The FDA has announced a pilot program to “propose explicit established conditions (ECs) as part of an original new drug application (NDA), abbreviated new drug application (ANDA), biologics license application (BLA), or as a prior approval supplement (PAS) to any of these.”
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/
I find it interesting to read a different perspective. I tend to be a big fan of guidances (they always need work) as they help lay down how we can get better and improve. Being on the front line of regulatory inspections probably more than a group of lawyers, I recognize the differences in how guidances are treated differently than regulations, and how the agencies apply very long lead times on how inspections treat this material. And frankly, the 483s and Warning Letters we are seeing coming out of data integrity scare the beejeezus out of me. There is also a need for the FDA to ensure it’s thinking on matters is aligned with our European and rest-of-world counterparts, especially in this day of mutual recognition agreements.
Regulatory and administrative law is definitely continually evolving. It is important to be aware of a variety of perspectives on the subject.
Did someone declare December Data Integrity month when I wasn’t looking? Though recent FDA announcements really mean that every month is data integrity month.
In the spirit of giving the US published on 13Dec2017 “Data Integrity and Compliance with Drug CGMP: Questions and Answers.” This guidance updates a draft version released in 2016 and has been revised to include additional information on the agency’s current thinking on best practices and covers the design, operation and monitoring of systems and controls to maintain data integrity.