FDA Reorganization

FDA’s Reorganization Approved for Establishing Unified Human Foods Program, New Model for Field Operations and Other Modernization Efforts

The FDA’s reorganization has been unveiled and will be implemented on October 1st. As a total wonk, this is exciting.

There are two major changes:

Forming a Human Food Program (HFP) to consolidate a preventive approach will not have much impact on me professionally, but I’m hoping that as a consumer, we see significant dividends from this refocus.
ORA is being renamed the Office of Inspections and Investigations (OII) and will focus on inspections, investigations, and imports as its core mission. If nothing else, this will make explaining the structure of the FDA a heck of a lot easier.

Everything else seems to be mostly a lot of shuffling of the deck chairs that will have little impact.

EMA GMP Plans for Regulation Updates

Like one does, I watch upcoming regulations like a hawk. Here are a few of the forthcoming GMP changes coming from the 3-year work plan for the Inspectors Working Group.

Document	Intended Changes	When	My Thoughts
GMP Guide: Chapter 4 (Documentation)	Assure data integrity in the context of GMP. This would be in parallel with similar consideration of Annex 11 (Computerised Systems).	Q1 2026	An update is needed to align with current thinking. Data Integrity has advanced significantly in the last five years, and Chapter 4 could benefit from alignment with the PIC/S guidance.
GMP Guide: Annex 11 (Computerised Systems)	Assure data integrity in the context of GMP. This would be in parallel with similar consideration of Chapter 4 (Documentation).	Q1 2026	A necessary update. Will be curious to see how it aligns with the FDA’s CSA approach (which isn’t really all that new). We pretty much know what will be in it from the concept paper. At least it will solidify this requirement for cloud systems “Regulated users should 26 have access to the complete documentation for validation and safe operation of a system and be able to present this during regulatory inspections, e.g. with the help of the service provider.”
Guidelines on GMP specific to ATMPS	Review the Guidelines in collaboration with CAT and the European Commission following the publication of a new regulation on standards of quality and safety for substances of human origin intended for human application and need to update legal references and definitions. Review the Guidelines in the light of new Annex 1 Manufacture of Sterile Medicinal Products and consider whether any updates are necessary.	Q4 2026	This is a fast area of change, and this update is called for. Aligning to Annex 1 is overdue.
GMP Guide: Annex 3 Manufacture of Radiopharmaceuticals	A review and update of the Annex to reflect current state of the art.	Q4 2026	I’ve never worked in radiopharmaceuticals. Maybe someday.
GMP Guide: Annex 15 Qualification and Validation	In the context of new technology in facilities, products and processes and following up on LLE recommendations, and extend the scope to APIs.	Q4 2025	LLE is the EMA’s lessons learnt report (LLE) on Nitrosamines. I’d love to see significant changes to finally align with ATSM E2500 and other recent challenges in validation.
GMP Guide: Annex 16 Certification by a Qualified Person and Batch Release	Following up on LLE recommendations.	Q4 2025	I’m not a massive fan of QPs as structured. Not expecting that to change.
GMP and Marketing Authorisation Holders	To revise the paper in line with recommendations from the Nitrosamines LLE, to strengthen guidance for MAHs in terms of having adequate quality agreement with manufactures.	Q4 2025	Anything to strengthen quality agreements is probably a good thing.

Anytime we see a major chapter update in the Eudralex Volume 4 is an exciting year, and the next few promise to be big. Maybe not Annex 1 big, but maybe the EMA and PIC/S will surprise us.

Leveraging Inspection Manuals for GMP Inspection Readiness

The various agency inspection manuals are critical tools for inspection readiness. I want to lay out where to find some of these manuals and then go deep into pre-approval inspections, focusing on data integrity.

European Medicines Agency

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has established detailed procedures and work instructions for coordinating and conducting Good Clinical Practice (GCP), Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP), and pharmacovigilance inspections. Here are the key points regarding EMA’s inspection procedures:

GCP Inspection Procedures

EMA identifies applications for GCP inspections based on risk assessment criteria and exchanges information on shared applications with the FDA.
Inspections can be joint (conducted concurrently by EMA and FDA inspectors) or sequential (conducted separately by each agency).
EMA notifies the applicant/marketing authorization holder (MAH) and inspects sites about upcoming inspections through the IRIS industry portal instead of formal letters.
Applicants/MAHs must provide a signed statement accepting the inspection and granting direct access to documents and medical records.
Requested documents should be provided directly to inspectors in electronic format after consulting the reporting inspector.
After the inspection, EMA receives the draft inspection report, finalizes it with the inspectee’s responses, and publishes it in IRIS.

GMP Inspection Procedures

EMA coordinates GMP inspections based on risk assessment for marketing authorization applications, variations, and routine re-inspections.
Work instructions cover areas such as inspection announcement, fee calculation, product sampling/testing, and report circulation.

