OR WAIT null SECS
There is a new FDA Commissioner who wants a "strong FDA". Chromatographers must be prepared to be compliant and remain compliant - or else!
There is a new US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner who wants a "strong" FDA and she is backing her words with action by initiating a programme that cuts the time that firms must respond to 483 observations from 30 to 15 business days. Not only is the time halved but the response must also be complete! Be prepared to be compliant and remain compliant with regulations — or else.
There you are sitting at your desk browsing the latest copy of LCGC Europe wondering what the title of this column is all about. If you work in a regulated healthcare company that sells products to the USA or for a laboratory that works on behalf of these regulated companies you will know that FDA (Food and Drug Administration) inspectors inspect your company every so often. Occasionally an inspector may come into the chromatography laboratory and inspect the way that you work against the requirements of good manufacturing practice (GMP) or good laboratory practice (GLP). Prepare to be prepared when the FDA inspectors next pop in for tea and biscuits and a cosy chat. The FDA has changed its approach to inspections recently and chromatographers must understand the impact that this will have on your approach to regulatory compliance in the laboratory.
The FDA has not had good press over the last few years and has been on the receiving end of two critical reports from the Government Audit Office (GAO). The last report covered the FDA foreign inspection programme1 and was damning in the fact that the FDA don't know how many establishments it has to inspect, relies on volunteers to inspect overseas and when they do conduct inspections the frequency is lower than in the US.
As a result of this report — and the increased threat of supply chain contamination — the FDA Modernization Act 20092 is being passed into law and will involve:
Concomitantly there has also been an increase in budget to fund this and increase the inspection programme.
So what does that mean for me in the chromatography laboratory? This stuff appears to be too high a level to even contemplate doing anything about. Well what this means is that with an increase in budget and the fact that FDA are opening offices in Europe your companies will be seeing the inspectors on a far more frequent rate than before.
In addition to the Act, there has also been a change at the top of the FDA with the appointment of Dr Margaret Hamburg as the new Commissioner in May 2009. On 6 August the new Commissioner made a speech that emphasized the need for a "strong FDA", which highlighted the benefits of this new approach as having credibility with the public, being transparent in explaining its decisions, able to enforce the law and being creative in promoting health. In this speech with an accompanying video,3 the following quotations were included:
The strong message coming through loud and clear is: be compliant and remain compliant with the regulations — or else.
Not only does this apply to the here and now but also as noted in the final bullet point the Commissioner wants to discourage future offences. So why change the FDA approach to enforcement? One of the rationales for this was mentioned in the speech as the pathways for enforcement action can be too long and arduous when the public's health is in jeopardy. So from this and the FDA we must infer that the FDA will be increasing inspections while tightening up and speeding up enforcement actions.
This means that for chromatographers working in regulated laboratories that if you are not compliant with the regulations then you can expect that the FDA can issue a warning letter that gives notice that you are not compliant. Recent examples from August 2009 are Cambrex (Italy) who managed to lose chromatography data system (CDS) data files during a software upgrade and Bayer (Germany) where the out-of-specification results procedure for chromatography analysis was not deemed compliant. This raises additional cost for remediation work and raises the non-compliance profile with the regulator.
Thus it was not surprising that the FDA announced in the Federal Register of 11th August4 the trial of a new programme titled Review of Post-Inspection Responses. The purpose of this programme is to facilitate the timely issuance of warning letters that started on 15 September 2009 and will run for 18 months.
Before we look in detail at the inspection goodies coming your way, I would just like to step back and review what happened before implementation of this new programme. FDA inspections come in three flavours and will continue to do so:
Regardless of the inspection type, the inspection follows the same format and begins with the inspectors presenting their credentials and a copy of FDA Form 482 which is the notice of inspection at the opening meeting. During the inspection they may notice non-compliances and these are documented on FDA Form 483 titled Inspectional Observations (this is the dreaded 483!), which is given to the company at the closing meeting of the inspection. Written on each page of the Form 483 is the following wording: This document lists observations made by the FDA representative during the inspection of your facility. They are inspectional observations and do not represent a final Agency determination regarding your compliance.
The company has currently 30 working days to respond to the 483 but what happens in practice is that a first response is presented within the time limit and then further letters are drip fed in over a few months for the more serious or complex issues. If you read some of the warning letters on the FDA website you'll see that if the inspection occurred in January the warning letter finally emerges into the light 6–9 months later. The reason for this is that there has been protracted correspondence between the company and the FDA. This will stop under the new programme.
