New Forum – Good Automated Manufacturing Practice GAMP 5

AskaboutValidation is pleased to announce the creation of our brand new GAMP 5 forum. Good Automated Manufacturing Practice (GAMP) is both a technical subcommittee of the International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering (ISPE) and a set of guidelines for manufacturers and users of automated systems in the pharmaceutical industry.

Good Manufacturing Practices

More specifically, the ISPE’s guide The Good Automated Manufacturing Practice (GAMP) Guide for Validation of Automated Systems in Pharmaceutical Manufacture describes a set of principles and procedures that help ensure that pharmaceutical products have the required quality. One of the core principles of GAMP is that quality cannot be tested into a batch of product but must be built into each stage of the manufacturing process.

As a result, GAMP covers all aspects of production; from the raw materials, facility and equipment to the training and hygiene of staff. Standard operating procedures (SOPs) are essential for processes that can affect the quality of the finished product.
A group of pharmaceutical professionals have banded together to create the GAMP Forum, which is now a technical sub-committee, known as the GAMP COP (community of practice) of the International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering (ISPE). The goal of the community is to promote the understanding of the regulation and use of automated systems within the pharmaceutical industry.

The GAMP COP organizes discussion forums for its members. ISPE organises GAMP-related training courses and educational seminars. Several local GAMP COPs, such as GAMP Americas, GAMP Nordic, GAMP DACH (Germany, Austria, Switzerland), GAMP Francophone, GAMP Italiano, GAMP Benelux (Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg) and GAMP Japan bring the GAMP community closer to its members in collaboration with ISPE’s local affiliates in these regions.

GAMP Guidance

ISPE has published a series of good practice guides for the industry on several topics involved in drug manufacturing. The most well-known is The Good Automated Manufacturing Practice (GAMP) Guide for Validation of Automated Systems in Pharmaceutical Manufacture. The last major revision (GAMP5) was released in February 2008.[2]

Other publications in the GAMP series include:

  • GAMP Good Practice Guide: A Risk-Based Approach to Compliant GxP Computerized Systems
  • GAMP Good Practice Guide: Calibration Management
  • GAMP Good Practice Guide: Electronic Data Archiving
  • GAMP Good Practice Guide: Global Information Systems Control and Compliance
  • GAMP Good Practice Guide: IT Infrastructure Control and Compliance
  • GAMP Good Practice Guide: Testing of GxP Systems
  • GAMP Good Practice Guide: Validation of Laboratory Computerized Systems
  • GAMP Good Practice Guide: Validation of Process Control Systems

Check Out Our New Forum

0
shares

Similar articles:

An Alternative View of the ICH Q10 Pharmaceutical Quality System (PQS)

The image below is that depicted by the International Conference of Harmonisation (ICH) Q10, Annex 2, and is supposed to depict a PQS or Pharmaceutical Quality System.

Typically, I really love the ICH. When we have to deal with outdated regulations from different global organizations it becomes a real nightmare trying to keep track of the nuances and the ICH has done a pretty good job of bringing several of the key organizations together and aligning them on how best to organize and meet the expected requirements.

That being said the diagram below and the depiction in Q10 of what a PQS should look like is greatly lacking.

Development Phases

In section 1.8 under the Quality Manual the ICH Q10 guidance states, “The description of the PQS should include: …(c) Identification of the pharmaceutical quality system processes, as well as their sequences, linkages and interdependencies.

Process maps and flow charts can be useful tools to facilitate depicting the pharmaceutical quality system processes in a visual manner”.

I completely agree.

The problem is using the graphical depiction they present in Annex 2 is completely worthless.

Basically they listed some of the PQS elements in a bar and then said they all apply to the entire product lifecycle, which simply isn’t true.

When we are in the development phase of our product lifecycle why would we do that under the change management system, or monitor process performance?

 

Controlling Change – No Value Add

There is no point in controlling changes for a product that is purposely being changed, nor does it offer any value to monitor the process performance for a process that has yet to be developed.

