Biocompatibility testing and evaluations for medical devices

Biocompatibility testing and evaluations for medical devices is a vital component of patient safety, for it is the only effective means to ensuring that a medical device or any related material, when it happens to come into contact with the patient’s body has to not only perform its intended purpose and function; it should also not result in adverse reactions for the patient.

When medical devices and/or materials come into contact with the patient’s body, they can cause problems or what may be termed adverse effects that can be either short-term or long-term adverse effects to the body. These effects, called acute to chronic, can result in mutagenic effects. It is to prevent the occurrence of such events that biocompatibility testing and evaluations for medical devices has to be carried out.

These evaluations for biocompatibility of medical devices are done to evaluate the interaction between a device and anything it comes into contact with within the patient’s body, such as cells, tissue or body fluids. Essentially, device biocompatibility is assessed to prevent biological risks from happening to the patient.

ISO standard for biocompatibility testing and evaluations for medical devices

The International Standards Organization (ISO) has a specific standard for carrying out and ensuring biocompatibility testing and evaluations for medical devices. It is called ISO 10993-1: 2009, and makes biological evaluation part of a structured biological evaluation program that comes under a risk management process. All these are carried out in accordance with ISO 14971.

ISO 10993-1, Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices – Part 1 The basis for biocompatibility testing and evaluations for medical devices is the Risk Management Process. This is the most prevalent standard for assessing biocompatibility testing and making evaluations for medical devices. In requiring biocompatibility testing and evaluations for medical devices to be conducted in compliance with Principles of Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) and/or ISO/IEC 17025 and requiring the consideration of evaluation of local and systemic risk factors; the ISO 10993-1 is considered the basis for determining the subsequent, necessary biocompatibility testing and evaluations for medical devices.

What factors are tested? In line with the principles set out in ISO 10993-1: 2009 on biocompatibility testing and evaluations for medical devices, specific testing is prescribed based on two factors: a) the type and the intended use of a medical device or related material, and b) the kind, tenure and extent of contact the medical device makes with the body.

ISO 10993-1: 2009 on biocompatibility testing and evaluations for medical devices requires assessment to be made for the following among others:

  • Cytotoxicity
  • Genotoxicity
  • Sub chronic toxicity
  • Sensitization
  • Irritation or intra-cutaneous reactivity
  • Implantation
  • Haemocompatibility
  • Systemic toxicity, etc.
Advertisements

3D Printing: FDA Finalizes Guidance for Medical Devices

2016-01-26_finalversion--tojpeg_1511805354759_x2

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Monday finalized guidance on medical device additive manufacturing, also known as 3D printing.

The guidance finalizes the draft version from May 2016 and largely keeps intact the recommendations and considerations laid out in the draft.

FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said Monday that the guidance “will help manufacturers bring their innovations to market more efficiently by providing a transparent process for future submissions and [ensures] our regulatory approach is properly tailored to the unique opportunities and challenges posed by this new technology.”

Gottlieb also said that FDA has now reviewed more than 100 3D printed medical device applications, including knee replacements and implants used for facial reconstruction, up from the 85 reviewed at the time the draft was released.

FDA describes the guidance as a “leap-frog” guidance in that it is meant to provide manufacturers about its initial thinking on manufacturing 3D-printed devices and how to characterize and validate such devices. The final guidance also emphasizes that the recommendations made will not be applicable to all 3D-printed devices due to the wide array of available additive manufacturing technologies and materials.

Some changes in the final guidance include new considerations for handling complex design files and cybersecurity considerations for patient-matched devices.

Enhanced here to continue http://snip.ly/4kybn

The role of Quality Agreements in Contract Manufacturing Organizations (CMO)

The role of contract manufacturing in the pharmaceutical and life sciences industries cannot be overlooked. It has gained favor with organizations in these industries, as it allows them the luxury of outsourcing their processes relating to manufacturing or other activities to a third party, saving them costs and hassles in the short and long terms. Entrusting their processes to Contract Manufacturing Organizations (CMO’s) enables them to concentrate on their core activities such as research and new drug discovery.

With the global economy more open than it perhaps has been at any other point of time in history, and with almost no economy of any country being isolated from the forces of globalization; CMO’s are a very viable option for pharmaceutical and related companies. As long ago as 2010; the global CMO size was put at over $26 billion, with a healthy CAGR of over 10 percent. With the global pharma market having crossed a trillion dollars in 2015; there is heavy optimism for the growth of CMO in the coming years.

