A Risk-Based Approach to Setting Acceptance Criteria for Pharmaceutical Process Comparability
- 292 Downloads
Throughout the life cycle of a biotechnological drug product, changes and improvements of manufacturing processes are common. It is required by the regulatory bodies that manufacturers establish adequate and appropriate comparability between pre-change and post-change products. The goals of comparability assessments are to demonstrate the comparability and consistency of product quality before and after change and to demonstrate that the changes do not have an adverse effect on safety and efficacy of the drug products.
A well-planned and detailed comparability protocol may facilitate the approval of process changes and expedite the production and distribution of lifesaving drug products to patients. Analytical comparability is the foundation of all comparability exercise. Therefore, a sound comparability protocol should carefully select relevant critical quality attributes, prepare a flexible testing plan, and predefine appropriate acceptance criteria. Selection of analytical methods and acceptance criteria for determining comparability may be the most challenging step in the comparability study.
In this article, a risk-based approach is proposed to setting the acceptance criteria for analytical comparability during the pharmaceutical process change. The proposed method is applied to a late-phase process comparability study, illustrating the value of using prior information and historical data.
The Bayesian methodology allows the manufacturer to utilize accumulated scientific knowledge and manufacture experience during the life cycle of pharmaceutical development and the risk assessment enables control of the probability of out-of-specification, thus protecting the patients’ risks.
KeywordsAcceptance criteria Bayesian method Comparability Process change Quality attributes
The authors would like to thank Dr. Rick Burdick for his helpful comments and suggestions, which greatly helped improve the paper.
- 1.Towns J, Webber K. Demonstrating comparability for well-characterized biotechnology products early phase, late phase, and postapproval. BioProcess Int. 2008;32–43.Google Scholar
- 2.ICH. Comparability of biotechnological/biological products subject to changes in their manufacturing process Q5E November 2004. http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Quality/Q5E/Step4/Q5E_Guideline.pdf.
- 3.EMEA. EMEA Guideline on comparability of medicinal products containing biotechnology-derived proteins as active substance: non-clinical and clinical issues. 2003.Google Scholar
- 4.US FDA. Draft guidance for industry, comparability protocols—chemistry, manufacturing, and controls information. 2003. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm070545.pdf.
- 5.US FDA. Draft guidance for industry, established conditions: reportable CMC changes for approved drug and biologic products. 2015. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm448638.pdf .
- 6.US FDA. Guidance for industry, comparability protocols - chemistry, manufacturing, and controls information for new animal drugs. 2016. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/ucm052510.pdf.
- 7.US FDA. Draft guidance for industry, comparability protocols for human drugs and biologics: chemistry, manufacturing, and controls information. 2016. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM496611.pdf.
- 9.Lubiniecki A, Volkin DB, Federici M, Bond MD, Nedved ML, Hendricks L, Mehndiratta P, Bruner M, Burman S, DalMonte P, et al. Comparability assessments of process and product changes made during development of two different monoclonal antibodies. Biologicals 2011;39(1):9–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Schlegel M, Bobinnec Y. Comparability protocols for biotechnological products, a five-step methodology. BioProcess Int. 2013;11:30–41.Google Scholar
- 12.Hauck W, DeStefano A, Cecil T, Abernethy D, Koch W, Williams R. Acceptable, equivalent, or better: approaches for alternatives to official compendial procedures. Pharmacop Forum 2009;35:772–8.Google Scholar
- 13.Chambers D, Kelly G, Limentani G, Lister A, Lung KR, Warner E. Analytical method equivalency. Pharm Technol 2005;29:64 –80.Google Scholar
- 14.Abdel-Kader H, Argentine M, Hofer J, Benz N, Burdick R, Chatfield M, Diana F, Fang H, Huang Y, Karmarkar S, Nair LM, Natishan T, Pless AM, Wang Q, Williams Z. Analytical method comparability in registration and post-approval stages: a risk-based approach. Pharm Technol Eur. 2014;26(10):47–53.Google Scholar
- 18.US FDA. Pharmaceutical cGMPs for the 21st Century—a risk-based approach September 2004. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/Manufacturing/QuestionsandAnswersonCurrentGoodManufacturingPracticescGMPforDrugs/UCM176374.pdf.
- 19.USP. General chapter < 1010 > analytical data—interpretation and treatment.Google Scholar
- 20.Gsponer T. Equivalence testing: establishment of evidence based equivalence limits September 2013. http://www.bebpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/5_T-Gsponer.pdf.
- 21.Gelman A, Carlin J, Stern H, Rubin D. Bayesian data analysis, 2nd edn. London: Chapman and Hall; 2003.Google Scholar
- 31.Boulanger B, Rozet E, Giacoletti K. A bayesian approach to method bridging. September 2015. http://www.iabs.org/index.php/documents/conferences/2015/2nd-stats-data/41-katherine-giacoletti-arlenda/file, international Alliance for Biological Standardization Conference.