June 18, 2013

The Only Vote That Counts: FDA 483 Round-Up

Michael Causey, Editor & Publisher, eDataIntegrityReport.com

Pollsters, prognosticators and pundits love to obsess over the polls before Election Day. Their self-appointed task is sifting for nuggets that will tell us who will win before anyone has actually cast a ballot. But as wide political sages like to say, “The only poll that matters is the one on the day people actually vote.”

Looking at the FDA isn’t much different. Lots of folks like to predict what the FDA will do, or try to glean trends from the often cryptic public statements FDA officials make at conferences or other gatherings.  But the FDAs real “votes” are in the 483s they issue.

Reading through a recently-released crop of the agency’s medical device letters, it looks like the FDA is maintaing an interest in CAPA and employee training.

A letter issued after a month-long inspection that ended in May 2012, cited Cardiva Medical in Alameda, California for failing to adequately train its workers. Its Cardiva Catalyst is “designed to increase the comfort of the manual compression process and facilitate the body’s healing process,” according to the company’s website. It also allegedly failed to identify future training needs for its personnel, the 483 said..

voteDevice manufactuer Coviden in Chicago was chastised after an inspection earlier in the year for CAPA shortcomings lacking “quality data sources that indicate the occurrence of high risk non-conformities.” The firm was also found wanting for failure to have a CAPA in place to “ensure that failure investigations are comprehensive.” Further, the FDA says it found a lack of a CAPA to “correct and prevent the issue of incomplete device history records.”  Coviden manufactuers a number of products, including respiratory monitors and endomechanical products.

Other CAPA-related problems were found at Denver-based Sandhill Scientific. There, the FDA alleges the company lacked adequate an adequate CAPA program to address nonconformities and root causes. The company manufactures monitors aiding in acid reflux detection and a high resolution manometry system.

Arrow International in Parsippany, New Jersey, a Class II manufacturer of catheters,  was hit with a 483 because “a validated process was not reviewed and evaluated when changes or process derivations occurred.”

We’ll keep tallying FDA’s real “votes” and an eye on real trends coming from the agency.

TwitterFacebookGoogle+LinkedInEmailPrintFriendlyShare

Analysis: FDA Must Have More Authority Over Compounding Pharmacies

Patrick Stone, President, TradeStone QA

Compounding pharmacies nationwide have enjoyed the protection of their state Pharmacy Board, or they don’t distribute outside their home state (no interstate sales).  This means that compounding pharmacies do not have to operate under good manufacturing procedures (GMPs) for compounding their drug products.

FDA routinely inspects compounding pharmacies for verification that compounded drug products are for a specific patient prescription and not for a bulk manufacturing process. We need compounding pharmacies to provide safe products because many drugs do not come in the right strength/dosage for children or special needs patients. Many times FDA auditors find that in fact the inspected compounding pharmacy is manufacturing bulk drug product.

Sometimes FDA auditors observe sterile drug product compounding without sterility/environmental controls in place. Historically speaking, since the 1990’s FDA has gone after many compounding pharmacy operations. However,  FDA has been told many times by state judges they have no jurisdiction and ruled in favor of the compounding pharmacy operations. Congress has also shielded compounding pharmacies from FDA review for various reasons including protecting home district businesses from the big bad regulatory wolf.

The problem here is not the FDA. The real culprits are the compounding pharmacies, the State Pharmacy Boards, and Congress. In this case, FDA is doing its job with its hands tied behind their back. I know because I have inspected many compounding pharmacies during my time at FDA and observed first hand how these companies operate.  FDA management always told me to drop it and move on because we could not do anything about these compounding pharmacies.

