Contact

Please select a country

us@pharmalex.com

Contact United States

TwitterLinkedin
contact@pharmalex.com
Search
PharmaLexPharmaLex
PharmaLex
Confidence Beyond Compliance
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Management Team
    • Industry Expertise
      • Biopharma
      • Customer On-site Support
      • Medical Device Services
      • Portfolio Maintenance Outsourcing
    • What Our Clients Say About Us
    • Our Approach
    • Resource Library
  • Our Services
    • Choose a Service
    • InnoPHLEX
    • SourcePHLEX
    • Development Consulting
    • Regulatory Affairs
    • Quality Management & Compliance
    • Pharmacovigilance, Epidemiology & Risk Management
    • Medical Device Services
    • Brexit
  • News & Events
    • News
    • Webinars
    • Events
  • Countries
  • Contact us
  • Careers
    • Current Opportunities
    • Why work at PharmaLex
    • Working at PharmaLex
Menu back  
Home > News & Events > Ireland > Top Tips to Avoid the Frequent FDA Form 483 Observations

Top Tips to Avoid the Frequent FDA Form 483 Observations

FDA Observations: While the regulations haven’t changed dramatically in recent years, the compliance expectation is ever increasing. The inspectorate’s use of computerised systems (e.g., Turbo EIR) allow inspectors to focus on industry trends and take a more risk-based approach. This leads inspectors towards common noncompliance areas within industry quality systems. As an industry, we need to be prepared for FDA’s increased focus on these trouble areas and focusing on these is a good starting point for risk reduction. One way to approach this is to address the governing quality systems that cover the top hitting observations. Monitoring the status of your site’s quality systems and reacting to reported quality metrics helps to avoid compliance issues and facilitates continuous improvements.

  1. Procedures not in writing or not fully followed (21 CFR 211.22(d))

For a pharmaceutical company to prove to the FDA that it is operating within the highest standard of compliance, its standard operating procedures (SOPs) must be clearly written, and maintained and modified in a timely and consistent manner. Pharma companies can experience difficulty in this area when their document control systems are paper-based, dispersed between a number of locations, or if the company does not sufficiently track approvals and signatures. SOPs can be complex to create and maintain. However, regulatory bodies are becoming more and more focused on compliance and enforcement operations. Most SOPs are very complex and can be difficult to read and follow on a daily basis. Too much information and excessive detail increases the risk of errors and mistakes. Complexity leads to greater risk of error, demotivation and disengagement amongst personnel. How to avoid the observations: Restructuring SOPs can seem expensive and complicated. Simplify complex or confusing SOPs to help avoid a “procedures not fully followed” observation. Re-engineering your procedures, red line the procedure in the field, maintain simplicity, use photos / drawings to clarify, reduce the number of people involved in the tasks, test and verify SOP function. An electronic system is key to automating the routing and delivery of SOPs, policies, work instructions, and other pertinent documentation to designated personnel while maintaining SOPs and other critical documentation in a secure, web-based repository.

  1. Discrepancies and/or failures in investigations (21 CFR 211.192)

The trend shows that deviations handling, investigations and CAPA are recurring through pharma, device, and biologics. All deviations from written procedures must be thoroughly investigated, according to the 21 CFR 211.192 guideline, and the results of those investigations must be adequately documented. In 2016, Investigations of discrepancies in Production record review (CFR 211.192) continued to be one of the most frequently cited observations for drug products by the FDA. If a pharmaceutical company is unable to identify potential root causes and make sufficient record of them, their internal investigations will be viewed by the FDA as incomplete. How to avoid these types of Observational Warnings: At minimum, a good closed loop investigation system is comprised of the following elements Identification, Prioritisation, Assignment/Acknowledgement, Investigation, Correction, Implementation, Verification and Close. Following on from the investigation element, often companies will come to a root cause. For example: equipment failure/ availability/design or procedure inadequate or procedure not followed or human error. While these are valid intermediate root causes, they need further analysis to arrive at a truly effective CAPAs. At this point it is important to add another layer to the root cause investigation to establish the true root cause. The investigation into and documentation of quality events is drastically simplified with Quality Management software that enables an organization to automate the management of the entire CAPA process, from initiation to investigation and all the way through to closure.         3.Process Equipment, subsection 5.4 Computerised Systems, paragraph 5.43 of guideline ICH Q7 which states: “Computerised systems should have sufficient controls to prevent unauthorised access or changes to data. There should be controls to prevent omissions in data (e.g. system turned off and data not captured). There should be a record of any data change made, the previous entry, who made the change, and when the change was made.” Typical examples referred to the unregulated access to raw electronic data as follows:

