ILC Tag

EMA has published a Questions and Answers document (EMA/129980/2025) on how third party audit(s) should be reflected in part C of the QP Declaration with two new questions (Questions 3 and 9 under EU GMP guide part II: Basic requirements for active substances used as starting materials: GMP compliance for active substances).

  • Is an audit performed by a third party acceptable?
  • What are the expectations for the content of written final assessment of third-party audit reports?

The answers summarise quite clearly what is currently required and what a Qualified Person must be aware of, when accepting audit reports from external auditors, including the requirement of the written final assessment document and approval of third-party audit reports.

These Q&A’s were drafted and adopted by the GMDP Inspectors Working Group.

SOURCES:

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/other/questions-answers-how-should-third-party-audits-be-reflected-part-c-qp-declaration_en.pdf

The European Pharmacopoeia (Ph. Eur.) is seeking stakeholder feedback on the revised general chapter 5.1.6. “Alternative methods for control of microbiological quality”, which was published in the quarterly edition of Pharmeuropa 37.2 for comment and public consultation until the end of June 2025.

The aim of this chapter is to facilitate the implementation of rapid microbiological methods (RMM), an innovative and versatile approach in the field of microbiology.

The revision of this chapter is part of the overall efforts of the Ph. Eur. Commission (EPC) to support and accelerate the introduction of alternative RMMs, especially beneficial for products with a short shelf life.

The new revision clarifies the responsibilities of suppliers and users and includes new information to help users optimise their implementation strategies, taking advantage of the suitable tests already performed and evaluating different development activities simultaneously. The subsection on primary validation has also been updated and clarified, while the guidance on product-specific validation has undergone extensive revision with the addition of several examples.

The 54 drafts published in Pharmeuropa 37.2 are listed in the Newsroom “Pharmeuropa 37.2 just released”, which invites experts, users and interested parties to leave their comments

 

SOURCES:

https://www.edqm.eu/en/-/public-consultation-on-revised-general-chapter-5.1.6.-alternative-methods-for-control-of-microbiological-quality-in-pharmeuropa-37.2

On 11 April 2025, the ICH Q1 Draft Guideline “Stability Testing of Drug Substances and Drug Products” was published and is now open for public comment. Comments are possible until the end of July 2025, with some exceptions specifically indicated on the ICH website.

This new version is intended to merge and replace all the pre-existing individual ICH guidelines (ICH Q1A-Q1F and ICH Q5C) on the topic of stabilities. It will apply to active substances and finished drug products and takes into account new scientific and risk-based approaches and technologies.
This guideline will therefore incorporate:

  • Stability testing of new drug substances and drug products (ICH Q1A)
  • Stability testing: photostability testing of new drug substances and products (ICH Q1B)
  • Stability testing: requirements for new dosage forms (ICH Q1C)
  • Bracketing and matrixing designs for stability testing of new drug substances and products (ICH Q1D)
  • Evaluation for stability data (ICH Q1E)
  • Stability data package for registration applications in Climatic Zones III and IV (ICH Q1F)

SOURCES:

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/draft-ich-q1-guideline-stability-testing-drug-substances-drug-products-step-2b_en.pdf

The guideline “Additional guidance on the assessment on the risk assessment for presence of N-nitrosamines in APIs”, first prepared in February 2020 by the APIC Nitrosamines Task Force on behalf of the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient Committee (APIC), has now been revised by a subgroup of the APIC Nitrosamines Task Force to reflect latest guidance and recommended practice and recently published on the APIC website. The document is now called “Nitrosamine Risk Management: Guidance for API Manufacturers” and has been extensively updated.

Among the new features introduced, a separate chapter is dedicated to the incorporation of nitrosamine risk management into the quality management system.

 

SOURCES:

https://apic.cefic.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/APIC-Nitrosamines-Risk-management_Guidance-for-API-Manufacturers_Final.pdf

Revision 22 of the Q&A document “Questions and answers for marketing authorisation holders/applicants on the CHMP Opinion for the Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 referral on nitrosamine impurities in human medicinal products” has been published on the EMA website.

The additions and changes made mainly concern the questions 10 and 22.

Updates to Q&A 10 to clarify the applicable acceptable intake (AI) limit to different administration routes and accepted in vivo study type.

