Reflection paper Archives - European Industrial Pharmacists Group (EIPG)

Home  /  EMA’s reflection paper on AI in the pharmaceutical lifecycle  /  Reflection paper

The EU Parliament voted its position on the Unitary SPC


by Giuliana Miglierini The intersecting pathways of revision of the pharmaceutical and intellectual property legislations recently marked the adoption of the EU Parliament’s position on the new unitary Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) system, parallel to the recast of the current Read more

Reform of pharma legislation: the debate on regulatory data protection


by Giuliana Miglierini As the definition of the final contents of many new pieces of the overall revision of the pharmaceutical legislation is approaching, many voices commented the possible impact the new scheme for regulatory data protection (RDP) may have Read more

Environmental sustainability: the EIPG perspective


Piero Iamartino Although the impact of medicines on the environment has been highlighted since the 70s of the last century with the emergence of the first reports of pollution in surface waters, it is only since the beginning of the Read more

•••

EMA’s reflection paper on AI in the pharmaceutical lifecycle

September 22, 2023 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Giuliana Miglierini

The rapidly evolving role of artificial intelligence (AI) and its possible application in the pharmaceutical field led the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to publish a draft Reflection paper on the use of AI along the entire lifecycle of both human and veterinary medicines.

The Reflection paper summarises the current view on the possible use of AI and machine leaning (ML) technologies and is open to public consultation until 31 December 2023. Comments, together with the outcomes of the joint HMA/EMA workshop to be held on 20-21 November 2023, will support its finalisation, as well as the possible development of new guidance. The initiative aims to identify the aspects of AI/ML use that would fall within the remit of EMA or of the single National Competent Authorities (NCAs) in charge of the dossiers’ assessment.

The document is part of the effort to improve the European Medicines Regulatory Network’s capability in data-driven regulation set forth by the joint HMA-EMA Big Data Steering Group (BDSG), and it has been developed in coordination with EMA’s CHMP and CVMP committees.

“The use of artificial intelligence is rapidly developing in society and as regulators we see more and more applications in the field of medicines. AI brings exciting opportunities to generate new insights and improve processes. To embrace them fully, we will need to be prepared for the regulatory challenges presented by this quickly evolving ecosystem” said Jesper Kjær, Director of the Data Analytics Centre at the Danish Medicines Agency and co-chair of the BDSG.

“With this paper, we are opening a dialogue with developers, academics, and other regulators, to discuss ways forward, ensuring that the full potential of these innovations can be realised for the benefit of patients’ and animal health” added Peter Arlett, EMA’s Head of Data Analytics and Methods, co-chair of the BDSG.

The main contents of the Reflection paper

The Reflection paper addresses the use of AI/ML with a dedicated chapter for each one of the steps, part of the overall lifecycle of a medicinal product. The interactions with regulators are then explored, as well as the different technical aspects to be taken into consideration. The final chapters discuss the governance of AI/ML applications, the integrity, and ethical aspects to be considered and how to address data protection.

The increasing use of AI technologies is based on the wide availability of big amounts of data produced and captured in electronic format on a routine basis. This data can be analysed by machine learning algorithms to inform the training of other systems able to analyse data and take actions with some degree of autonomy in order to achieve specific goals. These latter systems are the truly intended AI algorithms, those use is under discussion also in the field of regulatory decision making.

The Reflection paper recalls how the diffusion of these new technologies carries with it also some new risks, due to the “exceptionally great numbers of trainable parameters arranged in non-transparent model architectures”. Measures should thus be taken to ensure the safety of patients and the integrity of data, as well as to avoid the integration of bias into AI/ML applications.

The contents of the Reflection paper may also refer to combinations between a medicinal pro-duct and AI/ML-including medical device, as in such occurrence EMA is involved in the assessment of the characteristics of the device.

