Discuss the Strategies to Increase the Number of Excipients Labeled
Download
1 / 17

Discuss the Strategies to Increase the Number of Excipients Labeled USP-NF October 10-11, 2006 DISCUSSION TOPIC D Closin - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 176 Views
  • Uploaded on

Discuss the Strategies to Increase the Number of Excipients Labeled USP-NF October 10-11, 2006 DISCUSSION TOPIC D Closing Presentation. Moderator: Barbara Ferguson Scribes: Catherine Sheehan Dr. Hong Wang. 1.a. What are the barriers to labeling an excipient as USP-NF grade?

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Discuss the Strategies to Increase the Number of Excipients Labeled USP-NF October 10-11, 2006 DISCUSSION TOPIC D Closin' - orestes


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Slide1 l.jpg

Discuss the Strategies to Increase the Number of Excipients LabeledUSP-NFOctober 10-11, 2006DISCUSSION TOPIC DClosing Presentation

Moderator: Barbara FergusonScribes: Catherine Sheehan

Dr. Hong Wang


Pqri workshop discussion d l.jpg

1.a. What are the barriers to labeling an excipient as LabeledUSP-NF grade?

Low demand, not main business, may charge premium for USP-NF grade, may be a by-product and not final excipient

GMP requirements are perceived to be too stringent

Difficult for chemical supplier to come up to speed with GMPs

Lack of excipient manufacturer’s understanding of what requirements, outside of the USP-NF monograph, need to be met, including GMP requirements

Many monographs developed prior to establishment of GMP requirement for excipients

PQRI Workshop Discussion D


Pqri workshop discussion d3 l.jpg

1.a. What are the barriers to labeling an excipient as LabeledUSP-NF grade?

Don’t want to put NF on the label because of the liability to meet other requirements in addition to monograph requirements.

The Act 501b does not distinguish between the drug and the excipient in the drug, so the requirement to comply with USP-NF exists if the excipient manufacture supplies the drug market. Need clarity on this point from FDA.

User needs to understand why the vendor will not certify material as USP-NF to ensure that it will not impact quality of product

PQRI Workshop Discussion D


Pqri workshop discussion d4 l.jpg

1.a. What are the barriers to labeling an excipient as LabeledUSP-NF grade?

Time/resources for audits

more than one audit by a firm

Pharmaceutical manufacturer auditors

mistakenly apply drug GMPs to excipients

different requirements for each auditor/firm

do not understand excipient process

utilize audit check list mentality

use terms for drug GMPs which are not pertinent to excipient control

PQRI Workshop Discussion D


Pqri workshop discussion d5 l.jpg

1.a. What are the barriers to labeling an excipient as LabeledUSP-NF grade?

Lack of understanding of use of excipient in formulation

Needs to be an understanding between maker and user regarding the necessary qualifications

Purchasing buys the material - gets you cheap excipients, not good science

Scientist/formulator should communicate with vendor for necessary qualities/use of excipient

Insurance/internal requirements to qualify two sources of excipients

Excipient manufacturers vary (some will supply the pharmaceutical market, some won’t, some are fully dedicated to the drug/food industry, some are chemical manufacturers)

Monograph testing does not appear to be a contributing factor

PQRI Workshop Discussion D


Pqri workshop discussion d6 l.jpg

1.b. How can the barriers be reduced? Labeled

Foster better understanding by excipient manufacturers and drug product manufacturers regarding the appropriate GMPs for excipients – see #6 for recommendations

Provide guidance to educate both parties as to what is needed/expected – see #6 for recommendations

Audits

focus on vendor’s control of excipient process

coordinate audits from the drug product manufacturer

utilize third party audits after initial qualification

May still come down to the bottom line: Is there enough of a market to supply this grade?

PQRI Workshop Discussion D


Pqri workshop discussion d7 l.jpg

2. LabeledWhat excipients are no longer available as USP-NF grade, which were formerly available as USP-NF grade?

If there is no USP-NF grade excipient commercially available, then there is no one to support the continuation of a monograph; USP monograph is deleted

Recommend retaining monograph as minimum standard as long asthere is no safety issue

Monographs that have been omitted (deleted)

Dehydroacetic acid (proposal to be reinstated)

Propylene glycol diacetate

Gentisic acid ethanolamide

Can the deleted list be published?

USP will reinstate monograph if supplier will support it

Some examples provided for vendors no longer certifying material as USP-NF (e.g., methanol in tankers)

Can Distributor assume liability and call it USP-NF if they perform final processing step under GMPs?

PQRI Workshop Discussion D


Pqri workshop discussion d8 l.jpg

3. What are the implications when an excipient user moves from a compendial grade excipient to noncompendial grade (i.e., not designated through labeling suffix, namely USP-NF, Ph. Eur. or JP), when it was previously procured as compendial grade?

Drug product manufacturer assumes liability if continues to use material

need to know why it is not USP-NF

may be using same process, but are controls the same?

