1 / 20

May 17, 2011| Beijing, China

Compendial Affairs Erin Wang, Neil Schwarzwalder Compendial Affairs Global Quality Laboratory Eli Lilly and Company Indianapolis, Indiana, U.S.A. May 17, 2011| Beijing, China. Overview. Value of a Pharmacopoeia Manufacturer Compendial Affairs Manufacturer Challenges

patsy
Télécharger la présentation

May 17, 2011| Beijing, China

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Compendial AffairsErin Wang, Neil SchwarzwalderCompendial AffairsGlobal Quality LaboratoryEli Lilly and CompanyIndianapolis, Indiana, U.S.A. May 17, 2011| Beijing, China

  2. Overview • Value of a Pharmacopoeia • Manufacturer Compendial Affairs • Manufacturer Challenges • Recommendations for Manufacturers • Collaboration for High Quality Standards • Future Considerations • Summary • Acknowledgements www.diahome.org

  3. Value of a Pharmacopoeia • Pharmacopoeias are sources of public standards for pharmaceutical products, ingredients, and components • Bring consistency to medicines • Provide common methodologies • Simplify and maintain registrations www.diahome.org

  4. Value of a Pharmacopoeia • A recognized common practice • Contain thousands of analytical methods and specifications • The manufacturer defines the specifications to control product quality • Public standard are minimum requirements for drug acceptable quality • Contain general requirements which apply to manufacturing, storage, labeling, and other aspects • Enforced by regulatory agencies • Minimum quality standard to be met by all manufacturers www.diahome.org

  5. Manufacturer Compendial Affairs • Monitor changes in compendia • Identify topics that affect products, ingredients, or processes • Review topics for appropriateness and impact • Company practices considered, but science and public health are principle criteria • Interact with pharmacopoeia • Provide information and support • Implement changes on time www.diahome.org

  6. Manufacturer Compendial Affairs Roles: • Compendial Liaison • Communicate with pharmacopoeias • Develop monograph as needed • Lead Reviewer • Manage global process for review and implementation • Elevate global issues as needed • Compendial Trainer • Design training courses for internal use • Teach courses as needed www.diahome.org

  7. Example of Compendial Change Process with ManufacturerParticipation www.diahome.org

  8. Example of Manufacturer Compendial Change Implementation Process Journal publication Lead Reviewer identifieschanges with impact Compendial Team Members initial review Initial Report Identify issues and assignments -team meeting / other communications- Follow up Report Technical Expert performsdetailed review Summary Report Unresolvedissues Determine Implementation conclusions Issues communicate topharmacopoeia as needed Final Report Prepare to implement as needed www.diahome.org

  9. Manufacturer Challenges • Implement a compendial change or revision on time • Lack of interactions on background information for changes on the compendial requirements • Change that does not address or support broad application to affected companies • Lack of adequate internal compendial change notification and implementation process • Monitor and meet global compendial requirements • Lack of system/process knowledge to address conflicts with compendial requirements • Different requirements and interpretation among regulators and pharmacopoeias • Lack of bench marking channels to share concerns and learning www.diahome.org

  10. Recommendations for Manufacturers • Include compendial activities in your business processes • Formal processes for compendial monitoring, change implementation • Engage and participate in the public standard setting and change processes • Consider sponsoring a new monographYou will provide • Methodology and limits to form the basis of monograph • Validation data supporting methods • Batch data supporting limits • Reference standard materials www.diahome.org

  11. Recommendations for Manufacturers Monograph submissions: • Costs: • Resources to prepare submission • Technical support during proposal stage • Technical support after adoption • Reference standard donation • Future changes require submission to both regulator and pharmacopoeia • Benefits: • Contribute to public health • Avoid competitive disadvantage! www.diahome.org

