging components should be also assessed, paying a particular attention to narcotic products for which specific production quotas may be present in some countries (e.g. the US).

Technical due diligence of entire facilities

M&A deals often involve the acquisition of one or more manufacturing facilities and other complex industrial assets. Anthony Grenier also examined the key factors impacting on this type of technical due diligence.

The “technical fit” between the two companies involved in the deal is a primary target for assessment, in order to evaluate the achievable level of integration and the existing gaps in experience to be filled. This may refer, for example, to the acquisition of a manufacturing plant for non-sterile products that would need to be converted for aseptic manufacturing: a goal that may require the building of new areas, thus the availability of enough space to host them. Experience of the staff is also highly valuable, as well as the successful introduction of new equipment.

Capacity of the plant should also be considered, neither in excess or defect with respect to the effective needs in order to avoid waste of resources or need of new investments. Experience of the seller company in CMO may be also relevant, as it may be used to fill some of the excess capacity. To this instance, the fields of specialisation and the availability of containment capability to avoid cross contamination are important parameters to be considered.

Compliance of the facility to regulatory requirements arising from the different target markets should also be assessed, as it impacts on the positive outcomes of inspections.

Highly complex technical due diligences

Technical due diligence becomes even more complex in the case of multi-site acquisitions. In this case, visits to assess specificities of the single facilities involved in the operation may be needed. The above mentioned parameters of technical fit, capacity and compliance should be always considered, and the take-at-home message from the A. Grenier is for the acquiring companies to “look for the weakest links that would prohibit them from bringing their product or technology to the sites to be acquired”. Capacity optimisation may be needed, for example.

The different steps of technical due diligence have been also examined in another article by Anne Ettner and Norbert Pöllinger published in Pharm. Ind.. They presented a mind map that clarifies the complexity of the items that should enter the due diligence process, and lists typical documents and questions that should be taken into consideration. Examples and case studies are also provided relative to the assessment of starting materials, the evaluation of the pharmaceutical formulations and that of the production process.