Title: GMP and Inspections
1GMP and Inspections
2Points to cover
- How multinational industry assures global
standards of manufacture - Use of ICH Q8, 9 10 for robust product quality
- Patient focused use of inspection resource
- Desktop inspections potential problems
facilitating better / more effective decision
making
3Typical global supply chain
2nd API site proposed
Granulate
4Uses of ICH Q8,9 10
Industrial Process 2.5 -3 sigma
5-10 waste
90-95
6 sigma product to patient
5What is Quality Risk Management?
ICH Q9 identifies QRM as risk of harm to patient
Two key ICH Q9 principles
Level of effort proportionate to risk
Level of recording proportionate to risk
Effective QRM facilitates better / more
effective decision making
6Two (wrong) approaches to risk
7Maintaining GMP standards in our global industry
- Core standards from the regulators with
industry input - PIC/S EU GMP- USA CFR WHO guidelines
- Harmonisation efforts such as ICH
- Local regulations often based on WHO / PIC/S /
ICH -
- Regulator confirms that GMP applied
- Industry
- Company Quality Management Systems
- Local QMS based company QMS plus local
requirements - SOPs to give more detail and transfer into
practice - Management responsibility to see that GMP in
place and in use via QMS
But why arent they all harmonised?
8 The GSK QMS as an example
The QMS is
- A comprehensive, living system of policies,
guidelines and processes aligned to international
regulatory requirements, performance standards
and benchmarking activities
9Where we are now - regulators
- Regulators
- Pressure to do more with less
- Mutual Recognition Agreements, confidentiality
agreements Pharmaceutical Inspection Cooperation
Scheme (PIC/S) - GMPs and guidance highly developed / under
continual revision - ICH Q8, 9 10
- In the public eye
- Local manufacture wants level playing field
- Public wants assurance of a job well done
102006 Regulatory inspection Data
(Regulatory Inspections Conducted Outside and
Within The Regulators Own Borders)
Source data - Survey of EFPIA member companies
11 22 Companies Provided Data
- Abbott, Altana, Amgen, AZ
- Bayer, Boehringer
- Chiesi
- Eli Lilly
- Gruenenthal, GSK
- Hoffmann La Roche
- JJ
- Merck Co inc
- Novartis, Novo Nordisk
- Organon, Orion
- Pfizer
- Sanofi Aventis, Schering AG, Schering Plough,
Serono
12Typical Time To Host An Inspection
- Preparation
- 80 - 100 person days
- 5 QC, 5 QA , 5 Pharm. Dev., 5 from other areas
for 4 5 days. Tasks reviewing, compiling,
summarising, preparing presentations - Inspection Management
- 17 person days per inspection day
- 1 host, 1 scribe, 15 people in background roles
- Follow up
- 20 person days
- compile / agree responses reports
13Issue
- More inspectorates routinely conducting
inspections outside own borders - At least 37 inspectorates (EU 1 inspectorate)
active in this field - From 1999 to 2005 the number increased by about
20 p.a. - in 2006 it increased by 11
- The quality of the conducted inspections varies
significantly - A single manufacturing site may supply 80
markets - Strategic sites currently inspected by up to 15
times in one year - Different inspectorates looking at the same
processes / systems / products
In 2006, responses from 22 companies indicate
that regulators spent 2,023 industry up to
74,831 man days on such foreign inspections
14Statistics
- Number of companies in survey 22
- Number of sites in survey 663
- Total number of inspections 939
- Total number of Foreign Inspections 337
- Total Inspector days Foreign Inspections 2023
- Max inspection per site 15
- Sites with 10 inspections 8
- Sites with 5 -9 inspections 40
- Sites with 4 inspections 17
- Sites with 3 inspections 43
- Sites with 2 inspections 90
15Foreign Inspections 2003 - 2006
25 companies
22 companies
16 companies
25 companies
16Inspector Days Foreign Inspections
22 companies
25 companies
16 companies
25 companies
17 New Foreign Inspection Activity
18Inspectorates Most Active Outside own Borders in
2006
19Inspectorates Most Active Outside own Borders
2003-6
20Typical Respondee 2006
Number of sites
- 46 inspections
- 10 inspectorates (all EU1)
- on 12 sites in one year
21Activity analysis foreign inspections
56 increase since 2003
75 increase since 2003
22Sharing of inspection reports
- Have You Shared inspection reports from one
competent authority with another? - Yes 8
- No 11
- No response 3
- Would you be prepared to share such reports in
the future? - Yes 14
- No 5
- No response 3
- (4 companies may redact reports first, 1 might
share conclusions only, 3 if a clear benefit in
doing so and 1 if also agreed by the issuing
authority.)
23Desktop Inspections
Can be a useful tool but have pitfalls
- Dont try to review everything
- Sample systems and data to demonstrate they are
in place and in use
- Sometimes we are asked to supply full validation
documents DQ/IQ/OQ/PQ for all sites and all
products - This can be container loads of documents
- Product and cleaning /area / utility are inter
related - Area / utility not re-validated with each product
but impact of new product will be scientifically
considered to see if re-validation needed
Validation is living / lifecycle / linked to QMS.
Some of what is submitted will be out of date
before it is even received
Gives the impression that a thorough review of
validation is undertaken
24Outcome
- Considerable scope for better focus of both
Regulatory Industry resources without adverse
effect on patient safety
25Proposal inspections
- Move inspections approach towards
- risk-based scheduling (need / frequency)
- risk-based conducting (focus and depth)
- system and process orientation
- Perform more inspections locally with focus on
- supply chain
- Cold chain
- Counterfeit potential
- this could bring about patient benefit without
using more resource
26Proposal sharing of GMP information
- Promote sharing of inspection conclusions /
reports - Observe and extend multi / bilateral agreements
e.g. PIC/S membership / MRAs / Confidentiality
Agreements