The New England Compounding Center (NECC) in Framingham, MA, has been tied to over twenty reported deaths and more than 257 patients have had fungal infections following injections of steroids they manufactured.  Between May 21 and September 24, 2012, patients in up to 23 U.S. states may have received injections of products from this compounding pharmacy. This is going beyond compounding pharmacy practice into national distribution of a sterile drug product.

compounded pillsThe NECC has been in the FDA’s radar since around 2002 when they were first inspected and found to be operating out of control for sterile drug product manufacturing. The main point here is that this is only one of thousands of compounding pharmacies across the nation operating under similar assumptions of sterile conditions without Good Manufacturing Procedures controls.

In a time when drug shortages are at a critically high level, compounding pharmacies can help — but are they really helping? If these operations are not following the FDA drug manufacturing regulations, they are not interested in patient safety. They are only interested in distribution of compounded drug products and profit margins.

State Pharmacy Boards should be inspecting firms that compound sterile drug products for conformance with U.S. Pharmacopoeia (USP) chapter <797> “Pharmaceutical Compounding – Sterile Preparations”. The problem with this is that many State Pharmacy Boards do not have auditors trained to conduct this type of audit and instead focus strictly on DEA aspects, pharmacy practice, and business aspects.

The FDA should be able to regulate these companies under strict drug manufacturing laws with the systems approach method of inspection. These companies always claim it will be too expensive to operate under Good Manufacturing Procedures (cGMP) guidelines. Congress is now going to have to decide whether or not to provide FDA with proper regulatory oversight for this type of drug manufacturing operation. Only time will tell if FDA has to keep its hands tied or if public safety measures will be put in place to keep this type of outbreak from happening again.

Let’s hope the FDA gets the authority it needs to better protect the public.

Patrick Stone is the author of Bubble Gum Badge – An FDA His-Story. You can also follow him on Twitter.

TwitterFacebookGoogle+LinkedInEmailPrintFriendlyShare

Romney Might Win, Obama Might Win, but Will FDA Win?

Patrick Stone, President, TradeStone QA

Will the upcoming election affect FDA funding? There’s a lot of money and public health issues riding on the answer.

The FDA fiscal year (FY) 2012 will draw to a close September 30th operating on continuing resolutions and budget short falls. How will FY 2013 stack up for the FDA and will it receive the much needed funds to operate?

The good news is the FDA recently secured more revenue through the approved user fee act. The bad news is that this money does not come for a few more years. How will FDA train enough field investigators to get this extra clinical trial inspection work done domestically and internationally?

Will politics from the presidential race and the gridlock in both the House & Senate get in the way of public safety? The budget appropriation crystal ball forecast from congress is more of a stay at the same level or less for FY 2013. FDA must meet congressional mandates for food safety work and now squeeze in many more bioresearch monitoring inspections for clinical trials with basically less money to do it with.

I can see a case for building fewer bombs in a tight fiscal year but not cutting back on public health or patient safety dollars. The FDA may have to come up with new ways of doing business and tidy up the current workforce for serious workloads.

Right now it appears that congressional approval ratings are at an all time low in part for NOT getting a basic budget for the country passed in many years and the multitude of other issues of the people that have not been addressed. In the swamp of Washington, appearance of doing something seems to be more important than actually getting to work. In the end it should not matter if you are a donkey or elephant, the public health should come first. Fiscally responsible government, red or blue, should be priority one.

Politics aside, FDA should be a science-based decision making organization not a political football to be tinkered with. FDA’s 2012 metrics tell the full story of how much work is really getting accomplished. In 2011 a total of 551 clinical investigator audits were conducted by FDA.

The new user fee acts for generic drugs and biosimilars will require substantially higher numbers of domestic inspections. One possible solution is to migrate the EU model of third party quality assurance audit mandates. The FDA may have to contract some of this extra work to private industry. The FDA is also softly pushing industry into the all electronic systems model for a reason and for future application review models. FDA investigators may in the future be able to conduct a partial review from their desk.

Only time will really tell what FY 2013 will bring for our public safety but we should always remain optimistic. It beats the alternative, right?

Patrick Stone is the author of Bubble Gum Badge – An FDA His-Story. You can also follow him on Twitter.

