Date: 09 May 2008
Quality by Design: Concepts for ANDAs
Quality by design is an essential part of the modern approach to pharmaceutical quality. There is much confusion among pharmaceutical scientists in generic drug industry about the appropriate element and terminology of quality by design. This paper discusses quality by design for generic drugs and presents a summary of the key terminology. The elements of quality by design are examined and a consistent nomenclature for quality by design, critical quality attribute, critical process parameter, critical material attribute, and control strategy is proposed. Agreement on these key concepts will allow discussion of the application of these concepts to abbreviated new drug applications to progress.
Opinions expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the FDA.
The PAR is the range of experimental observations that lead to acceptable quality. A sponsor has the option of conducting experimental observations over the entire POS; in this case the POS could be equivalent to the PAR. Alternatively a sponsor may use prior knowledge, mechanistic models and trends from the PAR to draw conclusions about sensitivity over a POS that is larger than the PAR.
J. Woodcock. The concept of pharmaceutical quality. Am. Pharm. Rev. Nov/Dec 2004:pp. 1–3.
M. N. Nasr. Implementation of quality by design (QbD): status, challenges, and next steps. FDA Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/slides/2006-4241s1_6.ppt (accessed 11/21/2007).
L. X. Yu. Implementation of quality-by-design: OGD initiatives. FDA Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/slides/2006-4241s1_8.ppt (accessed 11/21/2007).
ISPE PQLI. Draft PQLI summary update report. http://www.ispe.org/cs/pqli_product_quality_lifeycle_implementation_/draft_pqli_summary_update_report (accessed 11/21/2007).
W. P. Ganzer, J. A. Materna, M. B. Mitchell, and L. K. Wall. Current thoughts on critical process parameters and API synthesis. Pharm. Technology. 46–66 (2005), July.
M. Glodek, S. Liebowitz, R. McCarthy, et al. Process robustness: A PQRI white paper. Pharm. Eng. 1–11 (2006), Nov/Dec.
ICH. Draft consensus guideline: pharmaceutical development annex to Q8. Available at:, http://www.ich.org/LOB/media/MEDIA4349.pdf (accessed 11/21/2007).
FDA CDER. Guidance for industry. Pharmaceutical development. May 2006.
FDA CDER. Guidance for industry. Quality risk management. June 2006.
FDA CDER. Draft guidance for industry. Pharmaceutical quality system. July 2007.
FDA CDER. Draft guidance for industry and review staff. Target product profile—a strategic development process tool. Mar., 2007.
L. X. Yu, A. Raw R. Lionberger, et al. U.S. FDA Question-based review for generic drugs: a new pharmaceutical quality assessment system. J. of Generic Med. 4:239–248 (2007).CrossRef
FDA Office of Generic Drugs. Model quality overall summary for an extended release capsule. Available at http://www.fda.gov/cder/OGD/QbR/OGD_Model_QOS_ER_Capsule.pdf. (accessed 11/21/2007).
FDA Office of Generic Drugs. Model quality overall summary for an immediate release tablet. http://www.fda.gov/cder/OGD/QbR/OGD_Model_QOS_IR_Tablet.pdf (accessed 11/21/2007).
C. Potter, R. Beerbohm A. Coups, et al. A guide to EFPIA’s Mock P.2 document. Pharm. Technology Europe. 18:39–44 (2006).
R. Nosal. PQLI-criticality. ISPE PQLI Berlin Conference. Sept. 2007.
J. Berridge. ICH Q8 & Q9 (+Q10) defined and undefined: gaps and opportunities. ISPE PQLI Washington Conference. June 2007.
R. A. Reed. A quality by design approach to dissolution based on the biopharmaceutical classification system. DIA Annual Meeting, June 2005.
A. J. Hlinak, K. Kuriyan, K. R. Morris, G. W. Reklaitis, and P. K. Basu. Understanding critical material properties for solid dosage form design. J. Pharm. Innovation. 1:12–17 (2006).CrossRef
FDA CDER. Draft guidance for industry. Q8 pharmaceutical development, version 4.3 (draft), Nov. 2004.
T. Parks. A science and risk-based approach for establishing critical process parameters and critical intermediate quality attributes. Available at: http://www.pharmachemicalireland.ie/Sectors/IPCMF/IPCMFDoclib4.nsf/wvICCNLP/2E3576E6D5211C69802570BC004BA9F8/$File/12+-+CPP+Poster.ppt. (accessed 11/21/2007).
R. Nosal. Industry perspective of risk-based CMC assessment under QbD. AAPS Annual Meeting, Oct. 2006.
K. R. Morris. Risked-based development and CMC question-based review: Asking the right questions for process understanding, control and filing. FDA Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/04/slides/2004-4052S1_12_Morris.ppt (accessed 11/21/2007).
FDA CDER. Guidance for industry: PAT-a framework for innovative pharmaceutical development, manufacturing, and quality assurance. Sept. 2004.
- Quality by Design: Concepts for ANDAs
The AAPS Journal
Volume 10, Issue 2 , pp 268-276
- Cover Date
- Online ISSN
- Springer US
- Additional Links
- control strategy
- critical material attributes
- critical process parameters
- design space
- quality by design
- Industry Sectors