Timeliness in Deviations is Important

Looked one way, the recent Intas Warning Letter is another example of a foreign company that should not be in the business of manufacturing pharmaceuticals. And that is probably true.

However, even the most egregious document can have some nuggets of wisdom for more mature quality organizations. Take this observation:

An analyst destroyed CGMP records by pouring acetic acid in a trash bin containing analytical balance slips for testing the standardization of (b)(4). A QC employee stated he observed the same analyst destroy KF titration curves and balance printouts. The employee reported the incident to QC laboratory management on November 22, 2022. An investigation into the destruction of the torn CGMP documents and the impact to your drug product quality was not initiated until November 28, 2022.

I sincerely hope you don’t have anyone pouring acid in a trashbin, or putting original data in a trashbin, or pouring acid on original data in the waste bin. But often we focus on the huge issues, shrug and say “That doesn’t happen here.” And hopefully you are right.

It is the last sentence that actually drew my attention. Because this gets to a problem we see in many organizations, some of them rather mature – timely creation and investigation of an event.

Managing Events Systematically

Also it is a telling example of poor inspection conduct. Don’t drag your heels with the inspector is clearly right. Act and act fast.

Sunscreen is a drug

Folks often forget that in the United States the active ingredient in sun screen is a drug and needs to meet appropriate quality system requirements. This Warning Letter to Kari Gran, Inc is a case in point.

The whole warning letter is a result of a company not realizing (or thinking they can get away with not having) the need for GMP compliance.

I’m not sure I would draw broader trends around data integrity or anything else from it.

Risk Assessments Do Not Replace Technical Knowledge

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last month warned Indian generic drugmaker Lupin Limited over three good manufacturing practice (GMP) violations at its facility in Maharashtra, India that identified issues with the company’s written procedures for equipment cleaning, its written procedures for monitoring and controlling the performance of processing steps and the “failure to investigate all critical deviations.”

The FDA said the company “performed multiple risk assessments with the purpose to verify whether existing cleaning procedures and practices eliminate or reduce genotoxic impurities … generated through the manufacture of [redacted] drugs after you detected [redacted] impurities in your [active pharmaceutical ingredient] API.” The company also performed risk assessments to determine whether its cleaning procedures reduced the risk of cross-contamination of intermediates and API. However, FDA said the risk assessments “lacked data to support that existing equipment cleaning procedures are effective in removing [redacted] along with residual API from each respective piece of equipment to acceptable levels. “The identification of genotoxic impurities in quantities near their established limits suggests excursions are possible. All intermediates and API manufactured on non-dedicated equipment used to manufacture [redacted] drugs should be subject to validated sampling and analytical testing to ensure they are not contaminated with unacceptable levels of genotoxic impurities,” FDA said.

At heart this warning letter shows a major weakness in many company’s risk management approach, they use the risk assessment to replace technical inquiry, instead of as a tool to determine the appropriateness of technical understanding and as a way to manage the uncertainty around technical knowledge.

A significant point in the current Q9 draft is to deal with this issue, which we see happen again and again. Risk management cannot tell you whether your cleaning procedures are effective or not. Only a validated testing scheme can. Risk management looks at the aggregate and evaluates possibilities.

Data Integrity Warning Letter

In July 2022, the U.S. FDA issued a Warning Letter to the U.S. American company “Jost Chemical Co.” after having inspected its site in January 2022. The warning letter listedfour significant areas:

“Failure of your quality unit to ensure that quality-related complaints are investigated and resolved, and failure to extend investigations to other batches that may have been associated with a specific failure or deviation.”
“Failure to establish adequate written procedures for cleaning equipment and its release for use in manufacture of API.”
“Failure to ensure that all test procedures are scientifically sound and appropriate to ensure that your API conform to established standards of quality and purity, and failure to ensure laboratory data is complete and attributable.”
“Failure to exercise sufficient controls over computerized systems to prevent unauthorized access or changes to data, and failure to establish and follow written procedures for the operation and maintenance of your computerized systems.”

I offer them the above clip as a good mini-training. I recently watched the show, and my wife thought I was going to have several heart attacks.

In a serious nature, please do not short your efforts in data integrity.