WHO TRS 996 Web PDF
WHO TRS 996 Web PDF
WHO TRS 996 Web PDF
W H O Te c h n i c a l R e p o r t S e r i e s
996
The WHO Technical Report Series makes available the findings of various international
groups of experts that provide WHO with the latest scientific and technical advice on
a broad range of medical and public health subjects. Members of such expert groups
serve without remuneration in their personal capacities rather than as representatives
of governments or other bodies; their views do not necessarily reflect the decisions or
the stated policy of WHO.
An annual subscription to this series, comprising about four to six such reports, costs
CHF 150.00/US$ 180.00 (CHF 105.00/US$ 126.00 in developing countries). For further
information, please contact: WHO Press, World Health Organization, 20 Avenue
Appia, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland (tel. +41 22 791 3264; fax: +41 22 791 4857;
email:[email protected]; order on line: http://www.who.int/bookorders).
Further information on these and other WHO publications can be obtained from
WHO Press, World Health Organization, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland
http://www.who.int/bookorders
tel.: +41 22 791 3264; fax: +41 22 791 4857; email: [email protected]
W H O Te c h n i c a l R e p o r t S e r i e s
9 9 6
v
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
Members1
Professor Saleh A. Bawazir, Consultant, College of Pharmacy, King Saud Unit, Riyadh,
Saudi Arabia (Rapporteur)
Professor Theo G. Dekker, Professor Emeritus, Research Institute for Industrial Pharmacy,
North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa
Professor Jos Hoogmartens, Leuven, Belgium (Co-chairperson)
Professor Jin Shaohong, Chief Expert for Pharmaceutical Products, National Institutes for
Food and Drug Control, Beijing, Peoples Republic of China
Professor Henning G. Kristensen, Vedbaek, Denmark
Ms Gugu N. Mahlangu, Director-General, Medicines Control Authority of Zimbabwe,
Harare, Zimbabwe (Chairperson)
Dr Justina A. Molzon, Bethesda, MD, USA
Mrs Lynda Paleshnuik, Arnprior, Ontario, Canada
Dr Jitka Sabartova, Prague, Czech Republic (Rapporteur)
Temporary advisers2
Professor Erwin Adams, Laboratorium voor Farmaceutische Analyse, Leuven, Belgium
Dr Marius Brits, Director, WHO Collaborating Centre for the Quality Assurance of Medicines,
North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa
Dr Mnica da Luz Carvalho Soares, Expert Health Regulation, Brazilian Health Surveillance
WHO Technical Report Series, No. 996, 2016
1
Unable to attend: Ms Nilka M. Guerrero Rivas, Technical Director, Radiopharmacy, Radiofarmacia de
Centroamrica, SA, Ciudad del Saber, Panama; Dr Toru Kawanishi, Director General, National Institute of
Health Sciences, Tokyo, Japan; Dr Adriaan J. van Zyl, Cape Town, South Africa.
2
Unable to attend: Dr Jean-Louis Robert, Luxembourg; Dr Jan Welink, Medicines Evaluation Board, Utrecht,
Netherlands.
vi
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations
3
Unable to attend: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), New York, NY, USA.
4
Unable to attend: United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), Vienna, Austria; World
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Geneva, Switzerland; World Bank, Washington, DC, USA;
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, Austria.
5
Unable to attend: World Customs Organization (WCO), Brussels, Belgium; European Commission (EC),
Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Protection, Brussels, Belgium.
vii
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
Observers7
WHO Technical Report Series, No. 996, 2016
Dr C. Michelle Limoli, Senior International Health Advisor, Center for Biologics Evaluation
and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA
Ms Wei Ningyi, Associate Researcher, Division of Chemical Drugs, National Institutes for
Food and Drug Control, Beijing, Peoples Republic of China
Dr Gabriela Zenhusern, Senior Case Manager, Sector Authorisation, Swissmedic, Berne,
Switzerland
6
Unable to attend: Commonwealth Pharmacists Association (CPA), London, England; Global Fund to Fight
AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, Geneva, Switzerland; International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering
(ISPE), Tampa, FL, USA; World Self-Medication Industry (WSMI), Ferney-Voltaire, France.
7
Unable to attend: Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme (PIC/S), Geneva, Switzerland.
viii
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations
Professor Zhang Mei, Deputy Director and Vice Chairman, Institutes for Food and Drug
Control, Jiangsu, Peoples Republic of China/Antibiotic Subcommittee, Chinese
Pharmacopoeia Commission, Peoples Republic of China
Pharmacopoeias8
Farmacopia Brasileira
Mr Varley Dias Sousa, Coordinator, Coordination of Brazilian Pharmacopoeia, Brazilian
Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA), Brasilia, Brazil
British Pharmacopoeia
Ms Helen Corns, British Pharmacopoeia and Laboratory Services, Medicines & Healthcare
products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), London, England
Pharmacopoeia of the Peoples Republic of China
Dr Wang Fei, Beijing, Peoples Republic of China
European Pharmacopoeia 9
Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France
Japanese Pharmacopoeia
Dr Yoshihiro Matsuda, Deputy Director, Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices Agency,
Division of Pharmacopoeia and Standards for Drugs, Office of Standards and
Guidelines Development, Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, Tokyo,
Japan
Pharmacopoeia of the Republic of Korea
Dr Kwangmoon Lee, Deputy Director, Drug Research Division, Pharmaceutical
Standardization Research and Drug Research Division, National Institute of Food
and Drug Safety Evaluation, Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, Chungcheongbuk-do,
Republic of Korea
State Pharmacopoeia of the Russian Federation
Dr Elena Sakanyan, Director, Centre of Pharmacopoeia and International Collaboration,
Scientific Centre for Expert Evaluation of Medicinal Products of the Ministry of Health
of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russian Federation
Ms Olga Gubareva, Head, International Cooperation Department, Moscow, Russian
Federation
United States Pharmacopeia
Dr Kevin Moore, Manager, Pharmacopeial Harmonization, Rockville, MD, USA
Dr Kelly S. Willis, Senior Vice President, Global Public Health, Rockville, MD, USA
8
Unable to attend: Farmacopea Argentina; Indian Pharmacopoeia Commission; Indonesian Pharmacopoeia
Commission; Pharmacopoeia of Ukraine.
9
See under Council of Europe.
ix
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
WHO Secretariat 11
Health Systems and Innovation (HIS)
Dr M.-P. Kieny, Assistant Director-General
Essential Medicines and Health Products (HIS/EMP)
Mr C. de Joncheere, Director, Essential Medicines and Health Products (EMP)
Regulation of Medicines and other Health Technologies (EMP/RHT)
Dr L. Rgo, Head
Technologies, Standards and Norms (EMP/RHT/TSN)
Dr D.J. Wood, Coordinator
Medicines Quality Assurance (EMP/RHT/TSN)
Dr S. Kopp, Group Lead, Medicines Quality Assurance (Secretary)
Dr H. Schmidt, TSN
Dr H. Chen, TSN (volunteer)
International Nonproprietary Name (INN/RHT/TSN)
Dr R.G. Balocco, Group Lead
Policy, Access and Use (EMP/PAU)
Ms Bernadette Cappello
Prequalification Team (EMP/RHT/PQT)
Mr M. McDonald, Coordinator
Mr J.R.H. Kuwana
WHO Technical Report Series, No. 996, 2016
10
Unable to attend: Regional Office for Africa; Regional Office for the Americas; Regional Office for the
Eastern Mediterranean; Regional Office for Europe; Regional Office for South-East Asia.
11
Unable to attend: Traditional and Complementary Medicine (HIS/Service Delivery and Safety (SDS)/TCM).
x
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations
xi
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
Declarations of interest
Members of the WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations
and temporary advisers reported the following:
Dr E. Adams, Dr M. Brits, Mr D. Churchward, Dr T. Dekker, Dr A. Garcia Arieta, Dr J. Gordon,
Professor J. Hoogmartens, Professor Jin S., Dr O. Le Blaye, Dr J. Molzon, Dr A. Nicolas,
MsL. Paleshnuik, Dr J. Sabartova, Dr M. Da Luz Carvalho Soares and Mr S. Akbaralli
Veljee reported no conflict of interest.
Professor S. Bawazir reported that he is in the process of establishing a new consultancy.
Professor H.G. Kristensen reported that he has provided testimonies as an independent
expert in questions on validity and for infringement of patents at courts in Denmark,
Norway and Sweden. In all cases testimony related to drug formulations. No items
conflict with the subjects of the meeting.
Ms G.N. Mahlangu reported that she would receive an out-of-pocket allowance from her
current employer, the Medicines Control Authority of Zimbabwe, in accordance with
the travel allowances schedule for sponsored travel.
Dr J. Miller reported that he has acted as a consultant for national authorities.
Ms C. Munyiamba-Yeta reported that she was employed by the Zambian Regulatory
Authority for seven years until 2014. For the moment she works as an independent
consultant.
Mr J. Wilkinson reported that he was employed with the European Medical Devices
Industry Association until December 2012.
The interests summarized above do not give rise to a conflict of interest such that the
expert concerned should be partially or totally excluded from participation in the Expert
Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations. However, following WHOs
policy, they were disclosed within the Committee so that other members were aware
ofthem. All other members of the Expert Committee declared no relevant interests.
WHO Technical Report Series, No. 996, 2016
xii
1. Introduction
The World Health Organization (WHO) Expert Committee on Specifications
for Pharmaceutical Preparations met in Geneva from 12 to 16 October 2015.
MrCornelius de Joncheere, Director of the Department of Essential Medicines
and Health Products (EMP) at WHO, welcomed participants on behalf of the
Director-General.
Mr de Joncheere welcomed the experts and advisers from all WHO
regions, as well as observers and representatives from international organizations.
He thanked them and their teams for their major contributions to the work of
WHO in setting standards in the area of pharmaceuticals. He mentioned that this
was the fiftieth anniversary of the Expert Committees meetings. The Committee
held its first meeting in 1947 under the name of Expert Committee on Unification
of Pharmacopoeias to continue the work of technical experts of the League of
Nations. The Committees scope of work was extended from the maintenance of
international pharmacopoeial standards to good manufacturing practices (GMP)
and subsequently to other topics. Today it covers all aspects of medicines quality,
with a strong focus on building quality assurance into the life cycle of products,
from development to the supply to patients. A press event titled Promoting
quality medicines and saving lives Commemorating the 50th anniversary of
WHO programme to improve medicines quality worldwide had been organized
for 15 October 2015.
WHOs standard-setting work today is more important than ever, and is
conducted under strengthened rules for selection of experts and for declarations
of interests. The Expert Committee system is the backbone of WHOs
normative function. The technical guidance is provided online and is widely
used. The website, with the 75 medicines quality assurance-related guidelines
adopted through the Committee and the online version of The International
Pharmacopoeia, is at the top of the Organizations list for web queries.1
The Expert Committee has strong links with other WHO groups such as
the Expert Committee on Biological Standardization (ECBS), the International
Nonproprietary Names (INN) expert consultation, which met concurrently
with this Committee, and the Expert Committee on the Selection and Use of
Expert Medicines. Strong links also exist with global groups such as the world
pharmacopoeias.
Health systems were a focus of the 2015 World Health Assembly.
Besides the extensive work done to sustain the emergency response to the Ebola
outbreak and to step up preparedness for future public health emergencies, other
achievements included the adoption of a global action plan to combat antibiotic
http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/quality_assurance/en/.
1
1
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
resistance, and the adoption of the Global Vaccine Action Plan. In the area of
medicines, innovative ways of developing new medicines are an important
topic, as is the work of the mechanism to combat substandard/spurious/falsely-
labelled/falsified/counterfeit (SSFFC) products. Health has also been recognized
as a central topic for global development in the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) launched in September 2015. The health-related goal SDG 3, Ensure
healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages includes targets for
improving access to good quality, affordable medicines and promoting research
for needed medicines.
The Committee elected Ms G.N. Mahlangu as Chairperson, Professor J.
Hoogmartens as Co-chairperson, and Professor S.A. Bawazir and Dr J. Sabartova
as Rapporteurs. Ms Mahlangu then took the chair. Declarations of interest as
shown on page 10 of this report were presented to the meeting participants in
accordance with strengthened WHO rules for Expert Committees.
Open session
The Chairperson welcomed the members, technical advisers and observers to
the open session of the Expert Committee. The open session had been arranged
in response to earlier expressions of interest by the diplomatic missions. It was
noted that there were no representatives from the missions.
The Secretary of the Expert Committee described the Committees role
in fulfilling WHOs normative mandate, and explained how WHOs Expert
Committee system works. In its normative work the Committee sets rules for
medicines quality assurance, and acts in response to global health emergencies
and the needs of international organizations. An Expert Committee is the highest
advisory body to the Director-General and is established in the constitution of
the Organization. A set of strengthened rules and procedures, including new
procedures for declaration of interests, govern invitations to and participation
in an Expert Committee. The WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for
WHO Technical Report Series, No. 996, 2016
2
2. General policy
2.1 Cross-cutting pharmaceutical quality assurance issues
Expert Committee on the Selection and Use of Essential Medicines
The Expert Committee on the Selection and Use of Essential Medicines selects
the medicines that satisfy the priority health-care needs of the population, taking
into account disease prevalence, efficacy and safety, and comparative cost-
effectiveness. However, the absolute cost of treatment will not constitute a reason
to exclude a medicine that is shown to otherwise meet the established selection
criteria. The WHO Model Lists of Essential Medicines (EML) for adults and for
children are updated every two years.
The current EMLs include 416 medicines for adults and 289 medicines
for children. Important additions in 2015 include 16 new medicines for
treatment of cancer, four single-ingredient antivirals and two combination
antivirals to treat hepatitis C, as well as four medicines to treat multidrug-
resistant tuberculosis and one medicine to treat latent tuberculosis infection.
Other additions included new contraceptive formulations, medicines affecting
coagulation, medicines for hepatitis B, and some new formulations of existing
medicines. Notably, it was decided not to recommend inclusion on the EML
of ranibizumab for neovascular eye diseases, novel oral anticoagulants and
socalled polypill therapy for cardiovascular disease.
The EML includes a number of biological medicines, and a process for
adding biosimilars will need to be defined in the future. All applications and
recommendations of this Expert Committee are published on the WHO website.
The Committee noted the report.
Regulatory support
An update was provided about WHOs regulatory support activities conducted
on the basis of the Organizations normative guidance. WHO is one of the
largest global providers of regulatory training, covering all aspects of regulation,
including inspections, assessment of product data and post-marketing control of
medicines. The wide implementation of a common basis of norms and standards
has facilitated the creation of a number of successful harmonization initiatives
and cooperative networks, such as the East African Community harmonization
project and similar initiatives in the Southern African Development Community
region and elsewhere. Joint assessment and inspection activities are also
increasing. These developments are further supported by good practices (GXP)
documents for regulatory authorities that are being developed through the
Committee, such as the good review practice document developed under the
leadership of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Regulatory Harmonization
3
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
6
3. Quality control specifications and tests
3.1 The International Pharmacopoeia
3.1.1 Updates
Fifth edition of The International Pharmacopoeia
The fifth edition of The International Pharmacopoeia was published on the WHO
website in August 2015 and has been made available on CD. The new edition
includes 32 new or revised monographs on pharmaceutical substances and dosage
forms as listed in the preface. Other updates include two texts reproduced with
the permission of the European Pharmacopoeia. A function has been added to
the electronic interface enabling users to generate PDF documents for saving or
printing. The Secretariat expressed its sincere thanks to all who had contributed
to this fifth edition.
The Committee noted the report and congratulated the Secretariat on
this achievement.
http://www.who.int/entity/medicines/publications/pharmacopoeia/2015-08-26trade-names_
2
stationary_phases-QAS15-640_04092015N.pdf?ua=1.
7
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
Table 1
Dosage form monographs proposed for elaboration with high priority
8
Quality control specifications and tests
Table 1 continued
etravirine tablets
flucytosine slow release tablets
lamivudine and tenofovir tablets
linezolid oral suspension
moxifloxacin tablets
norethisterone enantate injection
p-aminosalicylic acid granules for oral solution
protionamide tablets
pyrazinamide dispersible tablets
raltegravir tablets
ribavirin syrup
ritonavir oral solution
simeprevir capsule
sofosbuvir tablet
terizidone capsules
terizidone tablets
zanamivir powder for inhalation
Table 2
Monographs proposed for suppression
ampicillin capsules
colchicine tablets
ergometrine hydrogen maleate tablets
indometacin tablets
pethidine hydrochloride tablets
piperazine adipate tablets
piperazine citrate tablets
prednisolone sodium phosphate injection
prednisolone sodium succinate powder for injections
probenecid tablets
9
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
Estradiol cypionate
In accordance with the agreed workplan for The International Pharmacopoeia
it was proposed to include a monograph on estradiol cypionate. A draft was
received from a WHO Collaborating Centre in February 2015. The draft
was discussed at the consultation on screening technology, sampling and
specifications for medicines in April 2015 and circulated for comment in May
2015. Comments received were incorporated and the revised draft monograph
was presented to the Committee.
The Committee adopted the monograph subject to the amendments
agreed.
Levonorgestrel
Revision of the monograph on levonorgestrel in The International Pharmacopoeia
was proposed in January 2015. A revised draft was discussed at the consultation
WHO Technical Report Series, No. 996, 2016
WHO Collaborating Centre, leading to the conclusion that the monographs are
up to date and do not need revision.
The Committee endorsed this conclusion.
them with limits specified in similar monographs. The Committee was further
informed of a proposal received from a manufacturer for improvement of the
related substances test. A WHO Collaborating Centre kindly agreed to perform
further investigations in this regard, and the Committee will be informed of
theresults.
The Committee supported the proposed widening of the assay limits and
endorsed their inclusion in the next edition of The International Pharmacopoeia.
and to circulate the monographs again for public consultation after the meeting,
with a subsequent review of comments by a subgroup of experts in early 2016.
The Committee adopted the monographs, subject to the amendments
agreed and subject to a further round of consultation and revision as proposed.
itself. Instead, the monograph includes a statement that samples, if tested, must
comply with a levomethorphan limit of not more than 0.1%, and provides a
reference to the levomethorphan limit test to be published in the Supplementary
information section of The International Pharmacopoeia (see below).
The Committee adopted both monographs subject to the amendments
agreed.
3.2.8 Radiopharmaceuticals3
Review and update of radiopharmaceutical monographs by the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had been undertaken according to the update
and submission process adopted by the Committee at its 2013 meeting.
A coordination meeting was held at IAEA in 2014. In early 2015, the work
priorities and time lines were aligned with the available expert time and
resources. The final schedule for the updating of monographs was expected to
WHO Technical Report Series, No. 996, 2016
The representative from the IAEA was unable to attend the meeting; the WHO Secretariat presented a
3
(99m Tc) bicitate, technetium ( 99m Tc) succimer, technetium ( 99m Tc) sulfur colloid
and technetium ( 99m Tc) mebrofenin. The following monographs were ready for
final verification by designated experts and expected to be completed in January
2016: technetium (99m Tc) sestamibi, technetium ( 99m Tc) tin colloid, technetium
( 99m Tc) pertechnate, technetium ( 99m Tc) pyrophosphate, technetium ( 99m Tc)
pentetate, technetium (99m Tc) tetrafosmin, technetium (99m Tc) medronate and
technetium (99m Tc) mertiatide.
Based on the outcome of the recent IAEA Coordinated Research
Project (CRP), the IAEA planned to arrange a review, with help from the CRP
participants, of the monograph on cyclotron-produced 99m Tc. Furthermore, a
new monograph on extemporaneous preparation of radiopharmaceuticals
would be drafted by the experts.
The Expert Committee noted the report.
Table 3
Recommendations relating to the use of microbiological assays for antibiotics
(1) ICRS no longer to be used for microbiological assays of antibiotics, and potency
assignments to be deleted
nystatin (ICRS0369)
framycetin sulfate (neomycin B) (ICRS0355)
WHO Technical Report Series, No. 996, 2016
16
Quality control specifications and tests
Table 3 continued
(3) Monographs for which suitable standards other than ICRS should be identified a
amphotericin B
amphotericin B for injection
bleomycin sulfate
kanamycin for injection
kanamycin monosulfate
(4) Monographs for which a concept paper should be developed on the possible
transition from microbiological to physicochemical methods
amphotericin B kanamycin acid sulfate gentamicin sulfate
amphotericin B for kanamycin for injection streptomycin sulfate
injection kanamycin monosulfate streptomycin for injection
bleomycin sulfate nystatin paromomycin sulfate
erythromycin nystatin tablets
ethylsuccinate tablets
erythromycin stearate
tablets
(5) Monographs that should be suppressed
bacitracin chlortetracycline oxytetracycline
bacitracin zinc hydrochloride dehydrate
bleomycin erythromycin (base) oxytetracycline
hydrochloride neomycin sulfate hydrochloride
a
The Committee agreed that the experts should be given more time to identify possible reference standards
that can be referred to in the monographs.
18
4. Quality control international referencematerials
(International Chemical Reference Substances
and Infrared Reference Spectra)
4.1 Update on International Chemical ReferenceSubstances
(ICRS), including report of the ICRS Board
International Chemical Reference Substances (ICRS) are used as primary
standards in physical and chemical tests that are described in The International
Pharmacopoeia, as well as for setting official secondary standards. ICRS are used
to identify and determine the purity or assay of pharmaceutical substances and
preparations or to verify the performance of test methods. The standards are
officially adopted by the Expert Committee.
The European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines & HealthCare
(EDQM) is the custodian centre in charge of establishment, storage, distribution
and monitoring of ICRS in The International Pharmacopoeia. Three steering
committee telephone conferences were held in 2014, and two in 2015. In
accordance with the work programme as agreed in March 2014, the ICRS listed
below were established and released by the ICRS Board.
Routine monitoring of fitness for purpose was done on 17 ICRS in
2014, and no negative findings were reported; for 2015, 13 substances had been
monitored with no negative findings. The EDQM welcomed the decisions to add
dates and version numbers to monographs in The International Pharmacopoeia,
as this facilitates quality assurance verification of ICRS batches in relation to
their intended International Pharmacopoeia use.
Work is in progress to establish reference substances for capreomycin
sulfate, enabling testing according to the recently adopted monographs on
capreomycin, and for dextromethorphan for system suitability, enabling the
performance of the limit test for levomethorphan adopted by the Committee
at this meeting.
The Secretariat expressed its sincere thanks to EDQM for establishing,
storing and distributing ICRS and providing related guidance, to the ICRS Board
for reviewing establishment reports and releasing ICRS, and to the laboratories
that participated in collaborative trials. The Expert Committee noted the report
and joined the Secretariat in thanking the custodian centre for this major
contribution. The Expert Committee noted the report and endorsed the release
of the ICRS shown in Table 4.
19
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
Table 4
ICRS released by the ICRS Board
-artemether ICRS 1
efavirenz ICRS 2
efavirenz impurity B ICRS 1
ritonavir ICRS 2
abacavir sulfate ICRS 2
paracetamol ICRS 3
artemether ICRS 2
rifampicin ICRS 3
stavudine impurity F ICRS 1
20
5. Quality control national laboratories
5.1 External quality assurance assessment scheme
The external quality assurance assessment scheme (EQAAS) is a proficiency
testing scheme offered by WHO for the external evaluation of quality control
management systems in chemical quality control laboratories. Since 2010 it has
been organized with assistance from the EDQM.
The Committee was given an update on Phase 6 of the EQAAS studies.
Unlike in Phase 5 studies, the samples sent out were used for two studies, reducing
the burden of sending and receiving samples. Approximately 40 laboratories
participated in Phase 6 studies. Analysis of samples was ongoing, with results
expected at the end of 2015.
The Secretariat maintains close links with the WHO/PQT prequalifying
quality control laboratories when carrying out the EQAAS studies. Preparations
were beginning for Phase 7 of the EQAAS scheme.
The Committee noted the report.
21
6. Prequalification of quality control laboratories
6.1 Update on the prequalification of quality control laboratories
The prequalification procedure for quality control laboratories was established
in 2004. Participation is voluntary and is open to both public and private quality
control laboratories. In October 2015 there were a total of 38 WHO-prequalified
laboratories distributed among all six WHO regions. Two laboratories became
prequalified in 2015, one in Uganda and one in India.
A peer audit scheme has been introduced as a capacity-building measure
for laboratories involved in the prequalification procedure. Training has been
conducted under this scheme in Armenia, Ghana and Nigeria and a further
training programme is planned in Madagascar. Applications are currently also
being received from manufacturer-linked laboratories, and in any future revision
of the procedures consideration should be given to whether the prequalification
procedure should be applicable to this type of laboratory.
The Committee noted the report.