This isn’t a graphic depiction of the PQS, but rather a graphic of how they depict the lifecycle management (which also has some issues).

The PQS is the quality system and its subsystems and how they interrelate.

While it’s useful to look at how the PQS and product Lifecycle Management overlap and what elements of the PQS system are relevant at each lifecycle stage, it is not the point of the PQS, and even if that’s the end goal it’s not depicted here at all.

This image offers almost no value.

A Better Approach

So, what should this graphic look like?

While this is not a perfect view of a PQS, I would propose that the image below is a much better depiction of how the PQS should be visualized and a good place to start.

At the core of any quality system should be management. This goes back to Deming, who said, “Quality begins with the intent that is fixed by Management”.

Quality has to be rooted in the executive management team.

Define Core Quality Systems

Core quality systems then need to be defined. These are systems that impact all aspects of the business and include a Risk Management Policy, Resource Management, Document Control and CAPA systems.

All of the other subsystems, Deviations, Supplier Management, Equipment Qualifications, Validation, Material Management, etc, etc. all should be risk based or involve risk assessment, they all require resources and training, they call require documents (procedures, policies, records), and the CAPA system of course drives for process improvement regardless of the process.

Subsystems

All subsystems feed back into the main Management module. The subsystems listed, all are interconnected, with the exception of Post Market Systems.

The subsystems are important too, but they are farmed out to different groups and have different levels of importance depending on the stage of the product lifecycle.

Post Market Systems

The one exception is the Post Market Systems. This includes complaint management, product reviews, recall processes and other systems to support marketed products.

These generally do not interact with the other subsystems unless it is through the CAPA system or other management functions, but still utilizes all the systems under the management umbrella.

Alternate View

The PQS presented here, isn’t intended to be perfect, but I thought it was worth presenting an alternate view to the one presented by the ICH.

The ICH concept is a good one, and the ideas are fairly well laid out in the ICH, but the graphical representation of the PQS leaves a lot to be desired.

When establishing a PQS, it is better to start with something to what we’ve depicted here, and customize it as needed for the organization.

0
shares

Similar articles:

How 21 CFR Part 11.3(7) Applies to Electronic Batch Records [Video]

When dealing with Part 11 it’s important to understand what an electronic signature actually means

The definition of electronic signatures or e-sigs can be found in 21 CFR Part 11.3(7).

Electronic Signature

An electronic signature or e-sig means a computer data compilation of any symbol or series of symbols executed, adopted, or authorized by an individual to be the legally binding equivalent of the individual’s handwritten signature.

Handwritten Signatures

We also need to understand what a handwritten signature means in the context of Part 11.
The definition of handwritten signatures can be found in 21 CFR Part 11.3(8).

Handwritten signature means the scripted name or legal mark of an individual handwritten by that individual and executed or adopted with the present intention to authenticate a writing in a permanent form.

The act of signing with a writing or marking instrument such as a pen or stylus is preserved. The scripted name or legal mark, while conventionally applied to paper, may also be applied to other devices that capture the name or mark.

Electronic Batch Records

Eric works in a Pharmaceutical company and he is responsible for the filling process of the batch been manufactured.

Each time Eric performs the filling process he has to populate a batch record with the appropriate details

After each step Eric must also fill in his signature and date to verify that he actually performed each task.

Eric is manually handwriting these details and they are legally binding to Eric.

21 CFR Part 11.3(8)

This is when 21 CFR Part 11.3(8) applies.

Fast forward 12 months and Eric’s company has implemented a brand new Manufacturing Execution System (MES) where all details around the batch manufacturing process are recorded electronically.

21 CFR Part 11.3(7)

Now when Eric performs the filling process he now populates everything electronically and signs with his username and password combination to verify that he has performed those tasks.

This is when 21 CFR Part 11.3 (7) applies.

0
shares

TOP

Similar articles: