Quality (or CMC) Enablers for Efficient/Effective Drug Product Lifecycle … · 2016-11-16 ·...
Transcript of Quality (or CMC) Enablers for Efficient/Effective Drug Product Lifecycle … · 2016-11-16 ·...
Quality (or CMC) Enablers for Efficient/Effective Drug Product Lifecycle Management –
FDA’s Perspective
Susan Rosencrance, Ph.D.Director, Office of Lifecycle Drug ProductsOffice of Pharmaceutical Quality/CDER/FDA
November 16, 2016
Symposium Session – AAPS 2016
2
Drug Product Lifecycle Management –
OPQ’s Role
3
OPQ – Focused on Drug Product Quality
3
Strategically organized to streamline regulatory processes and focus on
product quality
Integrates functional areas for more informed
decision making
Emphasizes a lifecycle approach to drug
quality using knowledge management
OPQ
Office of Testing and ResearchDirector:Lucinda Buhse
Office of SurveillanceActing Director:Sarah Pope Miksinski
Office of Process and Facilities Director:Robert Iser
Office of Program and Regulatory OperationsDirector: Giuseppe Randazzo
Office of Lifecycle Drug ProductsDirector:Susan Rosencrance
Immediate OfficeDirector: Michael KopchaDeputy Director: Lawrence Yu
Office of Policy for Pharmaceutical QualityDirector:Ashley Boam
Office of New Drug ProductsDirector:Sarah Pope Miksinski
Office of Biotech ProductsDirector:Steven Kozlowski
55
OPQ’s Lifecycle Management Approach
• The Office of Lifecycle Drug Products (OLDP) generally leads the quality assessment of post-approval changes for generic and brand products and serves as the centralized home office*; inter-office collaborations occur where appropriate
• The Office of Process and Facilities (OPF) plays a key role in evaluating the need for inspection of manufacturing sites and makes the final site recommendation; performs a quality assessment of microbiological aspects; provides a quality assessment when complex manufacturing technologies/processes are involved.
* After the NDA transitions from the Office of New Drug Products (ONDP).
6
• Centralizing the long-term lifecycle management function within a single OPQ sub-office has a number of benefits:
– Provides a uniform, consistent approach to post-approval changes (ANDA success story); promotes parity in the regulatory oversight of brand and generic drug products
– Provides a home-office that makes it easily manageable for all stakeholders (note: transition period for NDA supplements)
6
Why OLDP?
7
– OPQ’s major stakeholders (e.g., Office of New Drugs, Office of Generic Drugs, Industry) know who to contact when questions arise
– Agency receives approximately 5,000 supplements annually; need a system that can handle high-throughput efficiently; a centralized home office provides the right environment
7
Why OLDP (cont.)?
Reference: Susan M. Rosencrance and Geoffrey K. Wu, Advancing pharmaceutical quality oversight during the lifecycle of generic drug products, Journal of Generic Medicines, Oct. 2015
8
CMC Enablers or Tools for
Drug Product Lifecycle Management
9
CMC Enablers or Tools for Drug Product Lifecycle Management
www.fda.gov
The Post-Marketing Phase
Supplements
I. Comparability Protocols
II. Post-Marketing Commitments/Requirements
10
I. Comparability Protocols
www.fda.gov
• The regulations provide for protocols as an optional way to manage post-approval changes [21CFR 314.70(e) and 21 CFR 601.12(e)].
• A comparability protocol can be used to implement a CMC post-approval change.
A Comparability Protocol is a comprehensive, prospectively written plan for assessing the effect of a proposed CMC post-approval change(s) on the identity, strength, quality, purity, and potency of a drug product or a biological product (i.e., product), as these factors may relate to the safety or effectiveness of the product (i.e., product quality). = Agency definition in draft guidance published April 2016
11
I. Comparability Protocols – Basic Facts
www.fda.gov
• Comparability Protocols can be submitted in original applications (NDAs, ANDAs, BLAs) and in supplements to these applications.
• Comparability Protocols allow the Agency to review and assess the:1. Description of one of more proposed post-approval
changes;
2. Supporting information including any analyses and risk assessment activities;
3. Plan for implementing the change; and
4. Proposed reduced reporting category for the change, if appropriate.
12
I. Comparability Protocols – Basic Facts
www.fda.gov
• Agency approval of the submission containing the comparability protocol provides the applicant with an agreed-upon plan to implement the change.
• Comparability protocols facilitate post-approval changes and drug product lifecycle management because they enable a proactive approach to change implementation and product distribution, and promote continuous improvement.