22
7. Quality assurance collaboration initiatives
7.1 International meetings of world pharmacopoeias
In 2012, WHO brought together representatives from 23 national and regional
pharmacopoeia authorities at the first meeting of world pharmacopoeias. The
participants committed to working towards harmonization of pharmacopoeial
standards in the global context by developing a guidance text on good
pharmacopoeial practices (GPhP) aiming at convergence of approaches in
defining pharmacopoeial standards (see7.2). Harmonization of standards
has become increasingly important for public health for several reasons. It
will support the global fight against falsified and substandard medicines and
will reduce the costs arising from meeting the different standards used in the
production and testing of medicines, thus making good quality medicines
accessible to more people.
The international meeting of world pharmacopoeias has become
a recurring event which is co-hosted by WHO and a pharmacopoeia.
Two meetings were held in 2015: the fifth International Meeting of World
Pharmacopoeias cohosted by the United States Pharmacopeia (USP) and
WHO from 20 to 22April 2015 in Rockville, USA, and the sixth International
Meeting of World Pharmacopoeias co-hosted by the Chinese Pharmacopoeia
(ChP) and WHO in Suzhou, China on 2122 September 2015. Achieving global
standards to expand access to medicines globally was key to the discussions
at the September meeting, which was held in connection with the 2015 ChP
Annual Scientific Symposium.
Representatives from 12 WHO Member States pharmacopoeias attended,
and more than 30 official pharmacopoeial authorities were represented. During
this sixth international meeting the new guidelines on GPhP were prepared for
finalization, based on feedback received during wide global consultation (see7.2).
The representative of the Japanese Pharmacopoeia (JP) announced that
the seventh WHO International Pharmacopoeia meeting would be co-hosted
by the JP and WHO, and would be held in Tokyo from 13 to 15 September 2016
inconjunction with the 130th anniversary of the JP.
The Expert Committee noted the report and thanked the pharmacopoeias
and the Secretariat for their major contributions to this achievement.
A GPhP text has been drafted over the past three years at successive
meetings of world pharmacopoeias (see 7.1). In view of the length of the third
draft it was decided in 2014 to split it into a main text and a detailed technical
annex to be developed by a separate drafting group. A technical annex was
drafted on the basis of parts of the previous GPhP text with input from the JP, the
European Pharmacopoeia and other pharmacopoeias. The significantly shortened
fourth draft of the main text was then circulated for comments in September
2014, and was discussed at the fourth meeting of world pharmacopoeias held in
Strasbourg, France, in October 2014. It was subject to further consultation with
world pharmacopoeias from October 2014 to March 2015 and was discussed at
the fifth international meeting of world pharmacopoeias, held in Washington,
DC, USA in April 2015. Feedback received on the draft text at that meeting was
discussed from 20 to 22 April 2015, leading to preparation of a fifth draft, which
was circulated for further consultation among world pharmacopoeias. Comments
were received from 15 parties, including five international associations, and were
discussed at the sixth international meeting of world pharmacopoeias held in
China in September 2015, leading to a sixth draft, which was subjected to the
usual public consultation process.
At its forty-ninth meeting, the Expert Committee had been briefed on
progress made on developing a GPhP text and had endorsed a concept paper
onthe purpose and benefits of GPhP. The final revised draft of the main guidance
text and comments received during the public consultation process were
presented to the Expert Committee at its fiftieth meeting.
The Committee provided its feedback in response to the comments
received. The Committee adopted the guidance (Annex1) with agreed
amendments reflecting the comments received, subject to final concurrence
being granted by the pharmacopoeias. Work will continue on drafting possible
additional chapters and to develop the technical annex further, taking into
account its complexity and the resources available. The Committee congratulated
WHO Technical Report Series, No. 996, 2016
25
8. Quality assurance good manufacturing practices
8.1 Update of WHO good manufacturing
practices for biologicals
The guidance on Good manufacturing practices (GMP) for biological products
was first adopted by the Expert Committee on Biological Standardization
(ECBS) as an annex to the GMP for pharmaceutical products, and was
published in the WHO Technical Report Series in 1992. The guidance is widely
used by regulators and is mandatory for prequalification of vaccines. To reflect
the considerable developments since the adoption of the guidelines as well as
current perspectives regarding GMP for manufacturers of biological products,
a preliminary draft revision was prepared in 2008. A revised draft was prepared
by a drafting group and was discussed at a consultation on GMP for biological
products held in July 2014. The text was circulated for public consultation in
2015 before being presented to the ECBS at its October 2015 meeting, held
concurrently with the meeting of the Expert Committee on Specifications for
Pharmaceutical Preparations.
The proposed guidelines are intended to be an annex to WHO Good
manufacturing practices for pharmaceutical products: main principles (WHO
Technical Report Series, No.986, 2014, Annex2), and should be read in
conjunction with other specific WHO guidelines and recommendations for
specific classes of biological products (e.g. vaccines). An outline of the proposed
revised guidelines and key changes and updates was presented to the Committee.
The draft was also presented to the ECBS during its meeting.
The Expert Committee noted the report, and adopted the guidance text
(Annex 3) following its adoption by the ECBS.
been involved both as an observer and through technical advice in the PIC/S
as well as the ICH-related working groups. The ICH Q&As were adopted on
10 June 2015.4 During the consultation on data management, bioequivalence,
GMP and medicines inspection, held from 29 June to 1 July 2015, a draft
working document titled WHO good manufacturing practice guide for active
pharmaceutical ingredients (working document QAS/15.626) was discussed,
and the participants unanimously recommended that the current Appendix 2
should be replaced by a cross-reference to the ICH website with the Q&As on
Q7: Good manufacturing practice guide for active pharmaceutical ingredients.
The Expert Committee endorsed this proposal.
Quality/Q7/ICH_Q7-IWG_QA_v5_0_14Apr2015_FINAL_for_publication_17June2015.pdf.
27
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
feedback received during the consultation and from the inspectors of PQT. On
this occasion the text was also aligned with other relevant guidelines, notably
the proposed revisions to Supplementary guidelines on good manufacturing
practices: validation (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 937, 2006, Annex 4).
The revised draft was circulated for public comment in September 2015. A large
number of comments had been received, which will be discussed at a further
technical consultation.
The Expert Committee noted the report.
to the risk to patients and level of compliance with relevant GXPs. Guidance
on classification of observations will facilitate harmonization and increase
the uniformity of approaches taken by inspectors, as well as the overall rating
of GXP compliance by the site. During the consultation on data management,
bioequivalence, GMP and medicines inspection held on 29 June1 July 2015,
a draft working document on Risk classification of inspection observations was
discussed. The draft was submitted to the Committee at its fiftieth meeting.
Considering that other organizations were also drafting guidance in this area,
the participants at the informal consultation recommended that WHO should
join in with the ongoing activities in order to enable consistency between
inspectorates, facilitating the sharing of information and inspection reports.
The Committee endorsed this proposal.
between Member States, but that it may need further adaptation and more active
participation by a number of member countries to enable its useful application
in the current regulatory and industry environment. At its forty-ninth meeting
in 2014, the Expert Committee had therefore recommended that the Q&As
should be updated. The CPP Network team of the International Federation of
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA) proposed a revised
document, which was circulated for comment in August 2015. The comments
were reviewed by a small working group in September 2015, and the proposed
revision was presented to the Committee in October 2015. The Committee
reviewed the revised Q&As and heard from the WHO Regulatory Systems
Strengthening Team and from a number of organizations represented at the
meeting session about their experience with the use of the Scheme.
The Committee adopted the proposed revised Q&A document.
Furthermore it was recommended that the 17th International Conference of
Drug Regulatory Authorities (ICDRA) to be held in Cape Town, South Africa,
from 27 November to 2 December 2016 should be used as an opportunity to
advocate for active support of the effective functioning of the Scheme by
Member States.
32
10. Prequalification of priority essential medicines
and active pharmaceutical ingredients
10.1 Update on the Prequalification Team managed by WHO
The Prequalification Programme was launched by WHO in 2001 in partnership
with the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), UNICEF
and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).
The Committee was given an overview of the different workstreams and
activities within PQT.
In terms of pharmaceutical products, medicines for hepatitis B and C
have become eligible for prequalification, with two finished product applications
undergoing screening and preparatory meetings having been held with several
companies. Prequalification may also be opened up to other therapeutic areas
if there is a need. WHO assessment times have decreased substantially in recent
years. Additional guidance to applicants has been provided for specific product
types and specific prequalification requirements. A total of 426 products were
prequalified as of 12 October 2015. A collaborative registration procedure,
which started in 2013, supports speedy registration of prequalified products in
participating countries based on sharing of prequalification information.
Regarding prequalification of APIs, the Committee was informed that
a total of 82 APIs have been prequalified to date. New API manufacturers had
come forward in 2015 thus improving the prospects of continued access and
competitiveness. Three applications for hepatitis C-related APIs are being
processed. In general the number of applications for prequalification of both
APIs and finished products has been stable, demonstrating continued interest.
PQT is involved in a wide range of collaborative initiatives. Within
WHO, PQT maintains close links with many other programmes and units,
including The International Pharmacopoeia. A standard text has been included
in the API prequalification sign-off form to permit access by The International
Pharmacopoeia to relevant data in the API master file. Monographs in The
International Pharmacopoeia strongly support manufacturers working towards
prequalification of their products; for example, the revised cycloserine monograph
has been much appreciated by applicants. PQT offers a rotational fellowship
programme, under which regulators from Member States spend three or six
months working at WHO with the prequalification assessor team or inspectorate.
This programme has greatly contributed to capacity-building and to the success
of collaborative activities.
The Secretariat thanked PQT for its important input to, and feedback
on, the guidance developed through the Expert Committee.
The Expert Committee noted the report.
33
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
34
11. Regulatory guidance
11.1 Guidance for organizations performing
in vivo bioequivalence studies
The performance of a bioequivalence study is usually a requirement for
registration and prequalification of a multisource (generic) product to
ensure interchangeability of the product. Such studies should be undertaken in
compliance with WHO GCP and considering relevant elements from WHO GLP
and good practices for quality control laboratories.
An update of WHOs 2006 Guidance for organizations performing in vivo
bioequivalence studies (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 937, 2006, Annex9)
in line with new developments was discussed at an informal consultation in
April 2014. A working document was presented to the Expert Committee in
October 2014, and the Committee supported the revision of the guidelines.
The draft was then further revised by the inspectors of the WHO/PQT in
collaboration with national inspectors and was circulated for public comment
in May 2015. Comments received were discussed at an information consultation
on data management, bioequivalence, GMP and medicines inspection held from
29June to 1 July 2015. A second draft was prepared taking into consideration
the revised text on Multisource (generic) pharmaceutical products: guidelines
on registration requirements to establish interchangeability (WHO Technical
Report Series, No.992, 2015, Annex7), the new proposed guidelines on good
data management (see 8.6), and PQTs experience of assessing and inspecting
bioequivalence studies since 2006. Guidance was added on bioanalytical analysis,
and areas with recurrent inspection findings were clarified. The updated draft
was presented to the Committee in October 2015. The guidelines emphasize
management responsibilities to ensure that adequate premises, equipment and
quality systems are available to conduct good quality studies.
The Committee discussed the revised guidelines and agreed to the
changes proposed in response to the comments. The revised guidelines (Annex9)
were adopted as presented.
39
12. Nomenclature, terminology and databases
Quality assurance terminology
The Secretariat maintains a collection of terms and definitions included in the
guidance documents adopted by the Committee, with references to the respective
guidelines. The Secretariat reported that this database is being kept up to date. An
updated version is in the process of being verified and finalized for publication
on the WHO website.
The Committee took note of the update.
which there is currently no global naming system. Names have been assigned to
cell therapies in some regulatory systems. The INN Expert Group is discussing a
naming scheme applicable to cell therapies.
The Expert Committee noted the report.
41
13. Summary and recommendations
The World Health Organization (WHO) Expert Committee on Specifications
for Pharmaceutical Preparations advises the Director-General of WHO on
pharmaceutical quality assurance. Based on a wide consultation process, it
provides independent expert recommendations and guidance to ensure that
medicines meet identical standards of quality, safety and efficacy in all WHO
Member States. The Committee held its first meeting in 1947 under the name of
the Expert Committee on Unification of Pharmacopoeias. Over time, it expanded
the scope of its standard-setting work from quality-control-testing specifications
to all arrangements that must be made in the development, production, regulation
and supply of medicines to ensure that the medicines reaching the patients are
of the quality required for their intended use.
At its fiftieth meeting from 12 to 16 October 2015, the Expert Committee
heard updates from the WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization,
the WHO Expert Committee on the Selection and Use of Essential Medicines
and the International Nonproprietary Names (INN) Expert Group, all of which
met in Geneva. With respect to international collaboration, updates were
presented by the United Nations Childrens Fund (UNICEF) about the supply
and quality assurance of health products in line with WHO guidance, and by
the Pharmacopoeial Discussion Group (PDG) about progress achieved with the
harmonization of pharmacopoeial standards.
In the area of quality control the Expert Committee adopted the
proposed workplan for elaboration of monographs and reviewed new and
revised specifications and general texts for quality control testing of medicines
for inclusion in The International Pharmacopoeia. The Committee was informed
that the fifth edition of The International Pharmacopoeia was published on
the WHO website in August 2015 as well as being made available as a CD. A
total of 22 texts, as listed below, were adopted. The Committee also endorsed
WHO Technical Report Series, No. 996, 2016
General policy
Chapter on Reference substances and reference spectra
The Committee also agreed to proposals to discontinue the use of certain
ICRSfor the purpose of microbiological assays, to replace microbiological assays
by physicochemical methods in certain monographs, to suppress a number
of monographs that currently prescribe microbiological assays but pertain to
medicines no longer included in the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (19th
edition) or in the relevant invitations for expression of interest from manufacturers.
Recommendations
The Expert Committee made the recommendations listed below in the various
quality assurance-related areas. Progress on the suggested actions will be reported
to the Committee at its next meeting. The Committee recommended that the
Secretariat, in collaboration with experts as appropriate, should carry out the
following activities.
Pharmacopoeia.
47
Acknowledgements
Special acknowledgement was made by the Committee to:
Mrs W. Bonny, Medicines Quality Assurance (MQA), Technologies Standards
and Norms (TSN), Mr H. Chen, MQA, Ms M. Gaspard, MQA, Dr S. Kopp,
Group Lead, MQA, Dr H. Schmidt, MQA; Dr D.J. Wood, Coordinator, TSN;
MrD. Mubangizi, Group Lead, Inspection Services, Prequalification Team (PQT),
Ms J.K. Sawyer, Liaison Officer, PQT, Dr M.M. Stahl, Group Lead, Medicines
Assessment, PQT, Mr I.R. Thrussell, Expert Inspector, PQT; Dr L. Rgo, Head,
Regulation of Medicines and other Health Technologies; Mr C. de Joncheere,
Director, Department of Essential Medicines and Health Products, WHO,
Geneva, Switzerland; and Ms M. Zweygarth, Geneva, Switzerland, who were
instrumental in the preparation and proceedings of the meeting.
Technical guidance included in this report has been produced with the
financial assistance of the European Union, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,
the Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn and Child Health Fund and UNITAID.
The Committee also acknowledged with thanks the valuable contributions
made to its work by the following agencies, institutions, organizations,
pharmacopoeias, WHO Collaborating Centres, WHO Programmes, especially
PQT, and persons:
Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients Committee, European Chemical
Industry Council, Brussels, Belgium; Belgian Association of the Pharmacists
of the Pharmaceutical Industry, Meerbeke, Belgium; Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation, Singapore; Brazilian Health Surveillance Agency/ANVISA,
Brasilia, DF, Brazil; Commonwealth Pharmacists Association, London, England;
European Commission, Brussels, Belgium; European Directorate for the
Quality of Medicines & HealthCare on behalf of the European Pharmacopoeia,
Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France; European Federation of Pharmaceutical
Industries and Associations, Brussels, Belgium; European Generic and
WHO Technical Report Series, No. 996, 2016
Drug Testing Laboratory, Kingston, Jamaica; Mission for Essential Drugs and
Supplies, Nairobi, Kenya; National Quality Control Laboratory for Drugs and
Medical Devices, Nairobi, Kenya; Food and Drug Quality Control Center,
Ministry of Health, Vientiane, Lao Peoples Democratic Republic; Laboratoire de
Contrle de Qualit des Mdicaments, Agence du Mdicament de Madagascar,
Antananarivo, Madagascar; Centre for Quality Control, National Pharmaceutical
Control Bureau, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia; Laboratoire National de la
Sant du Mali, Bamako, Mali; Laboratoire National de Contrle des Mdicaments,
Rabat, Morocco; Quality Surveillance Laboratory, Windhoek, Namibia; National
Medicines Laboratory, Department of Drug Administration, Kathmandu, Nepal;
Laboratoire National de Sant Publique et dExpertise, Niamey, Niger; Central
Quality Control Laboratory, Directorate General of Pharmaceutical Affairs and
Drug Control, Ministry of Health, Muscat, Oman; Drug Control and Traditional
Medicine Division, National Institute of Health, Islamabad, Pakistan; Instituto
Especializado de Anlisis, Universidad de Panam, Panama; Centro Nacional
de Control de Calidad, Instituto Nacional de Salud, Lima, Peru; Bureau of Food
and Drugs, Department of Health, Muntinlupa City, Philippines; Laboratory for
Quality Control of Medicines, Medicines Agency, Ministry of Health, Chisinau,
Republic of Moldova; National Drug and Cosmetic Control Laboratories, Drug
Sector, Saudi Food and Drug Authority, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Laboratoire
National de Contrle des Mdicaments, Dakar Etoile, Senegal; Pharmaceutical
Division, Applied Sciences Group, Health Sciences Authority, Singapore; Centre
for Quality Assurance of Medicines, Faculty of Pharmacy, North-West University,
Potchefstroom, South Africa; Research Institute for Industrial Pharmacy,
North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa; National Drug Quality
Assurance Laboratory, Ministry of Health, Colombo, Sri Lanka; National Drug
Quality Control Laboratory, Directorate General of Pharmacy, Federal Ministry
of Health, Khartoum, Sudan; Pharmaceutical Analysis Laboratory, R&D, The
School of Pharmacy, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences, Dares-
WHO Technical Report Series, No. 996, 2016
Brazil; Dr A.C. Moreira Marino Araujo, Health Expert, Drugs Office, Post
Approval Changes of Synthetic Drugs, Brazilian Health Surveillance Agency,
Brasilia, DF, Brazil; Dr H. Arentsen, Regulatory Intelligence and Policy Specialist,
Regulatory Development Strategy, H. Lundbeck A/S, Copenhagen-Valby,
Denmark; Astellas Pharma Europe BV, Leiderdorp, Netherlands; AstraZeneca
Pharmaceuticals (China) Co., Ltd, Taizhou City, Jiangsu Province, China;
AstraZeneca, Alderley Park, Cheshire, England; Dr C. Athlan, Quality Reviewer,
Swissmedic, Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products, Berne, Switzerland; Dr A.
Ba, Directeur, Qualit et Dveloppement, Centrale Humanitaire Medico-
Pharmaceutique, Clermont-Ferrand, France; Dr H. Baio, Infarmed, Portugal;
Dr P. Baker, United States of America Food and Drug Administration, China
Office, USA; Dr J.R. Ballinger, Guys and St Thomas Hospital, London, England;
Dr E. Bamanyekanye, Dpartment de la Pharmacie, du Mdicament et des
Laboratoires (DPML), Burundi; Mr N. Banerjee, Cipla Limited, Goa, India;
DrH. Batista, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA; Mr B.
Baudrand, OTECI, Paris, France; Dr R. Bauer, Head of Institute, Institute
Surveillance, Austrian Federal Office for Safety in Health Care, Austrian Agency
for Health and Food Safety, Vienna, Austria; Dr O.P. Baula, Deputy Director,
State Pharmacological Center, Ministry of Health, Kiev, Ukraine; Professor S.A.
Bawazir, Advisor to the Executive President, Saudi Food and Drug Authority,
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Bayer Health Care Pharmaceuticals, Bayer Pharma AG,
Berlin, Germany; Dr M.G. Beatrice, Vice President, Corporate Regulatory and
Quality Science, Abbott, Abbott Park, IL, USA; Dr T.L. Bedane, Drug
Administration and Control, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; Ms T.J. Bell, WHO Focal
Point, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA; Dr M.
Silvana Bellini, EDQM Laboratory, Strasbourg, France; Dr I.B.G. Bernstein,
Director, Pharmacy Affairs, Office of the Commissioner/Office of Policy, US
Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA; Mr L. Besanon,
General Secretary and CEO, International Pharmaceutical Federation, The
Hague, Netherlands; Dr R.P. Best, President and CEO, International Society for
Pharmaceutical Engineering, Tampa, FL, USA; Dr A. Bevilacqua, US
Pharmacopeia, Bedford, MA, USA; Dr J. Bishop III, Review Management Staff,
Office of the Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, United
States Food and Drug Administration,, Silver Spring, MD, USA; Dr L. Bonthuys,
Pretoria, South Africa; Mr M.H. Boon, Deputy Director, Overseas Audit Unit
Audit Branch, Audit & Licensing Division, Health Products Regulation Group,
Singapore; Dr G. Born, Institute of Pharmaceutical Technology, Johann Wolfgang
Goethe-University, Frankfurt, Germany; Professor R. Boudet-Dalbin, Paris,
France; Dr B. Blum, Sandoz, France; Dr G. Bourdeau, Mrville, France; Dr S.K.
Branch, Acting Group Manager, Special Populations Group, Medicines and
Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, London, England; Dr E. Brendel, Bayer
HealthCare AG, Elberfeld, Germany; Dr M. Brits, Director, WHO Collaborating
53
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
65
Annex 1
Good pharmacopoeial practices
1. Background 68
2. Purpose and scope of good pharmacopoeial practices 69
3. Glossary 69
4. Benefits of good pharmacopoeial practices 70
5. Implementation 70
6. Monograph development 70
6.1 General considerations 71
6.1.1 Adoption of pharmacopoeial standards 72
6.1.2 Open and transparent process 73
6.1.3 Harmonization 73
6.1.4 Legal recognition 73
6.1.5 Compliance with a pharmacopoeial monograph 74
6.1.6 Analytical requirements 74
6.1.7 Acceptance criteria 74
6.2 Technical guidance 74
6.2.1 Monographs for pharmaceutical substances 75
6.2.2 Monographs for finished pharmaceutical products 80
7. Analytical test procedures and methods 84
67
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
1. Background
A pharmacopoeias core mission is to protect public health by creating and
making available public standards to help ensure the quality of medicines.
Pharmacopoeia standards support regulatory authorities in controlling the quality
of pharmaceutical substances, their finished pharmaceutical products (FPPs)
and related materials and will provide a tool with which the user or procurer can
make an independent judgement regarding quality, thus safeguarding the health
of the public.
Today there are 49 pharmacopoeias in the world (according to the World
Health Organization (WHO) list of pharmacopoeias, 2015). There are differences
between these pharmacopoeias, including the use of technology reflected in each
pharmacopoeia as well as the breadth of medicines and other articles included.
Pharmacopoeias are embedded in their respective national or regional regulatory
environment and reflect specifications approved by the regulatory body.
Efforts towards pharmacopoeial harmonization started more than a
century ago. When WHO was created in 1948, this was included in its mandate.
This led to the creation of The International Pharmacopoeia, which was the first
global pharmacopoeial activity. Many others followed.
Pharmacopoeial harmonization has been defined by the Pharmacopoeial
Discussion Group (PDG) as when a pharmaceutical substance or product
tested by the documents harmonized procedure yields the same results and the
same accept/reject decision is reached.
Developments in science and medical practice, globalization and the
presence of spurious/falsified/falsely labelled/counterfeit (SFFC) products require
pharmacopoeias to continuously revise their monographs and other text.
Harmonization and reinforced collaboration among pharmacopoeial committees
and regulators, supported by adequate interaction with industry, will assist in
facing new challenges and resource constraints.
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
3. Glossary
Terms in this document are used in accordance with WHO terminology,
while recognizing that individual pharmacopoeias may apply their own
nomenclaturepolicies.
active pharmaceutical ingredient. Any substance or mixture of
substances intended to be used in the manufacture of a pharmaceutical dosage
form and that, when so used, becomes an active ingredient of that pharmaceutical
dosage form. Such substances are intended to furnish pharmacological activity
or other direct effect in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention
of disease or to affect the structure and function of the body.
dosage form. The form of the completed pharmaceutical product, e.g.
tablet, capsule, elixir, suppository or injection.
excipient. A substance or compound, other than the active pharmaceutical
ingredient and packaging materials, that is intended or designated to be used in
the manufacture of a pharmaceutical product.
finished pharmaceutical product. A finished dosage form of a
pharmaceutical product that has undergone all stages of manufacture, including
packaging in its final container and labelling.
period of use. Utilization period of multidose products after opening,
reconstitution or dilution of a solution.
pharmaceutical substance. Any substance of a defined quality used in
the production of a pharmaceutical product, but excluding packaging materials.