In general terms, existing guidelines, best practices, and recommendations relative to model in-formed drug development and biostatistics also apply to AI/ML; the adjacent methodology guidelines which may be relevant to this instance are listed in the document. The Reflection paper warns readers about the differences between the human and veterinary regulatory domains, suggesting that another reflection document specific for veterinary may be developed in future.

A risk-based approach

The usual risk-based approach typical of pharmaceutical development should be used to identify risks throughout the entire AI/ML tool lifecycle, including regulatory impact. According to the Reflection paper, the level of risk may depend also on the context of use and the degree of influence the AI technology exerts.

Developers should always seek early regulatory interaction and scientific advice, especially in cases where the AI/ML system may impact on the benefit-risk ratio of the medicinal product un-der development. To this instance, the EMA Innovation Task Force (ITF) is responsible for pro-viding early interaction on experimental technology, while scientific advice and qualification of novel methodologies in medicines development is provided by the Scientific Advice Working Parties (SAWP) of the CHMP for human medicines and of the CVMP for the veterinary ones.

As for all other steps of pharmaceutical lifecycle, the final responsibility for the suitability and use made of AI/ML algorithms, as well as their compliance to ethical, technical, scientific, and regulatory standards (GxP standards) and to current EMA scientific guidelines falls under the Marketing Authorisation Holders (MAHs) or applicants.

According to the Reflection paper, risks referred to in the discovery step may be limited, but they may impact the final evidence presented for regulatory review, thus principles for non-clinical development should be followed. This second step may include, for example, AI/ML modelling approaches according to the 3R principles. Regulators would expect to receive Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for AI/ML applications in preclinical studies; advisory documents on Application of GLP Principles to Computerised Systems and GLP Data Integrity should be also considered where appropriate. A pre-specified analysis plan would be needed for preclinical data potentially relevant for the assessment of the benefit-risk balance.

In the field of clinical trials, ICH E6 and VICH GL9 on human and veterinary GCPs should also be applied to the use of AI/ML. In particular, regulators expect the full model architecture and description of the data processing pipeline would be made fully available for comprehensive assessment should a model be generated for clinical trial purposes, as they would be considered parts of the clinical trial data or trial protocol dossier.

From precision medicine to pharmacovigilance

Particular considerations may be needed for applications of AI/ML in precision medicine, to individualise treatment according to the patient’s characteristics. AI/ML application supporting indication or posology decisions should be referenced in the Summary of product characteristics and their assessment falls under medicines regulation, representing a high-risk use both from the patient and regulatory perspectives. Close human supervision is also expected for AI applications used to draft or translate product information documents.

Many are the possible applications of AI/ML in the manufacturing of medicinal products, where they should follow the usual quality risk management principles (ICH Q8, Q9 and Q10) to guarantee safety, quality, and data integrity. New recommendations are also expected from EMA.

In the post-authorisation phase, AI/ML tools can effectively support efficacy and safety studies and post-marketing surveillance studies for veterinary medicines, as well as pharmacovigilance activities. Good pharmacovigilance practices should always be respected, and the used model should be validated, monitored and documented under the responsibility of the MAH. For conditional marketing authorisations, AI/ML applications should be discussed within a regulatory procedure unless details are agreed already at time of authorisation.


Real-world evidence for regulatory decision-making

September 23, 2022 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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 data (RWD) on the use of a certain medicine by the general population are increasingly important to monitor the impact in terms of health benefits, adverse events and costs for healthcare systems.

The trend is confirmed by the publication of a joint statement by the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities (ICMRA) addressing the use of real-world data and real-world evidence (RWE) in the development, authorisation and monitoring of medicines to support regulatory decision-making. The document has been endorsed by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which also published the third workplan developed by its Big Data Steering Group to set key actions to be delivered in the period 2022–2025.

The debate on real-world evidence for regulatory decision making was also stimulated by an ISPE’s position paper released in 2020, and by papers published in the scientific literature (see here a recent review).