Pharmacovigilance Inspection Procedures

EMA has specific procedures for coordinating pharmacovigilance inspections and managing non-compliance notifications from MAHs.
Work instructions detail the inspection program creation, data entry in databases, and interactions with third-country inspectorates.

The EMA aims to harmonize inspection processes with the FDA and other regulatory bodies to streamline collaboration and information sharing while ensuring clinical trial subject protection and product quality.

FDA

The FDA Investigations Operations Manual (IOM) is the primary inspection manual used by FDA personnel when performing inspections and investigations.

The key points about the IOM are:

It provides comprehensive instructions, procedures, and policies for FDA investigators and inspectors to follow when conducting inspections, surveys, and investigations.
It covers inspectional activities for foods, drugs, medical devices, biologics, cosmetics, and other FDA-regulated products.
The manual details procedures for inspections of manufacturing facilities, sampling, import operations, recalls, consumer complaints, and other compliance activities.
It aims to ensure inspections are conducted consistently across FDA field offices and provide clear guidance to the industry on the FDA’s inspection approach.
The IOM is updated periodically to incorporate new laws, regulations, policies, and technological changes impacting FDA’s operations.
While not legally binding, the IOM represents the FDA’s current thinking and policies on inspections and investigations.

The FDA Investigations Operations Manual serves as the comprehensive inspection reference and procedure manual for FDA field staff carrying out the agency’s oversight and enforcement activities across all regulated product areas.

Pre-Approval Inspections

For new facilities, CPGM 7346.832, the FDA’s Compliance Program Guidance Manual for Pre-Approval Inspections (PAIs) of drug manufacturing facilities, is critical to spend time with. It outlines the objectives and procedures for FDA inspectors to evaluate a facility’s readiness for commercial manufacturing before approving a new drug application.

The key objectives of CPGM 7346.832 are:

Assess if the facility has a quality system capable of controlling commercial manufacturing operations.
Verify that the manufacturing processes, formulation, and analytical methods conform to the application details.
Audit raw data integrity to authenticate the data submitted in the application.
Evaluate the facility’s commitment to quality in pharmaceutical development (new objective added in 2022 revision).

The guidance instructs inspectors on evaluating the firm’s quality systems, process validation, data integrity, laboratory controls, change management, investigations, batch release procedures, and compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMPs). It aims to ensure the facility can reliably produce the drug product described in the application.

Data Integrity

CPGM 7346.832 has specific requirements for data integrity audits during drug manufacturing facility pre-approval inspections (PAIs). Utilizing this document is an excellent way to evaluate your data integrity program.

The key points are:

Objective 3 of the guidance is “Data Integrity Audit”—auditing and verifying raw data associated with the product to authenticate the data submitted in the application.
Inspectors must audit the accuracy and completeness of data reported by the facility for the product. This involves verifying the factual integrity (data matches what was submitted) and contextual integrity (supporting data is complete).
Inspectors should examine raw data, such as chromatograms, analyst notebooks, electronic data, etc., and compare it to the summary data in the application’s Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls (CMC) section.
The data integrity audit should focus on finished product stability, dissolution, content uniformity, API impurities, etc.
Inspectors must identify any unreported relevant data, data falsification, improper invalidation of results, or unexplained data discrepancies.
Indications of data integrity issues include altered raw data, references to failing studies, discrepancies between samples, and missing records.

The data integrity audit aims to ensure the CMC data submitted to FDA is complete, reliable, and can be fully authenticated from the raw data at the manufacturing site. Robust data integrity is critical for the FDA to decide on the application’s approval.

FDA Revised MAPP Impact to Foreign Inspections

The FDA has updated its MAPP for staff, revising the “Understanding CDER’s Risk-Based Site Selection Model” (5014.1 Rev. 1). The update details how the FDA will prioritize inspections under the SSM and adds a risk factor for establishments in countries with a history of violations. This is a new risk factor for a region or entire country, whereas previously, mainly individual criteria such as site quality history, site type, and time since last inspection were used.

This is a fascinating addition, and I’d love to see the actual data on this risk factor. Anyone know if this can be FOIA’d? It would be interesting to see the difference between India and Mexico or even if they’ve subdivided the US.

Phase Appropriate – An Unpacking

There is no term more misused and misunderstood than “Phase Appropriate.” It is one of those terms that just about everyone involved in FDA-regulated industries has an opinion on and one where we all get tripped up.

What do we mean by phase?

Drug development can be divided into discovery, preclinical studies, clinical development, and market approval.

Each one of these phases is further broken down.

It is also important to remember that certain activities may start in earlier phases. For example, for manufacturing, tech transfer, and commercial manufacturing can start in Phase 3 (and more and more these days even 2!).