Update of Q&A 22 to highlight expectations for the submission of changes in shelf-life and storage conditions required to comply with the interim limit during CAPA implementation.

 

SOURCES:

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory-overview/post-authorisation/pharmacovigilance-post-authorisation/referral-procedures-human-medicines/nitrosamine-impurities/nitrosamine-impurities-guidance-marketing-authorisation-holders

In January 2025, the Task Force “Data Integrity” of the Quality Group of APIC (CEFIC), has published the version 2.0 of the document “Data Integrity Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)“.

This document contains a collection of frequently asked questions that have been submitted by the industry to the Data Integrity taskforce. Since this is a living document, it is updated as new questions are posed to the group.

Updated questions are written in red: the new questions and answers can be found in the “Password management” and “Access management” sections.

  1. Password management

Q1: When I logged into a system, do I need to re-authenticate myself for every data entry?

A: No, it depends upon the criticality of the data/action. This criticality should be based upon process mapping and a risk assessment as explained in the guide. Criticality of the data and/or responsibility associated with the action should be taken into account when evaluating electronic signature requirements.

Q2: What are the requirements for e-signature components? (This question in version 1 of the FAQ was worded differently whereas it has now been revised as above)

A: This practice is described in 21CFR11, chapter 11.200 “e-signature and components”:

(i) When an individual executes a series of signings during a single, continuous period of controlled system access, the first signing shall be executed using all electronic signature components (= user ID and password or biometrics); subsequent signings shall be executed using at least one electronic signature component that is only executable by, and designed to be used only by, the individual.

(ii) When an individual executes one or more signings not performed during a single, continuous period of controlled system access, each signing shall be executed using all of the electronic signature components

  1. Access management

Q2: Can we extend the time of a user session before this is automatically locked for inactivity because of a HSE (health-safety-environment) concern?

A: The inactive time of a user session should be managed by the user locking their computer station when they move away for an extend period of time to prevent unauthorised actions been taken by other persons. The automatic lock is a security measure. A reasonable amount of time should be supported by a risk assessment. This type of HSE concern should be managed independently of the GXP system with an emergency stop button as an example. If this is approach is not feasible, the computerized system should be designed as such that a fast intervention is possible. It is best practice for a system like a DCS to be configured in such a way that the screen does not completely goes into operating system lock and actions can be taken by clicking on the valve or object and entering a password to confirm the action.

 

SOURCES:

https://apic.cefic.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/FAQ-DI-APIC-TF-Version-2-Jan-25-1.pdf

The Version 17 of the “How to do” document – Interpretation of ICH Q7 Guide and “Review form” for APIs was finalized last November and published on the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients Committee (APIC) website in early 2025.

The document aims to facilitate the implementation of the ICH Q7 guideline and provides recommendations for its interpretation.

In this version, additions and updates have been made in the following chapters:

  • Chapter 2 Quality Management
    • the changes were made in the subsections 2.1 Principles (10, 2.12, 2.14) and 2.2 Responsibilities of the Quality Unit(s) (2.21).
  • Chapter 5 Process Equipment
    • additions and innovations have been made in subsections: 5.2 Equipment Maintenance and Cleaning, 5.3 Calibration, and 5.4 Computerized Systems
  • Chapter 13 Change Control
    • updates concern items 10, 13.11, 13.12, 13.13, 13.14, 13.15.
  • Chapter 21 ICH Q7 Q&A “how to do” attachment (Questions and Answers linked to the respective sections of ICH Q7)
    • some Questions & Answers in Chapter 5 “Process Equipment – Cleaning” have been more clearly interpreted and aligned with the newly published guidelines.

SOURCE:

https://apic.cefic.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/ICH-Q7-How-To-Do-version17_cleandocument_241122.pdf

In January 2025, the US FDA has published in the newsroom of the CDER website the article titled “Determining Recommended Acceptable Intake Limits for N-nitrosamine Impurities in Pharmaceuticals: Development and Application of the Carcinogenic Potency Categorization Approach”.