ICMRA’s joint statement on real-world evidence

The joint statement is the final result of a ICMRA workshop on real-world evidence co-organised with EMA, the US FDA and Health Canada in June 2022, that saw the participation of representatives from more than 40 countries. Heterogeneous data sources across different geographic areas and different levels of quality, as well as various processes for data sharing and access of the data, were among the main open issues identified during the meeting. Four different areas of collaboration have been identified, representing the focus of further discussion by international regulators in order to implement concrete actions to address criticalities.

The first area addresses the harmonisation of RWD and RWE terminologies. This exercise is deemed essential in order to share common operational definitions of RWD and RWE, characterized by a clear scope and level of granularity (e.g., pertaining to RCTs and observational studies).

Already existing guidance, such as the ICH M14 on “General principles on planning and designing pharmacoepidemiological studies that utilize real-world data for safety assessment of a medicine”, may represent useful tools to support these activities.

The convergence on RWD and RWE guidance and best practice should include the development of common principles for RWD quality. Metadata are an essential feature, as they enable the characterisation and discoverability of RWD. Other targets include the definition of suitable scenarios where RWE may contribute to regulatory decision-making, and the setting up of templates for study protocols/reports that can be used in multiple regulatory jurisdictions.

Readiness shall be pursued by strengthening the international regulatory collaboration on RWE. The rapid creation of expert groups on specific topics of interest and an improved collaboration on governance and processes aimed to support the efficient conduct of RWD studies in different countries are key actions in this area.

Transparency should be the common denominator underlying all the above-mentioned activities. It should be tackled through the definition and use of common principles and practices for the systematic registration of pre-specified study protocols and study results in publicly available registries. Publication of study results in open-source, peer-reviewed journals is also expected.

The 2022-2025 workplan on Big Data use for public health

In parallel with the publication of ICMRA’s joint statement, EMA released the Big Data Workplan 2022-2025, jointly developed with the Heads of Medicines Agencies (HMA). The joint workplan represents the expansion towards the operative phase of the priority recommendations for regulators on the best approaches to use and generate data developed in 2020 by the former Big Data Task Force. The document refers mainly to medicines for human use, even if it includes some information on veterinary medicines.

Big data are the key element to be considered in order to achieve the overall objectives seen above, as they enable the extensive analysis of information available on medicinal products subject to regulatory scrutiny. According to the Big Data Steering Group, the increased evidence arising from big data analysis may accelerate medicine development, improve treatment outcomes and facilitate earlier patient access to new treatments.

The workplan details ten different priory areas and the respective recommendations for action, and it provides the expected timelines for their implementation.

Central to the overall planned system is the Data Analysis and Real-World Interrogation Network (DARWIN EU), a federated network to enable access and analysis of real-world data. After the establishment of the DARWIN EU Coordination Centre and the activation of the first studies in 2022, new activities shall focus on the support to the European Health Data Space (EHDS) and the collaboration with the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), HTA bodies and payers.

The joint action Towards A European Health Data Space (TEHDAS) shall facilitate the engagement with stakeholders, a critical point to ensure the quality of data. The release of a first version of a data quality framework for the EU Regulatory Network is expected in late 2022. An agreement on metadata to describe and identify RWD sets shall also be supported by the publication of a good practice guide on metadata and a public catalogue of European RWD. Release of new analytics tools and a review of the utility of eHealth data and social media data are also part of actions targeted to data discoverability.

The reinforcement of skills of all stakeholders involved in the process of RWD and RWE generation, analysis and use is also essential to guarantee the success of the new approach. EMA and HMA aim to develop agreed training curricula on biostatistics, pharmacoepidemiology and data science, including the availability of selected modules open to patients, healthcare professionals and academics. A curriculum on genomics data shall also be adopted.

The results of pilot studies on the use of RWE by EMA scientific committees will be released in next years, with a final report and a portfolio of RWE use cases to support uptake of RWE by the ERMN expected in 2025.

More in detail, a proof-of-concept pilot assessing access to individual patient data from clinical trials (raw data) in the scientific assessment of medicines is planned for Q4 2022. The final reflection paper on artificial intelligence (AI) for use in regulatory processes shall be published in Q3 2023, while 2024 should focus on a pilot on data analysis for CMC data.