While these figures look encouraging; a whole lot of issues need to be considered before embarking on contract manufacturing. The most important of these is quality. Ensuring that the supplier maintains the high quality standards set out by the contracting company is a major challenge for the client company.

The Quality Agreement

Quality Agreements are a very strong tool in addressing this issue. A Quality Agreement is a contract reached between a pharmaceutical firm and a GMP Contract Manufacturer, in which the responsibilities each of these parties has towards assuring the quality, safety and efficacy of the manufactured drug, are spelt out in detailed and clear terms. This is the only real means to ensure oversight of the processes and the quality of the products. Ensuring that they comply with the GMP regulations is at the core of these requirements and expectations.

How do contracting pharmaceutical and life sciences firms draft Quality Agreements that comply with the regulatory requirements and ensure the quality of products from the supplier? What are the elements of a Quality Agreement? What due diligence and scrutiny does the contracting organization need to keep in mind when drafting a Quality Agreement?

Complete learning on all aspects of the Quality Agreement

The nitty-gritty of these elements will be taught at a webinar that is being organized by Compliance4All, a leading provider of professional trainings for all the areas of regulatory compliance. This webinar’s speaker, Roger Cowan, is the founder and owner of R Cowan Consulting Services LLC, a consulting company specializing primarily in the area of pharmaceutical contract manufacturing. The experience he has gained in the industry after having worked in it for 37 years will be in full flow at this webinar.

Please register for this webinar by visiting Contract Manufacturing Arrangements for Drugs

In-depth look at the two recent FDA and EU guidelines

Roger will explain the dynamics of a CMO Quality Agreement at this webinar. He will discuss the two recent regulatory guidelines: the EU GMP Chapter 7 “Outsourced Activities” (Revised) issued by the EU, and the Draft Guidance for Industry – “Contract Manufacturing Arrangements for Drugs: Quality Agreements”, which was issued by the FDA in May 2013. These two guidelines are important from the CMO perspective, as they offer greater depth of understanding and clarity on quality contracts.

Roger will explain what aspects of Quality Agreements need to be taken care of from a regulatory perspective. Both the FDA and the EU have laid sufficient emphasis on the control of suppliers such as CMO’s. It is expected that these new these new regulatory documents will introduce written documentation of this control. Evidence of this kind of control can be presented to FDA/EU inspectors in the form of a Quality Agreement which is specific to a particular CMO.

Writing a Quality Agreement in line with the new guidelines

The speaker will help participants gain a thorough understanding of the Quality Agreement by fully analyzing each proposed section. He will suggest how to write it keeping the new guidelines in mind. He will also detail the comparisons between the two regulatory documents and will highlight their differences. Topics of critical importance in the Quality Agreement, such as change control, documentation, facilities and equipment, lab controls, sub-contracting, etc., will be examined. He will also present an analysis of the current status of the FDA draft guidance and will review the comments that this guidance has received from the industry.

Roger will cover the following areas at this session:

o  The Who and What of a good Quality Agreement

o  What a Quality Agreement is – and is not

o  Responsibilities of the owner vs. contract facility

o  GMP responsibilities

o  A comparison of the new guidelines from the FDA and the EU.

Click here to fill for more updates https://goo.gl/forms/uhDAqbDPGKbJq9fI3

Q7 and Other Requirements for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (ASM) GMP

In late 2016, the FDA published the revised the Q7 Good Manufacturing Practice Guidance for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients, Guidance for Industry. The aim of this revision is to address Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) for a Quality Management System for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API’s). Another of its aims is to help companies ensure that they meet the requirements of API quality and purity characteristics. While replacing Q7A Good Manufacturing Practice Guidance for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients; this guidance amends the International Council for Harmonization (ICH) codification from Q7A to Q7.

All aspects of API manufacture are addressed by this revised guidance. These include:

o  The principles set out for Quality Management

o  The quality unit’s responsibilities

o  Activities relating to production

o  Internal audits

o  Product quality reviews

o  Qualifications expected from personnel

o  Their hygiene standards

o  The qualification that consultants need to have.