  12. Collaboration for High Quality Standards • Collaboration effort among regulator, industry, and pharmacopoeias on standards to benefit public health • Effective communication on issues and concerns facing each group on setting up public standards • Industry especially innovators: • Allocate resources and engage in the public standard setting process • Pharmacopoeias: • Ensure sound scientific basis of specifications and methods • A process for monograph submission that is transparent • An open system to encourage industry participation www.diahome.org

  13. Example of Collaboration –Industry Discussion Group U.S. Midwest Compendial Discussion Group (MWCDG) • Industry meets six times a year to share knowledge and experiences on general pharmacopoeial requirements and learn future changes • Membership open to innovators, generics, and contract laboratories • Representatives of the group were invited to present in global pharmacopoeial conferences • Pharmacopoeias (USP, PhEur, and JP) have interacted with the group to reach out multiple companies through MWCDG members www.diahome.org

  14. Example of Collaboration – USP Stakeholder Forum • In the U.S., USP, FDA, and Industry come together twice a year at the Prescription/Non-Prescription Stakeholder Forum to share views and learning • Project Teams are created to lead collaborations on specific topics such as Elemental Impurities, Residual Solvents • One team (members from Industry and FDA) works on process issues with USP to provide input on how changes will impact the FDA and Industry before they are implemented • Ensure a common understanding that allows changes to be implemented in a mannerthat is beneficial to all parties www.diahome.org

  15. Example of Monograph Acquisition - U.S. and Europe • Pharmacopoeias may obtain monographs from innovator • USP: Wants monographs as soon as possible • Innovator submissions are preferred (Policy Statement) • PhEur: Wants monographs ideally timely before first generic submission (e.g. 5 years after first approval) • Single source procedure (preferred): Monographs available at time of patent expiry support harmonized regulatory review of generics and strengthen quality of generic products • Multi-source procedure: after patent expiry, all sources on the market are considered > more complex and demanding in terms of resources and time www.diahome.org

  16. Example of Monograph Development Collaboration - Biotechnology (Biotech) product • Biotech Product: Proteins (including antibodies) and nucleic acids (DNA, RNA or antisense oligonucleotides) • Produced by recombinant or non-recombinant cell cultures • Complexity/diversity of the molecules: Mixture of active ingredients • Quality Standard Challenges for Biotech Products: Need extensive characterization (Physicochemistry and Bioassay) and clinical testing to establish quality standards individually • Establish a high quality public standard: Manufacturer got involved by submitting technical information based on practical experiences to pharmacopoeias www.diahome.org

  17. Future Considerations – Monograph Acquisition • Develop a process for monograph acquisition that is transparent to improve public standards • Encourage industry participation by having an open system • Work with industry on monograph development • Consider product experience in selecting monograph partners from industry • Handle data confidentially www.diahome.org

  18. Future Considerations – Pharmacopoeia Harmonization • Develop common global public standards • Goal of the “ideal pharmacopoeia”: A single, global pharmacopoeial standard • Possibility of new improved collaboration among the various pharmacopoeias www.diahome.org

  19. Summary • Collaboration among regulator, industry, and pharmacopoeiasis crucial to provide a benefit to public health, both regional and international www.diahome.org

  20. Acknowledgements • Members of the U.S. Midwest Compendial Discussion Group (MWCDG) • Barbara Ferguson, Merck/MSD • Joseph Garber, AstraZeneca • Scott Messner, Abbott Laboratories • Philip Travis, Pfizer • Mark Wiggins, Merck/MSD • “The USP Revision Process: Recommendations for Enhancements”, Rafik H. Bishara, Susan J. Schniepp, Barbara Ferguson, Neil Schwarzwalder, Luciano Virgili, Phyllis Walsh, Mark Wiggins, Janeen Kincaid, USP Pharm Forum, 31(2), 656-661, 2005 • “The Ideal Pharmacopeia, a Model for the Future”, J.Mark Wiggins, Janeen A. Skutnik, Judy L. Shimek-Cox, and Neil A. Schwarzwalder, Pharmaceutical Technology, 32(11), 122-125, 2008 www.diahome.org

More Related