13
I. Comparability Protocols
www.fda.gov
Comparability Protocols -Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls
Information
Guidance for Industry
DRAFT GUIDANCE
U.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesFood and Drug Administration
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER)
February 2003
Comparability Protocolsfor Human Drugs and
Biologics:Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls
Information
Guidance for Industry
DRAFT GUIDANCE
U.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesFood and Drug Administration
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER)
April 2016
14
I. The NDA Experience with Comparability Protocols
www.fda.gov
• The Agency has significant experience with comparability protocols in NDAs (original submissions and supplements)
• Survey of comparability protocols associated with NDAs since 2007
– Results show 106 comparability protocols submitted in 55 NDAs; all approved.
7672%
3028%
How submitted?
In an original NDA
As a PAS
15
I. Comparability Protocols – NDA Experience
www.fda.gov
2443%
1018%
814%
611%
24%
12%
12%
12%
12%
12%
Dosage Form Distribution
IR Tablets/Capsules/ODT
Injections; Solutions/Powder
Inhalation; Powder/Solution
DR/ER Tablets/Capsules
Topical Cream/Ointment/Gel/Lotion
Ophthalmic
Oral Liquid
Oral Suspension
Suspension
Transdermal
16
I. Comparability Protocols – NDA Experience
www.fda.gov
5350%
3230%
109%
66%
33%
22%
Manufacturing Site
Manufacturing Process
Container/Closure
Components/Composition
Specifications
Miscellaneous
Change Type Distribution
17
I. Comparability Protocols – NDA Experience
www.fda.gov
Reporting Category Distributionwithout CP
LegendNA: CP contains comparability report or changes beyond CP scopeNot Specified: Proposed multi reporting categories or subject to regulation changes
Reduced Reporting Category Distribution with CP
6965%
1312%
55%
44%
1312%
22%
PAS
CBE 30
CBE 0
AR
Not Specified
NA
65%
5451%
1615%
2322%
66%
11%
18
Case Study Example
• NDA x– Solid Oral Tablet
• S-x (PAS) – A comparability protocol for managing post-approval design space changes.
• Synopsis of Comparability Protocol: – Provided for specific design space changes resulting from equipment
changes or modifications.
– Used for changes to multiple design spaces at one time as long as the design spaces did not interact
– If any proposed change resulted in a change to a CQA (critical quality attribute) acceptance criteria, the proposed change was out of protocol scope.
– Defined the experiments, testing, acceptance criteria, and regulatory reporting strategy based on the specific proposed change
19
Case Study Example (cont.)
• Synopsis of Comparability Protocol (cont.): – Defined the data to be included for the post-approval change
• Experimental Design and Results (e.g., conditions, in-process control results)
• Additional testing results from increased sampling plan
• Product CQA testing results for impacted CQAs
• Revised design space limits
• Changes to parameter criticality (if applicable)
• Stability results/Stability commitment
– Regulatory Filing Strategy:
• Design Space change for Critical Process Parameter (CPP) – CBE-30
• Design Space change for non-Critical Process Parameter – CBE-0
• Site addition as part of a change to the Design Space (with inspection history) – CBE-0
• S-x (PAS) - Approved August 2016
20
I. The ANDA Experience with Comparability Protocols
www.fda.gov
• Limited experience with comparability protocols in ANDAs; just getting started with the issuance of the April 2016 draft guidance.
• Survey results show:
– 122 comparability protocols submitted in 44 ANDAs
– 2 comparability protocols submitted in 2 supplements
• All submitted comparability protocols are under evaluation and none have been approved yet.
21
I. Comparability Protocols – ANDA Experience
www.fda.gov
23, 52%
6, 14%
5, 11%
3, 7%
2, 5%
2, 5%
1, 2% 1, 2% 1, 2% Dosage Form Distribution
IR Tablets/Capsules/ODT
ER/DR Tablets/Capsule
Injections ( solutions/powder)
Oral liquid
Inhalation
Sublingual Film
Transdermal
Ophthalmic
Vaginal Ring
22
I. Comparability Protocols – ANDA Experience
www.fda.gov
27, 22%
11, 9%
20, 16%
19, 16%
17, 14%
17, 14%
6, 5%3, 2% 2, 2% Change Type Distribution
Container/Closure System (CCS)
CCS and Packaging site
Drug Substance Source
Manufacturing Site (drug product)
Manufacturing Site (drug substance)
Testing Facility
In-Process Test Removal
Manufacturing Process
Components and Composition
23
I. Comparability Protocols – ANDA Experience
www.fda.gov
Reporting Category Distributionwithout CP
Reduced Reporting Category Distribution with CP
43, 35%
64, 52%
14, 12%
1, 1%
PAS
CBE 30
CBE 0
AR
0, 0%
34, 28%
24, 20%
64, 52%
24
I. Comparability Protocols
www.fda.gov
Points to Consider when submitting a comparability protocol:
1. Firms are expected to employ:
– Effective use of knowledge and understanding of the product and manufacturing process
– A robust control strategy
– Risk management activities over a drug product’s lifecycle
– An effective pharmaceutical quality system
2. Protocols should contain application/product specific information(e.g., specifications, specific routine and non-routine tests) to demonstrate equivalency before and after the proposed change(s).