The GMP requirements for facility design and construction and equipment used are also included in this FDA Q7 GMP guidance for API revision. Several other API manufacturing topics are also part of this revision. Some of these include:

o  Management of materials

o  Process controls

o  Laboratory controls

o  Packaging

o  Storage and distribution

o  Validation

o  Change Control.

Clarity on the FDA’s revised standard

A webinar from Compliance4All, a leading provider of professional trainings for all the areas of regulatory compliance, will explain the FDA’s API Quality System revision in detail.

Eyal Lerner, owner of ELC Consulting Services which offers the pharmaceutical and medical devices industries support in all quality related issues, will be the speaker at this webinar. To gain understanding of how to apply the FDA’s revised API Quality Systems GMP requirements; please register for this webinar by visiting API (ASM) GMP

Explanation of API quality requirements

This webinar will explain the basic requirements and fundamentals of API QS. It will review the quality requirements for API in accordance to global API GMP- ICH Q7. The explanations will be based on practical experience and other relevant guidelines. Eyal will review the requirements of FDA and EMA. All the areas such as materials, Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient and Advanced Starting Materials (ASM) will be discussed along with their definitions. He will also explain the distinctions between these.

Administrative issues such as registration issues concerning filling, annual review and change report to file would be discussed. In this section, Eyal will lay emphasis on the section: “Registration standard: Common Technical Document (CTD)”, as it relates to the ICH M4.

Anyone, whose work concerns the area of development and manufacture of API, such as those in R&D, Regulatory Affairs, Quality Assurance and Quality Control, who wish to get an in-depth background and understanding of API QS; will find this webinar valuable.

Which leads to fines in the millions of dollars per intrusion

Developments in the area of medical device software –i.e., the software that is put to use in medical devices –have been taking place at such a torrid pace that regulatory agencies such as the FDA have been unable to keep pace with them. Almost invariably, every development in medical device software brings about a new level of complexity.

Also, the classification of the device is another factor the FDA and other regulatory agencies have had to contend with: Different regulations have to be made depending on whether the software in medical devices is to be classified as a device itself, is used to alter the performance of the device, or is used for computing values. The inability of the regulatory agencies to catch up with the speed of developments in the medical device software arena has had the agency scurrying for quick solutions.

Among these are its decision to integrate the current provisions of voluntary standards developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which it considers as a useful guidance for medical software professionals and voluntary information sharing organizations to meet cybersecurity challenges into its regulatory oversight. The onus of being knowledgeable about FDA regulations thus rests on firms that design and market software.

Learning on all the aspects of medical device cybersecurity

A formal learning session that examines this complex relationship is being organized by Compliance4All, a leading provider of professional trainings for all the areas of regulatory compliance. The speaker at this webinar is Casper Uldriks, ex-FDA Expert and former Associate, Center Director of CDRH. Participants who wish to gain clarity on these aspects of medical device cybersecurity can register for this webinar by visiting National Institute of Standards and Technology

The speaker at this webinar will seek to help participants identify the FDA’s fundamental premarket and postmarket requirements that involve software. When medical device companies go to the FDA for approval to market their product; they need to be very well informed about everything that the FDA states and requires in this regard, because, as we have examined, the burden of design factors requires well informed considerations about how medical device manufacturers protect their product’s software and how they outsmart increasingly sophisticated cyber attackers.

All-round plans

At the same time, device manufacturers also need to be totally compliant with the regulatory options and responsibilities lie with them when a cybersecurity problem is located in their device. Their responsibilities include plans about how to recover and publicly disclose cyberattacks, especially when private medical records are involved. Not getting this right leads to fines that run into millions of dollars for every breach.

So, their cybersecurity efforts should be inclusive of important factors such as these among others:

o  Design planning

o  Postmarket vigilance

o  Training for employees

o  An action plan for managing an attack.

Learning on the factors to consider

Casper will help participants identify these basic considerations at this webinar. He will explain the kind of device cybersecurity programs that protect and foster the performance of device based software or standalone software that device manufacturers need to instill in order to assure the safe use of the device. Such programs need to use the FDA’s premarket and postmarket information requirements when entering and staying in the market.

This session is of very high value to professionals who deal with some or another form of medical device software and its marketing. This includes those in Regulatory Affairs, Quality Assurance, Software Design Engineers, Manufacturing, the Complaint Department, Hospital Risk Department, and those who market their own labels.

