After years of FDA assigning unique establishment numbers to FDA inspected facilities, the Agency has published a procedural Guidance today entitled, “Specification of the Unique Facility Identifier (UFI) System for Drug Establishment Registration: Guidance for Industry”, identifying their choice of the Data Universal Numbering System D-U-N-S (DUNS) number, assigned and managed by Dun and Bradstreet.
FDA usually does not make comments on pending new drug applications (NDAs) nor do they usually publicly discuss conversations with sponsors. However, in this instance, FDA has made a rather interesting disclosure relative to a pending NDA for a serious and devastating disease, Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD).
On October 21, 2014, FDA announced the availability of its Final Guidance for Industry, Circumstances that Constitute Delaying, Denying, Limiting, or Refusing a Drug Inspection (here). This document finalizes Guidance that was published in draft for comment on July 12, 2013. The Guidance is intended to fulfill FDA’s obligation in the 2012 Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) to define the circumstances that would constitute delaying, denying, or limiting inspection, or refusing to permit inspection, actions that FDASIA established as causing drugs to be adulterated.
While it is well recognized that any pharmaceutical company implicated with data integrity issues could have significant impact on its business and survivability, the impact from a similarly implicated CRO would be even greater as it could severely impact all sponsors’ pending and approved products. A case in point is Cetero/PRACS. Lachman Consultants was hired by a number of Cetero’s sponsors in support of these very labor intensive and highly specialized audits and (we are happy to say) successfully completed many audits for affected studies.
FDA announced in today’s Federal Register (FR) that they will conduct a survey of patients and pharmacists to gain an understanding of both groups’ perception of certain attributes of differences in generic medicines for the same drug product.This survey comes on the heels of Office of Generic Drug Guidance (OGD) on size, shape and color of generic products, issued last December. FDA has received complaints and feedback from numerous patient and health care providers on various aspects related to differences in the physical characteristics of generics when they are initially switched from the brand name product (when initial substitution occurs) as well as when switching to other generic manufacturers of the product on subsequent refills.
With the FDA’s move to reduce the amount of acetaminophen (APAP) for prescription combination products to no more than 325mg per dosage unit completed, FDA seems to be moving into the Over-the-Counter (OTC) arena to help reduce potential overdose or medication errors with liquid APAP products targeted for pediatric patients. Today, FDA released the draft Guidance Over-the-Counter Pediatric Liquid Drug Products Containing Acetaminophen.
In another product safety alert, the FDA is warning patients, healthcare professionals and other caregivers not to use Eu Yan Sang (Hong-Kong) LTD’s “Bo Ying Compound” because tests have shown it contains high levels of lead. This announcement comes after a report of a case of lead poisoning in an 18-month old child given the product.
In another product safety alert, the FDA is warning patients, healthcare professionals and other caregivers not to use Eu Yan Sang (Hong-Kong) LTD’s “Bo Ying Compound” because tests have shown it contains high levels of lead. This announcement comes after a report of a case of lead poisoning in an 18-month old child given the product.
In a September 17, 2014 presentation at the FDA/PQRI Conference on Evolving Product Quality given by Susan Rosencrance, Ph.D., Acting Deputy Director, Generic Drug Chemistry in the Office of Pharmaceutical Science at CDER, a number of interesting issues were presented and discussed. Some of these issues may be a welcome sign to the industry of a turnaround at OGD, but others still need some explaining.
In a blog post on August 12, 2014, I raised the question of why there have been so many recalls of parenteral products related to visible particulate matter. There are a multitude of factors that lead to the formation of particulate matter, some of which have to do with formulation, some with storage, some with handling, some with manufacturing equipment and the like as was discussed in the blog referenced above.