Warning letters are only issued for significant violations from the regulations. Once the warning letter has been sent out to the company a copy is hung on the Wall of Shame in the warning letter section of the FDA's website. Here anyone can have a good laugh about the problems of another company while secretly hoping that they will not have a starring role in a future warning letter. The response time for the company to respond to a warning letter is 15 working days, in the new programme this will also be the response time for a 483.
Regardless of whether you get a 483 or not, the FDA inspectors will write a detailed Establishment Inspection Report (EIR) of the inspection that details the people they talk with and the procedures, systems and records that were inspected; this document provides the Agency with its elephant's memory. Failure to correct the non-compliances outlined in a warning letter may lead to further enforcement action by the FDA and ignoring a warning letter is not advisable. However, the Agency has often issued further warning letters to companies in the past, a practice that will apparently stop with the new programme. Further regulatory enforcement by the FDA can include a consent decree of permanent injunction for US companies, which will bind the company in perpetuity to comply with the regulations; this can cost a company millions of dollars or even its existence or withdrawing a product licence. For foreign companies the FDA can ban import of its products as happened with Fisons Pharmaceuticals in the UK during the mid-1990s. Fisons? What's this company? To misquote the words of the eminent chromatographer, John Cleese, it is an ex-company who did not handle an FDA inspection very well.
Under the GMP for the 21st Century initiative, the FDA issued a guidance for industry with a delightful title of Formal Dispute Resolution: Scientific and Technical Issues Related to Pharmaceutical CGMP.5 In essence this document encourages the company and the inspector to discuss and resolve everything while the inspection is still on-going. However, if this is not possible only observations where it is down to interpretation is a company allowed to appeal to the FDA in a formal two-tiered response. For example, if you don't keep complete records of a chromatographic analysis you will not have a leg to stand on as the US GMP regulations explicitly require you to do this. Here you are non-compliant and you have been caught — no discussion and no argument. In contrast, if the regulations are vague and it is down to differences of interpretation between the company and the inspector then this is where the dispute procedure can be used.
So what has changed with this new programme? Two changes that will impact laboratories is that a very short timeframe is being put around how quickly firms must respond to 483 observations and the second is that there will be a formal close out of warning letters to demonstrate that the non-compliances listed at a company have been resolved satisfactorily. So let's look in detail at what you have to do and you will now see that the tiger has sharp new teeth and how they will be sinking into your flesh. Figure 1 shows the process as a diagram and readers should look at this to put the text below into context.
An important point to understand here is that the FDA now takes the systems based approach to inspections and coupled with ICH Q10 on Pharmaceutical Quality Systems.6 you will need a different approach to respond to 483 observations. If there is an observation that has an impact outside of the area inspected, you will be expected to fix it as part of the systems based approach. Remember the wording at the end of virtually every warning letter on the FDA website "this letter is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of the violations at your facility. It is your responsibility to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations administered by FDA". However, there is an onus on the inspector to discuss findings with management to minimize surprises and errors when issuing the 483 at the inspection closing meeting.
OK, so what does all this mean for the humble and not so humble chromatographer working in the bowels of the laboratory? It is a major change in the way that a laboratory has to look at compliance with the GMP and GLP regulations. Owing to the rapid response required to the 483 observations it is cheaper to be compliant than not and, therefore, there should be continual checks of compliance rather than get ready when you know an inspection is due. Items such as ensuring that the chromatographs are adequately qualified, the CDS is validated and changes to both are controlled and procedures are documented appropriately are some areas that will impact the chromatography lab.
So does the FDA look strong? It is your call to decide, but as a word of advice be compliant and inspection-ready in your laboratory.
Remember the cost of compliance is always, always, cheaper than the cost of non-compliance. You can decide how to do things rather than rush through something with a regulator breathing down your neck. Therefore, the easiest way to respond to a 483 observation is to be compliant and don't get one, however, we have to manage risk in the industry and this is probably unrealistic. So, don't get a serious 483 observation. You'll need to have a quality system that is defendable as this is always better than arguing with the inspector on the day of the inspection. Rather than just sit there and wait for the next inspector to drop by, all staff should be vigilant and ensure that they work in a compliant manner AND, this point is very important, improve the current processes and the associated regulatory compliance. This not just a job for quality assurance (QA) who conduct internal audits and document checks — it is everybody's job
This internal effort must be coupled with an increased programme of laboratory audits aimed at verifying what the real level of compliance is in your organization. It is all well and good knowing that in six months time an inspection is due and you can prepare for it. When the inspector comes around the laboratory is clean and tidy and all the staff are in their Sunday Best. However, what is the reality of the day-to-day operations?