This includes active pharmaceutical ingredients and pharmaceutical excipients.
69
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
standards.
5. Implementation
While the implementation of the GPhP by NPAs and RPAs is voluntary, it is
recommended and encouraged, as a high level of participation will result in
greater benefit to the stakeholders and ultimately to patients.
6. Monograph development
Development of a monograph requires consideration of information and
candidate materials. This information may come from donors, literature, various
70
Annex 1
In the case of The International Pharmacopoeia this relates to the shelf-life specifications evaluated by the
1
6.1.3 Harmonization
Pharmacopoeias should harmonize standards wherever possible through
monographs and general chapters. Harmonization may occur through several
processes including, but not limited to: adoption or adaptation2 of existing
standards; development of a new standard through coordinated consideration
(prospective harmonization); revision of a standard between two or more
pharmacopoeias (bilateral or multilateral harmonization); and creation or
revision of standards through a harmonization initiative (e.g. PDG).
73
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
chemical name;
the possible existence of isomers, so as to be able to specify either
which isomer is present or to state that the substance is a mixture
ofisomers;
in the case of an optical isomer, the absolute configuration is
given by the R/S system at the asymmetrical centre(s) or any other
appropriate system (e.g. for carbohydrates and amino acids);
state of hydration or solvation, where relevant, ascertaining thestate
of hydration or solvation by an appropriate technique in order
to distinguish clearly between substances which are well-defined
hydrates and solvates and those that contain variable quantities of
water or solvent(s):
for well-defined hydrates or solvates, water or solvent content
ranges are specified;
for substances containing variable amounts of water or solvents,
only a maximum content is given;
where substances exist as both non-hydrated (or non-solvated)
and hydrated (or solvated) forms, and if all these forms are used
and can be clearly distinguished, they may be treated as individual
substances depending on the regulatory approach prevailing in
the country or region.
In therapeutics, well-defined chemical combinations or even mixtures
are sometimes used. In such cases it is necessary to specify precisely each
component of the combination or mixture, with its chemical structure and the
proportion in which it is present.
6.2.1.3 Content
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
Assay limits are specified between which the content must fall. In certain
instances the content may be given only as a lower limit. The assay limits take
account of the precision of the method as well as the acceptable purity of the
substance. Assay limits are normally expressed with reference to the dried,
anhydrous and/or solvent-free substance.
In setting limits for the API content, account is taken of:
the method of preparation, which determines the degree of purity
that may be reasonably required;
the precision and accuracy of the analytical method;
where a separation technique is employed both for the test for related
substances and the assay, content limits are set taking into account the
maximum permitted amount of impurities and the analytical error;
76
Annex 1
6.2.1.5 Identification
The tests given in the identification section are not designed to give a full
confirmation of the chemical structure or composition of the substance. They
are intended to give confirmation, with an acceptable degree of assurance, that
the substance is the one stated on the label. The specificity of the identification
should be such that pharmaceutical substances exhibiting similar structures
can be distinguished. When an identification series is being investigated it is
desirable that other similar substances, whether or not they are the subject of
monographs of the pharmacopoeia, are examined at the same time to ensure that
a particular combination of tests within a series will successfully distinguish one
similar substance from another. False-positive reactions caused by the presence
of known impurities should be avoided.
Some of the purity tests in a monograph may also be suitable for
identification purposes, possibly in a modified form. A system of cross-references
to the section(s) can be exploited. This is particularly relevant in cases where
distinction between closely related materials depends on properties that are also
parameters in purity or composition control. In some cases an organic impurity
procedure may be introduced to differentiate the analyte from similar, common,
dangerous adulterants.
In the case of monographs for similar pharmaceutical substances,
identification of the type of substances may be supplemented by selective but
discriminating tests to identify individual members of the group.
77
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
6.2.1.7 Assay
Assays are included in monographs unless, for example:
all the foreseeable impurities can be detected and limited with
sufficient precision;
certain quantitative tests, similar to assays, are carried out with
sufficient precision;
the tests performed are sufficient to establish the quality of the
substance (usually a non-active ingredient, for example, ethanol
andwater).
In certain cases more than one assay may be necessary, for example,
when the substance to be examined consists of a combination of two parts that
are not necessarily present in absolutely fixed proportions, so that the assay of
only one of the two constituents does not make it possible to determine correctly
the content of the substance as a whole.
79
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
In the case of well-defined salts, the assay of only one of the components,
preferably the pharmacologically active component, is generally considered
sufficient.
6.2.2.3 Content
Assay limits are specified between which the content of the pharmaceutical
substance in the FPP must fall. Limits for each pharmaceutical substance (if
more than one) or individual component are included. The assay limits must
take account of the precision of the method as well as the strength of the FPP.
Assay limits are normally expressed with reference to the active moiety or the
label claim in accordance with the national or regional requirements.
Limits should be justified and account should be taken of:
the strength of the FPP;
the stability of the pharmaceutical substance in a specific FPP.
In the case of antibiotics determined by microbiological assay, the content
limit is expressed in International Units (IU); where these exist a content limit is
given in terms of a range, for example:
The precision of the assay is such that the fiducial limits of error
are not less than 95% and not more than 105% of the estimated
potency. The upper fiducial limit of error is not less than 97.0%
and the lower fiducial limit of error is not more than 110.0% of
the stated number of IU.
81
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
6.2.2.4 Identification
The tests given in the identification section are not designed to give a full
confirmation of the chemical structure or composition of the API in the product.
They are intended to give confirmation, with an acceptable degree of assurance,
that the API(s) in the product is/are the one(s) stated on the label. Special
attention must be given to the sample preparation to ensure that the API is
adequately extracted from the sample matrix.
The minimum number of tests should be included, commensurate with
providing adequate assurance of identity. For example, the monograph may
contain at least two procedures to identify the API(s) in a pharmaceutical dosage
form; one test per API may be sufficient if the technique used is considered to be
a fingerprint of the active moiety (e.g. infrared absorption spectrophotometry).
6.2.2.7 Uniformity
Pharmaceutical preparations presented in single-dose units should comply with
the test(s) as prescribed in the specific dosage form monograph.
Acceptance criteria will be specified regionally for a specific product or
pharmaceutical form.
6.2.2.10 Assay
The assay quantifies the amount of API in the FPP. It may also quantify certain
excipients, such as preservatives, depending on national and regional legislation.
Where possible the method used should be harmonized with that in the
pharmaceutical substance monograph, but this may not be possible because of
the sample matrix.
Assays are included in all FPP monographs unless certain quantitative
tests, similar to assays, are carried out with sufficient precision (for example,
uniformity of content, where a mean of individual results could be considered
an accurate assay).
In certain cases more than one assay may be necessary, for example,
where the FPP contains two or more APIs.
For products such as antibiotics, the results of the quantitative tests may
not fully represent the therapeutic activity, in which case a microbiological assay
and a test for composition are included.
Specific assays should be used where possible, for example, liquid
or gas chromatography. Specific assays remove interference from excipients
(formulation matrix) which could lead to significant errors when using non-
specific assays.
Whenever possible, a stability-indicating procedure should be used for
the assay. Generally, chromatographic procedures are preferred. When a non-
stability-indicating assay is proposed, a separate stability-indicating impurity
procedure should be provided.
be robust, reliable, accurate, precise, sensitive, specific and use readily available
materials and equipment.
A pharmacopoeia provides different types of methods, mainly physical,
physicochemical or chemical methods and microbiological tests, for the analysis
of pharmaceutical substances and FPPs. The type of method applied for analysis
depends on the nature of the substance or product.
The principles of method validation apply to all types of analytical
procedures in a pharmacopoeia. However, it is the responsibility of the user
to verify that a particular method is valid for the particular pharmaceutical
substance or FPP being tested.
The validation of analytical procedures described in monographs
should comply with the requirements as laid down, for example, in the WHO
84
Annex 1
85
Annex 2
FIPWHO technical guidelines: Points to consider in
the provision by health-care professionals of children-
specific preparations that are not available as authorized
products
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of the document is to:
provide evidence-based or best practice advice about alternatives to
compounding of medicines for paediatric patients;
describe the main potential problems of compounding and educate
practitioners on how to avoid them;
provide brief advice on compounding;
reduce the risk of providing children-specific preparations without
informed knowledge.
The document will not reproduce guidance and standards that already
exist (e.g. good manufacturing practices (GMP) standards for facilities and
documentation). Where appropriate, reference is made to the relevant resources
and publications.
2. Glossary
The definitions given below apply to the terms used in these guidelines. They
may have different meanings in other contexts.
89
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
3. Alternatives to compounding
Before deciding to compound, consider possible alternatives that will give the
greatest assurance of clinical effectiveness and safety.
The main alternatives to compounding are described below.
This includes products prepared to GMP standards, for example, at an accredited hospital manufacturing
1
unit.
91
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
The logistics of supply, costs and access are obvious factors that might
present obstacles, but practitioners should liaise with suppliers, importers and
regulatory authorities to access these products if possible.
Importation of products may be expensive, and reputable suppliers should
be used to avoid spurious/falsely-labelled/falsified/counterfeit (SFFC) medicines.
Quality assurance systems should be in place, for example, to ensure that recall
systems are available and that information is provided in the local language.
The use of compounded products for children should not be justified
on the grounds that they are cheaper than marketed products. Other
options, including local manufacture in accordance with GMP standards,
should be investigated.
92
Annex 2
of it can be dispersed in a small volume appropriate for the child concerned and
the whole dose given when a suspension is formed, or mixed with a flavoured
vehicle if required. To ensure that the whole dose is administered the measuring
device should be rinsed and the resulting solution or suspension administered.
It is necessary to consider the impact of dispersion and the risk of interactions
with the vehicle on the bioavailability.
Conventional tablets do not disperse readily but some form a suspension
within a short time. Soluble tablets and dispersible tablets disintegrate and
dissolve or disperse within a short time in water at room temperature.
If the tablet disperses in a known volume of water to form a stable
suspension, a fractional dose can be appropriately measured with a syringe. As
extraction of soluble API from the tablet may be incomplete, the suspension
should be shaken or stirred before measuring the dose and not filtered unless
it has been established that the API is fully dissolved. Dose uniformity of
the prepared suspension cannot be assured and the risk of overdosing or
underdosing must be considered. This may depend on the volume of prepared
suspension that is to be extracted for administration. Any such tablet (whether
a dispersible or conventional-release tablet) compounded to a dispersion
or solution should be administered immediately after preparation and the
remainder should be discarded.
When the dispersion is intended for tube feeding, parameters such as
particle size, viscosity, dosing volume and compatibility of the oral preparation
with the tube material should be considered. Dispersions may be too viscous or
may contain large particles that can mean that administration by feeding tube
is not feasible. Adsorption of API to the tube material results in inappropriate
dosing; this concern is most relevant for lipophilic and low-dose potent APIs.
WHO is promoting the use of flexible solid oral dosage forms such as
dispersible tablets (5). Custom-made dispersible tablets for paediatric dosing
should be used wherever possible but it is still necessary to ensure that carers
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
4. Compounding
4.1 Good manufacturing practices aspects
The dispensing pharmacy receives the prescription for a patient and provides
the pharmaceutical preparation to the patient. For compounded medicines the
dispensing pharmacy is not necessarily the compounding pharmacy. Regardless
of where the product is compounded the dispensing pharmacy is responsible
for ensuring the safety and quality of the product.
When a batch of non-authorized medicine is prepared, including for
stock, the preparing pharmacy or hospital unit should meet depending on a risk
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
on bioavailability and to the risk that only part of the dose will be
swallowed. Provide parents and carers with appropriate information.
If an oral syringe or other measuring device is used it is
important to check the technique to ensure that the correct dose
is administered. Advise the use of clean measuring devices and
explain how to avoid contaminating the preparation when preparing
the dose.
Label information
In addition to dosage instructions, include at least the following
information, subject to national regulations for the labelling of
medicines:
if applicable, the name of the pharmaceutical preparation;
the route of administration;
the name(s) of the API(s) and excipients of known
pharmacological action, and adverse effects, e.g.
antimicrobial agents, antioxidants;
if the preparation is a liquid, give the concentration(s) of
the API(s), e.g. in mg/mL, and the amount or volume of
the preparation in the container;
if the preparation is a solid, give amount(s) of the API(s) in
each dose and the number of doses in the container;
reference or batch number (or date of preparation);
expiry date (do not use after ...);
any special storage conditions and handling precautions
that may be necessary, e.g. to be shaken before use, shelf
life during use;
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
Countries may also have their own database to use to find suppliers of
age-appropriate formulations for paediatric use.
References
1. Ernest TB, Craig J, Nunn A, Salunke S, Tuleu C, Breitkreutz J, et al. Preparation of medicines for
children a hierarchy of classification. Int Journal Pharm. 2012;435(2): 12430. doi: 10.1016/j.
ijpharm.2012.05.070.
2. Nunn T, Hill S, Secretary, WHO Expert Committee on the Selection and Use of Essential Medicines.
Report for WHO on findings of a review of existing guidance/advisory documents on how
medicines should be administered to children, including general instructions on extemporaneous
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
preparations and manipulation of adult dosage forms. Geneva: World Health Organization;
2011 (working document QAS/11.400 available on request) (http://www.who.int/medicines/
areas/quality_safety/quality_assurance/Review-findings-PaediatricMedicnesAdmin_QAS11-
400Rev1_22082011.pdf, accessed 20 November 2015).
3. MODRIC. Manipulation of drugs for children a guideline for health professionals. Liverpool:
Alder Hey Childrens NHS Trust (http://www.alderhey.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/MODRIC_
Guideline_FULL-DOCUMENT.pdf, accessed 20 November 2015).
4. Freeman MK, White W, Iranikhah M. Tablet splitting: a review of weight and content uniformity.
Consult Pharm. 2012;27(5):34152. doi: 10.4140/TCP.n.2012.341.
5. Development of paediatric medicines: points to consider in formulation. In: WHO Expert
Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations: forty-sixth report. Geneva: World
Health Organization; 2012: Annex 5 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 970).
6. Anon. Crushing tablets or opening capsules: many uncertainties, some established dangers.
Prescrire Int. 2014; 23(152): 20911, 21314.
106
Annex 2
Further reading
The International Pharmacopoeia, fifth edition; 2015. Available online and CD-ROM version) (http://
who.int/medicines/publications/pharmacopoeia/en/index.html).
Kastango ES, Trissel LA, Bradshaw BD. An ounce of prevention: Controlling hazards in extemporaneous
compounding practices. Int. J Pharm. Compounding. 2003;7(5):40116.
Pharmaceutical development for multisource (generic) pharmaceutical products. In: WHO Expert
Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations: forty-sixth report. Geneva: World
Health Organization; 2012: Annex 3 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 970) (http://www.who.int/
medicines/areas/quality_safety/quality_assurance/en/).
Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme (http://www.picscheme.org/). In particular the
following documents can be downloaded free of charge: PE 009-9 (Part I); PIC/S GMP guide (Part I:
Basic requirements for medicinal products); PE 010-3 Guide to good practices for the preparation of
medicinal products in healthcare establishments.
Report of the Informal Expert Meeting on Dosage Forms of Medicines for Children. Geneva:
World Health Organization; 2008 (http://www.who.int/selection_medicines/committees/expert/17/
application/paediatric/Dosage_form_report DEC2008.pdf).
The WHO Model formulary for children. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010 (http://www.who.
int/selection_medicines/list/WMFc_2010.pdf).
107
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
Appendix 1
Examples of therapeutic alternatives to extemporaneous
formulations
(tablet)
omeprazole oral esomeprazole granules;
liquid (capsule) lansoprazole orodispersible
tablet
praziquantel oral niclosamide chewable tablet Niclosamide can also be
liquid (tablet) crushed and mixed with water
to form a vanilla paste.
sertraline oral liquid fluoxetine oral liquid
(tablet)
108
Annex 2
Table continued
Required Possible alternative Notes
(available)
tinidazole oral metronidazole oral liquid Very few reasons why
liquid (tablet) tinidazole should be
preferred over metronidazole.
ciprofloxacin/ ciprofloxacin/hydrocortisone
dexamethasone ear drops
eardrops
109
Annex 3
WHO good manufacturing practices for biological products
Replacement1 of Annex 1 of WHO Technical Report Series, No. 822
1. Introduction 114
2. Scope 114
3. Terminology 118
4. Principles and general considerations 122
5. Pharmaceutical quality system and quality risk management 124
6. Personnel 124
7. Starting materials 125
8. Seed lots and cell banks 127
9. Premises and equipment 129
10. Containment 131
11. Clean rooms 133
12. Production 134
13. Campaign production 136
14. Labelling 137
15. Validation 137
16. Quality control 139
17. Documentation (batch processing records) 140
18. Use of animals 141
19. Authors and acknowledgements 143
20. References 145
It also replaces Annex 3 of the report of the Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical
1
Preparations, Technical Report Series, No. 834, and forms Annex 2 of the report of the Expert Committee
on Biological Standardization, Technical Report Series, No. 993.
111
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
112
Annex 3
Abbreviations
AEFI adverse event following immunization
ATMP advanced therapy medicinal product
BCG bacille CalmetteGurin
GMP good manufacturing practice(s)
HEPA high-efficiency particulate air
HVAC heating, ventilation and air conditioning
IgE immunoglobulin E
mAb monoclonal antibody
MCB master cell bank
MSL master seed lot
MVS master virus seed
NRA national regulatory authority
PDL population doubling level
PQR product quality review
PQS pharmaceutical quality system
QRM quality risk management
rDNA recombinant DNA
SPF specific pathogen free
TSE transmissible spongiform encephalopathy
WCB working cell bank
WSL working seed lot
WVS working virus seed
113
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
1. Introduction
Biological products can be defined according to their source material and
method of manufacture. The source materials and methods employed in the
manufacture of biological products for human use therefore represent critical
factors in shaping their appropriate regulatory control. Biological products are
derived from cells, tissues or microorganisms and reflect the inherent variability
characteristic of living materials. The active substances in biological products are
often too complex to be fully characterized by utilizing physicochemical testing
methods alone and may show a marked heterogeneity from one preparation
and/or batch to the next. Consequently, special considerations are needed
when manufacturing biological products in order to maintain consistency in
product quality.
Good manufacturing practices (GMP) for biological products were
first published by WHO in 1992 (1). This current revision reflects subsequent
developments that have taken place in science and technology, and in the
application of risk-based approaches to GMP (214). The content of this
document should be considered complementary to the general recommendations
set out in the current WHO good manufacturing practices for pharmaceutical
products: main principles (2) and in other WHO documents related specifically
to the production and control of biological products.
This document is intended to serve as a basis for establishing national
guidelines for GMP for biological products. If a national regulatory authority
(NRA) so desires, the guidance provided may be adopted as definitive national
requirements, or modifications may be justified and made by the NRA in
light of the riskbenefit balance and legal considerations in each authority.
In such cases, it is recommended that any modification to the principles and
technical specifications set out below should be made only on the condition
that the modifications ensure product quality, safety and efficacy that are at least
equivalent to that recommended in this document.
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
2. Scope
The guidance provided in this document applies to the manufacture, control
and testing of biological products for human use from starting materials
and preparations (including seed lots, cell banks and intermediates) to the
finished product.
Manufacturing procedures within the scope of this document include:
growth of strains of microorganisms and eukaryotic cells;
extraction of substances from biological tissues, including human,
animal and plant tissues, and fungi;
114
Annex 3
115
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
116
Table A3.1
Scope of the current document (illustrative)
Type and source Example products Application of this document to steps in manufacture
ofmaterial
1. Animal or plant Heparins, insulin, Collection of plant, Cutting, mixing Isolation and Formulation
sources: non- enzymes, proteins, organ, tissue or and/or initial purification andfilling
transgenic allergen extract, ATMPs, fluid processing
animal immune sera
2. Virus or bacteria/ Viral or bacterial Establishment Cell culture Inactivation Formulation
fermentation/cell vaccines, enzymes, and and/or when applicable, andfilling
culture proteins maintenance of fermentation isolation and
MCB, WCB, MSL/ purification
MVS, WSL/WVS
3. Biotechnology Recombinant products, Establishment Cell culture Isolation, Formulation
fermentation/cell mAbs, allergens, and and/or purification and andfilling
culture vaccines, gene therapy maintenance of fermentation modification
(viral and non-viral MCB, WCB, MSL,
vectors, plasmids) WSL
4. Animal sources: Recombinant proteins, Master and Collection, cutting, Isolation, Formulation
transgenic ATMPs working transgenic mixing and/or purification and andfilling
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
117
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
3. Terminology
In addition to the terms defined in WHO good manufacturing practices for
pharmaceutical products: main principles (2) and WHO good manufacturing
practices for sterile pharmaceutical products (3), the definitions given below
apply to the terms as used in the current document. These terms may have
different meanings in other contexts.
Active substance: a defined process intermediate containing the active
ingredient, which is subsequently formulated with excipients to produce the drug
product. This may also be referred to as drug substance or active ingredient
in other documents.
Adventitious agents: contaminating microorganisms of the cell culture
or source materials, including bacteria, fungi, mycoplasmas/spiroplasmas,
mycobacteria, rickettsia, protozoa, parasites, transmissible spongiform
encephalopathy (TSE) agents and viruses that have been unintentionally
introduced into the manufacturing process of a biological product. The source
of these contaminants may be the legacy of the cell line, or the raw materials
used in the culture medium to propagate the cells (in banking, in production or
in their legacy), the environment, personnel, equipment or elsewhere.
Allergen: a molecule capable of inducing an immunoglobulin E (IgE)
response and/or a Type I allergic reaction.
Antibodies: proteins produced naturally by the B-lymphocytes that
bind to specific antigens. Using rDNA technology antibodies are also produced
in other (continuous) cell lines. Antibodies may be divided into two main types
monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies based on key differences in their
methods of manufacture. Also called immunoglobulins.
Antigens: substances (for example, toxins, foreign proteins, bacteria,
tissue cells and venoms) capable of inducing specific immune responses.
Axenic: a single organism in culture which is not contaminated with
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
bank (WCB).
Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs): homogenous antibody population
obtained from a single clone of lymphocytes or by recombinant technology
and which bind to a single epitope.
Pharmaceutical quality system (PQS): management system used by a
pharmaceutical company to direct and control its activities with regard toquality.
Polyclonal antibodies: antibodies derived from a range of lymphocyte
clones and produced in humans and animals in response to the epitopes on
most non-self molecules.
Primary containment: a system of containment that prevents the
escape of a biological agent into the immediate working environment. It
involves the use of closed containers or biological safety cabinets along with
secure operating procedures.
120
Annex 3
122
Annex 3
6. Personnel
6.1 Personnel responsible for production and control should have an
adequate background in relevant scientific disciplines such as microbiology,
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
7. Starting materials
7.1 The source, origin and suitability of active substances, starting materials
(for example, cryo-protectants and feeder cells), buffers and media (for
example, reagents, growth media, serum, enzymes, cytokines, growth
factors and amino acids) and other components of the finished product
should be clearly defined and controlled according to the principles set out
in WHO guidance on GMP for pharmaceutical products (2).
125
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
7.2 Manufacturers should retain information describing the source and quality
of the biological materials used for at least 1 year after the expiry date
of the finished products and according to local regulations concerning
biological products. It has been found that documents retained for longer
periods may provide useful information related to adverse events following
immunization (AEFIs) and other investigations.
7.3 All starting material suppliers (that is, manufacturers) should be initially
qualified on the basis of documented criteria and a risk-based approach.
Regular assessments of their status should also be carried out. Particular
attention should be given to the identification and monitoring of any
variability that may affect biological processes. When starting materials
are sourced from brokers who could increase the risk of contamination
by performing repackaging operations under GMP (2, 4) they should be
carefully qualified; an audit may form part of such qualification, as needed.
7.4 An identity test, or equivalent, should be performed on each batch of
received starting materials prior to release. The number of containers
sampled should be justified on the basis of QRM principles and in agreement
with all applicable guidelines (2). The identification of all starting materials
should be in compliance with the requirements appropriate to the stage
of manufacture. The level of testing should be commensurate with the
qualification level of the supplier and the nature of the materials used. In the
case of starting material used to manufacture active substances the number
of samples taken should be based on statistically recognized criteria and
QRM principles (2). However, for starting materials and intermediates used
in the formulation of finished product each container should be sampled
for identity testing in accordance with the main principles of GMP for
pharmaceutical products unless reduced testing has been validated.