TwitterFacebookGoogle+LinkedInEmailPrintFriendlyShare

ICF International and AssurX, Inc., Partner to Provide Utility and Power Companies with a Complete, Outsourced NERC Compliance Management Solution

ICF International and AssurX, Inc., leading providers of consulting services and technology solutions, today announced a strategic partnership to provide comprehensive outsourced NERC compliance management solutions to the energy and utilities industry.

ICF’s industry expertise and regulatory experience combined with AssurX’s proven software solution creates an unsurpassed suite of services with the depth and breadth of capabilities to support energy sector clients in achieving their NERC compliance goals and objectives.  The combined solution provides NERC (693) and NERC compliance software services, as well as in-house CIP Cyber Security help.

Michael Sanchez, ICF

Michael Sanchez, Vice President, ICF International

“We are excited to team with the industry’s leading NERC compliance software developer to provide companies with a comprehensive set of outsourced NERC compliance management services.  By combining the capabilities of AssurX and ICF, we look forward to helping our clients maintain NERC compliance so they can reallocate internal resources to other high value initiatives,” said Michael Sanchez, Vice President, Energy Risk and Compliance for ICF International.

Energy companies in today’s market face constant challenges in meeting and complying with NERC standards but not all of them have the internal resources to effectively manage NERC compliance, and many have been forced to assign these responsibilities to already heavily burdened employees. This strategic partnership brings together ICF’s compliance assessment and advisory services with the AssurX One™ program to provide complete outsourced compliance management services.  Together, ICF and AssurX provide clients with unparalleled expertise, and these services can be provided for about half the total cost of a full time compliance employee.

The combined outsourced solution includes:

Managing Regulatory Compliance and Best Practices (ICF)

  • Ongoing reliability compliance assessments
  • Monitor standards under development
  • Communicate approved changes to standards
  • Self-certification management
  • Annual NERC awareness training
  • Annual management presentation
  • Maintain ICP documentation

AssurXOne ™ Secure OnDemand Software Solution

  • Document management and evidence collection
  • Seamless automatic regulatory updates
  • PRC and maintenance compliance
  • Corrective action process (NERC find, fix, track reporting)
  • Built-in metrics and dashboards
  • Audit and self-certification management
  • No hardware/software to install
  • No internal IT support required
  • Highly secure data center (SAS 70, Type II Certified)
  • Quick software implementation and training
  • BES cyber security (CIP) management

“A comprehensive compliance solution is needed for the registered entities that do not have the day-to-day resources to maintain a strong compliance program.  There are continual changes within the NERC regulated industry and smaller entities are having trouble keeping up. With the industry experience of ICF International and the proven AssurX NERC compliance software program, this solution could benefit many registered entities.” said Trey Kirkpatrick, VP Energy & Utilities Compliance Services.

About ICF
ICF has been a market leader in energy consulting for over 40 years, and currently employs over 4,500 experts. Our NERC Compliance and Electric Reliability Solutions Group has provided NERC compliance services since 2006 to clients in all eight NERC regions. For more information, please visit: http://www.icfi.com/nerc.

About AssurX
AssurX, Inc., provides highly regulated organizations with enterprise quality management and compliance solutions. With a choice of OnDemand (SaaS) or OnPremise (licensed) software delivery options, AssurX’s flexible, all-in-one system automates quality and compliance processes so issues can be centrally managed. It helps collect, organize, analyze and share information to better manage and improve quality and compliance performance everywhere in your enterprise. More information is available at www.assurx.com.

TwitterFacebookGoogle+LinkedInEmailPrintFriendlyShare

Part I: How Life Sciences Firms Can Harness The Cloud

Russ King, President, Methodsense

In the first part of this blog, we’ll examine the advantages life sciences companies can enjoy by better understanding and leveraging Cloud computing.