Casper will cover the following areas at this webinar:

o  FDA’s Cybersecurity Premarket Design Information

o  FDA’s Postmarket Controls

o  Voluntary Controls

o  Cybersecurity Training

o  Recovery Plans.

A clear process for compliant laboratory OOS investigations

The core of successful operation by a drug maker is laboratory testing. current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) regulations require a drug manufacturer to use laboratory testing as a tool to validate that everything that goes into a laboratory product, such as in-process materials, finished materials, and containers adhere to set specifications. When all these are done, a major challenge for laboratories is in how to deal with a test that shows an Out of Specification (OOS) result.

Out of Specification results are viewed very seriously by the FDA

The FDA is uncompromising when it comes to dealing with Out of Specification results in laboratories. Its inspections of laboratory operations are very meticulous. It requires complete adherence to its guidances on how the laboratory has to investigate its Out of Specification and Out-of-Tolerance observations.

The ways by which finished Out of Specification products have to conform to set specifications, safety standards and other quality standards are specified in cGMP regulation Sec 211.165. Any lab whose result fails to do this gets summarily rejected. Another iteration of these cGMP regulations is that any unexplained deviation from the set specifications of a batch or its contents, whose test results show an Out of Specification result, will be subject to thorough investigation. Whether batches have only been manufactured and are yet to be distributed, or already are; the same rule applies.

Ways of dealing with Out of Specification results

This is the protocol that the cGMP regulation makes for dealing with Out of Specification testing:

o  Out of Specification testing is mandatory for the release of a test batch

o  The batch in which an Out of Specification result is confirmed gets rejected

o  The company’s Quality Assurance (QA) will have to state the reasons for the release of a batch that has an element of ambiguity in the result, and has to justify it.

The requirement that current Good Manufacturing Practices need to go into the manufacture of both active pharmaceutical ingredient and finished pharmaceuticals is stated in Section 501(a) 2 (b) of cGMP guidelines on Out of Specification. Also, all aspects such as active pharmaceutical ingredients, raw material testing, in-process and stability testing and Process Validation come under the ambit of the cGMP guidelines.

The FDA guidance on Out of Specification relates to the following products:

o  Human drugs

o  Combination products

o  Biology and biotechnological products

o  Type A medicated articles

o  Transplantation of human tissues

o  Finished products & active pharmaceutical ingredients

o  Medicated feed

o  Dietary supplements

o  Veterinary drugs

Out of Specification needs to be understood fully first

A reading of the above attests to the fact that a thorough understanding of the nature of the issues relating to Out of Specification results needs to be made for a laboratory to meet the required results. All the concerned persons should have complete knowledge of the FDA expectations for Out of Specification results.

It is this knowledge that needs to be applied to put in place procedures that define a complete, scientifically sound investigation of each Out of Specification and Out-of-Trend laboratory observation, as well as for establishing evidence that laboratory personnel conform to the procedures.

A proper learning session on dealing with Out of Specification results

A webinar from Compliance4All, a leading provider of cost-effective professional trainings for all the areas of regulatory compliance, will be providing learning on these aspects.

Jerry Lanese, an independent consultant who focuses on Quality Systems and the components of an effective Quality System, will be the speaker. Please visit Out-Of-Specification Laboratory Results to enroll for this highly educative session.

Tools for dealing with Out of Specification results

The speaker of this webinar will help participants build a basis for the implementation of adequate procedures that help avoid Out of Specification results. He will also review existing procedures and practices. Any laboratory personnel, who need understanding of the steps that a compliant laboratory has to take to handle the investigation of Out of Specification test results, will find this session very useful.

The ways in which the laboratory has to interface with other units through the laboratory investigation process will be explained. The speaker will dwell mainly on the FDA guidance on handling OOS laboratory results and will suggest a clear process for compliant laboratory Out of Specification investigations.

The following areas will be covered at this webinar:

o  Why the regulators are concerned about the handling of OOS investigations

o  The FDA model for handling OOS investigations

o  Commonly accepted terminology such as repeat testing and retesting

o  How the laboratory can meet regulatory expectations for OOS investigations.

o  The interaction between the laboratory and other units in the organization.