7.5 The sampling process should not adversely affect the quality of the
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
8.8 Each storage container should be adequately sealed, clearly labelled and
kept at an appropriate temperature. A stock inventory should be kept. The
storage temperature should be recorded continuously and, where applicable,
the liquid nitrogen level should be monitored. Any deviation from the set
limits, and any corrective and preventive action taken, should be recorded.
Temperature deviations should be detected as early as possible (for example,
through the use of an alarm system for temperature and nitrogen levels).
8.9 Seed lots and cell banks should be stored and used in such a way as to
minimize the risks of contamination or alteration (for example, stored
in qualified ultra-low temperature freezers or liquid nitrogen storage
containers). Control measures for the storage of different seeds and/or
cells in the same area or equipment should prevent mix-up and should
take into account the infectious nature of the materials in order to prevent
cross-contamination.
8.10 MSLs, MCBs, and preferably also WSLs and WCBs, should be stored in
two or more controlled separate sites in order to minimize the risk of
total loss due to natural disaster, equipment malfunction or human error.
A contingency plan should be in place.
8.11 The storage and handling conditions for the cell or seed banks should
be defined. Access should be controlled and restricted to authorized
personnel, and appropriate access records maintained. Records of location,
identity and inventory of individual containers should also be kept. Once
containers are removed from the seed lot/cell bank management system
they should not be returned to stock.
10. Containment
10.1 Airborne dissemination of live microorganisms and viruses used for the
production process, including those from personnel, should be avoided.
10.2 Adequate precautions should be taken to avoid contamination of the
drainage system with dangerous effluents. Drainage systems should be
designed in such a way that effluents can be effectively neutralized or
decontaminated to minimize the risk of cross-contamination. Specific and
validated decontamination systems should be considered for effluents
when infectious and/or potentially infectious materials are used for
production. Local regulations should be complied with in order to
minimize the risk of contamination of the external environment according
to the risk associated with the biohazardous nature of waste materials.
10.3 Dedicated production areas should be used for the handling of live cells
capable of persistence in the manufacturing environment, for pathogenic
organisms of Biosafety Risk Group 3 or 4 and/or for spore-forming
organisms until the inactivation process is accomplished and verified. For
Bacillus anthracis, Clostridium tetani and Clostridium botulinum strictly
dedicated facilities should be utilized for each individual product.
Up-to-date information on these and other high-risk or special agents
should be sought from major information resources (27). Where campaign
manufacture of spore-forming organisms occurs in a facility or suite of
facilities only one product should be processed at any one time.
Use of any pathogenic organism above Biosafety Risk Group 3
may be permitted by the NRA according to the biohazard classification
of the organism, the risk assessment of the biological product and its
emergency demand.
131
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
10.9 Areas where Biosafety Risk Group 3 or 4 organisms are handled should
always have a negative air pressure relative to the environment. This will
ensure the containment of the organism in unlikely events such as failure
of the door interlock. Air-lock doors should be interlocked to prevent
them being opened simultaneously. Differential pressure alarms should be
present wherever required, and should be validated and monitored.
10.11 Where the filtration of exhaust air is necessary, the safe changing of filters
should be ensured or bag-in-bag-out housings should be employed. Once
removed, filters should be decontaminated and properly destroyed. In
addition to HEPA filtration other inactivation technologies such as heat
inactivation and steam scavenging may be considered for exhaust air to
ensure effective inactivation of pathogenic organisms of Biosafety Risk
Group 3 and/or 4.
12. Production
12.1 Since cultivation conditions, media and reagents are designed to promote
the growth of cells or microbial organisms, typically in an axenic state,
particular attention should be paid to the control strategy for ensuring that
effective steps are in place for preventing or minimizing the occurrence of
unwanted bioburden, endotoxins, viruses of animal and human origin, and
associated metabolites.
12.2 The QRM process should be the basis for implementing the technical and
organizational measures required to control the risks of contamination
and cross-contamination. These could include, though are not limited to:
carrying out processing and filling in segregated areas;
containing material transfer by means of an airlock and appropriate
type of pass box with validated transfer procedures, clothing change
and effective washing and decontamination of equipment;
recirculation of only treated (HEPA-filtered) air;
acquiring knowledge of the key characteristics (for example,
pathogenicity, detectability, persistence and susceptibility to
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
12.9 Antibiotics may be used during the early stages of production to help
prevent inadvertent microbial contamination or to reduce the bioburden
of living tissues and cells. In this case, the use of antibiotics should be
well justified, and they should be cleared from the manufacturing process
at the stage specified in the marketing authorization. Acceptable residual
levels should be defined and validated. Penicillin and other beta-lactam
antibiotics should not be used at any stage of the process.
12.10 A procedure should be in place to address equipment and/or accessories
failure (such as air vent filter failure) which should include a product impact
review. If such failures are discovered following batch release the NRA
should be notified and the need for a batch recall should be considered.
14. Labelling
14.1 The information provided on the inner label (also called the container
label) and on the outer label (on the packaging) should be readable and
legible, and the content approved by the NRA.
14.2 Minimal key information should be printed on the inner label, and
additional information should be provided on the outer label (for example,
carton) and/or product leaflet.
14.3 The suitability of labels for low and ultra-low storage temperatures should
be verified, if applicable. The label should remain properly attached to the
container under different storage conditions during the shelf-life of the
product. The label and its adhesive should have no adverse effect on the
quality of the product caused by leaching, migration and/or other means.
15. Validation
15.1 Biological processes, handling of live materials and using campaign-based
production, if applicable, are the major aspects of biological product
manufacturing which require process and cleaning validation. The
validation of such processes given the typical variability of biological
products, the possible use of harmful and toxic materials and the need
for inactivation processes plays an important role in demonstrating
production consistency and in proving that the critical process parameters
137
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
defined time period for example, 1 year, based on the regular product
quality review (PQR) may indicate a need for process revalidation.
15.8 The integrity and specified hold times of containers used to store
intermediate products should be validated unless such intermediate
products are freshly prepared and used immediately.
Based upon the principles defined in the above working group and
drafting group meetings the first draft of these Guidelines was prepared by Mr R.
Acs, Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation, India; Dr B. Yez Chamizo,
Centro para el Control Estatal de Medicamentos, Equipos y Dispositivos Mdicos,
Cuba; Dr S. Fakhrzadeh, Ministry of Health and Medical Education, the Islamic
Republic of Iran; Mrs K. Porkaew, Ministry of Public Health, Thailand; Dr S.O.
Rumiano, Consultant, Buenos Aires, Argentina; Dr Y. Wang, National Institutes
for Food and Drug Control, China; Mr B. Wibisono, National Agency of Drug
and Food Control, Indonesia; Mr M. Eisenhawer, WHO Regional Office for
South-East Asia, India; Dr A. Chawla, Consultant, Greater Noida, India; Dr A.R.
Khadem, World Health Organization, Switzerland; V.G. Maqueda, Biologist,
Buenos Aires, Argentina; and Dr D. Lei, World Health Organization, Switzerland.
A second draft was then prepared by V.G. Maqueda, Biologist, Buenos
Aires, Argentina; Dr B. Yez Chamizo, Centro para el Control Estatal de
Medicamentos, Equipos y Dispositivos Mdicos, Cuba; Dr S. Fakhrzadeh,
Ministry of Health and Medical Education, the Islamic Republic of Iran;
DrS.O. Rumiano, Consultant, Buenos Aires, Argentina; Dr Y. Wang, National
Institutes for Food and Drug Control, China; Mr B. Wibisono, National Agency
of Drug and Food Control, Indonesia; Mr M. Eisenhawer, WHO Regional
Office for South-East Asia, India; Dr A. Chawla, Consultant, Greater Noida,
India; and Dr A.R. Khadem and Dr D. Lei, World Health Organization,
Switzerland following a consultation held in Tunis, Tunisia, 2224 July 2014
and attended by: Dr H. Baiao, National Authority for Medicines and Health
Products, Portugal; MrsR. Bose, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, India;
Mr C. Cabral, Butantan Institute, Brazil; Dr R. Chaplinsky, GSK Vaccines,
Belgium; Dr A. Chawla, Consultant, Greater Noida, India; Mr M. Diagne,
Direction de la Pharmacie et des Laboratoires, Senegal; Mr M. Eisenhawer,
WHO Regional Office for South-East Asia, India; Dr S. Fakhrzadeh, Ministry
of Health and Medical Education, the Islamic Republic of Iran; Mrs R. Frikha,
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
20. References 4
1. Good manufacturing practices for biological products. In: WHO Expert Committee on Biological
Standardization: forty-second report. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1992: Annex 1 (WHO
Technical Report Series, No. 822; http://www.who.int/biologicals/publications/trs/areas/vaccines/
gmp/WHO_TRS_822_A1.pdf?ua=1, accessed 8 November 2015).
2. WHO good manufacturing practices for pharmaceutical products: main principles. In: WHO Expert
Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations: forty-eighth report. Geneva:
World Health Organization; 2013: Annex 2 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 986; http://www.
who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/quality_assurance/TRS986annex2.pdf?ua=1, accessed 8
November 2015).
3. WHO good manufacturing practices for sterile pharmaceutical products. In: WHO Expert
Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations: forty-fifth report. Geneva: World
Health Organization; 2011: Annex 6 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 961;
http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/quality_assurance/GMPSterilePharmaceutical
ProductsTRS961Annex6.pdf?ua=1, accessed 8 November 2015).
All WHO GXPs and guidelines for medicines can also be found on the WHO CD-ROM on Quality assurance
4
of pharmaceuticals. WHO guidelines, good practices, related regulatory guidance and GXP training materials.
145
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
4. WHO good manufacturing practices for active pharmaceutical ingredients. In: WHO Expert
Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations: forty-fourth report. Geneva: World
Health Organization; 2010: Annex 2 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 957;
http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/quality_assurance/GMPActivePharmaceutical
IngredientsTRS957Annex2.pdf?ua=1, accessed 8 November 2015).
5. Guide to good manufacturing practice for medicinal products. Part I, Annex 2. Manufacture
of biological medicinal substances and products for human use. Pharmaceutical Inspection
Convention and Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme (PIC/S); 1 March 2014 (http://
www.fda.gov.ph/attachments/article/224762/pe-009-11-gmp-guide-xannexes.pdf, accessed 8
November 2015).
6. Guide to good manufacturing practice for medicinal products, Part II. Pharmaceutical Inspection
Convention and Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme (PIC/S); 1 March 2014
(http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/regulatory/Guideline/PE_009-8_GMP_Guide%20_Part_II_Basic_
Requirements_for_API.pdf, accessed 8 November 2015).
7. EU Guidelines for good manufacturing practice for medicinal products for human and
veterinary use. Annex 2: Manufacture of biological active substances and medicinal products
for human use. Brussels: European Commission; 2013.
8. EU Guidelines for good manufacturing practice for medicinal products for human and veterinary
use. Part I. Chapter 6: Quality control. Brussels: European Commission; 2005.
9. Current good manufacturing practice for finished pharmaceuticals. Code of Federal
Regulations Title 21, Vol. 4, revised 1 April 2014. Silver Spring, MD: United States Food and
Drug Administration; 2014 (http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.
cfm?CFRPart=211&showFR=1, accessed 4 July 2015).
10. WHO good practices for pharmaceutical quality control laboratories. In: WHO Expert Committee
on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations: forty-fourth report. Geneva: World Health
Organization; 2010: Annex 1 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 957;
http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/quality_assurance/Goodpractices
PharmaceuticalQualityControlLaboratoriesTRS957Annex1.pdf?ua=1, accessed 2 February 2016).
11. Good manufacturing practice for drugs (2010 revision). Beijing: China Food and Drug
Administration; 2011 (http://eng.sfda.gov.cn/WS03/CL0768/65113.html, accessed 8 November
2015).
12. WHO guidelines on good manufacturing practices for blood establishments. In: WHO Expert
Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations: forty-fifth report. Geneva: World
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
Health Organization; 2011: Annex 4 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 961; http://www.who.int/
bloodproducts/publications/GMP_Bloodestablishments.pdf?ua=1, accessed 2 February 2016).
13. WHO good distribution practices for pharmaceutical products. In: WHO Expert Committee
on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations: forty-fourth report. Geneva: World Health
Organization; 2010: Annex 5 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 957; http://www.who.int/
medicines/areas/quality_safety/quality_assurance/GoodDistributionPracticesTRS957Annex5.
pdf?ua=1, accessed 2 February 2016).
14. WHO guidelines on quality risk management. In: WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for
Pharmaceutical Preparations: forty-seventh report. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013:
Annex 2 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 981; http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_
safety/quality_assurance/Annex2TRS-981.pdf?ua=1, accessed 2 February 2016).
15. Recommendations for the production, control and regulation of human plasma for fractionation.
In: WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization: fifty-sixth report. Geneva: World
Health Organization; 2007: Annex 4 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 941; http://www.who.int/
bloodproducts/publications/TRS941Annex4blood.pdf?ua=1, accessed 2 February 2016).
146
Annex 3
16. Good manufacturing practices: supplementary guidelines for the manufacture of investigational
pharmaceutical products for clinical trials in humans. In WHO Expert Committee on Specifications
for Pharmaceutical Preparations: thirty-fourth report. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1996:
Annex7 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 863;
http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/quality_assurance/Investigational
PharmaceuticalProductsClinicalTrialsHumansTRS863Annex7.pdf?ua=1, accessed 2 February 2016).
17. WHO guidelines on nonclinical evaluation of vaccines. In: WHO Expert Committee on Biological
Standardization: fifty-fourth report. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2005: Annex 1 (WHO
Technical Report Series, No. 927; http://www.who.int/biologicals/publications/trs/areas/vaccines/
nonclinical_evaluation/ANNEX%201Nonclinical.P31-63.pdf?ua=1, accessed 8 November 2015).
18. Guidelines on clinical evaluation of vaccines: regulatory expectations. In: WHO Expert Committee
on Biological Standardization: fifty-second report. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004:
Annex 1 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 924; http://www.who.int/biologicals/publications/
trs/areas/vaccines/clinical_evaluation/035-101.pdf?ua=1, accessed 2 February 2016).
19. Guidelines on the nonclinical evaluation of vaccine adjuvants and adjuvanted vaccines. In:
WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization: sixty-fourth report. Geneva: World
Health Organization; 2014: Annex 2 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 987; http://www.who.int/
biologicals/areas/vaccines/TRS_987_Annex2.pdf?ua=1, accessed 2 February 2016).
20. Laboratory biosafety manual, third edition. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004 (http://
www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/biosafety/Biosafety7.pdf, accessed 8 November 2015).
21. Guidelines on viral inactivation and removal procedures intended to assure the viral safety
of human blood plasma products. In: WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization:
fifty-second report. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004: Annex 4 (WHO Technical Report
Series, No. 924; http://www.who.int/bloodproducts/publications/WHO_TRS_924_A4.pdf?ua=1,
accessed 21 January 2016).
22. ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline Q10. Pharmaceutical quality system. Geneva: International
Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals
for Human Use; June 2008 (http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/
Guidelines/Quality/Q10/Step4/Q10_Guideline.pdf, accessed 8 November 2015).
23. Recommendations to assure the quality, safety and efficacy of BCG vaccines. In: WHO Expert
Committee on Biological Standardization: sixty-second report. Geneva: World Health Organization;
2013: Annex 3 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 979; http://www.who.int/biologicals/areas/
vaccines/TRS_979_Annex_3.pdf?ua=1, accessed 21 January 2016).
24. WHO Guidelines on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in relation to biological and
pharmaceutical products. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2003 (http://www.who.int/
biologicals/publications/en/whotse2003.pdf?ua=1, accessed 2 February 2016).
25. Environmental monitoring of clean rooms in vaccine manufacturing facilities: points to consider
for manufacturers of human vaccines. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2012 (http://www.who.
int/immunization_standards/vaccine_quality/env_monitoring_cleanrooms_final.pdf?ua=1,
accessed 2 February 2016).
26. Recommendations for the evaluation of animal cell cultures as substrates for the manufacturer
of biological medicinal products and for the characterization of cell banks. In: WHO Expert
Committee on Biological Standardization: sixty-first report. Geneva: World Health Organization;
2013: Annex 3 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 978; http://www.who.int/biologicals/vaccines/
TRS_978_Annex_3.pdf?ua=1, accessed 2 February 2016).
27. Biosafety [website]. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (http://www.cdc.gov/
biosafety/, accessed 8 November 2015).
147
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
28. WHO Global Action Plan to minimize poliovirus facility-associated risk after type-specific
eradication of wild polioviruses and sequential cessation of OPV use. Geneva: World Health
Organization; 2015 (http://www.polioeradication.org/Portals/0/Document/Resources/
PostEradication/GAPIII_2014.pdf, accessed 8 November 2015).
29. Guidelines for the safe production and quality control of inactivated poliomyelitis vaccine
manufactured from wild polioviruses (Addendum, 2003, to the Recommendations for the
production and quality control of poliomyelitis vaccine (inactivated)). In: WHO Expert Committee
on Biological Standardization: fifty-third report. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004:
Annex 2 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 926; http://www.who.int/biologicals/publications/
trs/areas/vaccines/polio/Annex%202%20(65-89)TRS926Polio2003.pdf?ua=1, accessed 2 February
2016).
30. Recommendations for the preparation, characterization and establishment of international and
other biological reference standards (revised 2004). In: WHO Expert Committee on Biological
Standardization: fifty-fifth report. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2006: Annex 2 (WHO
Technical Report Series, No. 932; http://www.who.int/immunization_standards/vaccine_
reference_preparations/TRS932Annex%202_Inter%20_biol%20ef%20standards%20rev2004.
pdf?ua=1, accessed 2 February 2016).
31. Guidelines on stability evaluation of vaccines. In: WHO Expert Committee on Biological
Standardization: fifty-seventh report. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011: Annex 3 (WHO
Technical Report Series, No. 962; http://www.who.int/biologicals/vaccines/Annex_3_WHO_
TRS_962-3.pdf?ua=1, accessed 21 January 2016).
32. Supplementary guidelines on good manufacturing practices: validation. In: WHO Expert
Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations: fortieth report. Geneva: World
Health Organization; 2006: Annex 4 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 937;
http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/quality_assurance/SupplementaryGMP
ValidationTRS937Annex4.pdf?ua=1, accessed 2 February 2016).
33. A WHO guide to good manufacturing practice (GMP) requirements. Part 2: Validation. Geneva:
World Health Organization; 1997 (WHO/VSQ/97.02; http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/
64465/2/WHO_VSQ_97.02.pdf?ua=1, accessed 2 February 2016).
34. Guideline on bioanalytical method validation. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use.
London: European Medicines Agency; 2009 (EMEA/CHMP/EWP/192217/2009 Rev.1; http://www.
ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2011/08/WC500109686.
pdf, accessed 8 November 2015).
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
35. Guidance for industry. Bioanalytical method validation. Rockville, MD: Center for Veterinary
Medicine; 2013
(http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/
ucm368107.pdf, accessed 8 November 2015).
36. Guidelines for independent lot release of vaccines by regulatory authorities. In: WHO Expert
Committee on Biological Standardization: sixty-first report. Geneva: World Health Organization;
2013: Annex 2 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 978; http://www.who.int/biologicals/TRS_978_
Annex_2.pdf?ua=1, accessed 2 February 2016).
148
Annex 4
Guidance on good manufacturing practices: inspection
report
Background
The need for revision of the Guidance on good manufacturing practices: inspection
report (World Health Organization (WHO) Technical Report Series, No.908,
Annex 6, 2003) was brought to the attention of the WHO Expert Committee
on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations. The intent of this update
is to bring it in line with the current format used by the Prequalification
Team (PQT) for its inspections and the formats currently used internationally
in national and regional inspectorates. In addition, the concepts of risk
management, as, for example, included in the WHO guidelines on quality risk
management (WHO Technical Report Series, No.986, Annex 6, 2014), have
been taken into consideration.
1 Introduction 150
2. Scope 150
3. Glossary 150
4. General principles 151
Appendix 1 Guidance on good manufacturing practices: inspection report 155
Appendix 2 Example of a risk category assessment of the site depending on level of
compliance and inspection frequency 164
149
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
1. Introduction
1.1 This guidance describes general principles and a recommended format for
inspection reports for use by organizations performing pharmaceutical
inspections. It aims to support convergence of practices in drawing up
inspection reports so as to facilitate cooperation and information sharing.
2. Scope
2.1 These guidelines apply to reports on inspections of active pharmaceutical
ingredients (APIs) and finished pharmaceutical products (FPPs). A separate
template may be used for inspections of contract research organizations
and quality control laboratories.
3. Glossary
The definitions given below apply to the terms used in these guidelines. They
may have different meanings in other contexts.
correction. A correction is any action that is taken to eliminate a
nonconformity. However, corrections do not address causes. When applied
to products, corrections can include reworking products, reprocessing them,
regrading them, assigning them to a different use, or simply destroying them.
corrective action. Corrective actions are steps that are taken to eliminate
the causes of existing nonconformities in order to prevent recurrence. The
corrective action process tries to make sure that existing nonconformities and
potentially undesirable situations do not happen again. While corrective actions
prevent recurrence, preventive actions prevent occurrence. Both types of actions
are intended to prevent nonconformities.
corrective and preventive action. A system for implementing corrective
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
4. General principles
4.1 When a site at which pharmaceutical products are manufactured is
inspected, the inspector(s) responsible should draw up a report. The
inspection report should include the items shown in the proposed model
inspection report (Appendix1), adapted as appropriate, according to
the national or regional settings and to the scope and purpose of the
inspection. Where relevant the appropriate system of good manufacturing
practices (GMP) or the nationally appropriate legal basis for GMP, should
be indicated.
4.2 The purpose of an inspection report is to provide a factual and objective
record of the inspection that includes what was done, the inspection
observations or findings (positive and negative) for each activity inspected,
as communicated to the company before the end of the inspection, and a
conclusion that is applicable at the time that the report is written. Positive
findings may include praise for noteworthy efforts in areas that are seen
as excellent examples of implementation of the requirements of the
guidelines. They could also be conveyed when the company has shown
significant improvement in certain areas compared to the findings from
previous inspections. Noteworthy efforts do not require any action. Their
inclusion in the inspection report is done to highlight areas of strength
for future tracking of improvements or areas of decline and to show the
organization what areas it can feel proud of.
4.3 The report should be prepared in a timely manner after an inspection,
with the participation of all members of the inspection team under the
coordination of the lead inspector. The report should be reviewed in
accordance with the quality system of the inspectorate.
4.4 The inspection report should, as appropriate, be written in the third person,
passive voice and the past tense.
151
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
152
Annex 4
a) has produced or may produce a product that does not comply with
its marketing authorization and/or prequalification application
(including variations);
b) indicates a major deviation from the GMP guide;
c) indicates a failure to carry out satisfactory procedures for release
ofbatches;
d) indicates a failure of the person responsible for quality assurance/
quality control to fulfil his or her duties;
e) consists of several other deficiencies, none of which on its own may
be major, but which together may represent a major deficiency and
should be explained and reported as such.
4.11.5 A deficiency that was reported at a previous inspection and was not
corrected may be reported with a higher classification.
4.11.6 One-off minor lapses or less significant issues are usually not formally
reported, but are brought to the attention of the manufacturer during
the inspection.
153
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
b) When there are other and a few major deficiencies (e.g. < 6 1):
i. the site is compliant with GMP after assessing the CAPAs,
ii. CAPAs for all deficiencies to include actions implemented
and/or planned, timelines and documented evidence of
completion, as appropriate,
iii. CAPAs are evaluated on paper and may or may not include
anon-site, follow-up inspection.
c) When there are critical or several major deficiencies (e.g. 6):
i. the site is considered to be operating at an unacceptable level
of compliance with GMP guidelines,
ii. another inspection will normally be required,
iii. administrative and/or legal enforcement actions are applied as
necessary.
4.12 The next date for inspection of the site should be determined depending
on the level of compliance and risk category as defined under national
or regional procedures. Appendix 2 provides an example of how the next
inspection date may be determined. Other approaches may be used.
4.13 The report shall be signed by all inspection team members, but may be
signed by the lead inspector after consultation with and on behalf of the
inspection team, and reviewed in accordance with the quality system of
the inspectorate.
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
The number six is related to the six systems to be inspected, as listed in Appendix 1.