Advantages of the Cloud for Life Science Companies

Cloud computing and virtualization is an evolving paradigm that is transforming the way we do business. The economy of scale the cloud provides reduces costs and increases operational efficiencies that reap major benefits. This operational shift can be intimidating for Life Science companies; however, there are significant advantages for moving to the cloud.

Some examples include:

  • Maintains compliance across multiple applications more efficiently
  • Scales up and down with ease
  • Provides a platform for collaboration and resource pooling
  • Unifies your infrastructure for end users
  • Increases the control, availability and flexibility of your data center
  • Reduces computing maintenance costs and, depending on the model, can reduce hardware costs

While these advantages are enticing, it’s critical that Life Science companies understand some common misconceptions of the cloud before adopting it as a new technology strategy.

Cloud ComputingA word of advice: The challenges of implementing cloud computing for life science companies have been highlighted by recent publications from IEEE, CIO Magazine and others by observing the absence of accepted standards for the cloud.  Before delving into cloud computing for your Life Science company, be certain you have the proper skills on hand to help you.  Missteps and short cuts in the path to regulatory compliance typically create additional and unnecessary expenses down the road.

Misconception #1: All Cloud Environments are the Same

According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), there are actually four types of clouds, and each is intended for different uses.

Private: This infrastructure is for exclusive use by a single organization. It is only used by its owners, making it the most secure environment. It may be owned, managed, and operated by the hosting organization, a third party, or a combination of them, and it may exist on or off premises.

Community: This system is for exclusive use by a specific community of users from organizations that have shared concerns (e.g., mission, security requirements, policy, and compliance considerations). It may be owned, managed, and operated by one or more of the organizations in the community, a third party, or a combination of them, and it may exist on or off premises.

Public or Vendor: This infrastructure is for open use by the general public. They are shared among multiple subscribers. It may be owned, managed, and operated by a business, academic, or government organization, or some combination of them. It exists on the premises of the cloud provider. Because of the nature of public clouds, this architecture may present security, privacy and auditing issues.

Hybrid: This cloud type is a composition of two or more distinct infrastructures (private, community, or public) that remain unique entities, but are connected by standardized or proprietary technology that enables data and application portability (e.g., cloud bursting for load balancing between clouds). Hybrids can be used in the Life Sciences when a combination of regulated and non-regulated information is shared.

As a general rule, a private cloud can be effectively adapted to satisfy the stringent compliance needs of a Life Science company.

Misconception #2: Private Virtual Cloud Configurations are Proprietary to the Data Center

We frequently hear cloud providers talk about proprietary configurations or operational trade secrets.  Without debating the veracity of such claims, it is important to find and work with a vendor who can share, and work with you, when you are evaluating your cloud options. When a provider understands your needs and why your controls are important, we have found most providers are more relaxed about their “trade secrets” in favor of winning your business. Privacy, security and other controls should be collaboratively implemented with your provider so you can remain compliant. Carefully plan the security and privacy aspects of your cloud environment in partnership with your provider before implementing your solution.

Misconception #3: A Data Centers SAS 70 Type II Certification can Replace an Onsite Audit

The proliferation of professional hosting companies, and subsequently the cloud computing services they provide, has created a competitive environment where service quality can be a competitive advantage.  Many hosting companies seek a SAS 70 Type II Certification to demonstrate their quality.

However, the audits performed in pursuit of SAS 70 Type II Certification are paid for by the vendor, constitute a snapshot of the vendor which may not be relevant to the timing of your contract with the vendor, and the audit may not sufficiently cover your Life Science regulatory concerns.  For the criticality of your business, you should sponsor the audit, ensuring you’ve adequately fulfilled your regulatory requirements.  Be prepared, however, to massage and coax the understanding of the vendor for cooperation before and during the audit. In our experience, most cloud providers focus on the acquisition of Life Science clients with little to no understanding of the regulatory environment we operate in.

