veterinary medicinal products Archives - European Industrial Pharmacists Group (EIPG)

A concept paper on the revision of Annex 11


This concept paper addresses the need to update Annex 11, Computerised Systems, of the Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) guideline. Annex 11 is common to the member states of the European Union (EU)/European Economic Area (EEA) as well as to Read more

What happens after IP loss of protection


by Giuliana Miglierini What does it happen under a competitiveness perspective once intellectual property (IP) protection for medicinal products expired? And what is the impact of the new entries on generics and biosimilars already in the market? The role of competitor Read more

The FDA warns about the manufacture medicinal and non-pharmaceutical products on the same equipment


by Giuliana Miglierini A Warning Letter, sent in September 2022 by the US FDA to a German company after an inspection, addresses the possibility to use the same equipment for the manufacturing of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical products. The FDA reject Read more

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.


EMA’s OMS has turned mandatory for centrally authorised products

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

by Giuliana Miglierini

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

The progression in the implementation of the new provisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is new for applicants

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to access the OMS

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

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

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

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