1
154
Annex 4
Appendix 1
Guidance on good manufacturing practices: inspection
report
Model inspection report
155
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
Table continued
Part 1 General information
Competent regulatory For foreign inspections, state whether the national
authority regulatory authority (NRA) of the country where the
inspection took place was informed and whether it took
part in the inspection
GMP guidelines List the relevant guidelines stating the title of the
used for assessing guidelines, the title of the publication and web address
compliance where the guidelines can be accessed, for example:
1. WHO good manufacturing practices for pharmaceutical
products: main principles. In: WHO Expert Committee on
Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations: forty-
eighth report. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014:
Annex 2 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 986;
http://www.who.int/entity/medicines/areas/quality_
safety/quality_assurance/TRS986annex2.pdf?ua=1)
Introduction
Brief summary of Description of main activities (including, e.g. FPP(s) or
the manufacturing API(s) manufactured and their reference/registration/active
activities pharmaceutical ingredient master file (APIMF)/drug master
file (DMF)/certificate of suitability to the monographs
of the European Pharmacopoeia (CEP) numbers, as
appropriate); other manufacturing activities carried out
on the site (e.g. manufacture of cosmetics, research and
development); use of outside scientific, analytical or other
technical assistance in manufacture and quality control
Brief description of the quality management system of the
firm responsible for manufacture. Reference can be made
to a site master file if one is available
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
156
Annex 4
Table continued
Part 1 General information
Brief report of inspection activities undertaken
Scope and limitations For example, blocks inspected, areas of interest, focus
ofinspection
Out-of-scope: areas, activities or product lines not inspected
Restrictions: constraints noted in inspecting specific areas
Areas inspected For example, dosage form(s) included in the inspection
Key persons met Names and job titles
157
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
Table continued
Part 2 Brief summary of the findings and recommendations
(where applicable)
2. Good manufacturing Briefly describe how the elements of GMP are
practices for implemented
pharmaceutical
products
3. Sanitation and Describe procedures and records relating to sanitation and
hygiene hygiene for personnel, premises, equipment, production
materials, cleaning materials and others that could become
a source of contamination
4. Qualification and Describe policies, procedures, records and any other
validation evidence for qualification and validation and how the
validation status is monitored and maintained
5. Complaints Describe procedures, responsibilities and records for
handling complaints, including extension of investigation
to other batches, possibility of counterfeits, trending and
consideration for recall and notification of competent
authorities
6. Product recalls Describe the existence of a recall procedure and evidence
of its effectiveness; provisions for notification of customers
and competent authorities and segregation of recalled
products
7. Contract production, Describe how contractors are evaluated, how compliance
analysis and other with marketing authorization is ensured, existence of
activities comprehensive contracts and clarity of responsibilities
andlimits
8. Self-inspection, a) Self-inspection:
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
quality audits and describe the procedures and items for self-inspection
suppliers audits and and quality audits; constitution of self-inspection
approval team(s); frequency of self-inspection; existence of self-
inspection schedules and report; system for monitoring
follow-up actions.
b) Suppliers audits and approval:
describe procedures for evaluation and approval of
suppliers including applications of risk management
principles, especially determining the need and
frequency for on-site audits.
158
Annex 4
Table continued
Part 2 Brief summary of the findings and recommendations
(where applicable)
9. Personnel Describe availability of adequate numbers of sufficiently
qualified and experienced personnel, clarity of
their responsibilities, limits and reporting hierarchy.
Qualifications, experience and responsibilities of key
personnel (head of production, head(s) of the quality
unit(s), authorized person) and procedures for delegation
of their responsibilities
10. Training Describe comprehensiveness of procedures and records
for induction, specialized and continuing training and
evaluation of its effectiveness; coverage of GMP and
concepts of quality assurance during training; training of
visitors and evaluation consultants and contract staff
11. Personal hygiene Describe system in place for initial and regular health
examination of staff appropriate to their responsibilities.
Measures and facilities to impart, maintain and monitor
knowledge of a high level of personal hygiene. Measures
to ensure personnel do not become a source of
contamination to the product, including hand-washing
and gowning. Appropriate restriction of smoking, eating,
drinking, chewing and related materials from production,
laboratory and storage areas
12. Premises Description of the appropriateness of the location,
design, construction and maintenance of premises to
minimize errors, avoid cross-contamination, permit
effective cleaning and maintenance; measures for dust
control; specific measures for ancillary areas, storage areas,
weighing areas, production areas and quality control
areas; measures for appropriate segregation and restricted
access; provisions for appropriate lighting, effective
ventilation and air-control to prevent contamination and
cross-contamination, as well as control of temperature and,
where necessary, humidity
13. Equipment Describe the adequacy of the numbers, type, location,
design and construction, and maintenance of equipment
to minimize errors, avoid cross-contamination, permit
effective cleaning and maintenance; use, cleaning and
maintenance procedures, records and logs; calibration of
balances and other measuring instruments; status labelling
159
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
Table continued
Part 2 Brief summary of the findings and recommendations
(where applicable)
14. Materials Describe measures in place to select, store, approve and
use materials (including water) of appropriate quality and
how these measures cover starting materials, packaging
materials, intermediate and bulk products, finished
products, reagents, culture media and reference standards.
Describe also the measures for the handling and control of
rejected, recovered, reprocessed and reworked materials;
recalled products; returned goods; and waste materials
15. Documentation Describe the comprehensiveness and adequacy of the
documentation system in place (labels; specifications
and testing procedures, starting, packaging materials,
intermediate, bulk products and finished products; master
formulas; packaging instructions; batch processing
and packaging records; standard operating procedures
(SOPs) and records) and how principles of good
documentation and data management (attributable,
legible, contemporaneous, original, accurate (ALCOA)) are
institutionalized, implemented and maintained
16. Good practices in Describe procedures, facilities and controls in place for
production production (processing and packaging); prevention
of risk of mix-up, cross-contamination and bacterial
contamination during production
17. Good practices in Describe the extent of the organizational and functional
quality control independence of the quality control function and the
adequacy of its resourcing.
Describe the procedures, facilities, organization and
documentation in place which ensure that the necessary
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
160
Annex 4
Table continued
Part 2 Brief summary of the findings and recommendations
(where applicable)
Samples taken (if applicable)
Assessment of the site (if applicable)
master file
Annexes attached
Part 4 Outcome
Initial conclusion Statement regarding the GMP status, including information
on any restrictions in scope.
The following guidance may be used to determine the
outcome of the inspection based on the nature and
number of deficiencies observed:
other deficiencies only: operating at an acceptable level
of compliance with GMP guidelines;
other and a few (e.g. < 6) major deficiencies: decision
on level of compliance to be made after receipt and
evaluation of CAPAs;
any critical or several (e.g. 6) major deficiencies:
operating at an unacceptable level of compliance with
GMP guidelines.
161
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
162
Annex 4
163
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
Appendix 2
Example of a risk category assessment of the site
depending on level of compliance and inspection frequency
164
Annex 5
Guidance on good data and record management practices
Background
During an informal consultation on inspection, good manufacturing practices
and risk management guidance in medicines manufacturing held by the
World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva in April 2014, a proposal for
new guidance on good data management was discussed and its development
recommended. The participants included national inspectors and specialists
in the various agenda topics, as well as staff of the Prequalification Team
(PQT)Inspections.
The WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical
Preparations received feedback from this informal consultation during its
forty-ninth meeting in October 2014. A concept paper was received from PQT
Inspections describing the proposed structure of a new guidance document,
which was discussed in detail. The concept paper consolidated existing normative
principles and gave some illustrative examples of their implementation. In
the Appendix to the concept paper, extracts from existing good practices and
guidance documents were combined to illustrate the current relevant guidance
on assuring the reliability of data and related GXP (good (anything) practice)
matters. In view of the increasing number of observations made during
inspections that relate to data management practices, the Committee endorsed
the proposal.
Following this endorsement, a draft document was prepared by
members of PQTInspection and a drafting group, including national inspectors.
This draft was discussed at a consultation on data management, bioequivalence,
good manufacturing practices and medicines inspection held from 29 June to
1July 2015.
A revised draft document was subsequently prepared by the authors in
collaboration with the drafting group, based on the feedback received during
this consultation, and the subsequent WHO workshop on data management.
Collaboration is being sought with other organizations towards future
convergence in this area.
165
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
1. Introduction 167
2. Aims and objectives of this guidance 169
3. Glossary 169
4. Principles 173
5. Quality risk management to ensure good data management 177
6. Management governance and quality audits 178
7. Contracted organizations, suppliers and service providers 180
8. Training in good data and record management 182
9. Good documentation practices 182
10. Designing and validating systems to assure data quality
and reliability 183
11. Managing data and records throughout the data life cycle 186
12. Addressing data reliability issues 189
References and further reading 190
Appendix 1 Expectations and examples of special risk management considerations
for the implementation of ALCOA (-plus) principles in paper-based and
electronic systems 192
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
166
Annex 5
1. Introduction
1.1 Medicines regulatory systems worldwide have always depended upon the
knowledge of organizations that develop, manufacture and package, test,
distribute and monitor pharmaceutical products. Implicit in the assessment
and review process is trust between the regulator and the regulated that
the information submitted in dossiers and used in day-to-day decision-
making is comprehensive, complete and reliable. The data on which
these decisions are based should therefore be complete as well as being
attributable, legible, contemporaneous, original and accurate, commonly
referred to as ALCOA.
1.2 These basic ALCOA principles and the related good practice expectations
that assure data reliability are not new and much high- and mid-level
normative guidance already exists. However, in recent years, the number of
observations made regarding good data and record management practices
(GDRP) during inspections of good manufacturing practice (GMP) (1),
good clinical practice (GCP) and good laboratory practice (GLP) has been
increasing. The reasons for the increasing concern of health authorities
regarding data reliability are undoubtedly multifactorial and include
increased regulatory awareness and concern regarding gaps between
industry choices and appropriate and modern control strategies.
1.3 Contributing factors include failures by organizations to apply robust
systems that inhibit data risks, to improve the detection of situations where
data reliability may be compromised, and/or to investigate and address
root causes when failures do arise. For example, organizations subject to
medical product good practice requirements have been using validated
computerized systems for many decades but many fail to adequately review
and manage original electronic records and instead often only review and
manage incomplete and/or inappropriate printouts. These observations
highlight the need for industry to modernize control strategies and apply
modern quality risk management (QRM) and sound scientific principles to
current business models (such as outsourcing and globalization) as well as
technologies currently in use (such as computerized systems).
1.4 Examples of controls that may require development and strengthening to
ensure good data management strategies include, but are not limited to:
a QRM approach that effectively assures patient safety and product
quality and validity of data by ensuring that management aligns
expectations with actual process capabilities. Management should
take responsibility for good data management by first setting realistic
and achievable expectations for the true and current capabilities of
167
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
3. Glossary
The definitions given below apply to the terms used in these guidelines. They
may have different meanings in other contexts.
ALCOA. A commonly used acronym for attributable, legible,
contemporaneous, original and accurate.
ALCOA-plus. A commonly used acronym for attributable, legible,
contemporaneous, original and accurate, which puts additional emphasis on
the attributes of being complete, consistent, enduring and available implicit
basic ALCOA principles.
archival. Archiving is the process of protecting records from the
possibility of being further altered or deleted, and storing these records
under the control of independent data management personnel throughout
the required retention period. Archived records should include, for example,
associated metadata and electronic signatures.
archivist. An independent individual designated in good laboratory
practice (GLP) who has been authorized by management to be responsible
for the management of the archive, i.e. for the operations and procedures for
archiving. GLP requires a designated archivist (i.e. an individual); however, in
169
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
other GXPs the roles and responsibilities of the archivist are normally fulfilled
by several designated personnel or groups of personnel (e.g. both quality
assurance document control personnel and information technology (IT) system
administrators) without there being one single person assigned responsibility for
control as is required in GLP.
It is recognized that in certain circumstances it may be necessary for the
archivist to delegate specific archiving tasks, for example, the management of
electronic data, to specific IT personnel. Tasks, duties and responsibilities should
be specified and detailed in standard operating procedures. The responsibilities
of the archivist and the staff to whom archival tasks are delegated include
for both paper and electronic data ensuring that access to the archive is
controlled, ensuring that the orderly storage and retrieval of records and
materials is facilitated by a system of indexing, and ensuring that movement
of records and materials into and out of the archives is properly controlled and
documented. These procedures and records should be periodically reviewed by
an independent auditor.
audit trail. The audit trail is a form of metadata that contains information
associated with actions that relate to the creation, modification or deletion of
GXP records. An audit trail provides for secure recording of life-cycle details
such as creation, additions, deletions or alterations of information in a record,
either paper or electronic, without obscuring or overwriting the original record.
An audit trail facilitates the reconstruction of the history of such events relating
to the record regardless of its medium, including the who, what, when and why
of the action.
For example, in a paper record, an audit trail of a change would be
documented via a single-line cross-out that allows the original entry to remain
legible and documents the initials of the person making the change, the date
of the change and the reason for the change, as required to substantiate and
justify the change. In electronic records, secure, computer-generated, time-
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
stamped audit trails should allow for reconstruction of the course of events
relating to the creation, modification and deletion of electronic data. Computer-
generated audit trails should retain the original entry and document the user
identification, the time/date stamp of the action, as well as the reason for the
change, as required to substantiate and justify the action. Computer-generated
audit trails may include discrete event logs, history files, database queries or
reports or other mechanisms that display events related to the computerized
system, specific electronic records or specific data contained within the record.
backup. A backup means a copy of one or more electronic files created
asan alternative in case the original data or system are lost or become unusable
(for example, in the event of a system crash or corruption of a disk). It is
important to note that backup differs from archival in that back-up copies of
electronic records are typically only temporarily stored for the purposes of
170
Annex 5
4. Principles
4.1 GDRP are critical elements of the pharmaceutical quality system and a
systematic approach should be implemented to provide a high level of
assurance that throughout the product life cycle, all GXP records and data
are complete and reliable.
173
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
4.2 The data governance programme should include policies and governance
procedures that address the general principles listed below for a good data
management programme. These principles are clarified with additional
detail in the sections below.
4.3 Applicability to both paper and electronic data. The requirements for
GDRP that assure robust control of data validity apply equally to paper
and electronic data. Organizations subject to GXP should be fully aware
that reverting from automated or computerized to manual or paper-based
systems does not in itself remove the need for robust management controls.
4.4 Applicability to contract givers and contract acceptors. The principles of
these guidelines apply to contract givers and contract acceptors. Contract
givers are ultimately responsible for the robustness of all decisions made on
the basis of GXP data, including those made on the basis of data provided
to them by contract acceptors. Contract givers should therefore perform
risk-based, due diligence to assure themselves that contract acceptors have
in place appropriate programmes to ensure the veracity, completeness and
reliability of the data provided.
4.5 Good documentation practices. To achieve robust decisions, the
supporting data set needs to be reliable and complete. GDocP should be
followed in order to ensure all records, both paper and electronic, allow
the full reconstruction and traceability of GXP activities.
4.6 Management governance. To establish a robust and sustainable good data
management system it is important that senior management ensure that
appropriate data management governance programmes are in place (for
details see Section 6).
Elements of effective management governance should include:
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
4.7 Quality culture. Management, with the support of the quality unit, should
establish and maintain a working environment that minimizes the risk
of non-compliant records and erroneous records and data. An essential
element of the quality culture is the transparent and open reporting
of deviations, errors, omissions and aberrant results at all levels of the
organization, irrespective of hierarchy. Steps should be taken to prevent,
and to detect and correct weaknesses in systems and procedures that may
lead to data errors so as to continually improve the robustness of scientific
decision-making within the organization. Senior management should
actively discourage any management practices that might reasonably be
expected to inhibit the active and complete reporting of such issues, for
example, hierarchical constraints and blame cultures.
4.8 Quality risk management and sound scientific principles. Robust decision-
making requires appropriate quality and risk management systems, and
adherence to sound scientific and statistical principles, which must be
based upon reliable data. For example, the scientific principle of being an
objective, unbiased observer regarding the outcome of a sample analysis
requires that suspect results be investigated and rejected from the reported
results only if they are clearly attributable to an identified cause. Adhering
to good data and record-keeping principles requires that any rejected
results be recorded, together with a documented justification for their
rejection, and that this documentation is subject to review andretention.
4.9 Data life cycle management. Continual improvement of products to
ensure and enhance their safety, efficacy and quality requires a data
governance approach to ensure management of data integrity risks
throughout all phases of the process by which data are created, recorded,
processed, transmitted, reviewed, reported, archived and retrieved and
this management process is subject to regular review. To ensure that the
organization, assimilation and analysis of data into information facilitates
evidence-based and reliable decision-making, data governance should
address data ownership and accountability for data process(es) and risk
management of the data life cycle.
4.10 To ensure that the organization, assimilation and analysis of data into a
format or structure that facilitates evidence-based and reliable decision-
making, data governance should address data ownership and accountability
for data process(es) and risk management of the data life cycle.
4.11 Design of record-keeping methodologies and systems. Record-keeping
methodologies and systems, whether paper or electronic, should be
designed in a way that encourages compliance with the principles of
dataintegrity.
175
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
other erasable inks should not be used. Paper should also not be
temperature-sensitive, photosensitive or easily oxidizable. If this is not
feasible or limited (as may be the case in printouts from legacy printers
of balance and other instruments in quality control laboratories), then
true or certified copies should be available until this equipment is retired
or replaced.
4.14 Maintenance of record-keeping systems. The systems implemented and
maintained for both paper and electronic record-keeping should take
account of scientific and technical progress. Systems, procedures and
methodology used to record and store data should be periodically reviewed
for effectiveness and updated as necessary.
176
Annex 5
should therefore design appropriate tools and strategies for the management
of data integrity risks based upon their own GXP activities, technologies
and processes.
5.6 A data management programme developed and implemented upon the
basis of sound QRM principles is expected to leverage existing technologies
to their full potential. This in turn will streamline data processes in a
manner that not only improves data management but also the business
process efficiency and effectiveness, thereby reducing costs and facilitating
continual improvement.
7.2 The organization that outsources work has the responsibility for
the integrity of all results reported, including those furnished by any
subcontracting organization or service provider. These responsibilities
extend to any providers of relevant computing services. When outsourcing
databases and software provision, the contract giver should ensure that
any subcontractors have been agreed upon and are included in the quality
agreement with the contract accepter, and are appropriately qualified and
trained in GRDP. Their activities should be monitored on a regular basis
at intervals determined through risk assessment. This also applies to
cloudbased service providers.
7.3 To fulfil this responsibility, in addition to having their own governance
systems, outsourcing organizations should verify the adequacy of the
180
Annex 5
8.3 Management should also ensure that, at the time of hire and periodically
afterwards, as needed, all personnel are trained in procedures to
ensure GDocP for both paper and electronic records. The quality unit
should include checks for adherence to GDocP for both paper records
and electronic records in their day-to-day work, system and facility
auditsandself-inspections and report any opportunities for improvement
to management.
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
184
Annex 5
10.8 Other validation controls to ensure good data management for both
electronic data and associated paper data should be implemented as
deemed appropriate for the system type and its intended use.
11.10 For example, during self-inspection, some key questions to ask are: Am I
collecting all my data? Am I considering all my data? If I have excluded
some data from my decision-making process, what is the justification
for doing so, and are all the data retained, including both rejected and
reported data?
11.11 The approach to reviewing specific record content, such as critical data
fields and metadata such as cross-outs on paper records and audit trails
in electronic records, should meet all applicable regulatory requirements
and be risk-based.
11.13 During the data life cycle, data should be subject to continuous
monitoring, as appropriate, to enhance process understanding and
facilitate knowledge management and informed decision-making.
11.15 Data retention and retrieval. Retention of paper and electronic records
is discussed in the section above, including measures for backup and
archival of electronic data and metadata.
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
1) Data folders on some stand-alone systems may not include all audit
trails or other metadata needed to reconstruct all activities. Other
metadata may be found in other electronic folders or in operating
system logs. When archiving electronic data, it is important to
ensure that associated metadata are archived with the relevant
data set or securely traceable to the data set through appropriate
documentation. The ability to successfully retrieve from the archives
the entire data set, including metadata, should be verified.
188
Annex 5
2) Only validated systems are used for storage of data; however, the
media used for the storage of data do not have an indefinite lifespan.
Consideration must be given to the longevity of media and the
environment in which they are stored. Examples include the fading
of microfilm records, the decreasing readability of the coatings of
optical media such as compact disks (CDs) and digital versatile/
video disks (DVDs), and the fact that these media may become
brittle. Similarly, historical data stored on magnetic media will also
become unreadable over time as a result of deterioration.
189
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
Further reading
Computerised systems. In: The rules governing medicinal products in the European Union. Volume4:
Good manufacturing practice (GMP) guidelines: Annex 11. Brussels: European Commission (http://
ec.europa.eu/enterprise/pharmaceuticals/eudralex/vol-4/pdfs-en/anx11en.pdf).
Good automated manufacturing practice (GAMP) good practice guide: electronic data archiving.
Tampa (FL): International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering (ISPE); 2007.
Good automated manufacturing practice GAMP good practice guide: A risk-based approach to GxP
compliant laboratory computerized systems, 2nd edition. Tampa (FL): International Society for
Pharmaceutical Engineering (ISPE); 2012.
MHRA GMP data integrity definitions and guidance for industry. London: Medicines and Healthcare
Products Regulatory Agency; March 2015 (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/412735/Data_integrity_definitions_and_guidance_v2.pdf).
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
OECD series on principles of good laboratory practice (GLP) and compliance monitoring. Paris:
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/
testing/oecdseriesonprinciplesofgoodlaboratorypracticeglpandcompliancemonitoring.htm).
Official Medicines Control Laboratories Network of the Council of Europe: Quality assurance documents:
PA/PH/OMCL (08) 69 3R Validation of computerised systems core document (https://www.edqm.
eu/sites/default/files/medias/fichiers/Validation_of_Computerised_Systems_Core_Document.pdf )
and its annexes:
PA/PH/OMCL (08) 87 2R Annex 1: Validation of computerised calculation systems: example
of validation of in-house software
(https://www.edqm.eu/sites/default/files/medias/fichiers/NEW_Annex_1_Validation_of_
computerised_calculation.pdf).
PA/PH/OMCL (08) 88 R Annex 2: Validation of databases (DB), laboratory information
management systems (LIMS) and electronic laboratory notebooks (ELN)
(https://www.edqm.eu/sites/default/files/medias/fichiers/NEW_Annex_2_Validation_of_
Databases_DB_Laboratory_.pdf).
190
Annex 5
191
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
Appendix 1
Expectations and examples of special risk management
considerations for the implementation of ALCOA (-plus)
principles in paper-based and electronic systems
Organizations should follow good documentation practices (GDocP) in order
to assure the accuracy, completeness, consistency and reliability of the records
and data throughout their entire period of usefulness that is, throughout
the data life cycle. The principles require that documentation should have the
characteristics of being attributable, legible, contemporaneously recorded,
original and accurate (sometimes referred to as ALCOA).
The tables in this appendix provide further guidance on the
implementation of the general ALCOA requirements for both paper and
electronic records and systems. In addition, examples of special risk management
considerations as well as several illustrative examples are provided of how these
measures are typically implemented.
These illustrative examples are provided to aid understanding of the
concepts and of how successful risk-based implementation might be achieved.
These examples should not be taken as setting new normative requirements.
Attributable. Attributable means information is captured in the record so that
it is uniquely identified as having been executed by the originator of the data
(e.g. a person or computer system).
Attributable
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
192
Annex 5
195
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
Table continued
Legible, traceable, permanent
Expectations for paper records Expectations for electronic records
preservation of paper/ink that strictly controlled configuration and use
fades over time where their use is of data annotation tools in a manner
unavoidable. that prevents data in displays and
printouts from being obscured;
validated backup of electronic records
toensure disaster recovery;
validated archival of electronic records
by independent, designated archivist(s)
in secure and controlled electronic
archives.
196
Annex 5
197
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
Contemporaneous
Contemporaneous data are data recorded at the time they are generated
orobserved.
Contemporaneous
Expectations for paper records Expectations for electronic records
Contemporaneous recording of actions Contemporaneous recording of actions
in paper records should occur, as in electronic records should occur, as
appropriate, through use of: appropriate, through use of:
written procedures, and training and configuration settings, SOPs and
review and audit and self-inspection controls that ensure that data recorded
controls that ensure personnel record in temporary memory are committed
data entries and information at the to durable media upon completion
time of the activity directly in official of the step or event and before
controlled documents (e.g. laboratory proceeding to the next step or event
notebooks, batch records, case in order to ensure the permanent
reportforms); recording of the step or event at the
procedures requiring that activities time it is conducted;
be recorded in paper records with the secure system time/date stamps that
date of the activity (and time as well, cannot be altered by personnel;
ifit is a time-sensitive activity); procedures and maintenance
good document design, which programmes that ensure time/date
encourages good practice: documents stamps are synchronized across the
should be appropriately designed GXP operations;
and the availability of blank forms/ controls that allow for the
documents in which the activities are determination of the timing of one
recorded should be ensured; activity relative to another (e.g. time
recording of the date and time of zone controls);
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
198
Annex 5
Original
Original data include the first or source capture of data or information and all
subsequent data required to fully reconstruct the conduct of the GXP activity.
The GXP requirements for original data include the following:
original data should be reviewed;
original data and/or true and verified copies that preserve the
content and meaning of the original data should be retained;
as such, original records should be complete, enduring and readily
retrievable and readable throughout the records retention period.
Examples of original data include original electronic data and metadata in
stand-alone computerized laboratory instrument systems (e.g. ultraviolet/visible
spectrophotometry (UV/Vis), Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR),
199
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
200
Annex 5
Table continued
Review of original records
Expectations for paper records Expectations for electronic records
documentation of data review. For documentation of data review. For
paper records this is typically signified electronic records, this is typically
by signing the paper records that have signified by electronically signing
been reviewed. Where record approval the electronic data set that has been
is a separate process this should also be reviewed and approved. Written
similarly signed. Written procedures for procedures for data review should
data review should clarify the meaning clarify the meaning of the review and
of the review and approval signatures approval signatures to ensure that
to ensure that the people concerned the personnel concerned understand
understand their responsibility as their responsibility as reviewers and
reviewers and approvers to assure the approvers to assure the integrity,
integrity, accuracy, consistency and accuracy, consistency and compliance
compliance with established standards with established standards of the
of the paper records subject to review electronic data and metadata subject
and approval; to review and approval;
a procedure describing the actions a procedure describing the actions
to be taken if data review identifies to be taken if data review identifies
an error or omission. This procedure an error or omission. This procedure
should enable data corrections or should enable data corrections or
clarifications to be made in a GXP- clarifications to be made in a GXP-
compliant manner, providing visibility compliant manner, providing visibility
of the original record and audit-trailed of the original record and audit trailed
traceability of the correction, using traceability of the correction, using
ALCOA principles. ALCOA principles.
Written procedures for data review should define the frequency, roles
and responsibilities and approach to review of meaningful metadata,
such as audit trails. These procedures should also describe how
aberrant data are to be handled if found during the review. Personnel
who conduct such reviews should have adequate and appropriate
training in the review process as well as in the software systems
containing the data subject to review. The organization should make
the necessary provisions for personnel reviewing the data to access
the system(s) containing the electronic data and metadata.
Quality assurance should also review a sample of relevant audit trails,
raw data and metadata as part of self-inspection to ensure ongoing
compliance with the data governance policy and procedures.
Any significant variation from expected outcomes should be fully
recorded and investigated.
In the hybrid approach, which is not the preferred approach, paper
printouts of original electronic records from computerized systems
may be useful as summary reports if the requirements for original
electronic records are also met. To rely upon these printed summaries
of results for future decision-making, a second person would have to
review the original electronic data and any relevant metadata such
as audit trails, to verify that the printed summary is representative
of all results. This verification would then be documented and the
printout could be used for subsequent decision-making.
The GXP organization may choose a fully electronic approach to
allow more efficient, streamlined record review and record retention.
This would require authenticated and secure electronic signatures
to be implemented for signing records where required. This, in turn,
would require preservation of the original electronic records, or
true copy, as well as the necessary software and hardware or other
suitable reader equipment to view the records during the records
retention period.
System design and the manner of data capture can significantly
influence the ease with which data consistency can be assured. For
example, and where applicable, the use of programmed edit checks
or features such as drop-down lists, check boxes or branching of
questions or data fields based on entries are useful in improving
data consistency.
Data and their metadata should be maintained in such a way that
they are available for review by authorized individuals, and in a
format that is suitable for review for as long as the data retention
requirements apply. It is desirable that the data should be maintained
203
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
204
Annex 5
Table continued
Retention of original records or true copies
Expectations for paper records Expectations for electronic records
written procedures, training, review the provision of suitable reader
and audit, and self-inspection of equipment, such as software, operating
processes defining conversion, as systems and virtualized environments,
needed, of an original paper record to view the archived electronic data
totrue copy should include the when required;
following steps: written procedures, training, review and
a copy/copies is/are made of the audit and self-inspection of processes
original paper record(s), preserving defining conversion, as needed, of
the original record format, the static original electronic records to true copy
format, as required (e.g. photocopy, to include the following steps:
scan), a copy/copies is/are made of
the copy/copies need to be the original electronic data set,
compared with the original record(s) preserving the original record format,
to determine if the copy preserves the dynamic format, as required (e.g.
the entire content and meaning of archival copy of the entire set of
the original record, that metadata are electronic data and metadata made
included, that no data are missing using a validated back-up process),
in the copy. The way that the record a second person verifier or technical
format is preserved is important for verification process (such as use of
record meaning if the copy is to meet technical hash) to confirm successful
the requirements of a true copy of backup) whereby a comparison is
the original paper record(s), made of the electronic archival copy
the verifier documents the with the original electronic data set
verification in a manner securely to confirm the copy preserves the
linked to the copy/copies indicating entire content and meaning of the
it is a true copy, or provides original record (i.e. all of the data
equivalent certification. and metadata are included, no data
are missing in the copy, any dynamic
record format that is important for
record meaning and interpretation
is preserved and the file was not
corrupted during the execution of the
validated back-up process),
if the copy meets the requirements
as a true copy of the original, then
the verifier or technical verification
process should document the
verification in a manner that is
securely linked to the copy/copies,
certifying that it is a true copy.
205
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
207
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
Accurate
The term accurate means data are correct, truthful, complete, valid and reliable.
For both paper and electronic records, achieving the goal of accurate
data requires adequate procedures, processes, systems and controls that comprise
the quality management system. The quality management system should be
appropriate to the scope of its activities and risk-based.
Controls that assure the accuracy of data in paper records and electronic
records include, but are not limited to:
Examples of these controls applied to the data life cycle are provided
below.
208
Annex 5
209
Annex 6
Good trade and distribution practices for pharmaceutical
starting materials
Introduction 212
1. Quality management 213
2. Organization and personnel 214
3. Premises 215
4. Procurement, warehousing and storage 216
5. Equipment 218
6. Documentation 219
7. Repackaging and relabelling 220
8. Complaints 223
9. Recalls 223
10. Returned goods 224
11. Handling of non-conforming materials 224
12. Dispatch and transport 225
13. Contract activities 226
References 226
211
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
Introduction
Good manufacturing practices for active pharmaceutical ingredients were
published in 2000 by The International Conference on Harmonisation of
Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use
(ICH), in ICH Q7 (1). Section 17 of this ICH text includes guidelines for agents,
brokers, traders, distributors, repackers and relabellers. This section was written
based on the outcome of the World Health Organization (WHO) investigation
into deaths resulting from the intentional relabelling of industrial grade
ethylene glycol as pharmaceutical grade material. This material was subsequently
formulated into a paediatric medicine that caused many deaths. Section 17 of this
good manufacturing practice (GMP) guide for active pharmaceutical ingredients
(APIs) applies to any party other than the original manufacturer which may trade
and/or take possession, repack, relabel, manipulate, distribute or store an API or
API intermediate. The scope of ICH Q7 does not include excipients.
Following a number of incidents involving diethylene glycol and a World
Health Assembly resolution (WHA52.19), WHO published the Good trade and
distribution practices for pharmaceutical starting materials in 2004 (2). At the time
of publication of these guidelines, WHO had not yet adopted the text from ICH
Q7 as GMP for APIs. The WHO guidance for excipients (3), published in 1999,
did not cover trade and distribution practices for excipients.
In 2010, WHO published Good manufacturing practices for active
pharmaceutical ingredients (4), which reflect the text from ICH Q7 and include
Section 17 of that document, to replace the existing WHO GMP for APIs.1
The WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical
Preparations discussed the revision of the Good trade and distribution practices
for pharmaceutical starting materials at several meetings. The scope of this
WHO guidance on Good trade and distribution practices for pharmaceutical
starting materials is applicable to any ingredient that is used in the manufacture
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
It is important to note that any party that engages in repackaging or blending of an API is considered to
1
be a manufacturer and must submit appropriate registration documents for such manufacturing. He or
she must also comply with the GMP for APIs as stated in WHO Technical Report Series, No. 957, Annex 2,
2010 (4).
212
Annex 6
1. Quality management
1.1 Within an organization, quality assurance serves as a management tool. In
contractual situations, quality assurance also serves to generate confidence
in the supplier. There should be a documented quality policy describing
the overall intentions and direction of the distributor regarding quality,
which should be formally expressed and authorized by management. The
quality policy should clearly indicate that the distributor implements and
maintains good trade and distribution practices (GTDP) as described in
these guidelines, within the organization and its services.
1.2 Quality management should include:
an appropriate infrastructure or quality system, encompassing the
organizational structure, procedures, processes and resources. The
size, structure and complexity of the distributor and its activities
should be taken into consideration when developing or modifying
the quality system;
an independent quality unit (or designee), which is responsible for
all quality-related matters;
an appropriate quality risk management (QRM) system to enable a
systematic process for the assessment, control, communication and
review of risks to the quality of the product. The extent of application
of the QRM system should reflect the operations performed;
a validation/qualification system to ensure that the resulting product
is capable of meeting the requirements for the specified application;
systematic actions necessary to ensure adequate confidence that a
material (or service) and relevant documentation will satisfy given
requirements for quality the totality of these actions is termed
quality assurance;
a clear documented procedure for selecting, approving, disqualifying
and re-approving suppliers of pharmaceutical starting materials
andservices;
a robust deviation management and change control programme
designed to ensure that quality is continually assessed and
maintained: these should include a customer notification where
appropriate;
a system ensuring traceability of products and associated
documentation throughout the entire supply chain.
1.3 The system should cover for example, but not be limited to, the quality
assurance principles in these guidelines.
213
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
1.4 All parties involved in the manufacture and supply chain must exercise
responsibility to ensure the quality and safety of the materials and
products, and that they are fit for their intended use in accordance with
their specifications.
1.9 A system should be in place for the performance of regular internal audits
with the aim of continuous improvement. The findings of the audit and
any corrective and preventive actions taken, including verification of their
effectiveness, should be documented and brought to the attention of the
responsible management.
3. Premises
3.1 Premises, including laboratory facilities, must be located, designed,
constructed, adapted and maintained to suit the operations to be carried
out. Their layout and design must aim to minimize the risk of errors and
permit effective cleaning and maintenance in order to avoid contamination,
cross-contamination, mix ups, build-up of dust, dirt or waste and, in
general, any adverse effect on the quality of materials.
3.2 Measures should be in place to prevent unauthorized persons from
entering the premises.
3.3 Premises should be designed, equipped and maintained so as to afford
maximum protection against the entry of insects, rodents or other animals.
A pest control programme should be implemented and maintained. Its
effectiveness should be monitored.
215
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
3.4 Suitable supporting facilities and utilities (such as air control, ventilation
and lighting) should be in place and appropriate to the activities performed,
in order to avoid contamination, cross-contamination and degradation of
the material. Utilities that could affect product quality should be identified
and monitored.
3.5 If sampling of pharmaceutical starting materials is performed, the sampling
area should be separate and in a controlled environment. Sampling should
only be performed in a storage area if it can be conducted in such a way
that there is no risk of contamination or cross-contamination. Adequate
cleaning procedures should be in place for the sampling areas.
4.17 A process should be in place to ensure that materials that have reached
their expiry or retest date should be withdrawn immediately from saleable
stock. Materials with a retest date should be retested according to the
appropriate specifications. Materials with an expiry date should not be
retested or used after that date.
4.18 Stock inventory should be checked regularly, at least for quantity, overall
condition and retesting or expiration dates. Any discrepancies should
beinvestigated.
4.19 Controls should be in place to ensure that the correct product is picked,
packed and distributed. The material should have an appropriate remaining
shelf life. All batch numbers should be recorded.
4.20 Storage areas should be clean and free from accumulated waste and from
vermin. A written sanitation programme should be available, indicating the
frequency of cleaning and the methods to be used to clean the premises
and storage areas.
5. Equipment
5.1 Equipment must be located, designed, constructed, adapted, qualified,
used, cleaned and maintained to suit the operations to be carried out.
Its layout, design and use should aim to minimize the risk of errors
and permit effective cleaning and maintenance so as to avoid cross-
contamination, build-up of dust or dirt and any adverse effect on the
quality ofmaterials.
5.2 Defective equipment should not be used and should either be removed or
labelled as defective. Equipment should be disposed of in such a way as to
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
6. Documentation
6.1 Documents, in particular instructions and procedures relating to any
activity that might have an impact on the quality of materials, should
be designed, completed, reviewed and distributed with care. Documents
should be completed, approved, signed and dated by appropriate authorized
persons and should not be changed without authorization. Specifications
for materials, including packaging materials, should be available, reviewed
and revised on a regular basis.
6.2 Documents should have unambiguous contents: their title, nature and
purpose should be clearly stated. They should be laid out in an orderly
manner and be easy to check.
6.3 Certificates of analysis (COAs) issued by the original manufacturer should
be provided. If additional testing is done, all COAs should be provided.
COAs should document product traceability back to the
manufacturer by naming the original manufacturer and the manufacturing
site. COAs should indicate which results were obtained by testing the
original material and which results came from skip-lot testing or other
testing and should specify the organization responsible for issuing the COA.
6.4 Before any material is sold or distributed, the supplier should ensure
that the COAs and results are available and that the results meet the
required specifications.
6.5 The original manufacturer and the intermediaries handling the material
should always be traceable and transparent; and this information should
be made available to authorities and end-users, downstream and upstream,
when requested.
219
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
6.6 Depending upon risk assessment, and in accordance with the national
requirements, quality agreements should form the basis of the relationship
for all parties involved in the supply chain. The agreements should include
mechanisms to allow transfer of information, e.g. quality or regulatory
information and change control.
6.7 Labels applied to containers should be clear, unambiguous, permanently
fixed and should be printed in the companys agreed format. The
information on the label should be indelible.
6.8 Each container should be identified by labelling bearing at least the
following information:
the name of the pharmaceutical starting material (including grade
and reference to pharmacopoeias where relevant);
if applicable, the International Nonproprietary Name (INN);
the amount (weight or volume);
the batch number assigned by the original manufacturer or the
batch number assigned by the repacker, if the material has been
repacked and relabelled;
the retest date or expiry date (where applicable);
the storage conditions;
handling precautions, where necessary;
identification of the original manufacturing site;
name and contact details of the supplier.
6.9 Relevant storage and handling information and safety data sheets should
be available.
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
6.10 Records should be kept and must be readily available upon request in
accordance with GMP and GSP (6).
registration documents for such manufacturing. They must also comply with the
GMP for APIs as set out in WHO Technical Report Series, No. 957, Annex 2,
2010 (4).
7.2 Special attention should be given to the following points:
prevention of contamination, cross-contamination and mix ups;
appropriate environmental conditions for dispensing, packaging
and sampling;
security of stocks of labels, line clearance checks, online inspections,
destruction of excess batch-printed labels and label reconciliation;
good sanitation and hygiene practices;
maintaining batch integrity (mixing of different batches of the same
solid material should normally not be done);
as part of batch records, all labels that were removed from the
original container during operations, and a sample of the new label,
should be kept;
if more than one batch of labels is used in one operation, samples of
each batch should be kept;
maintaining product identity, integrity and traceability.
7.3 Upon receipt, packaging materials should be placed in quarantine and
should not be used prior to release. There should be procedures for the
inspection, approval and release of the packaging materials.
7.4 When different batches of a material from the same original manufacturing
site are received by a distributor and combined into a homogeneous batch,
the conformity of each batch with its specification should be confirmed
before it is added.
7.5 Only materials from the same manufacturing site, received by a distributor
and conforming to the same specifications, can be mixed. If different
batches of the same material are mixed to form a homogeneous batch
it should be defined as a new batch, tested and supplied with a batch
certificate of analysis. In such cases the customer should be informed that
the material supplied is a mixture of manufacturers batches.
7.6 In all cases, traceability back to the manufacturer should be documented
by identifying the original manufacturer of the specific batch of the
material and its manufacturing site.
7.7 If batches are combined or mixed, the oldest batch should determine the
expiry or retest date assigned to the combined or mixed batch.
221
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
7.8 If the integrity and quality of the batch is maintained during repackaging
and relabelling, then the original COA of the original manufacturer should
be provided.
If retesting is done, both the original and the new COA should be
provided as long as the batch integrity is maintained. The batch referred to
on the new COA should be traceable to the original COA.
7.9 Repackaging of materials should be carried out using approved packaging
materials for which the quality and suitability have been established as
being equal to or better than those of the original container.
7.10 The reuse of containers should be discouraged unless they have been
cleaned using a validated procedure. Recycled containers should not be
used unless there is evidence that the quality of the material packed in
them will not be adversely affected.
7.11 Materials should be repackaged only if efficient environmental control
exists to ensure that there is no possibility of contamination, cross-
contamination, degradation, physicochemical changes and/or mix ups.
The quality of air supplied to the area should be suitable for the activities
performed, e.g. there should be efficient filtration.
7.12 Suitable procedures should be followed to ensure proper label control.
7.13 Containers of repackaged material and relabelled containers should bear
both the name of the original manufacturing site and the name of the
distributor/repacker.
7.14 Procedures should be in place to ensure maintenance of the identity
and quality of the material by appropriate means, both before and after
repackaging operations.
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
7.15 Each batch of repackaged material should be tested to ensure that the
material conforms to documented specifications.
7.16 There should be a procedure to ensure that appropriate repackaging
documentation, in addition to the test results, is evaluated prior to release
of the repackaged material.
7.17 Sampling, analytical testing and batch release procedures should be in
accordance with GMP.
7.18 Only official pharmacopoeial methods or validated analytical test methods
should be used for the analysis. Where alternatives to the test methods
specified in a monograph are used to provide test results, those alternative
methods should be demonstrated to be suitable and equivalent.
222
Annex 6
7.21 The repacker and relabeller should ensure that the stability of the material
is not adversely affected by the repackaging or relabelling. Stability studies
to justify assigned expiration or retest dates should be conducted if the
pharmaceutical starting material is repackaged in a container different
from that used by the original manufacturer. It is recognized that some
excipients may not need additional stability studies.
8. Complaints
8.1 All complaints and other information concerning potentially defective
materials must be carefully reviewed according to written procedures
that describe the action to be taken and specify the criteria on which a
decision to recall a product should be based. Records of complaints should
be retained and evaluated for trends at defined intervals.
9. Recalls
9.1 There should be a system for recalling promptly and effectively from the
market, materials known or suspected to be defective.
References
1. ICH harmonised tripartite guideline: Good manufacturing practice guide for active pharmaceutical
ingredients Q7. Geneva: International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements
for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use; 2000.
2. Good trade and distribution practices for pharmaceutical starting materials. In: WHO Expert
Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations: thirty-eighth report. Geneva:
World Health Organization; 2004: Annex 2 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 917).
3. Good manufacturing practice: supplementary guidelines for the manufacture of pharmaceutical
excipients. In: WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations: thirty-
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
fifth report. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1999: Annex 5 (WHO Technical Report Series,
No.885).
4. Good manufacturing practices for active pharmaceutical ingredients. In: WHO Expert Committee
on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations: forty-fourth report. Geneva: World Health
Organization; 2010: Annex 2 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 957).
5. WHO good distribution practices for pharmaceutical products. In: WHO Expert Committee
on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations: forty-fourth report. Geneva: World Health
Organization; 2010: Annex 5 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 957).
6. Guide to good storage practices for pharmaceuticals. In: WHO Expert Committee on Specifications
for Pharmaceutical Preparations: thirty-seventh report. Geneva: World Health Organization;
2003: Annex 9 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 908).
226
Annex 7
Guidelines on the conduct of surveys of the quality
ofmedicines
1. Introduction 228
2. Glossary 229
3. Objectives of the survey and initial planning 229
4. Survey management and time frame 233
5. Methodology 236
5.1 Selection of areas to be sampled 236
5.2 Selection of medicines to be surveyed 236
5.3 Selection of sample collection sites 238
5.3.1 Types of sample collection sites 238
5.3.2 Sampling designs 239
5.3.2.1 Convenience sampling 239
5.3.2.2 Simple random sampling 240
5.3.2.3 Stratified random sampling 240
5.3.2.4 Lot quality assurance sampling 241
5.3.2.5 Sentinel site monitoring 242
5.4 Sampling plans 242
5.4.1 Number of dosage units to be collected 243
5.5 Sample collection 244
5.5.1 Overt sampling versus mystery-shopper approach 244
5.5.2 Instructions to sample collectors 246
5.6 Storage and transportation of samples 248
5.7 Testing 249
5.7.1 Testing laboratory 249
5.7.2 Tests to be conducted 250
5.7.3 Test methods and specifications 252
5.7.4 Receipt and testing of samples by a testing laboratory 253
6. Data management and publication 254
References 255
Appendix 1 Example of a sample collection form 257
Appendix 2 Content of the analytical test report/certificate of analysis 259
Appendix 3 Outline of the content of a survey report 261
227
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
1. Introduction
Good quality medicines are essential for efficient disease management. To
ensure that good quality medicines are available to patients in their countries,
national medicines regulatory authorities (NMRAs) can apply various regulatory
instruments. These are:
authorization/registration for marketing following the assessment
of product documentation, inspection to ascertain manufacturers
compliance with the principles of good manufacturing practices
(GMP) and approval of product information;
post-marketing surveillance activities, including maintenance
of products authorization and/or registration through
variations or renewals, regular inspections of manufacturers,
wholesalers, distributors and retailers, quality control testing and
pharmacovigilance;
implementation of regulatory actions in the event of any quality
problem being found.
Quality surveys may serve as a source of information about the quality
of medicines available to patients and are an important part of regulatory
systems in all countries, whether they are strong or weak. However, it has to be
borne in mind that quality surveys that rely only on laboratory testing cannot
offer complete assurance that medicines are safe and effective as formulated.
Quality surveys can be organized by NMRAs, international organizations,
procurement agents, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) or academic and
research groups.
If properly collected, interpreted and used relevant data are vital for
the planning of effective interventions to improve the quality of medicines.
Surveys give snapshots of the medicine quality situation; however, the accuracy,
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
reliability and interpretation of the data obtained depend on the survey design,
organization of sample collection and available resources. Medicine quality
surveys are costly and limitations on resources may restrict the number of
samples collected, parameters tested, techniques to be used for analysis or
number of staff available to conduct the survey and analysis. Therefore it is
important to optimize use of resources by focusing on those medicines and
parameters that pose a higher risk to patients and apply risk analysis during
planning of the survey. Also cooperation with partners, joint organization of
surveys in several countries, and sharing testing capacities, experience and
information can enhance the effectiveness of quality surveys.
These guidelines outline the steps to consider when preparing and
conducting a survey of medicines quality. They provide recommendations
228
Annex 7
2. Glossary
The definitions given below apply to the terms used in these guidelines. They
may have different meanings in other contexts.
pharmaceutical outlet. Any point (licensed or unlicensed) of sale or
provision of medicines for individual patients or other medicine providers.
sample collected in a quality survey. A product in a given presentation
(identified by its name, content of active pharmaceutical ingredient(s) (API(s)),
dosage form, strength, batch number, production date (if known), expiration
date, collection date and name of manufacturer or labelled registration holder)
collected at the specific sample collection site. It means that the same product
characterized by the same name, content of APIs, dosage form, strength, batch,
and from the same manufacturer collected in two different sites represents two
samples. Each sample should consist of the number of dosage units (e.g. tablets,
capsules, ampoules, vials or bottles) required by the sampling plan.
sampling plan. A plan that contains detailed identification of sites where
samples will be collected, medicines to be sampled, minimum number of dosage
units to be collected per sample, number of samples to be collected per medicine
and total number of samples to be collected in the area for which the sampling
plan is prepared. It also contains detailed instructions for sample collectors.
sites that best serve the survey objectives. Complex supply chains
pose a higher risk of quality deterioration and should be prioritized
in market surveillance activities. Information on distribution/supply
chains should be available to NMRAs, ministries of health, provincial
health departments and health centres or other governmental
organizations. In the public domain, some information can be found
on the World Health Organization (WHO) Essential Medicines and
Health Products Department website (http://www.who.int/medicines/
areas/coordination/partnerscoordination/en/). Several international
NGOs are mapping pharmaceutical outlets in various areas and
publishing the information on their websites, e.g. Population
Services International (PSI) (http://www.psi.org/) or, specifically for
antimalarials, ACTWatch (http://www.actwatch.info/). If the survey
is intended to focus on unlicensed outlets, an initial investigation
may be necessary to identify and map the relevant locations.
What health-seeking behaviour is associated with the target medicines?
For some surveys it may also be important to understand where
different categories of patients tend to buy their medicines and what
kind of product they buy. In many countries the medicines market
is heavily segmented with different markets for people with different
spending power and different ethnicity. For example, the wealthier
people may go to pharmacies or private clinics, whereas the poorest
go to grocery shops or street peddlers, and people in the middle-
income category may go to hospitals. There will also be brands of
the same product sold at different prices aimed at different market
segments. If such information is needed, an initial pre-survey
should be performed.
