Abstract
In this paper, we remind readers of several ICH guideline documents such as ICH Q3A, Q3B, Q3C, Q3D, Q6A, Q6B, M7, and ICH S9 which are related to the drug substance and drug product impurity limit setting. In particular, ICH Q6A clearly states that “specifications should focus on those characteristics found to be useful in ensuring the safety and efficacy of the drug substance and drug product”; however, recent negotiations between health authority and applicants (company) related to proposed marketing applications show that on a global level, batch experience, even when limited, plays an overwhelming role in developing impurity acceptance criteria rather than clinical relevance. The drawback of such practice and the great need to establish patient centric specifications (PCS) are highlighted. Secondly, this paper proposes approaches on how to establish patient centric criteria for drug substance and drug product impurity limits based on the principles outlined in ICH guideline documents and scientific literature. Three case studies are presented to illustrate the challenges in establishing PCS and the divergence of regulatory acceptance to such specifications. We propose some approaches that can be considered for specification setting based on clinical relevance in the drug development, registration and post-approval phases of a product life-cycle. Lastly, we give thoughts on the future perspective of this movement and offer recommendations to foster discussions between regulatory agencies and pharmaceutical industry on getting medicinal products that are safe and effective to the patient sooner to meet unmet medical needs without supply interruption concerns.
Highlights
The following White Paper describes the International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering (ISPE)-sponsored PatientCentric Specification (PCS) Working Group’s current thinking on this topic as applied to drug substance and drug product impurities
The practical application is that the NOAEL is lowered to form the human equivalent dose (HED) by a factor of 6.2 for rats, 12.3 for mice, 3.1 for monkeys, etc.; this has been applied inconsistently across regulatory reviewers since it is in direct contrast with ICH Q3A guidelines where they say “a level of qualified impurity higher than that present in a new drug substance can be justified based on an analysis of the actual amount of impurity administered in previous relevant safety studies”
We remind readers of several ICH guideline documents such as ICH Q3A, Q3B, Q3C, Q3D, Q6A, Q6B, M7, and ICH S9 which are related to the drug substance and drug product impurity limit setting
Summary
The following White Paper describes the International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering (ISPE)-sponsored PatientCentric Specification (PCS) Working Group’s current thinking on this topic as applied to drug substance and drug product impurities. & Barriers to continuous improvement reduced or removed & Improved manufacturing efficiency & Sustained or improved product quality & Specifications based on parameters that truly impact product quality & Common understanding and language on risk & Both, industry and regulatory authorities focus on areas of greatest risk and understanding of residual risks This combination of quality vision and desired state has guided the development of the new era of science and riskbased guidelines that started with the trio of ICH Q8, Q9, and Q10 with their focus on the needs of the patient and “Quality by Design” [7,8,9,10]
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.