Limiting and Delaying Inspections – Brands International as Example

I think many of us have been discussing the blatant obstruction demonstrated in the December 2024 Warning Letter to Brands International Corporation, a drug manufacturer located in Ontario, Canada, citing it for limiting and delaying FDA’s inspection. Which it is important to remember congress has said is a big no-no.

I just want to stress that the Quality Manager there had a really bad day, week, month, year.

Good writeup of what to do around building your procedure for interviewing of employees during an inspection over at FDA Law blog.

FDA Inspections: Lesson 1 – Interviewing Employees

FDA Continues the Discussion on AI/ML

Many of our organizations are somewhere in the journey of using AI/ML some where in the drug product lifecycle, so it is no surprise that the FDA is continuing the dialogue with the recently published draft of “Considerations for the Use of Artificial Intelligence to Support Regulatory Decision-Making for Drug and Biological Products.”

This draft guidance lays out a solid approach by using a risk-based credibility assessment framework to establish and evaluate the credibility of AI models. This involves:

Determining if the model is adequate for the intended use
Defining the question of interest the AI model will address
Defining the context of use for the AI model
Assessing the AI model risk based on model influence and decision consequence
Developing a plan to establish model credibility commensurate with the risk
Executing the plan and documenting results

I think may of us are in the midst of figuring out how to provide sufficient transparency around AI model development, evaluation, and outputs to support regulatory decision-making and what will be found to be acceptable. This sort of guidance is a good way for the agency to further that discussion and I definitely plan on commenting on this one.

FDA Draft Guidance on “Considerations for Complying with 21 CFR 211.110”

Usually I expect the FDA to publish some basic primer material as a webinar, so I was a little surprised when “Considerations for Complying With 21 CFR 211.110” was recently published as a draft. I’ve been rereading it, looking for what is actually worthy of a guidance here, and quite frankly, struggling.

It literally is a refresher course on 21CFR211.110. Maybe I should read it as “No we were serious about ICH Q8 and critical quality attributes.” Or maybe it is just the result of one too many bad Type C meetings lately.

Anyway, good refresher on product quality, in-process controls and samples. Still I think this would be better as a webinar with some graphics. Maybe I’ll better understand why this was published based on what sort of crazy comments are made and I can scratch my head and wonder what shenanigans some of these companies are up to.

GMP Critical System

Defining a GMP critical system is an essential aspect of Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) in the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. A critical system is one that has a direct impact on product quality, safety, and efficacy.

Key Characteristics of GMP Critical Systems

Direct Impact on Product Quality: A critical system is one that can directly affect the quality, safety, or efficacy of the final product.
Influence on Patient Safety: Systems that have a direct or indirect influence on patient safety are considered critical. This is where CPPs come in
Data Integrity: Systems that generate, store, or process data used to determine product SISPQ (e.g. batch quality or are included in batch processing records, stability, data used in a regulatory filing) are critical.
Decision-Making Role: Systems used in the decision process for product release or a regulatory filing are considered critical.
Contact with Products: Equipment or devices that may come into contact with products are often classified as critical.

Continuous Evaluation

It’s important to note that the criticality of systems should be periodically evaluated to ensure they remain in a valid state and compliant with GMP requirements. This includes reviewing the current range of functionality, deviation records, incidents, problems, upgrade history, performance, reliability, security, and validation status reports.

FDA Draft Guidance on Protocol Deviations for Clinical Investigations

The FDA has published a draft guidance for “Protocol Deviations for Clinical Investigations of Drugs, Biological Products, and Devices.”

This draft guidance adopts the ICH E3(R1) definitions for protocol deviation and important protocol deviation, providing more standardized terminology, which is a great thing. Avoiding the term “protocol violation”, it primarily uses “protocol deviation” and “important protocol deviation.”

The FDA guidance provides detailed sections on the roles and responsibilities of investigators, sponsors, and IRBs in monitoring, mitigating, and reporting protocol deviations. It as specific recommendations for reporting protocol deviations to sponsors, IRBs, and FDA, including timelines and methods.

It mostly seems a good application of a quality-by-design approach, focusing on critical-to-quality factors and risk-based monitoring for clinical studies. Hopefully it will help clear up confusion in this area.

The Failure Space of Clinical Trials – Protocol Deviations and Events