All the above-mentioned activities shall be supported by new guidance issued by the new EMA Methodologies Working Party, while expert advice will be strengthened through the European Specialised Expert Communities (ESEC), initially focusing on AI & RWE.

The governance of the process shall benefit by a review of the mandates of the Big Date Steering Group and EU Network Data Board expected for late 2022. Target actions aimed to strengthen the framework for ethics in data analysis will also be explored. Activities at the level of the international framework of regulators shall include among others the evaluation of the clinical trial conceptual model under the ICH M11.

An annual Big Data stakeholder forum is also planned, complemented by topic specific meetings and workshops and biannual industry meetings. In the veterinary field, the workplan includes the implementation of the EU Veterinary Big Data strategy adopted in 2022. Among the main deliverable are a catalogue of veterinary data sources, finalisation of the system on antimicrobials sale and use data, and the evolution of training curricula.


Current inspection trends and new approaches to the monitoring of post-inspection activities

July 8, 2022 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Giuliana Miglierini

The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) has published its Annual Regulatory GMP/GDP Inspection Survey 2021, highlighting the more recent trends in inspections and how the pandemic affected this critical verification process of pharmaceutical productions. Meanwhile, UK’s regulatory authority MHRA launched the Compliance Monitor Process pilot, aimed to use eligible consultants as Compliance Monitors to supervise companies in the delivery of actions identified in the Compliance Protocol agreed with the regulatory authority.

Main trends in inspections

The main effect of the lockdowns has been the implementation of new ways to run inspections. The recommendation resulting from EFPIA’s report is now for virtual tools combined with onsite presence; to this instance, data gathered in 2021 show that the two modalities of inspection have a similar duration (2.9 days for on-site inspections vs 2.8 days for virtual ones). The report also indicates there is still a backlog of inspections due in 2020, the critical period of the pandemic; suggestions to manage expiring GMP/GDP/ISO-certificates include a one-year prolongation of current certificates, a dedicated communication process between the industry and regulators in the case of issues with the registration in third countries, and a planning of inspections based on the quality history of the site.

Domestic inspections confirming the trend observed since 2016, are almost double of the number of foreign inspections. These last ones focused in 2021 on only 23 countries, compared to the 44 countries visited by inspectors in 2017. EU’s countries were the most visited ones, with some 350 inspections reported vs the 150 of US, confirming the importance of European pharmaceutical manufacturing. According to the report, 2021 saw an increased attention to GDP inspections, while the percentage of sites with no inspections remains stable for six years.

A new mix of inspection tools

The use of new tools, additional to physical on-site presence, has now become a routine possibility accepted by many regulatory authorities. Many different approaches have been tested during the pandemic, including different inspections tools. Different combinations of tools cannot be considered to be equivalent, according to EFPIA. In general, a mixture of physical presence, document review and virtual presence flanked by the sharing of experience, collaboration and reliance is deemed suitable to confirm compliance and capability while supporting a risk-based efficiency.

Data show that the number of virtual inspections was higher in 2020 compared to 2021; the last year saw an increase of on-site presence vs 2020 and a mixture of virtual and on-site inspections. According to the report, only seven European countries have experience with the implementation of virtual inspection tools (Germany, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Poland and Sweden). As a consequence, the impact of mixed virtual and on-site domestic inspections in 2021 was lower in EU member states that, for example, in the US, Brazil, Russia and Singapore.

There is still space for improvement

EFPIA’s survey presents the respective advantages and disadvantages of on-site inspections vs virtual tools. The implementation of the new modalities is far from being accomplished, the process is still on the learning curve, says the document.