Misconception #4: A Cloud cannot be Managed as an Autonomous, Independent System

Your cloud environment can be affected by the configuration and set up of other systems. There are other factors within the data center that may influence your operation: a vendor’s performance, upgrades to a vendor’s system and overall testing of general “cloud” components. In essence, your cloud consists of your vendor’s hardware, firewalls, raw data storage, networks and supporting applications. Even though you may use a private cloud, that network is still dependent upon the vendor’s underlying systems.

You must understand the total environment of your provider to ensure your cloud is secure and will remain secure if they make changes to it. The best way to proactively implement your cloud solution for long-term success is to perform a thorough risk assessment at the onset of your transition. A proper risk assessment will lead to identifying the controls that will secure your network regardless of your vendor’s behind-the-scene activities.

Misconception #5: The Data Centers Procedures are Enough

While many data centers take the initiative to implement quality systems, SOPs and other quality measures, that doesn’t guarantee they will meet your quality management system expectations. Your cloud provider may need to make existing processes and procedures more robust and in a way that is more collaborative than they originally intended.  This kind of flexibility should be incorporated into your vendor selection criteria.

In Part Two of this blog, we’ll examine a few more important Cloud misconceptions, and offer some final thoughts on how life sciences companies can benefit fully from it.

Russ King is President of MethodSense, Inc.

 

TwitterFacebookGoogle+LinkedInEmailPrintFriendlyShare

Lawmaker’s Silly Season No Laughing Matter For Device Industry

Michael Causey, Editor & Publisher, eDataIntegrityReport.com

Predicting things on Capitol Hill is never easy, especially as the election campaign “silly season” enters the picture, but it’s beginning to look like medical device companies should expect heavier regulation in 2012 – and that will only increase if President Obama is reelected in November.

The climate is not great for medical device firms, who are always one recall away from increased scrutiny. Add to that a recent poll from Consumer Reports that says the public wants more medical device regulation and less risk.

The poll was released just as House and Senate Committees have issued draft legislation to reauthorize the statute governing medical devices and at a time when the FDA’s process for reviewing new implants has come under intense criticism.

The House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee’s draft bill would significantly weaken device safety oversight and should be rejected by Congress, according to Consumers Union, the policy and advocacy arm of Consumer Reports. While the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee’s draft bill provides some additional protections for patients once devices are on the market, it misses the opportunity to enact a clear process for preventing unsafe devices from being sold in the first place, the consumer group claims.

X-ray of hip“Recent problems with metal hip implants and surgical mesh have shown how our current system fails to ensure medical devices are safe and effective,” said Lisa Swirsky, senior policy analyst for Consumers Union. “Unfortunately, the House bill weakens current standards to speed up device approvals rather than improving safety oversight. The Senate bill offers some improvements but it should be strengthened to require stricter safety testing of new implants and life sustaining devices. Congress should recognize that the public is far more concerned about making sure devices are safe and work than how quickly they are made available.”

Consumers Union says the medical device industry has been pushing Congress to scale back oversight of implants and other devices, which it claims is necessary to promote innovation and make it easier to get new devices approved. But according to the new Consumer Reports poll, 82 percent of Americans believe that preventing safety problems is more important than limiting safety testing in order to prevent delays and encourage innovation.

In his FDA Matters blog Steven Grossman advises us not to take our eyes off the User Fee Authorization Process in 2012, which must be renewed by Sept 30.

Grossman sees three levels to watch: “ the MDUFA reauthorization itself including FDA-industry agreement on goals for the review process; a core of changes to the medical device review process that have consensus support, but not necessarily agreed-upon legislative language; and a group of more far-reaching changes to the medical device review process that are considered controversial.”

“There will be continued efforts to rollback or repeal the device tax imposed by the health reform act,” he also tells us.

Watch this space for more updates as the silly season gears up.