Here, audits can be a very effective means of determining the real level of compliance. Not just planned audits that chromatographers and analytical scientists know will occur and can prepare for but unannounced audits that give the real level of compliance and inspection readiness of a laboratory. This latter type of audit can be disruptive but are a vital means of avoiding the 15-day post- inspection panic that will become a feature of non-compliant organizations in the coming months. Also, from personal audit experience, it is very useful to use a digital camera to record some types of non-compliance such as untidy laboratories or missing calibration stickers on equipment as the auditee has less wriggle room when the evidence is in the report! To be effective audits need to be conducted by trained staff external to the laboratory under audit to remove bias from the results.
OK, so you ignored the advice above and now you have one or more 483 laboratory observations — so what are you going to do? Remember the clock starts ticking 15 days from the closing meeting so if you want to avoid the FDA tiger taking a bite out of various portions of your anatomy you had better start thinking and quickly. An option is to talk through the observation with the inspector while he or she is still on site to clarify the issue and to inform the inspector what action will be taken to resolve the problem. This should help you understand the problem and to get feedback if this is a way to bring you back into compliance.
The response to the Agency must be formal and that is typically done with a covering letter written at a minimum by the site head or better still by the chief executive of the organization. This is intended to demonstrate to the FDA how seriously the firm takes the situation and must provide a written commitment to comply voluntarily. This will be coupled with the attachments discussing how the company will resolve the inspection observations. The documents may be sent initially by fax or e-mail but it should always be followed up with a hard copy couriered to the FDA Field Office.
To write the attachments you will need to gather the experts in the organization who will help draft the response to specific observations. You should know when you have to obtain external expertise to help you. This is especially important with the new programme as you only have a maximum of 15 days before the time limit is up and either internal personnel from another site and/or external resources may need time to mobilize. The attachments will detail how you will resolve each of the observations or non-compliances. It is extremely important that these are laid out clearly: therefore, address each observation at the beginning of a new page. Ensure also that the response numbering is the same as the observation numbering in the 483, this makes it easier for the official at the FDA to correlate the material (remember your reader!).
For each observation:
A well-constructed response letter delivered within the new 15-day time frame will go a long way to restoring your regulatory credibility. Still you could look on the bright side, the programme is an 18-month trial, so will the FDA drop this approach after the trial ends? I don't think so, look at the resume of the new Commissioner, read the speech and listen to the video; I think this new programme is here to stay. We will see an initial increase in warning letters but these will tail off as industry ensures it stays in compliance but it will be a rough time initially as the tiger builds up momentum with their sharp new teeth.
In this column I have looked at the new post inspection response programme, which was introduced on an 18-month trial by the FDA on the 15 September 2009. The tiger's new teeth are sharp and you had better beware — complete responses to the 483 observations are required by 15 working days after the inspection or a warning letter or increased enforcement action may ensue. I have also outlined a practical way for audits to check you are in compliance but if that fails a means to respond to 483 observations but remember — time is not on your side!
Bob McDowall, PhD, is principal at McDowall Consulting, Bromley, Kent, UK. He is also a member of the Editorial Advisory Board for LCGC Europe.
1. Better Data Management and More Inspections are Needed to Strengthen FDA's Foreign Drug Inspection Program, US Government Accountability Office, Report GAO-08-970, September 2008
2. HR 759 FDA Modernisation Act 2009
3. Law Enforcement and Benefits to Public Health, Margaret Hamburg, 6 August 2009
4. A copy of the speech is available at http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Speeches/ucm175983.htm and the video of the speech can be accessed on the same page.
5. Review of Post-Inspection Responses Federal Register, 74(153), 40211–40212 11 August 2009
6. Guidance for Industry, Formal Dispute Resolution: Scientific and Technical Issues Related to Pharmaceutical CGMP, FDA January 2006
7. International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) Q10: Pharmaceutical Quality Systems step 4 (see www.ich.org)