While the remote, virtual interaction allows for a greater flexibility of the inspection process, it may result stressful for some people; furthermore, it impacts on the way work is organised, as it needs a flexible schedule and time to prepare for the next day meetings. Also, the style of communication changes to become less natural and more focused. Overall, virtual inspections appear to be more efficient when performed in real-time, as it would be for on-site inspections. While being less costly, due to avoiding extensive travelling, virtual inspections require a careful preparation, including the availability of a suitable IT infrastructure and connectivity. Documents are also often required in advance of the meetings to be shared with regulators.

How to further improve inspections

According to EFPIA, the future of inspections calls for improved collaboration and reliance in order to increase the knowledge shared by the different inspectorates and overcome the limits intrinsic to self-dependency. The expected final outcome of the new approach to inspections is an improvement in the decision-making process. Inspection frequency may be set every 1 to 5 years on the basis of a risk-based evaluation.

Collaboration, reliance and delegation appear to be the new mantras to guide the actions of regulators: the focus suggested by EFPIA is on inspections run by domestic authorities, coupled to the implementation of Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRA) to avoid duplication of efforts. According to the report, it would be needed to harmonise the scope of existing MRAs and to establish new ones between the EU and PIC/S participating authorities (e.g. Argentina, Brazil, South Korea, Turkey and UK). The European legislation should be also updated to include the concept of listed third countries, as already in place for the importation of active substances under the provisions of the Falsified Medicines directive.

The report also suggests a qualitative tool that would fulfil the legal requirements for “inspections” and may prove useful to support inspection planning on the basis of the knowledge of the GMP compliance history of the site, the footprint history of critical and major deficiencies and the type of inspection to be run. These elements lead to the identification of the hazards to be considered, including the intrinsic risk and the compliance-related one. The final output of the tool takes the form of a risk-ranking quality metric, to be used to establish the frequency of inspection for a certain site and the number and level of expertise of the required inspectors, as well as the scope, depth and duration of routine inspections.

All these items may form the basis for the drafting of a GMP inspection “Reliance Assessment Report”, which would also include the statement about the name of the hosting national competent authority and the basis on which country reliance has been established. Such a document may be then used to support regulatory decisions. According to EFPIA, the suggested approach would benefit of a better knowledge of the site inspected by the local NCA, a better insight in the local culture and less barriers to the interaction, with optimisation of resources. A better transparency of the inspection process is also expected, as a non-compliant site may negatively impact on the reputation of local inspectorates. Identified pre-requisites to allow the implementation of such an approach are the availability of high-quality standards at the local level and the evaluation of national regulatory systems by and independent body (e.g. PIC/S or the WHO Global Benchmarking Tool).

UK’s pilot of a Compliance Monitor Process

A new approach that may represent a first example towards the new paradigm of collaboration and reliance has been undertaken in the UK, where the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) launched in April 2022 a pilot project focused on the Compliance Monitor (CM) Process (see more here and here). The pilot is part of MHRA’s delivery plan 2021-2023 and will focus on the CM supervision process for appropriate GMP and GDP Inspection Action Group (IAG) cases.

According to the MHRA, the new process would allow companies to concentrate on the delivery of the required improvements without the need to use resources to manage MHRA supervision inspections to assess compliance remediation activities. On the regulatory side, the MHRA should be able to concentrate on the delivery of the routine risk-based inspection programme. The risk-based approach to supervision and monitoring is also expected to limit the number of potential shortages of supply.

The CM process is based on the figure of eligible consultants acting as Compliance Monitors (CM) in charge of working with the company to deliver the remediation actions identified in a Compliance Protocol (CP) agreed with the MHRA. The supervision by the CMs is expected to contribute to lower the need of on-site inspections with respect to the current process managed by the IAG. The CP also includes the transmission to MHRA of high-level updates at fixed intervals of time, which should include only exceptions to the agreed timelines or significant related compliance issues which were identified. Once completed the CP protocol, the CM informs the regulatory authority that the company is ready for inspection, so that the MHRA can verify onsite the possibility of its removal from IAG oversight.