 

TwitterFacebookGoogle+LinkedInEmailPrintFriendlyShare

FDA Inspectors Crave a Good Hot Cup of CAPA

Michael Causey, Editor & Publisher, eDataIntegrityReport.com

One of my favorite all-time bands, The Kinks, have a fantastic tongue-in-cheek song called “Have a Cuppa Tea” that satirizes the British belief that a good hot cup of tea will solve all of the world’s problems.

I think the FDA misread “Cuppa” and instead decided that if it focused on CAPA it, too, would solve all the of the [medical device] world’s problems.

An analysis of 2011 and 2010 FDA inspection observations in 483s shows clearly that CAPA remains at the top of the charts for the FDA (see charts below).  FDA’s own analysis of its 3,434 483 observations in 2010 found that CAPA was the number one, with a total of 1058 citations. Number for 2011 aren’t yet available, but there’s no indication they are going anywhere but up.

And that’s probably not going to change in 2012, either.

Why is CAPA so important? Melissa Torres, part of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health’s Quality System Team in the Office of Compliance, put it clearly. CAPA matters because it is “linked to so many other requirements.”

Consider this, CAPA touches on:
  • 820.198 Complaint files
  • 820.90 Nonconforming Product
  • 820.80 Acceptance Activities
  • 820.200 Servicing
  • 820.22 Audits
  • 803 Medical Device Reporting (MDR)
  • 806 Reports of Corrections and Recalls…
“…and many more,” Torres emphasizes. Plus, dealing with CAPA effectively helps FDA inspectors relax because they get the sense you have detected and resolved any significant problems.

On the flip side, if you don’t have CAPA in control, you’re going to need a lot stiffer drink than a cup of tea.

The top 10 observations for 2011 were:
  • 21 CFR 820.100(a) – Procedures for Corrective and Preventative Action (CAPA) have not been adequately established;
  • 21 CFR 803.17 – Written Medical Device Report (MDR) procedures have not been developed/maintained/implemented;
  • 21 CFR 820.198(a) – Complaint handling procedures for receiving/reviewing/evaluating  complaints have not been established/defined/documented/completed/implemented;
  • 21 CFR 820.100(b) – Corrective and Preventative Action activities and/or results have not been adequately documented;
  • 21 CFR 820.75(a) – A process whose results cannot be fully verified by subsequent inspection and test has not been adequately validated according to established procedures;
  • 21 CFR 820.22 – Quality audits/reaudits have not been performed;
  • 21 CFR 820.22 – Procedures for quality audits have not been adequately established;
  • 21 CFR 820.30(a) – Procedures for design control have not been established;
  • 21 CFR 820.30(i) – Procedures for design change have not been adequately established;
  • 21 CFR 820.20 – Management with executive responsibility has not ensured that an adequate and effective quality system has been fully implemented and maintained at all levels of the organization.

The top 10 observations for 2010 were:

  • 21 CFR 803.17 – Written Medical Device Report (MDR) procedures have not been developed/maintained/implemented;
  • 21 CFR 820.100(a) – Procedures for corrective and preventive action have not been adequately established;
  • 21 CFR 820.100(b) – Corrective and preventive action activities and/or results have not been adequately documented;
  • 21 CFR 820.75(a) – A process whose results cannot be fully verified by subsequent inspection and test has not been adequately validated according to established procedures;
  • 21 CFR 820.198(a) – Complaint handling procedures for receiving/reviewing/evaluating  complaints have not been established/defined/documented/completed/implemented;
  • 21 CFR 820.50 – Purchasing controls,. Lack of or inadequate procedures Procedures to ensure that all purchased or otherwise received product and services conform to specified requirements have not been adequately established;
  • 21 CFR 820.198(a) – Procedures for receiving, reviewing, and evaluating complaints by a formally designated unit have not been adequately established;
  • 21 CFR 820.198(c) – Complaints involving the possible failure of a device/labeling/packaging to meet any of its specifications were not reviewed/evaluated/investigated where necessary;
  • 21 CFR 820.22 – Procedures for quality audits have not been adequately established;
  • (tie) 21 CFR 820.22 – Conducted quality audits/reaudits have not been performed;
  • (tie) 21 CFR 820.30(i) – Design changes – lack of, or inadequate procedures.
TwitterFacebookGoogle+LinkedInEmailPrintFriendlyShare