Understanding HACCP and risk based HACCP

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) is an important system aimed at bringing down the risk of safety hazards found in food consumed all over the world. It is an internationally recognized system. When it was enacted in January 2011 as part of the FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act; it was considered a very sweeping piece of legislation for the food industry.

img_assurance004

Identification and control of potential hazards at specific point of the food chain is the soul of an HACCP system. The chain starts with production and ends with consumption. Identifying and controlling these hazards at every point of the chain is challenging in today’s world in which food has become completely globalized.

HACCP suggests the putting in place of mechanisms to control and counter the biological, chemical or physical hazards that could be present or be a potential presence in the food. The HACCP system is designed in such a way such that a company that manufactures, processes, or handles food products in any form can use HACCP for eliminating or minimizing food safety hazards present in its product to acceptable levels.

Implementation is based on two approaches

Proper implementation of the HACCP program involves food companies to implement both these:

  • Prerequisite programs
  • Implementation of HACCP plans

Prerequisite programs:

Prerequisite programs are those programs that a food organization has to put in place at its facility to ensure that all the processes that go into preventing contamination, ensuring a hygienic environment, and the optimal and scientific use of manufacturing methods and technologies and the cleanliness and hygiene of the staff involved in the production of food are proper and compliant.

haccp-infografica

Implementation of HACCP plans:

If the prerequisite programs are required at the manufacturer-specific location; many steps and processes need to go into ensuring the quality standards of food that goes out of the facility. HACCP has suggested as many as seven steps for food is free from contamination. These are part of HACCP plans.

 

 

 

These include:

  1. Conducting a hazard analysis
  2. Identifying the critical control points
  3. Establishing a maximum or minimum limit for temperature, time, pH, salt level, chlorine level or other processing characteristics that control the hazard
  4. Establishing Critical Limits
  5. Establishing Monitoring Procedures
  6. Establishing Corrective Actions
  7. Establishing Record Keeping Procedures and Verification Procedures

Risk based preventive control is a major component of HACCP

HACCP has placed a heavy emphasis on risk in the production and transportation of food. It requires risk based preventive control. Codex Alimentarius describes risk assessment as a scientific process that takes the identification of a hazard, its characterization, assessment of the exposure to it, and characterization of risk into consideration.

Risk assessment is part of risk analysis, which in turn is described as a process into which three aspects, namely risk management, risk assessment and risk communication go. So, HACCP requires food manufacturers and transporters to take the risk causing factors into consideration at work. All these become part of risk based preventive controls.

Get the confusion cleared in implementing a risk based HACCP program

To clear the confusions in the meaning of these terms and to teach the ways of implementing them, Compliance4All, a leading provider of professional trainings for all the areas of regulatory compliance, will be organizing a webinar.  This webinar will clear the misunderstanding between these terms and show ways by which to implement a risk based HACCP program and ways of getting it right.

site-map-2011

Rotimi Toki, who is principal of Rottoks Food Safety Management Consulting Services Limited, will be the speaker at this webinar. Rotimi has provided services to some of the top brands in food service and manufacturing sectors and specializes in Quality Systems Audit, developing an integrated food safety management system based on HACCP principles. In order to gain complete understanding of the ways by which you can adapt and implement a risk based HACCP program, please register for this webinar by visiting Background of The HACCP system

Step-by-step method of developing an HACCP program

Rotimi will present a step-by-step process for developing an effective HACCP program. He will elucidate the principles and specific steps needed for this, for this is a prerequisite to building such a program. Through this process, Rotimi will show how participants can build a plan that can identify and control food safety hazards and risks specific to their product line and processes.

He will show how to determine the significance of these hazards by applying risk assessment techniques, from which a measure of risk can be obtained. This measure allows users to put appropriate control measures in place. He will clarify on the various confusions and weaknesses present in many food safety standards surrounding the determination of control measures required by HACCP.

Rotimi will cover the following areas at this webinar:

  • Background of The HACCP system
  • The CODEX Guidelines
  • Basic HACCP procedures
  • Assemble the HACCP Team
  • Describe product and identify intended use
  • Construct flow diagram and on-site confirmation of flow diagram
  • Hazard Analysis
  • Determining control measures in HACCP
  • Establish Critical Limits for each CCP
  • Establish a monitoring system for each CCP
  • Establish Corrective Actions
  • Verification procedures
  • Documentation and record keeping
  • Post-HACCP Maintenance