The article recaps the historical context of the development of the Carcinogenic Potency Categorization Approach (CPCA) methodology, that uses the chemical structure of a nitrosamine impurity to recommend acceptable intake (AI) limits, assigning them to one of five predicted potency categories reflecting carcinogenic risk, and provides an analysis of the the number and distribution of α-hydrogens combined with other activating and deactivating features of nitrosamines.

The complete article can be checked in the newsroom of CDER’s website.

 

SOURCES:

Determining Recommended Acceptable Intake Limits for N-nitrosamine Impurities in Pharmaceuticals: Development and Application of the Carcinogenic Potency Categorization Approach | FDA

In January 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a draft Guidance for Industry and Other Interested Parties entitled “Considerations for the Use of Artificial Intelligence to Support Regulatory Decision-Making for Drug and Biological Products”.

Public comments on this draft document can be submitted until 7 April 2025 to ensure they are considered in the final development of the Guidance.

This Guidance provides recommendations to sponsors and other interested parties on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to produce information or data intended to support regulatory decisions regarding the safety, effectiveness or quality for drugs or combination products that include a drug.

The recommendations also may be relevant  across all medical products, including medical devices intended to be used with drugs.

A key element of this guidance is the introduction of a risk-based approach to establish and assess the credibility of AI models for a specific context of use (COU).

The COU defines the specific role and scope of the AI model used to address a question of interest.

The guideline highlights the importance of clarity in defining the context of use through the collection of credibility evidence for each AI model, as this provides the basis for the evaluation of the AI model outputs.

 

A Risk-Based Credibility Assessment Framework

The risk-based credibility assessment framework described in the Guidance  comprises seven step process to establish and assess the credibility of an AI model output for a specific COU:

  • Step 1: Define the question of interest that will be addressed by the AI model.
  • Step 2: Define the COU for the AI model.
  • Step 3: Assess the AI model risk.
  • Step 4: Develop a plan to establish the credibility of AI model output within the COU.
  • Step 5: Execute the plan.
  • Step 6: Document the results of the credibility assessment plan and discuss deviations from the plan.
  • Step 7: Determine the adequacy of the AI model for the COU.

 

Special Consideration: Life Cycle Maintenance of the Credibility of AI Model Outputs in Certain Contexts of Use

The Guide underlines the importance of ongoing monitoring and maintenance of AI models to ensure that they remain suitable for use over the life cycle of the medical product for its Contexts of Use. This includes regular monitoring of model performance and documenting of any changes that could affect model outputs.

 

SOURCE:

Guidance for Industry and Other Interested Parties ‘Considerations for the Use of Artificial Intelligence to Support Regulatory Decision-Making for Drug and Biological Products’

The Directive I-SMI.RL.01“Conduct of inspections of establishments manufacturing or distributing medicinal products or collecting blood.” Version 4.0 was approved on 21 October 2024 and has thus entered into force.

In February 2025, the “Questions and Answers (Q&A)” document related to centralized procedures was updated and published on the website of the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

The new edition of the Q&A document “European Medicines Agency post-authorization procedural advice for users of the centralised procedure” includes some additions and revisions and addresses relevant issues in the post-grant phase of marketing authorization.

Below are references to the chapters and questions that have been changed:

 

Chapter 1 Type IA Variations

Questions:

  • 4. How shall I present and submit my Type IA/ IAIN Variation(s)?
  • 12. When do I have to submit revised product information? In all languages?

 

Chapter 2 Type IB variations

Questions:

  • 4. How shall I present and submit my Type IB Variation?

In the related answer, the paragraph “Variations to implement changes for generic/hybrid/biosimilar products” was added.

  • 5. When shall I submit my Type IB Variation?
  • 10. How should I submit revised product information? In all languages?

 

Chapter 3 Type II variations

Questions:

  • 16. When do I have to submit revised product information? In all languages?

 

Chapter 6 Worksharing of variations

Questions:

  • 10. When do I have to submit revised product information? In all languages?

 

Chapter 19 Transfer of Marketing Authorisation

Questions:

  • 2. How shall I present my application for the Transfer of Marketing Authorisation?

 

Chapter 22 Article 61(3) Notifications

Questions:

  • 4. How shall I present my 61(3) Notification?

 

SOURCES:

European Medicines Agency post-authorisation procedural advice for users of the centralised procedure