The Pharmaceutical Inspection Convention Cooperation Scheme (PIC/S) on 01-Jan-2019 released a long-awaited guidance to help regulators harmonize the classification and reporting of good manufacturing practice (GMP) deficiency outcomes from inspections. The guidance is designed as a “tool to support the risk-based classification of GMP deficiencies from inspections and to establish consistency amongst inspectorates.”
The proposed technical correction regulation, the other two guidance documents, and the list deal with the transition of certain biological products from NDAs to BLAs. Starting with the simplest, the proposed (so-called) technical correction would amend the definition of “biological product” in 21 C.F.R. § 600.3(h) to conform to the definition implemented in the BPCIA and provide an interpretation of the statutory terms “protein” and “chemically synthesized polypeptide.” FDA calls it a “technical correction” in the proposed rule, but this isn’t really technical, nor is it a correction. Indeed, it reflects a significant change to the definition of biological product because the rule would replace the phrase “means any” with the phrase “means a” and would add the phrase “protein (except any chemically synthesized polypeptide)” to the definition of “biological product.” Consistent with the April 2015 Questions & Answers guidance, the proposed rule would amend 21 C.F.R. § 600.3(h) to further define protein as any alpha amino acid polymer with a specific defined sequence that is greater than 40 amino acids in size, and the term chemically synthesized polypeptide as any alpha amino acid polymer that: (1) is made entirely by chemical synthesis and (2) is greater than 40 amino acids but less than 100 amino acids in size. Given that that FDA has been using this definition since the publication of the April 2015 final version of this Question and Answer guidance, this proposed regulation is unlikely to catch industry by surprise. But this is just one of multiple steps FDA is taking to prepare industry for the March 2020 transition of certain biological products approved under NDAs to BLAs.
— Read on www.fdalawblog.net/2019/01/avalanche-or-roadblock-fda-publishes-flurries-of-biologic-and-biosimilar-materials/
This paper discusses background information related to RM regulatory requirements and industry challenges, and then highlights key principles to consider in setting up a risk-based RM management approach and control strategy. This paper then provides an example of how to translate those key principles into a detailed RM risk assessment methodology, and how to apply this methodology to specific raw materials. To better illustrate the diversity and nuance in applying a corresponding RM control strategy, a number of case studies with raw materials typically utilized in the manufacture of biological medicinal products have been included as well as discussion on phase-based mitigations.
While most of the advanced technologies already exist today, few pharmaceutical companies have yet to see any significant benefits. On one side, quality leaders struggle to define a clear business case for the technological changes, and thus fail to bring to management attention to the significant impact potential associated with lab digitization or automation. On the other side, companies often neglect the development of a clear long-term lab evolution strategy and blueprint, which can lead to some costly investments with unclear benefits.
— Read on https://www.pharmamanufacturing.com/articles/2018/the-future-of-quality-control/
On my.ASQ.org the following question was asked “The Device History Record is a form in fillable PDF format. Worker opens the PDF from a secure source within the local network. The only thing they can change is checkmark Pass/Fail, Yes/No and enter serial numbers in the allowed fields. Then after the assembly process is done for each procedure, the worker prints the DHR, signs and dates it by hand, to verify the accuracy of data entered. No re-printing or saving PDF’s is allowed.”
This comes up a lot. This is really a simple version of a hybrid situation, where both electronic and paper versions of the record exists.
Turning to the PIC/S draft guidance we find on page 44 of 52 “Each element of the hybrid system should be qualified and controlled in accordance with the guidance relating to manual and computerised systems”
Here would be my recommendation (and its one tried and tested).
The pdf form needs to be under the same document management system and controls as any other form. Ideally the exact same system. This provides version control and change management to the form. It also allows users to know they have the current version at all times.
Once it is printed, the paper version is the record. It has a wet-signature and it under all the same predicate record requirements. This record gets archived appropriately.
Where I have seen companies get messed up here is when the pdf exists in a separate, usually poorly controlled system from the rest of your document management. Situations like this should really be evaluated from the document management perspective and not the computer systems life-cycle perspective. But its all data integrity.