3. Typically one level downgrade for the reporting category is permitted.
25
I. Comparability Protocols
www.fda.gov
4. Adding a new drug substance source (i.e., new DMF to the application) is inappropriate for comparability protocols.
5. Changes requiring new clinical or bioequivalence studies/data are inappropriate for comparability protocols.
6. Draft Guidance for Industry Comparability Protocols for Human Drugs and Biologics: CMC Information (April 2016) provides our current thinking.
Points to Consider when submitting a comparability protocol (cont.):
26
NDAs ANDAs
Regardless of application type (NDA or ANDA), the science and associated risks are the same.
Same/similar rules apply (e.g., regulations, policies, guidance, guidelines, etc.)
Same documentation and supporting information should be provided,commensurate with the product complexity and associated risks.
Long historical practice; protocols have been submitted and reviewed since 2003
Little historical practice as applicants often asked to withdraw protocol; just
starting to review protocols
Generally the protocols contain good supporting information and are specific
Typically too general; lack of information to demonstrate product and process
understanding; lack of risk assessment
I. Comparability Protocols – NDAs vs ANDAs
27
CMC Enablers or Tools for Drug Product Lifecycle Management
www.fda.gov
The Post-Marketing Phase
Supplements
I. Comparability Protocols
II. Post-Marketing Commitments/Requirements
28
II. Post-Marketing Commitments/Requirements
www.fda.gov
• Under the regulations post-marketing requirements (PMRs) and post-marketing commitments (PMCs) refer to studies and clinical trials conducted after approval.
• They are agreed upon between the applicant and the Agency and are intended to further refine the safety, efficacy, or optimize use of the drug to ensure consistency and reliability of product quality.
• The regulations only apply to NDAs/BLAs, and not ANDAs
29
II. PMCs vs PMRs – The Difference
PMCs
• Studies or clinical trials a sponsor has committedto conduct, but that are not required by a statute or regulation
PMRs
• Required studies and clinical trials under one or more statutes or regulations
www.fda.gov
30
II. When a PMR is Involved
www.fda.gov
• The review issue, safety risk, and goal of the study/clinical trial is documented.
• A timetable for completion is established.
• There are periodic reports on the status of the study/clinical trial
• The PMR may occur at the time of approval or after approval if the Agency becomes aware of new safety information.
31
Case Study Example
• PMR for Drug Product x
• Reason for PMR:
– The issue of foreign contamination was not permanently resolved at the time of BLA approval.
– A test/acceptance criteria for particulates was implemented to mitigate the risk for contamination of commercial batches, but alleviation via a specification was not considered a complete solution (i.e., no foreign contamination should be present).
– The applicant was required to perform a complete evaluation of foreign matter contamination for the intermediate and drug substance to prevent use in drug product manufacturing if contamination was present.
32
Case Study Example (cont.)
• To fulfill the PMR the applicant submitted quarterly reports as required and provided a final summary with all required information on April 30, 2015
• On June 1, 2016 the Agency sent a PMR fulfillment letter to the applicant.
33
The Importance of
Drug Product Lifecycle Management
34
The Importance of Drug Product Lifecycle Management
• OPQ brings new opportunities through its emphasis on a lifecycle approach to drug product quality.
35
The Importance of Drug Product Lifecycle Management
• The new paradigm in OPQ allows for:
– Clearer identification of product risks for more informed decision making
– Quickly addressing quality problems
– Overall efficiency improvements
– Greater parity in the regulatory oversight and quality assessment of brand and generic drugs
– Reduced regulatory oversight and increased operational flexibility in the commercial manufacturing phase
3636
Patients
Regulators
Industry
Good lifecycle management in the post-marketing phase results in a continuous
supply of quality drug products
Everyone Benefits!
The Importance of Drug Product Lifecycle Management
37
Acknowledgments
• Geoffrey Wu
• Hasmukh Patel
• Hardikkumar Patel*
• Akshata Nevrekar*
• Xue Li*
* ORISE (Post-doctoral) Fellows