CMs will be selected by the involved company from a dedicated register and accepted as suitable for that case by the MHRA. At least five years’ experience in independent audits of GMP/ GDP companies is needed to be eligible as CM. Furthermore, not having been personally the subject of MHRA regulatory action and/or significant adverse findings in the previous three years,  a suitable CV and the completion of a MHRA training as CM. All details on requirements for the CM role and application are available at the dedicated page of the MHRA website.

Suitability criteria to act as a CM for the specific case include as a minimum a sufficient experience of the dosage form manufactured, testing activities being performed, or distribution activity being carried out and a written confirmation of absence of Conflict of Interest. These criteria will be assessed by the company selecting the CM.

BIA’s view of the reliance in the UK medicines regulatory framework

The UK’s BioIndustry Association (BIA) contributed to the debate on the reliance in the UK medicines regulatory framework with a Reflection Paper. According to BIA, the MHRA has a well recognised status and history as a valued contributor to the global regulatory ecosystem and a point of reference for the regulatory decision-making which should be preserved also in the future.

BIA recalls the role played by the MHRA in the development of the concept of regulatory reliance at the EU level, as a way to support the agile management of resources and simultaneously focusing on core and innovative national activities across all stages in the product lifecycle. The central concept sees regulators from one country to rely on the decision and assessments of trusted authorities from another country in order to speed up the timeline of regulatory procedures. At the end of the process, each regulator remains fully responsible and accountable for all its decisions.

BIA also highlights the contribution of reliance to the advancement of good regulatory practices and international networks of regulators, so to better allocate resources potentially taking into account also the respective fields of specialisation. The proposal is for a list of accepted reference regulatory authorities as a way to recognise the evolution of partnerships over time. Examples of recognition pathways already active in the UK are the EC Decision Reliance Procedure (ECDRP) and international work-sharing through the Access Consortium and Project Orbis, through which the MHRA may act as the reference regulatory agency in many procedures.

BIA also warns about the risks of a sudden interruption at the end of 2022 of the reliance pathway, that would have a highly disruptive impact on companies and patients.


ICMRA published a Reflection paper on remote inspections

January 21, 2022 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Giuliana Miglierini

Remote inspections have become a widely used approach since the last two years to ensure the oversight of the compliance of pharmaceutical productions to regulatory requirements, as the prolonged lockdown periods determined by the pandemic made very difficult the maintenance of the regular schedule for on-site inspections.

A Reflection paper on the so gathered experience has been recently published by the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities (ICMRA); the document addresses from the point of view of regulatory authorities the many issues encountered to establish appropriate modalities to interact at distance with the industrial counterparts by mean of digital technologies and suggests the best practices for the future. The analysis focused especially on remote GCP and GMP inspections.

The Reflection paper was drafted by a working group chaired by the UK MHRA and inclusive of representatives from the US FDA, EMA, Health Canada, Swiss-medic, HPRA Ireland, AEMPS Spain, ANSM France, PEI Germany, MHLW/PMDA Japan, TGA Australia, ANVISA Brazil, HSA Singapore, WHO and Saudi FDA.

The lack of a uniform definitions and approaches

Each national competent authority adopted during the pandemic its own approach to remote inspections, evaluating this type of opportunity on a case-by-case basis, making use of established quality risk management principles and tools to reach their decision (par. 3 of the Reflection paper enlists the more widely used parameters for risk assessment and management).Among the factors entering this preliminary evaluation are the regulatory compliance history of the inspectee, the scope of the inspection (pre-approval, routine or for cause), and the inherent risk associated with the activities conducted by the site, the types of products and the need for the product.

The term used to identify the at distance interaction with the company to be inspected also assumed a quite wide variability; “distant assessment”, “remote evaluation”, “desktop assessment” or “remote assessment” are other frequent declinations used to define oversight procedures run by using digital technologies, both at the national and international level.