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
After data analysis and before publication of the report it is useful to hold a
meeting with appropriate stakeholders to discuss the results, conclusions and
actions needed.
Timing of sample collection is important since seasonal changes in
environmental conditions may have an influence on the quality of the medicine
collected. It is possible that falsified antimalarials are more common during the
malaria season, or that access to outlets in rural areas may be impeded in
therainy season, for example as a result of floods or landslides.
Issues such as the use of the results and their public availability should be
clearly understood by the responsible authorities and all parties involved in the
survey from the beginning. Relevant regulatory measures in individual countries
lie within the responsibility of the NMRA, when applicable in collaboration
with the police or other enforcement bodies (with respect to falsified medicines
or criminal negligence). Therefore, if an NMRA does not organize the survey
directly, it should be provided with the results before their publication to be
able to investigate in line with the regulatory practice and legislation with the
relevant manufacturer and, if appropriate, adopt necessary regulatory measures.
A publication plan including authorship of any papers to be submitted
for peer-reviewed publication and a distribution list of those to whom the report
will be disseminated should be agreed at the beginning of the survey. A policy
should be adopted concerning public release of data that might be considered
confidential. The default position should be to distribute the data as widely and
openly as possible.
The survey protocol should include the plan of survey activities and
the personnel responsible for the completion of the different steps within the
estimated time frames (Table A7.1). It is important to plan the financial resources
expected for the whole survey before it commences.
Table A7.1
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
234
Annex 7
235
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
5. Methodology
All surveys should be conducted according to a predefined survey protocol.
Inadequate instructions on the protocol or noncompliance with the protocol, e.g.
insufficient sample size, incorrect sampling and/or testing, may lead to inaccurate
results and policy recommendations. Careful consideration of the methodology
and ethical issues should guide the survey preparation and the people involved
should comply with the instructions and with appropriate ethical standards.
In principle, in addition to the background and explanation of the survey
objectives and limitations, the survey protocol should contain information on
the following.
formulation, the specific programme under which they are supplied, or the
manufacturer or distributor declared on the label. If collection of commonly used
products is required, a pre-survey investigation of treatment-seeking behaviour
may be necessary. Collaborating with other actors, such as national disease
control programmes, may help to identify products commonly used.
Selection of medicines is driven by the survey objectives and public health
considerations. The potential public health impact of poor-quality medicines
should be a key guide for selection. To optimize use of available resources the
survey should focus on medicines posing most risk to patients, e.g. where
the therapeutic index is narrow, substandard quality could lead to a significant
change in the health outcome, or certain categories may be particularly
vulnerable to counterfeiting. To estimate risks posed by individual medicines
an analysis should be performed. Aspects to consider may include:
probability of occurrence of a quality problem, taking into account:
complexity of manufacture,
stability of the medicine risk of quality deterioration under
local conditions of storage, distribution and use,
compliance of manufacturers of the target medicines with GMP
principles,
complexity of distribution chain for the target medicines and
likelihood of non-compliance with good distribution practices
(GDP) principles and approved storage conditions during
distribution and storage;
exposure of patients to the medicine and seriousness of potential
health impairment, considering:
extent of exposed population number of patients and length
oftreatment, and volumes used,
vulnerability of target population susceptibility of treated
population to the undesired effects of the medicine,
complexity of the dosage form in relation to the route
ofadministration,
therapeutic properties and risk, such as safety margins and risk
of side effects, risk of therapeutic failure, acute versus chronic
exposure, and risk of development of resistance.
Instructions should be provided to sample collectors with regard to the
dosage forms and strengths of the selected medicines to be collected. Unless
the objectives of the survey require a focus on a particular brand or brands,
instructions should be given to the collectors on how to select samples if several
brands are available at the sample collection site.
237
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
The number of medicines that should be selected for the survey depends
on available resources (both financial and human) and care should be taken to
keep the survey manageable.
and handling of products at the site, and experience of the NMRA with the
distribution chain and sites.
The results of convenience sampling cannot be generalized to other
areas, even within the same country, or reliably interpreted over time. However,
such surveys may provide the evidence necessary to support regulatory actions
or to signal a quality problem. If convenience sampling does indicate a medicine
quality problem, further investigation or regulatory actions can be initiated. If
a wider picture is needed, subsequent surveys using probability sampling can
be designed. If convenience surveys do not reveal a problem one should bear
in mind that this may be a false-negative result. It is important to explain the
limitations of this technique in reports and scientific papers.
Despite its limitations, convenience sampling is most suitable for NMRAs
to identify high-risk areas for further regulatory actions.
Examples of convenience sampling include some surveys conducted in
Africa (1, 2) and South East Asia (3, 4).
As LQAS will only provide a binary result, formal random sampling may
be required to examine longitudinal changes in the prevalence of poor-quality
medicines accurately. It can also be useful as a way to monitor the situation
when the exact prevalence of poor-quality medicines is known.
There has been almost no discussion as to what proportion of outlets
selling poor-quality medicines should be regarded as unacceptable. Ideally there
should be zero-tolerance for outlets selling poor-quality medicines, as even a
1% prevalence of such medicines for potentially fatal diseases, such as malaria,
tuberculosis and HIV, is disastrous for individual patients.
Examples of this approach are described in several publications (10, 11).
Sampling procedures and tables for lot acceptance by parties who receive goods
manufactured by others can be found in the international standards, e.g. ANSI/
ASQ Z1.4 and Z1.9 or ISO 2859 and ISO 3951 series.1
http://asq.org/knowledge-center/Z14.Z19/index.html;
1
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=39991;
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=57490.
242
Annex 7
who.int/prequal/).
243
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
qualitative-sampling-seized-drugs-2012).
244
Annex 7
is selling poor-quality medicines and understand the health, legal and ethical
implications). If outlet staff are anxious to avoid poor-quality medicines and are
informed about the survey objectives, overt sampling with feedback would allow
more data to be collected on poor-quality medicines and their risk factors and
lead to a direct improvement in the medicine supply. Overt sampling may be the
only possible method in some circumstances, such as when collecting samples
at locations where people are seen first by clinicians, or in the public sector.
However, many outlets in countries with weak medicines regulation sell
expired or unregistered medicines, which may make outlet staff suspicious and
anxious about investigations. If the seller knows or is concerned that his or her
stock contains illegal or poor-quality medicines and that the buyer is potentially
linked to the NMRA, this may influence which medicines are offered. An
additional concern is that in many resource-poor countries the medicine market
is heavily segmented with different markets for people with different spending
power and ethnicity. Even within a single outlet there will often be several
different brands of the same medicine at different prices aimed at different
market segments. In such cases a covert, mystery-shopper approach may be
appropriate (18). The identity and purpose of the buyer should not be generally
known by the outlet being evaluated. Sampling should usually be performed
by nationals of the country concerned although there may be some situations,
such as suspicion that migrant workers may take inferior medicines, where this
would not be applicable. It may not be safe for people living in the same wider
community to act as purchasers. In contrast, in some remote rural locations,
it would be difficult for someone who is not local to request medicines as this
would cause suspicion. The safety of those acting as mystery shoppers should be
considered, a risk assessment performed and instructions appropriate to local
conditions need to be developed.
The mystery shopper mimics a normal shopper from the community
in which the outlet is located and should dress, speak and behave appropriately
for that community. Shoppers should use a standard scenario, e.g. pretending
to be a visitor from another part of the country who needs some medicines for
a specified disease, for a specific reason and for a stereotypical patient. Mystery
shoppers should be prepared to explain the real purpose of their visit to protect
themselves if their identity is revealed.
After leaving the survey site the mystery shopper should record details
of each purchase. Price, name of the provider and/or outlet, and an estimation
of temperature at the site should be documented as well as the conditions of
the purchase, e.g. how many people were in the outlet, how long the purchase
took, the nature of the interaction between the mystery shopper and outlet
staff, whether it was easy to convince the provider to sell medicines, and any
other information needed to meet the survey objectives. All medicines collected
245
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
should be properly identified and stored, e.g. in a plastic bag labelled with the
name of the outlet.
The mystery shopper should brief the local coordinator for the surveyed
area upon his or her return from each outlet. The local coordinator should
transcribe the reported interaction together with a translation if appropriate.
Translations should use a meaning-based method, rather than a literal or
interpretative approach. The original text with translation should be double-
checked for accuracy by other members of the team and kept.
Examples of overt sampling include some surveys in Asia (19, 20) and
an example using the mystery-shopper approach can be found in the report of a
survey conducted in Lao Peoples Democratic Republic (7).
The medicine samples should not be taken out of the original primary
and secondary packaging (although removal from large secondary
packs is appropriate). Containers such as bottles and vials should
not be opened. Where medicines are sold without package leaflets,
or in unlabelled plastic bags coming from large-sized boxes (locally
repacked), or as individual dosage forms, this should be recorded.
Ideally, samples collected should have at least six months remaining
before expiry to allow sufficient time for chemical analysis.
However, the frequency of expired medicines is also an important
outcome measure and any expired medicine found in the outlet
should be recorded.
The medicine labels and package leaflets should not be removed
ordamaged.
Each sample should be recorded separately using the sample
collection form (for an example see Appendix 1). Whenever the
required information is not available this should be noted in the
appropriate space on the sample collection form; any observed
abnormalities should also be recorded.
Each sample should be identified by a unique sample code, defined
on the sample collection form and specified on all original packages
belonging to the respective sample. It should be written legibly
and should not obscure the basic product information. The sample
collection form and all packages belonging to one sample should be
kept together (e.g. blisters inserted in a dedicated zip-lock plastic
bag or an envelope marked with the appropriate sample code and
trade name of the product). For large surveys, barcode systems may
be helpful to reduce errors.
When overt sampling is used, manufacturers batch certificates of
analysis should be collected with the samples, if available, and kept
with the sample collection form.
Storage conditions at the site (temperature, humidity, access of light
and any other observations) should be described in the sample
collection form. When overt sampling is used collectors can measure
the temperature if it is not controlled at the site. Mystery shoppers
can estimate and record the temperature.
Samples should be collected and kept under controlled conditions
in line with the product label requirements. The cold chain has to be
maintained, where required. Samples should be kept protected from
light, excessive moisture or dryness. Safety measures against theft
should be taken; medicine boxes should be kept in a locked area.
247
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
The period within which samples should be collected and the deadline
for sending the last sample to the testing laboratory should be clearly indicated
and adhered to.
Normally samples of collected medicines should be paid for by collectors.
The cost of collected samples needs to be taken into account when determining
the numbers of samples to be collected. In some countries, NMRA inspectors
have legal power to collect samples from the market without reimbursement.
Collectors should be mindful of the stock of sampled products held
in outlets, and of the potential difficulties of replenishing sampled medicines
through the supply chain, so as not to jeopardize the availability of these
medicines to patients. If there is a risk of product shortage after sampling,
replacement of the sampled amount should be arranged immediately after the
survey or, less desirably, collection of that particular product from that outlet
should be omitted.
For surveys seeking to determine the proportion of poor-quality
medicines sold to patients, data on product-specific sales volumes from the
outlets may be necessary. These data can be collected after sampling, especially
when the mystery-shopper approach is used, and sellers should be informed
about the survey. This approach requires the support of the NMRA as data on
sales volumes are better collected by inspectors or by officers of the authority.
5.7 Testing
5.7.1 Testing laboratory
It is important that only quality control laboratories with demonstrated capability
to produce reliable test results are used in quality surveys. Therefore laboratories
for testing should be carefully selected and should meet the following criteria:
the laboratory works in compliance with WHO Good practices for
pharmaceutical quality control laboratories (13), is preferably a WHO
prequalified 4 laboratory or is a laboratory where other evidence of
equivalent working standards is available;
the laboratory is capable and competent to perform the tests
required by the testing protocol;
the laboratory should have sufficient capacity and should agree to
test the required number of samples within the specified period for
the cost specified according to the available budget.
The choice of the testing laboratory or laboratories should be explained
in the survey protocol, reports and publications. One or more laboratories may
be used for testing the samples collected during the survey. If several laboratories
are testing collected samples, samples should be divided in such a way that all
249
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
samples containing the same APIs are assigned for testing to the same laboratory.
Many countries do not have a fully functioning quality control laboratory and
should consider making arrangements with a laboratory abroad. The appropriate
arrangements with the laboratory have to be made in advance.
Within the usual selection procedure and the resulting agreement the
following should be clearly specified in addition to the usual elements of such
agreements (such as deadlines and financial arrangements):
medicines and numbers of samples to be tested, tests to be
conducted and specifications to be used, according to the testing
protocol. If more than one testing laboratory is selected, a specific
testing protocol should be prepared for each laboratory;
responsibilities of the laboratory during the survey as specified in
section 5.7.4;
confidentiality declaration made by the laboratory;
acceptance of a possible audit of the laboratory, access to records
and retained samples.
Following conclusion of the agreement(s), the principal survey
coordinator should inform the local coordinators in the areas, regions or
countries participating in the survey about the following:
name and address of the laboratory or laboratories;
the contact person(s) in the laboratory; and
medicines assigned for testing to the particular laboratory.
The laboratory normally starts testing only when all the samples
containing the same API in the same dosage form have been received. Therefore
it is important to set and adhere to the deadline for sending samples to the
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
testing laboratory.
(draft in preparation).
251
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
differences between them. When a monograph for the particular medicine being
tested is available in more than one pharmacopoeia the ability of the different
methods and specifications to reveal quality problems should be considered and
the monograph selected accordingly. Suitability of test methods for the intended
use should be appropriately verified.
If no monograph for the target medicine exists in a pharmacopoeia or
the existing monographs do not cover the desired tests, a validated method
ofthe laboratory should be used.
When samples from one manufacturer only are tested in a survey,
that manufacturers methods and specifications can be used, if available to the
testing laboratory. The performance of such methods under the conditions of
the testing laboratory should be verified.
252
Annex 7
6
Testing of suspect substandard/spurious/falsely-labelled/falsified/counterfeit medicines (QAS/15.634)
(draft in preparation).
7
For details of the various studies carried out using the protocol referred to, see:
http://apps.who.int/prequal/
253
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
References
1. Survey of the quality of selected antimalarial medicines circulating in six countries of sub-Saharan
Africa. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011 (http://www.who.int/prequal/info_applicants/
qclabs/monitoring_documents/WHO_QAMSA_report.pdf, accessed 25 November 2015).
2. United States Pharmacopeia Drug Quality and Information Program. Survey of the quality of
selected antimalarial medicines circulating in Madagascar, Senegal, and Uganda November
2009. Rockville (MD): The United States Pharmacopeial Convention; 2010 (http://www.usp.org/
worldwide/dqi/resources/technicalReports, accessed 25 November 2015).
3. Newton P, Proux S, Green M, Smithuis F, Rozendaal J, Prakongpan S, et al. Fake artesunate in
Southeast Asia. Lancet. 2001;357(9272):194850.
4. Dondorp AM, Newton PN, Mayxay M, Van Damme W, Smithuis FM, Yeung S, et al. Fake antimalarials
in Southeast Asia are a major impediment to malaria control: multinational cross-sectional survey
on the prevalence of fake antimalarials. Trop Med Int Health. 2004; 9(12):12416.
5. Cochran WG. Sampling techniques, second edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1963.
6. Yamane T. Statistics: an introductory analysis, second edition. New York: Harper and Row; 1967.
7. Sengaloundeth S, Green MD, Fernndez FM, Manolin O, Phommavong K, Insixiengmay V. A
stratified random survey of the proportion of poor-quality oral artesunate sold at medicine
outlets in the Lao PDR implications for therapeutic failure and drug resistance. Malar J.
2009;8:172. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-8-172.
8. Onwujekwe O, Kaur H, Dike N, Shu E, Uzochukwu B, Hanson K, et al. Quality of anti-malarial drugs
provided by public and private healthcare providers in south-east Nigeria. Malar J. 2009;8:22. doi:
10.1186/1475-2875-8-22.
9. Kaur H, Goodman C, Thompson E, Thompson KA, Masanja I, Kachur SP, et al. A nationwide survey
of the quality of antimalarials in retail outlets in Tanzania. PLoS One. 2008;3(10):e3403.
10. Khojah HMJ, Pallos H, Yoshida N, Akazawa M, Tsuboi H, Kazuko K. The quality of medicines in
community pharmacies in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. A lot quality assurance sampling (LQAS)-based
survey. Pharmacol Pharm. 2013;4(7):5119. doi: 10.4236/pp. 2013.47074.
11. Lemeshow S, Taber S. Lot quality assurance sampling: single- and double-sampling plans. World
Health Stat Q. 1991;44(3):11532.
12. Phanouvong S. Mekong Malaria Initiative. Antimalarial drug quality monitoring and evaluation.
Indicators. Rockville (MD): United States Pharmacopeia Drug Quality and Information Program;
2004 (http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pnadh147.pdf, accessed 25 November 2015).
13. Good practices for pharmaceutical quality control laboratories. In: WHO Expert Committee
on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations: forty-fourth report. Geneva: World Health
Organization; 2010: Annex 1 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 957 (http://www.who.int/prequal/
info_general/documents/TRS957/GPCL_TRS957_Annex1.pdf, accessed 25 November 2015).
14. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Guidelines on representative drug sampling for use
by national drug analysis laboratories. New York: United Nations; 2009 (http://www.unodc.org/
documents/scientific/Drug_Sampling.pdf, accessed 25 November 2015).
15. Scientific working group for the analysis of seized drugs (SWGDRUG). Recommendations. United
States Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration; 2011 (http://www.swgdrug.org/
Documents/SWGDRUG%20Recommendations%206.pdf, accessed 25 November 2015).
16. Hoffman CG, Frank RS, Hinkley SW. Representative sampling of drug seizures in multiple
containers. ASTM International. 1991;36(2).
255
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
17. WHO guidelines for sampling of pharmaceutical products and related materials. In: WHO Expert
Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations: thirty-ninth report. Geneva: World
Health Organization; 2005: Annex 4 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 929).
18. Madden JM, Quick JD, Ross-Degnan D, Kafle KK. Undercover careseekers: Simulated clients in the
study of health provider behavior in developing countries. Soc Sci Med. 1997;45(10):146582.
19. ACTwatch. Outlet survey. Kingdom of Cambodia. 2011 Survey Report. Washington (DC): Population
Services International; 2011 (http://www.actwatch.info/sites/default/files/content/outlet-reports/
ACTwatch%20Cambodia%20OS%20Endline_2011.pdf, accessed 25 November 2015).
20. Survey of the quality of anti-tuberculosis medicines circulating in selected newly independent
states of the former Soviet Union. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011 (http://www.who.
int/prequal/info_applicants/qclabs/monitoring_documents/TBQuality-Survey_Nov2011.pdf,
accessed 25 November 2015).
21. Be aware. Tool for visual inspection of medicines. Ferney Voltaire: World Health Professions
Alliance (http://www.whpa.org/Toolkit_BeAware_Inspection.pdf, accessed 25 November 2015).
22. Newton PN, Lee SJ, Goodman C, Fernndez FM, Yeung S, Phanouvong S, et al. Guidelines for field
surveys of the quality of medicines: A proposal. PLoS Med. 2009;6(3):02520257.
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
256
Annex 7
Appendix 1
Example of a sample collection form1
SURVEY TITLE
Area/region/country: Sample code:
(Area/region/country code/medicine abbreviation/
sequence number/sampling date dd/mm/yy)2
Address (with telephone, fax number and email address, GPS coordinates, if
applicable):
Batch/lot number:
Date of manufacture: Expiry date:
Regulatory status in the country, registration number if applicable:
The sample collection form should always be kept with the collected sample.
1
Area/region/country code: e.g. for countries, the two-letter code is used for the Internet country top-
2
level domains; medicines abbreviations to be established; sample code system can be extended to be
appropriate for a collection system in a particular area, region or country.
257
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
Date:
1.
2.
Note: Samples collected must remain in their original primary and secondary
packaging, intact and unopened.
258
Annex 7
Appendix 2
Content of the analytical test report/certificate of analysis
Name and address of the laboratory performing the sample testing
Name and address of the originator of the request for testing
Number/code of the analytical test report/certificate of analysis
Sample reference number assigned by the laboratory and sample
code assigned at the time of sampling (specified in the sample
collection form and packages belonging to one sample)
Date on which the sample was received
Name of the area, region or country where the sample was collected
Sample product name (trade name as it appears on the label), dosage
form, APIs, strength, package size (e.g. number of tablets in one
blister and number of blisters in the secondary packaging, volume in
one ampoule and number of ampoules in secondary packaging)
Description of the sample (describing both the product and the
primary and secondary packaging, type and packaging material of
primary container); if there is any sign of unsatisfactory handling
during transportation, this should be mentioned
Batch number of the sample, expiry date and, if available, date
ofmanufacture
Number of units received for the sample
Name and full address of the manufacturer (as specified on the label
or in the package leaflet)
Reference to the specifications used for testing the sample, including
the limits
If a reference substance was used for quantitative determination, this
substance should be specified (e.g. The International Pharmacopoeia,
British Pharmacopoeia or United States Pharmacopeia reference
substance or working standard)
Results of all the tests performed; for the evaluation and
interpretation of results it is useful to request numerical results
wherever possible, any observation made during testing, and the
following details:
for content uniformity, all results for individual units,
for dissolution test, results for all tablets tested,
259
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
260
Annex 7
Appendix 3
Outline of the content of a survey report
261
Annex 8
Collaborative procedure between the World Health
Organization (WHO) Prequalification Team and national
regulatory authorities in the assessment and accelerated
national registration of WHO-prequalified pharmaceutical
products and vaccines
1. Definitions 264
2. Background information 265
3. Principles of collaboration 267
4. Steps in the collaboration for national registration of a
pharmaceutical product or a vaccine 274
5. Collaboration mechanisms for post-prequalification and/or
post-registration variations 279
6. Withdrawals, suspensions or delistingsof prequalified
pharmaceutical productsorvaccines and national deregistrations 280
References 281
Appendix 1 National regulatory authority participation agreement and undertaking
for national regulatory authority focalpoint(s) 282
Appendix 2 Consent of WHO prequalification holder for WHO to share information
with the national regulatory authority confidentially under the Procedure 292
Appendix 3 Expression of interest to national regulatory authority (NRA) in the
assessment and accelerated national registration, acceptance by NRA and
notification of Procedure outcomes 295
Appendix 4 Report on post-registration actions in respect of a product registered
under the Procedure 303
263
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
1. Definitions
Collaborative procedure (Procedure)1
Procedure for collaboration between the World Health Organization (WHO)
Prequalification Team (WHO/PQT) and interested national regulatory authorities
(NRAs) in the assessment and accelerated national registration of WHO-
prequalified pharmaceutical products and vaccines.
Pharmaceutical product
Any substance or combination of substances marketed or manufactured to be
marketed for treating or preventing disease in human beings, or with a view
to making a medical diagnosis in human beings, or to restoring, correcting or
modifying physiological functions in human beings.
Vaccine
A vaccine is a biological preparation that improves immunity to a particular
disease. A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-
causing microorganism and is often made from weakened or killed forms of
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
Collaborative procedure between the World Health Organization (WHO) Prequalification of Medicines
1
Programme and national medicines regulatory authorities in the assessment and accelerated national
registration of WHO-prequalified pharmaceutical products appeared as Annex 4 (WHO Technical Report
Series, No. 981, 2013).
264
Annex 8
2. Background information
National assessment of applications for registration of pharmaceutical products
and vaccines (marketing authorization) is the key regulatory process that enables
NRAs to evaluate and monitor the quality, safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical
products and vaccines. For most countries the approach to registration of
pharmaceutical products and vaccines is a combination of two components:
the NRAs own assessment of application documentation combined
with verification of compliance with relevant good practices by
inspections (mostly focusing on good manufacturing practices
(GMP) and inspections of manufacturing sites) and testing of
product characteristics when applicable;
consideration by the NRA of decisions and outcomes of assessments
and inspections made by NRAs in other countries, and for vaccines
also official batch release by the national control laboratory
performing the oversight of the vaccines.
Consideration of the outcomes of assessments and inspections by
authorities, whose regulatory decisions are based on acceptable standards,
substantially contributes to savings in regulatory resources and improvements
in the quality of regulatory decisions, while retaining the prerogative of NRAs
to conclude their assessment by sovereign decisions, which reflect their own
judgement of the benefitrisk balance as it relates to their specific country
situation and the legislation in place. Taking into consideration the regulatory
decisions of other NRAs requires setting up a system that will permit:
identification of reference authorities whose regulatory decisions
are based on acceptable standards and identification of documents
associated with such regulatory decisions, which are relevant to
the regulatory environment in the country wishing to rely on
suchdecisions;
assurance that the product for which the decision has been taken by
the reference NRA is the same (see section 3.2) as the product being
assessed or, if it is not the same, that a clear understanding exists of
the differences between the products subjected to assessment in the
two regulatory environments;
efficient use of available scientific expertise and human and financial
resources to decide, with reasonable certainty, on the benefitrisk
profile of an evaluated product when used in a given country;
the choice by each NRA of the approaches that will make best use of
the resources, workload and competence of individual NRAs.