CDRH 2012 Strategic Priorities Emphasize QA, Life Cycle Management

Michael Causey, Editor & Publisher, eDataIntegrityReport.com

Deciphering the FDA is a bit like trying to understand what the old USSR was up to in the days of the Cold War.  In those days, it was called Kremlinology, or the study of a complex, secretive organization.  We need a catchphrase for those of us today who try to figure out what the FDA means when it says something, or what it means when it says nothing, or what it means when it tells you what it means. You get the idea.

The FDA has been talking a lot of late about transparency. Its 2011 initiative is an agency attempt, it says, to open up about how it does business. FDA is accepting comments on it until February 28.  The jury is still out on whether this initiative will accomplish much.

Our latest piece of FDA evidence is CDRH’s 2012 Strategic Priorities.

CDRH devotes the Introduction of the document about looking ahead to patting itself on the back for its 2011 achievements, e.g. its report, “Understanding Barriers to Medical Device Quality,” that reviews the challenges that the FDA and industry face in supporting well‐integrated, best‐quality manufacturing practices and strategies that industry and the FDA can take to overcome these barriers.

CDRH also reminds us that “to complete this work [in 2011] our staff went above and beyond their already demanding workload. This is a remarkable achievement.”

Good to know.

In 2012, CDRH says it will continue to emphasize four priority areas:

  1. Fully Implement a Total Product Life Cycle Approach
  2. Enhance Communication and Transparency
  3. Strengthen Its Workforce and Workplace
  4. Proactively Facilitate Innovation to Address Unmet Public Health Needs

CDRH promises in 2012 to “improve” its premarket programs. By April 1, it pledges to begin its Triage of Pre-market Submissions Pilot to “increase submission review efficiency and better manage the pre-market review workload.”

And by the end of the year, CDRH pledges to publish a proposed rule to clarify the circumstances under which it could rely on clinical studies conducted in and for other countries. CDRH also says it will finalize all guidance documents it has issued as part of its overall plan to improve its premarket programs.

We’ll keep an eye on these and other promises throughout the year and report back as FDA hits or misses its own targets.

TwitterFacebookGoogle+LinkedInEmailPrintFriendlyShare

Former FDA Inspector Calls for Increased International Inspections

Patrick Stone, President, TradeStone QA

Here’s an idea: More FDA inspections outside the US, at a lower cost.

How?

If FDA trained other countries health organizations to conduct FDA business with Memorandums of Understanding (MOU), less money could be used to travel with more inspections completed. This training could be accomplished online and by going out with FDA International Investigators. The EMA should have a MOU if their model is similar to FDA’s. The advent of all electronic review should alleviate the need for more international inspections.

I admit I may be over-simplifying the issues with training monies and bringing foreign inspectors to US training facilities. But I think the basic idea holds water.

Host nations can send their inspectors for knowledge sharing and training with justifiable beneifits to the host nations public health. FDA can also video link for training, as is done currently for new hire training.

FDA logoUnfortunately, innovative options are scarce at the FDA Senior Executive Service level (SES) and the old way of doing business is ingrained into the government model. For the short term FDA will try to increase international inspections in all program areas with a focus on food work.

I’ve observed many international drug and device firms receiving warning letters and multiple item 483 forms. If this current warning letter trend continues, the blame may fall on lack of FDA regulatory guidance.

The core mission of FDA is to protect the US public from harmful health products. Sending FDA field Investigators to where the products are manufactured and undergo human clinical trials is one of the only ways to accomplish the core mission. Ensuring that field investigators are proficient for the task and seasoned investigators stay engaged will be the challenge.