Need to change regulatory filing, if applicable

Changes to regulatory filings could be costly (e.g., Europe)

Look for another supplier

PQRI Workshop Discussion D


Pqri workshop discussion d9 l.jpg

3. What are the implications when an excipient user moves from a compendial grade excipient to noncompendial grade (i.e., not designated through labeling suffix, namely USP-NF, Ph. Eur. or JP), when it was previously procured as compendial grade?

Even if monograph is maintained, testing alone is insufficient – need greater assurance, possibly through audits

If fails when tested, drug product manufacturer assumes risk/loss

Justification to move from compendial to noncompendial grade

If monograph is deleted, can reference last official version of USP-NF monograph in regulatory filing

PQRI Workshop Discussion D


Pqri workshop discussion d10 l.jpg

4. What is industry’s burden in supplying analytical method validation data to regulatory agency for excipients no longer labeled USP-NF?

If not using USP-NF method, then drug product manufacturer is required to provide this in filing, if applicable

Method must still be capable of controlling quality of the excipient

Reference prior version of USP-NF, and if still appropriate for excipient , no additional validation needs to be supplied

Refer to Ph. Eur., JP, FCC, ACS Reagent Grade, or AOAC – no additional validation needs to be supplied

Refer to excipient manufacturer’s DMF, no additional validation needs to be supplied

Validation only required for other methods used to control excipient

PQRI Workshop Discussion D


Pqri workshop discussion d11 l.jpg

5. What test methods are used when an excipient user must replace a compendial grade excipient with noncompendial grade?

ACS Reagent Grade, FCC, AOAC, JECFA

Excipient vendor method

Noncompendial excipient section of filing

May need to send supplement to FDA

PQRI Workshop Discussion D


Pqri workshop discussion d12 l.jpg

6. What are the ongoing initiatives at the USP to address these problems?

Monograph development guideline on USP website with excipient section

Provide more background/policies on tests – “technical guide”

Outreach programs to industry – USP staff available to assist with development of monographs

USP General Information Chapters for Excipients

<1078> GMPs (official but is being updated to reflect current IPEC)

<1080> CoA (coming soon)

<1195> Significant Change (coming soon)

Excipient qualification guidelines being developed by IPEC and will eventually be included in USP

I - Excipient manufacturer (new proposal soon)

II - Excipient user (being drafted by IPEC)

III - Negotiation process (later)

USP lab may assist with revisions to monographs (e.g., glycerin)

PQRI Workshop Discussion D


Pqri workshop discussion d13 l.jpg

6. What are the ongoing initiatives at the USP to address these problems?

Recommendations:

Reach out to distributors and non traditional USP-NF suppliers.

Use USP Annual Science Meeting as a forum to reach out and educate the non traditional USP-NF users.

The distributors, once educated, could assist in educating the excipient vendors.

Establish Excipient Stakeholder Forum

Utilize USP verification program to reduce the amount of audits.

Establish a process for vendors to notify USP as to when the NF grade is no longer available.

FAQs on USP website

More transparency for PDG Harmonization updates – USP website link to EDQM’s PDG status reports

PQRI Workshop Discussion D


Closing questions comments l.jpg

Section 501b of the Act does not distinguish between the drug and the excipient in the drug, so the requirements to comply with USP-NF exists if the excipient manufacture supplies the drug market.

This could cause excipient manufactures to remove “NF”from their label.

Removing the “NF” designation from the label does not obviate the requirement to comply with the compendial standards if the excipient is tended for use in the manufacture of a drug product. That is because section 501 (b) of the FD&C Act applies if the excipient purports to be or is represented as a drug the name of which is recognized in the official compendium.

Closing Questions / Comments


Closing questions comments15 l.jpg

What is industry’s burden in supplying analytical method validation data to regulatory agency for excipients no longer labeled USP-NF?

Refer to excipient manufacturer’s DMF, no additional validation needs to be supplied.

If the Drug Manufacturer uses the excipient manufacturersDMF does the Drug Manufacturer needs to supply the validation?

No additional analytical methods validation data need to be supplied in an (abbreviated, or) new drug application (NDA or ANDA), if FDA determines the DMF to be adequate in support of the NDA/ANDA.

Closing Questions / Comments


Closing questions comments16 l.jpg

Excipients no longer available as NF Grade validation data to regulatory agency for excipients no longer labeled USP-NF?

USP list

Corn Syrup

Diethyl phthalate

Edetate Calcium (Calcium EDTA powder)

IPEC List

Glycerin (synthetic)

Lecithin

Liquid Glucose

Propylene Glycol Stearate

Dehydroacetic acid

Propylene glycol diacetate

Gentisic acid ethanolamide

Closing Questions / Comments


Closing questions comments17 l.jpg

Guideline for submission of a revision to the USP-NF validation data to regulatory agency for excipients no longer labeled USP-NF?http://www.usp.org/USPNF/submitMonograph/subGuide.html

Chapter 3 Excipients and addenda

Closing Questions/ Comments


ad