  • deleting of “bad” analyses (HPLC) after choosing the ones with specification compliant results
  • manipulation of metadata in audit trail
  • changing the date of analyses

 How to avoid these types of Observational Warnings: As part of your company’s internal audit procedure, data integrity should be systematically checked across all key GMP functions. The scope should cover items such as

  • How is access authorised and controlled?
  • Have you justified access levels and the user privileges at each level?
  • Are there specific user profiles to access software and provide audit trails for traceability?
  • Is there restricted privileges (can’t delete/ write-over / move)?
  • Is the administration independent of the analytical function?
  • How is it enforced that passwords are not shared?
  • Are passwords changed periodically and are they of high strength?
  • Is the Audit Trail functionality switched on?
  • Is the Date/ time functionality locked by IT?
  • Has the system been validated for its intended use?
  • Are all data processing methods validated and locked by the administrator?
  • Is it necessary to ‘save’ before it is submitted for review?
  • Are accurate audit trail entries put in when prompted?

  If you would like PharmaLex Ireland – a PharmaLex Company to  assist your organisation , please contact us at +353 1 846 47 42 or contactirl@pharmalex.com.      

Related posts
Top 10 Tips for an effective Internal Audit System
20th February 2019
Use and Learn Period for Serialisation
14th February 2019
Cleaning Validation
13th February 2019
Brexit: Update for the Pharma Industry
7th February 2019
How can you add value to your Self-Inspection Programme?
30th January 2019
Brexit Readiness
22nd January 2019
Search
Recent News
  • Top 10 Tips for an effective Internal Audit System
    20th February 2019
  • Use and Learn Period for Serialisation
    14th February 2019
  • Cleaning Validation
    13th February 2019
  • Brexit: Update for the Pharma Industry
    7th February 2019
  • How can you add value to your Self-Inspection Programme?
    30th January 2019
  • Webinar // Early Phase Modelling – Estimating the Costs and Effectiveness of a Pharmaceutical before Clinical Trial
    25th January 2019
Categories
  • All News
  • Webinars
  • Events
Archive
PharmaLex
©2018 PharmaLex GmbH. All rights reserved.

Suspicious Emails

We are aware of a number of suspicious emails about recruitment in circulation purporting to be from PharmaLex. These emails are being sent from @pharmalexcompanies.com and are not from us. Emails sent by PharmaLex will originate from @pharmalex.com. Should you receive an email and are unsure as to its validity, please report it to contact@pharmalex.com.

In compliance with the Spanish Law 15/1999, of Protection of Personal Data and in accordance with regulations approved by the Spanish RD 994/1999 inform you that your data will be part of a file located in Friedrichsdorf (Germany), whose ownership belongs to Pharmalex Spain S.L.U. The purpose of these data is the insertion in a potential job selection process. Inform the user that at any time may exercise their right of access, rectification, and deletion of data through email curriculum@pharmalex.com or to this postal address Pharmalex Spain. Coso 103, 50001 Zaragoza, Spain.

Privacy Policy

This can be specific information about signing up to the newsletter.

Pellentesque lobortis, tellus at ultrices ullamcorper, lectus tellus consectetur lectus, id consequat leo quam quis eros. Mauris pellentesque tortor a augue pellentesque ultricies. Phasellus sit amet suscipit orci, vel dapibus ligula. Maecenas at pellentesque lectus, sit amet tristique felis. Integer fringilla risus ac neque mollis, at imperdiet lacus sodales. In vehicula orci sed vulputate interdum. Nunc sagittis non nunc eget sollicitudin.

Maecenas a mattis erat. Phasellus cursus erat non nisl pulvinar ultricies. Aenean id fringilla libero. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Morbi in ultrices elit. Suspendisse egestas hendrerit est. Integer pellentesque nisl ut justo tempus, nec suscipit dolor luctus. Cras vestibulum elementum tincidunt.