The international firms with compliance issues should be reviewed by their country’s FDA equivalent for cross training on regulatory compliance.

On the job training is used here at home as a component of new hire training. FDA will have to think outside the box if Congressional Mandates for International travel are to be met.

Congress must also understand that it is not only the amount of funds that insure successful international travel, it is also about proficient field investigators as well.

I have faith that FDA field staff will answer the challenge because they always do.

Patrick Stone is the author of Bubble Gum Badge – An FDA His-Story. You can also follow him on Twitter.

TwitterFacebookGoogle+LinkedInEmailPrintFriendlyShare

FDA Promises ‘Sea Change’ in Food Regulation

Michael Causey, Editor & Publisher, eDataIntegrityReport.com

The new mantra for food manufacturers better be prevention, prevention, prevention according to current and former FDAers commenting on the January 2011 passage of the mammoth Food Safety and Modernization Act.

“This law represents a sea [of] change for food safety in America, bringing a new focus on prevention…” FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg says.

But former FDA Commissioner of Foods Dr. David Acheson takes it further in a new white paper from Plex Online. The new law “will result in significant changes for FDA-regulated food manufacturers and processors.” FDA’s emphasis on prevention will require registered facilities to develop and maintain a written food safety plan, for starters, Acheson stresses in a new white paper “Food Safety plans: New Requirements for Registered Facilities.

As we’ve blogged before, most registered food facilities will be required to develop a clear, detailed safety plan that documents the facility’s:

  • Prerequisite programs are in place to ensure food is produced in a safe and sanitary manner;
  • Hazard analysis that identifies all potential risks throughout processing;
  • Preventive controls that are implemented to mitigate risks;
  • Monitoring of preventive controls to ensure they are properly implemented;
  • Verification that the preventive controls have the intended reduction in risk; and
  • Re-analysis of the hazards and preventive controls when there are significant changes in the process or every three years.

Acheson, now with Leavitt Partners, notes that regulated entities must soon be “able to quickly access records and demonstrate compliance with the food safety plan requirements.” They’ll also be expected to have “implemented a robust food safety program” if they want to maintain a position as a food safety leader.

He advises regulated entities to develop well-documented safety plans with strong monitoring procedures and corrective actions, for nine key areas:

  1. Facility Information: Facilities will need to document a description of the food, the methods of distribution and storage, the intended use and intended customer for all products produced.
  2. Prerequisite Programs: These programs will require a written plan, established monitoring procedures, established corrective action procedures, and an established recordkeeping system.
  3. Hazard Analysis: Facilities will be required to conduct and document these to identify potential product-related hazards, including biological, chemical, and other hazards such as terrorism.
  4. Preventive Controls: Once identified, each hazard must be evaluated to determine the significance of the hazard if it isn’t controlled, the likely occurrence of the hazards, and if it constitutes a “critical control point” that must be addressed.
  5. Monitoring: Each critical control point must be then monitored to ensure compliance with the critical limits.
  6. Corrective Actions: Beyond on-going monitoring, facilities must establish and document procedures for taking proper and effective corrective actions when critical limits aren’t met.
  7. Verification: Facilities will then need to verify that the preventive control and critical limits result in the intended control and reduction of hazard.
  8. Record-keeping: The new legislation authorizes the FDA to request access to a regulated entities’ Food Safety Plan. Each entity must establish a record-keeping system that documents their hazard analysis, critical control points, monitoring, verification, and corrective action plans and follow-up.
  9. Re-analysis: facilities are required to conduct one of their food safety plan and hazard assessment whenever they implement significant changes or every three years.

It will take some time for the FDA to decide exactly how it will enforce the new law, and its interpretation will clearly have some impact on food manufacturers and other regulated entities. But it’s equally clear that the new law means big changes for companies that make food for a living.

TwitterFacebookGoogle+LinkedInEmailPrintFriendlyShare