The choice of the specific term to identify this sort of practice depends upon many different factors, including the type of inspection and of the involved facilities, and the local national legal frameworks governing inspections as well as protection of personal data. The specific areas or sites to be included in the official review of activities, documents, facilities, records, etc. have proved also highly variable, as they may include not only the manufacturing site, but also investigator sites of a clinical trial, the sponsor’s and/or contract research organisation’s (CRO’s) facilities, or any other establishments deemed appropriate by the regulatory authority running the inspection.

Should the preliminary risk assessment had discouraged the possibility to conduct a remote inspection, the on-site inspections were usually postponed until the termination of lockdown measures in the interested countries. Hybrid or collaborative inspections represent another opportunity used to handle critical cases: the first ones involve the assessment or inspection to be conducted using a mix of remote and on-site activities, the second see two or more regulatory authorities collaborating to perform a conjunct inspection of a specific site.

According to the Reflection paper, it thus appears highly unlikely that a unique and fully harmonized approach to remote inspections in all scenarios might be developed for the future. “While the ICMRA group have found remote inspections an enabling tool to maintain at least a minimal regulatory oversight during the pandemic, it is not the view of the group that remote inspections would fully replace an on-site inspection programme”, states the document.

The main issues encountered

The possibility to conduct inspections, evaluations or assessments at a distance/virtually is based on the implicit availability of a robust IT and communication infrastructure; this has proved a fundamental requirement to smoothly share and review all the relevant documentation and ensure access from remote to systems and plants. Virtual tours of the manufacturing facilities are a typical example, for which the availability of solid “hardware and software that can provide an appropriate field of vision, clarity and stabilisation of the picture, while simultaneously facilitating conversation between the inspector and tour host” is essential to enable the real-time transmission of images and sounds captured by the in charge on-site staff by mean of smart devices or more advanced systems as smart-glasses.

In international inspections, the difference in time-zone and the availability of real-time, online translation services have also proved critical in many instances, especially if parallel sessions of discussion were needed. The possibility for inspectors to access on-line the relevant documentation requires the availability of the inspected company to provide credentials to enter in a read-only mode its proprietary document management systems and repositories. To this instance, confidentiality issues often led many companies to provide access to IT systems by mean of a specifically appointed member of the staff, in charge of accessing in real-time the systems and made available all the documentation as indicated by the inspectors.

The main areas of attention

The Reflection paper identifies four different areas for which remote assessment/inspection proved to be particularly useful during the pandemic period.

In the case of virtual tours, the indication coming from ICRMA experts is to limit the use of prerecorded video tours only in exceptional circumstances, and never for inspection of high-risk activities, as the inspector may not be in the right conditions to effectively verify all details needed to evaluate the suitability of the facility.

“Direct access to documentation by inspectors is an expectation, electronically or otherwise, whether the inspection is on-site or remote”, states the Reflection paper. The alternative intervention of site staff may be acceptable, but it should not negatively impact the results of the assessment. Furthermore, this modality may also prove quite time consuming for both the inspector and the inspected company. ICRMA also supports the possibility for regulators to access documentation after the closure meeting, and upon the formal closure of the inspection, in order to facilitate the drafting of the report or to clarify a deficiency already raised.

GCP and GMP inspections

Specific issues for both GCP and GMP inspections are addressed in two dedicated chapters of ICRMA’s Reflection paper.

“It should be noted that within the EU remote inspections at investigator sites are not considered to be feasible”, writes ICRMA. The motivation has to be found mainly in the need to avoid any further impact on the clinical sites during an health emergency like the pandemic, andin the issues posed by local frameworks for data protection. The Reflections paper provides a list of clinical areas not suitable for remote inspection.

As for GMP inspections, not all regulatory authorities adopted the same approach during the pandemic; in general terms, this sort of practice has been judged acceptable by ICRMA to handle emergency situations with restrictions to travels in place, but it cannot fully substitute onsite inspections of manufacturing sites. More specifically, the experience of the past two years shows that remote inspection proved unfeasible for sites requiring detailed observation, as those performing aseptic manufacturing or handling potent active ingredients with low Permitted Daily Exposure.