Serving Two Masters: Reconciling EMEA/GAMP 5 and FDA/cGMP Phase 1 - QbD can help satisfy FDA and EMEA requirements. - BioPharm International

ADVERTISEMENT

Serving Two Masters: Reconciling EMEA/GAMP 5 and FDA/cGMP Phase 1
QbD can help satisfy FDA and EMEA requirements.


BioPharm International
Volume 22, Issue 1

Critical Differences

This fundamental philosophical difference between the two agencies—a focus on access and end product at the EMEA versus safety and process at the FDA—help account for some important differences between GAMP 5 and cGMP1 in three critical areas: requirements for validation, QA/QC policy, and process monitoring.

The GAMP 5 guidelines have "automated" built into the name and the philosophy—they envision process and system (computer) validation as integrated entities. An automated process is tested with an installation, operational, and performance qualification to be certain that the automated procedure has been properly installed, tested, and used.

By contrast, the FDA's cGMP1 document assumes a manual process with only tangential reference to the reality of automated process systems (covered by the FDA in a separate document, 21 CFR Part 11, which defines system validation and provides guidelines for it). In keeping with the agencies' philosophical differences, the EMEA stresses bottom-line performance, while the FDA stresses the process itself (procedurally and with automation). Under GAMP 5, a Phase 1 investigator would validate the results of an automated analysis system as a functioning analytical unit. Under cGMP1, an investigator would validate the analytical process and, perhaps, depending on risk, separately validate the analytical system that conducts the procedure.

Similarly, the EMEA focuses on quality assurance (QA)—the general overview questions—regarding a study: does it produce a reliable result with appropriate quality oversight? While still emphasizing QA, the FDA approach puts equal weight on the quality control (QC) process, including all aspects of production and operation as well as the final QA overview. The EMEA would potentially rely more heavily on a final quarantine and testing for the release procedure, whereas the FDA would augment it with step-by-step reviews of the manufacturing and clinical testing plan.

As for process monitoring, the EMEA GAMP 5 de-emphasizing of process differs significantly from the FDA's process analytical technology (PAT) initiative. Potentially, PAT provides near continuous and self-correcting cybernetic monitoring of a procedure, method, practice, or course of action. The result is, again, greater reliance at the FDA on analysis at all phases, with a contrary reliance at EMEA on the final result rather than the interim steps that lead to that result—in short, process understanding versus process outcome.

The Path to Harmonization: QbD

The FDA's PAT initiative is just the first of three components of Quality by Design, a rigorously science-based approach to drug safety. QbD integrates an understanding of design space, a risk-based approach to compliance, and PAT monitoring. Together, those three elements can help satisfy both the results-focused outlook of the EMEA and the process-focused outlook of the FDA:

  • Design space is defined in ICH Q8 as "the multi-dimensional combination and interaction of input variables (e.g., material attributes) and process parameters that have been demonstrated to provide assurance of quality."1 Successfully defining the design space means achieving a full understanding of the various permutations of input variables and process parameters that ensure an in-specification product. Design space analysis establishes flexible operating parameters within which fluctuations are permitted, thus satisfying the FDA's emphasis on quality control.
  • A full understanding of the multiple, complex interactions among variables makes it possible to predict the outcome from particular permutations. It is then possible to ensure an acceptably low risk of failing to achieve the desired clinical attributes, thus opening the way for a risk-based approach to compliance.
  • PAT's continuous and cybernetic monitoring of process parameters automates process control, satisfying EMEA's emphasis on testing and quality assurance.

Thus QbD promises to effectively harmonize the safety goals of the FDA with the access goals of the EMEA, without compromising either.

Even more promisingly, QbD can ultimately satisfy the QA bent of the EMEA and the QC emphasis of the FDA in a way that improves both. The ability to design-in product and performance characteristics from the beginning rather than deriving them through testing after the fact more efficiently meets EMEA's results and testing-focused requirements. Meanwhile, the analysis of design space satisfies the FDA's thirst for process understanding, while avoiding cumbersome re-filings every time a process parameter is changed. Biotechs that adopt QbD will not only be able to meet the differing EMEA and FDA requirements, but do so in a way that could significantly lighten their regulatory burden.

Sandy Weinberg, PhD, is a senior consultant and Siddharth J. Advant, PhD, is a principal, both at Tunnell Consulting, King of Prussia, PA, 610.337.0820,
Weinberg is also associate professor of healthcare management in the College of Professional Studies at Clayton State University, Morrow, GA.

REFERENCES

1. International Conference on Harmonization. Q8, Pharmaceutical development. Geneva, Switzerland; 2005.


blog comments powered by Disqus

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Pfizer to Acquire Vaccines from Baxter
July 30, 2014
GSK Submits EU Regulatory Filing for Malaria Vaccine Candidate
July 29, 2014
Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical Collaborate on Immunotherapies
July 28, 2014
FDA Accepts First Biosimilar Filing
July 24, 2014
Compounding Pharmacy Issues Recall, But Challenges FDA Decision
July 22, 2014
Author Guidelines
Source: BioPharm International,
Click here