A similar approach can apply to medical devices.

The GxPs – a brief definition

Phase Appropriate GMPs

A Review of Regulations

21 CFR 210.2(c)	An investigational drug for use in a phase 1 study, as described in § 312.21(a) of this chapter, is subject to the statutory requirements set forth in 21 U.S.C. 351(a)(2)(B). The production of such drug is exempt from compliance with the regulations in part 211 of this chapter. However, this exemption does not apply to an investigational drug for use in a phase 1 study once the investigational drug has been made available for use by or for the sponsor in a phase 2 or phase 3 study, as described in § 312.21(b) and (c) of this chapter, or the drug has been lawfully marketed. If the investigational drug has been made available in a phase 2 or phase 3 study or the drug has been lawfully marketed, the drug for use in the phase 1 study must comply with part 211.
FDA Guidance	CGMP for Phase 1 Investigational Drugs
EMA/INS/GMP/258937/2022	Guideline on the responsibilities of the sponsor with regard to handling and shipping of investigational medicinal products for human use in accordance with Good Clinical Practice and Good Manufacturing Practice
Eudralex Volume 4 Annex 13	Investigational Medicinal Products

ICH Q10 Diagram of the ICH Q10 Pharmaceutical Quality System Model (Annex 2)

What Activities are Phase-specific for the GMPs

Phase 1:

Critical quality attributes identified with safety Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs) clearly documented
Process changes as information is accumulated
Controls for analytical methods

Phase 2:

Processes characterized and Production and Process Controls (PPC) identified
Analytical methods are qualified
Materials acceptance criteria
Critical vendors qualified

Phase 3:

Processes validated with Production and Process Controls (PPC) identified and controlled
Validation of analytical methods
Materials have been fully qualified and tested upon receipt as appropriate

What About the Quality System?

ICH Q10 clearly spells out the PQS requirements, breaking down into stages of Pharmaceutical Development (usually Phase 1 and earlier), Technology Transfer (usually phase 2), Commercial Manufacturing (which may start before approval) and Product Discontinuation. Q10 then lays out the expectations by these stages for the four key elements of:

Process performance and product quality monitoring system
Corrective action and preventive action (CAPA) system
Change management system
Management review of process performance and product quality.

	Pharmaceutical Development	Technology Transfer	Commercial Manufacturing	Product Discontinuation
Process Performance and Product Quality	Process and product knowledge generated and process and product monitoring conducted throughout development can be used to establish a control strategy for manufacturing.	Monitoring during scale-up activities can provide a preliminary indication of process performance and the successful integration into manufacturing. Knowledge obtained during transfer and scale up activities can be useful in further developing the control strategy.	A well-defined system for process performance and product quality monitoring should be applied to assure performance within a state of control and to identify improvement areas.	Once manufacturing ceases, monitoring such as stability testing should continue to completion of the studies. Appropriate action on marketed product should continue to be executed according to regional regulations.
Corrective Action and Preventive Action	Product or process variability is explored. CAPA methodology is useful where corrective actions and preventive actions are incorporated into the iterative design and development process.	CAPA can be used as an effective system for feedback, feedforward and continual improvement.	CAPA should be used and the effectiveness of the actions should be evaluated.	CAPA should continue after the product is discontinued. The impact on product remaining on the market should be considered as well as other products which might be impacted.
Change Management	Change is an inherent part of the development process and should be documented; the formality of the change management process should be consistent with the stage of pharmaceutical development.	The change management system should provide management and documentation of adjustments made to the process during technology transfer activities.	A formal change management system should be in place for commercial manufacturing. Oversight by the quality unit should provide assurance of appropriate science and risk based assessments.	Any changes after product discontinuation should go through an appropriate change management system.
Management Review of Process Performance and Product Quality	Aspects of management review can be performed to ensure adequacy of the product and process design.	Aspects of management review should be performed to ensure the developed product and process can be manufactured at commercial scale.	Management review should be a structured system, as described above, and should support continual improvement.	Management review should include such items as product stability and product quality complaints.

ICH Stage appropriate quality system elements

Together with ICH Q9, this sets forth a framework of building knowledge and risk management into all aspects of the system together with a robust issue management mindset. There are really three things driving this.

Consistency in execution
Document decision making
Follow through

Some aspects remain pretty steady in all phases/stages, while others will grow as the organization develops.

The Difference Between Maturity and Phase Appropriate

People confuse phase appropriate with maturity all the time. Phase appropriate means doing the right activities in the right order. Maturity means the how is the most effective possible.

Quality Management Maturity (QMM) is the state attained when drug manufacturers have consistent, reliable, and robust business processes to achieve quality objectives and promote continual improvement. This is both composed of phase independent and phase dependent aspects.

Remember, a Quality Culture is the foundation that makes the rest of this happen.