265
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
faster access to pharmaceutical products and vaccines that have been found
acceptable in principle for procurement by United Nations (UN) agencies.
The collaborative registration procedure can be of particular relevance when
implemented for pharmaceutical products and vaccines in emergency situations.
Depending on available resources, participating authorities have the
opportunity to participate in the assessment process and in inspections organized
by WHO/PQT.
This collaborative procedure also benefits manufacturers of prequalified
pharmaceutical products and vaccines through faster and better harmonized
regulatory approvals in participating countries. This Procedure, when combined
with the WHO/PQT collaborative procedure with NRAs in inspection activities,
alleviates the burden of additional national inspections on manufacturers.
3. Principles of collaboration
3.1 This collaborative procedure is applicable to:
pharmaceutical products that have been assessed and inspected by
WHO/PQT in line with the procedures and standards available at
www.who.int/prequal (Information for applicants) and have been
found to be acceptable in principle for procurement by UN agencies
as listed in the List of WHO prequalified medicines, available at www.
who.int/prequal. The Procedure is not applicable to pharmaceutical
products that have been listed as prequalified on the basis of
approval by stringent regulatory authorities (SRAs).2 For such
products the principal part of the assessment has been performed
by SRAs and WHO/PQT is not in possession of assessment and
inspection reports that can be shared;
vaccines that have been assessed and inspected by WHO/PQT in
line with the procedures and standards available at http://www.
who.int/immunization_standards/vaccine_quality/pq_system/en/
and have been found to be acceptable in principle for procurement
by UN agencies as listed in the List of WHO prequalified vaccines,
available at http://www.who.int/immunization_standards/vaccine_
quality/PQ_vaccine_list_en/en/. This Procedure is applicable to
Products listed as prequalified according to the procedure described in the Guidelines on submission
2
3
If the applicant for national registration is not the same as the WHO PQ holder, the WHO PQ holder must
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
confirm to the NRA and WHO/PQT by an authorization letter (as per the template annexed to Appendix 3,
Part A) that the applicant is acting for, or pursuant to rights derived from, the WHO PQ holder and that
the WHO PQ holder agrees with the application of the procedure in the country concerned.
4
Submission of dossiers in common technical document (CTD) format as required by WHO/PQT is
considered a standard. In exceptional situations data can be organized differently in line with specific
national or WHO requirements; however, the technical data included in the dossier must be the
same. There may be country-specific differences in administrative data, or if required by NRAs under
exceptional circumstances, additional technical data can be provided (e.g. bioequivalence with a
country-specific comparator).
5
The essential elements of product information include in particular the indications, contraindications,
posology (dosing), special warnings and precautions for use, adverse reactions, storage conditions,
primary packaging and shelf life. Differences in brand name, the name of applicant or WHO PQ holder,
language, format and degree of detail of the product information, labelling of internal and external
packaging, among others, are not considered essential for the purposes of this Procedure. The language
of the product information may be different as long as the information content is the same as that
approved by WHO/PQT.
268
Annex 8
3.3 WHO/PQT, with the agreement of the WHO PQ holder, shares the full
outcome of prequalification assessments, inspections and, if relevant, also
results of laboratory testing, including final assessment and inspection
reports, with participating authorities, under appropriate obligations of
confidentiality and restrictions on use (see below).
As regards sharing the outcomes of assessments, inspections and
results of laboratory testing, only data owned by the WHO PQ holder and
WHO are shared. Sharing of any other data (e.g. related to a closed part of
the Active pharmaceutical ingredient master file) is subject to additional
agreement of the data owners concerned.
3.4 For the purpose of this collaborative procedure, participating authorities
accept the product documentation and reports in the format in which
they are routinely prepared by WHO in accordance with the Procedure
for prequalification of pharmaceutical products (1) and the Procedure for
assessing the acceptability in principle of vaccines for purchase by United
Nations agencies (2). It should be noted, however, that participating
authorities may require applicants to comply with specific requirements
for local regulatory review. Each participating authority should make such
specific requirements public.
3.5 Fees to be paid by the applicants to participating authorities continue
to follow standard national procedures. Similarly, the submission by
manufacturers of samples for laboratory testing if required continues
to follow standard procedures as defined in national legislation and/
or as defined by NRAs. Participating authorities are advised to refrain
from preregistration laboratory testing. Results from the laboratory
testing organized in the course of prequalification assessment or
inspections will be included in the information package available to each
participating authority.
3.6 Consistent with the terms of Appendix 1, Part A and Appendix 3, Part B,
each participating authority commits itself:
to treat any information and documentation provided to it by WHO/
PQT pursuant to this Procedure as confidential in accordance
with the terms of Appendix 1, Part A, and to allow access to such
information and documentation only to persons 6
This includes the focal point(s) and all other persons in the NRA who have access to any information and
6
who have a need to know for the purpose of the assessment and
accelerated registration of the product in question in the country
and any post-registration processes that may be required,
who are bound by confidentiality undertakings in respect of such
information and documentation which are no less stringent than
those reproduced in Appendix 1, Part A;
7
Participating authorities should issue their national regulatory decisions at the earliest opportunity after
being given access to the confidential information and documentation on a given prequalified product.
Although a time limit of 90 days of regulatory time is defined in the Procedure, the decision should
normally be taken within 60 days. This deadline can be extended to a maximum of 90 days if predefined
dates of technical or decision-making meetings do not allow a participating authority to issue its decision
within 60 days. If a participating authority does not issue its decision within 90 days of regulatory time
and does not communicate valid reasons for the delay to WHO/PQT, WHO/PQT can follow up with the
head of the NRA to clarify the situation. The timeline should be reduced as much as possible to facilitate
access to products needed in case of emergency situations.
8
Regulatory time starts after a valid application for the registration according to the Procedure has been
received and access to the confidential information has been granted (whichever is the later) and
continues until the date of decision on registration. The regulatory time does not include the time granted
to the applicant to complete missing parts of the documentation, provide additional data or respond to
queries raised by NRAs.
270
Annex 8
This refers to a decision not to approve the registration of a WHO-prequalified product and to a decision
9
to approve the registration, but with deviations in indications, contraindications, posology (dosing),
special warnings and precautions for use, adverse drug reactions, storage conditions and shelf life. For
pharmaceutical products differences in brand name, name of applicant or WHO PQ holder, format of
product information, level of detail of product information, labelling of internal and external packaging
and language of product information are not considered to be deviations from the PQ conclusions.
271
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
3.9 The requirements and procedures in case of a variation (as defined in WHO
guidelines (3)) may differ between NRAs and WHO/PQT. The present
collaborative procedure includes a variation procedure (see section 5)
which is aimed at promoting consistency between variations accepted by
WHO/PQT and variations accepted by participating authorities. There
could be situations in which a manufacturer of a WHO-prequalified
product submits a variation application to a participating authority and
not to WHO/PQT or vice versa. In such a case the conditions of the
national registration, which were initially harmonized with the WHO
PQ decision, may become essentially different through the product life
cycle. In such a case a product registered and procured in a participating
country would no longer be the same as the WHO-prequalified product
because the specifications, manufacturing sites and/or other essential
parameters would no longer be the ones accepted by WHO/PQT. The
WHO PQ holders/applicants and NRAs are expected to inform WHO/
PQT of the differences and the reasons for them, if, due to inconsistencies
in variations, the nationally-registered product is no longer the same as the
WHO-prequalified product.
As a result, applicants are required to submit to participating
authorities without delay, at the latest 30 calendar days after acceptance of
the variation by WHO/PQT, those variations which are subject to national
regulatory requirements. WHO/PQT will inform the NRAs that have
registered individual prequalified products, through the restricted-access
website, about variations to the prequalification status of such products
if and when regulatory action is deemed to be justified. Participating
authorities are encouraged to follow the outcomes of the WHO variation
procedures for nationally-approved WHO-prequalified products.
If a national variation procedure results in the nationally-
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
registered product being no longer the same (see section 3.2) as the
WHO-prequalified product, or in the event that a variation of a WHO-
prequalified product is not followed by the same variation of the nationally
registered product (in the case that the particular variation is subject to
national regulatory requirements), the participating authority informs
WHO/PQT of the situation by submitting the form in Appendix 4, clearly
specifying the deviations. The deadline for informing WHO/PQT is 30
days after the NRA has been informed by WHO/PQT about variation
outcome. The variation approved by WHO/PQT will be considered by
WHO/PQT as accepted by the NRA on a non-objection basis 30 days
after information-sharing, unless and until the NRA informs WHO/PQT
otherwise. Other participating NRAs, which have registered the WHO-
272
Annex 8
3.11 Participation in this Procedure does not exempt applicants for national
registration and holders of national registration from the respective
national regulatory requirements. Participating authorities retain the
right to assess submitted data and organize site inspections to the
extent they deem appropriate. WHO encourages NRAs not to perform
repetitive assessment of thoroughly assessed data, but rather to focus
on data verification so that they can be assured that the same product
is submitted for registration as is prequalified. It is highly recommended
not to reinspect the sites that have already been inspected by WHO/PQT
inspection teams or by NRAs recognized by WHO as stringent and as
functional with respect to inspections of vaccine manufacturing sites.
273
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
In the case of vaccines that are prequalified by the Streamlined procedure for vaccines with marketing
10
authorization/licensing granted by eligible NRAs (as defined in the Procedure for assessing the
acceptability, in principle, of vaccines, for purchase by United Nations agencies. In: WHO Expert Committee
on Biological Standardization: sixty-first report. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013: Annex 6 (WHO
Technical Report Series, No. 978)) the submitted data should reflect essential data submitted to the NRA
that granted the authorization/licence and additional documents as provided to WHO.
274
Annex 8
See footnote 7.
11
275
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
has been made to discontinue the Procedure for a product, the reasons for
such discontinuation, to WHO/PQT through the restricted-access website.
This report is provided to WHO/PQT using Part C of Appendix 3 and is
copied to the applicant. WHO/PQT lists pharmaceutical products and
vaccines registered according to this Procedure by participating NRAs on
its public website. The steps in the collaboration for national registration of
a pharmaceutical product or vaccine are summarized in Figure A8.1.
Figure A8.1
Flowchart showing the principal steps of the collaborative procedure
The NRA confirms to WHO/PQT its interest in participating in the Procedure and
nominates focal point(s) for access to the restricted-access website. The NRA
completes signs and submits to WHO/PQT the agreement reproduced in Appendix1,
Part A. The focal point(s) who are nominated to access the restricted-access website
complete and submit the undertaking reproduced in Appendix 1, Part B, to WHO/PQT.
Appendix 1, Part A and Appendix 1, Part B
Registration process
The applicant submits the application for national registration of the WHO-
prequalified pharmaceutical product or vaccine to the participating authority and
informs the authority of its interest in following the Procedure by completing the
expression of interest reproduced in Appendix 3, Part A. If the applicant for national
registration is not the same as the WHO PQ holder, the WHO PQ holder confirms
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
to the NRA and WHO/PQT by an authorization letter (as per the form annexed to
Appendix 3, Part A) that the applicant is acting for, or pursuant to rights derived
from, the WHO PQ holder and that the PQ holder agrees with the application of the
Procedure in the country concerned.
Appendix 3, Part A
276
Annex 8
The participating authority informs WHO/PQT and the applicant of its consent to apply
the Procedure to the application for registration of the product, on the understanding
that the application is accepted as complete, or of its refusal by completing and
signing Part B of Appendix 3.
Appendix 3, Part B
Within 30 calendar days of receipt of the WHO PQ holders consent, WHO/PQT provides
the participating authority with product-related information and documentation,
and provides additional explanations, if requested, through the restricted-access
website, and subject to the obligations of confidentiality and restrictions on use in
place between WHO/PQT and the NRA.
Within 30 calendar days of having taken its decision, the participating authority
informs WHO/PQT and the applicant of this decision, together with an indication of the
dates of submission and registration and, if applicable, any deviations from the WHO
PQ conclusions and the reasons for such deviations, through the restricted-access
website. This report is provided to WHO/PQT by completing Part C of Appendix 3.
Appendix 3, Part C
See footnote7.
12
277
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
Post-registration processes
278
Annex 8
WHO/PQT removes a product from the list published in line with this procedure:
if the nationally-registered product is no longer the same (see
section3.2) as the WHO-prequalified product, or
if the NRA deregisters a WHO-prequalified product, or
if WHO/PQT delists a WHO-prequalified product.
WHO/PQT will also publish the reasons for the removal from the list.
280
Annex 8
References
1. Procedure for prequalification of pharmaceutical products. In: WHO Expert Committee on
Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations: forty-fifth report. Geneva: World Health
Organization; 2011: Annex 10 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 961).
2. Procedure for assessing the acceptability, in principle, of vaccines, for purchase by United
Nations agencies. In: WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization: sixty-first report.
Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013: Annex 6 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 978).
3. For pharmaceutical products: WHO guidelines on variations to a prequalified product. In: WHO
Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations: forty-seventh report.
Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013: Annex 3 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 981), (and
any updates thereto).
For vaccines: http://www.who.int/immunization_standards/vaccine_quality/variations_pq_
vaccine/en/ (and any updates thereto).
281
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
Appendix 1
National regulatory authority participation agreement
and undertaking for national regulatory authority
focalpoint(s)
Appendix 1, Part A
Agreement to participate in the collaborative procedure between the World
Health Organization (WHO) Prequalification Team (WHO/PQT) and national
regulatory authorities (NRAs) in the assessment and accelerated national
registration of WHO-prequalified pharmaceutical products and vaccines
Details of NRA
Name of NRA: (the NRA)
Postal address:
Scope of agreement
Applicants for national registration of a particular WHO-prequalified
pharmaceutical product or vaccine (hereafter referred to as Applicants) may
express their interest to the NRA in the assessment and accelerated registration
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
If the applicant for national registration is not the same as the WHO prequalification (PQ) holder, the
1
WHO PQ holder must confirm to the NRA and to WHO/PQT by an authorization letter (as per the
template annexed to Appendix 3, Part A) that the applicant is acting for, or pursuant to rights derived
from, the WHO PQ holder, and that the WHO PQ holder agrees with the application of the Procedure in
the country concerned.
282
Annex 8
Confidentiality of information
Any information and documentation relating to the Product and provided
by WHO/PQT to the NRA under the Procedure may include but shall not
necessarily be limited to:
the full WHO/PQT assessment and inspection outcomes (reports)
and if relevant, also results of laboratory testing;
information and documentation on variations (as defined in WHO
guidelines 2), as well as information and documentation on any actions
\taken by WHO/PQT or NRAs post-prequalification of the Product;
all such data, reports, information and documentation being
hereinafter referred to as the Information.
As regards sharing the outcomes of assessments, inspections and
laboratory testing, only data owned by the WHO PQ holder and WHO/PQT
are shared. Sharing of any other data is subject to additional agreement of the
data owners concerned.
WHO/PQT agrees to make such information available to the NRA
through a restricted-access website exclusively for the purpose of the assessment
and accelerated registration of the Product in the Country and any post-
registration processes that may be required, in accordance with and subject to the
terms of the Procedure (the Purpose). The NRA agrees to treat any Information
provided by WHO/PQT as aforesaid as strictly confidential and proprietary to
WHO/PQT, the WHO PQ holder/Applicant and/or parties collaborating with
WHO/PQT and/or the WHO PQ holder/Applicant. In this regard, the NRA
agrees to use such Information only for the Purpose and to make no other
use thereof. Thus, the NRA undertakes to maintain the Information received
from WHO/PQT in strict confidence, and to take all reasonable measures to
ensurethat:
For pharmaceutical products: WHO guidelines on variations to a prequalified product. In: WHO Expert
2
Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations: forty-seventh report. Geneva: World Health
Organization; 2013: Annex 3 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 981), (and any updates thereto).
For vaccines: http://www.who.int/immunization_standards/vaccine_quality/variations_pq_vaccine/en/
(and any updates thereto).
283
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
the Information received from WHO/PQT shall not be used for any
purpose other than the Purpose;
the Information shall only be disclosed to persons who have a need
to know for the aforesaid Purpose and are bound by confidentiality
undertakings in respect of such information and documentation
which are no less stringent than those contained herein.
Upon completion of the Purpose, the NRA shall cease all use and make
no further use of the Information disclosed to it under the Procedure, and shall
promptly destroy all of the Information received from WHO/PQT which is in
tangible or other form, except that the NRA may retain copies of the Information
in accordance with its established archival procedures, subject always, however,
to the above-mentioned obligations of confidentiality and restrictions on use.
The Purpose for each product shall be deemed completed as soon as:
284
Annex 8
Timelines
In respect of each Product that the NRA agrees to assess and consider for
accelerated registration under the Procedure, the NRA undertakes to abide by
the terms of the Procedure, including but not limited to the following timelines
for processing each application:
Regulatory time starts after a valid application for the registration according to the Procedure has been
3
received and access to the confidential information has been granted (whichever is the later) and
continues until the date of decision on registration. The regulatory time does not include the time
granted to the applicant to complete missing parts of the documentation, provide additional data or
respond to queries raised by NRAs.
285
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
4
Within the context of this Procedure, the same pharmaceutical product/same vaccine is characterized by
the same product dossier; the same manufacturing chain, processes and control of materials and finished
product, in the case of vaccines also by the same batch release scheme; the same active ingredient and
finished product specifications; and the same essential elements of product information for pharmaceutical
products, in the case of vaccines by the same product information, packaging presentation and labelling.
5
If the fact that a WHO-prequalified product has been registered in a country pursuant to this Procedure has
been made public, any subsequent deviations should also be made public.
286
Annex 8
1.
Mr/Ms/Dr
First name (and initials):
Surname/family name:
Title in NRA:
Email:
Telephone:
A signed Undertaking is attached.
2.
Mr/Ms/Dr as a focal point for dossier assessment of
pharmaceutical products only
pharmaceutical products and vaccines
First name (and initials):
Surname/family name:
Title in NRA:
Email:
Telephone:
A signed Undertaking is attached
3.
Mr/Ms/Dr as a focal point for dossier assessment of vaccines
First name (and initials):
Surname/family name:
Title in NRA:
287
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
Email:
Telephone:
A signed Undertaking is attached
Miscellaneous
The NRA agrees that WHO/PQT may list its name on the WHO/PQT website
as a participant in the Procedure. Except as provided hereinbefore, neither
party shall, without the prior written consent of the other party, refer to the
relationship of the parties under this Agreement and/or to the relationship of the
other party to the Product, the Information and/or the Purpose, in any statement
or material of an advertising or promotional nature.
This Agreement shall not be modified except by mutual agreement of
WHO and the NRA in writing. The NRA furthermore undertakes to promptly
inform WHO/PQT of any circumstances or change in circumstances that may
affect the implementation of this Agreement.
The parties shall use their best efforts to settle amicably any dispute
relating to the interpretation or execution of this Agreement. In the event of
failure of the latter, the dispute shall be settled by arbitration. The arbitration
shall be conducted in accordance with the modalities to be agreed upon by the
parties or in the absence of agreement, with the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules
in effect on the date of this Agreement. The parties shall accept the arbitral
award as final.
It is agreed furthermore that nothing contained in this Agreement shall
be construed as a waiver of any of the privileges and immunities enjoyed by
WHO under national and international law, and/or as submitting WHO to any
national court jurisdiction.
Agreed and accepted for pharmaceutical products and vaccines.
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
288
Annex 8
Appendix 1, Part B
Undertaking for NRA focal point(s)
The undersigned:
Mr/Ms/Dr
First name (and initials):
Surname/family name:
Title in NRA:
Name of NRA: (the NRA)
Country: (the Country)
Email:
Telephone:
If the applicant for national registration is not the same as the WHO PQ holder, the WHO PQ holder
6
must confirm to the NRA and to WHO/PQT by an authorization letter (as per the template annexed to
Appendix 3, Part A) that the applicant is acting for, or pursuant to rights derived from, the WHO PQ
holder, and that the PQ holder agrees with the application of the Procedure in the country concerned.
289
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
to take all precautionary measures that may be needed to prevent any other
person whatsoever from obtaining the aforesaid secret access code and from
accessing the restricted-access website (i.e. except for the other designated focal
points who have signed this Undertaking).
Information as aforesaid means any information and documentation
relating to a WHO-prequalified product to be provided by WHO/PQT to the
NRA under the Procedure, including but not necessarily limited to:
the full WHO/PQT assessment and inspection outcomes (reports)
and if relevant, also results of laboratory testing;
information and documentation on subsequent variations (as defined
in WHO guidelines 7), as well as information and documentation on
any actions taken by WHO/PQT or NRAs post-prequalification of
the Product.
As regards sharing the outcomes of assessments, inspections and results
of laboratory testing, only data owned by the WHO PQ holder and WHO/PQT
are shared. Sharing of any other data is subject to additional agreement of the
data owners concerned.
The undersigned confirms that:
1. the NRA has bound him or her to obligations of confidentiality
and restrictions on use no less stringent than those contained in
Appendix 1, Part A to the Procedure; and that
2. the aforesaid obligations of confidentiality and restrictions on use
shall not cease on completion of the assessment and accelerated
registration of any product in the Country, nor on completion
of any post-registration processes that may be required, nor on
the undersigned ceasing to be an employee of (or ceasing to have
another relationship with) the NRA.
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
The undersigned shall automatically cease having the right to access the
restricted-access website when the NRA designates a new focal point to replace
the undersigned or when the undersigned ceases to be an employee of the NRA.
This Undertaking shall not be modified except by mutual agreement of
WHO and the undersigned in writing. The undersigned furthermore undertakes
For pharmaceutical products: WHO guidelines on variations to a prequalified product. In: WHO Expert
7
291
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
Appendix 2
Consent of WHO prequalification holder for WHO to
share information with the national regulatory authority
confidentially under the Procedure
Reference is made to the attached expression of interest in the assessment and
accelerated national registration under the Procedure of the following World
Health Organization (WHO) prequalified pharmaceutical product or vaccine
(hereafter referred to as the Product) in [country].1
pharmaceutical product
vaccine
Application details:
Name of entity: (the Applicant)
Street:
City and country:
Email:
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
Telephone:
If the applicant for national registration is not the same as the WHO PQ holder, the WHO PQ holder
2
must confirm to the NRA and to WHO/PQT by an authorization letter (as per the template annexed to
Appendix 3, Part A) that the applicant is acting for, or pursuant to rights derived from, the WHO PQ
holder, and that the PQ holder agrees with the application of the Procedure in the country concerned.
292
Annex 8
(the NRA) for the assessment and accelerated registration of the Product in the
country under the Procedure and to freely discuss the same with the aforesaid
NRA for this purpose:
3
For pharmaceutical products: WHO guidelines on variations to a prequalified product. In: WHO Expert
Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations: forty-seventh report. Geneva: World Health
Organization; 2013: Annex 3 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 981), (and any updates thereto).
For vaccines: http://www.who.int/immunization_standards/vaccine_quality/variations_pq_vaccine/en/
(and any updates thereto).
4
In the case that certain data submitted to WHO/PQT by the WHO PQ holder in relation to PQ of the
Product are not in his/her ownership, the WHO PQ holder specifies such data in an annex to this
declaration of consent.
293
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
Within the context of this Procedure, the same pharmaceutical product/same vaccine is characterized
5
by the same product dossier; the same manufacturing chain, processes and control of materials and
finished product, and in the case of vaccines also by the same batch release scheme; the same active
ingredient and finished product specifications; as well as the same essential elements of product
information for pharmaceutical products, and, in the case of vaccines, by the same product information,
packaging presentation and labelling.
294
Annex 8
Appendix 3
Expression of interest to national regulatory authority
(NRA) in the assessment and accelerated national
registration, acceptance by NRA and notification of
Procedure outcomes
Appendix 3, Part A
Expression of interest to the national regulatory authorities (NRAs) in the
assessment and accelerated national registration of a World Health Organization
(WHO)-prequalified pharmaceutical product or vaccine
In line with the Procedure, the undersigned Applicant1 expresses its interest
in the application of the above-mentioned Procedure by the NRA of
[country] (the NRA) in respect of the following
submission for national registration:
pharmaceutical product
vaccine
Application details:
Name of entity: (the Applicant)
Street:
City and country:
Email:
Telephone:
Date of application (dd/mm/yyyy):
Product name in national system (if known):
National reference number (if known):
If the applicant for national registration is not the same as the WHO prequalification (PQ) holder, the
1
WHO PQ holder must confirm to the NRA and to WHO/Prequalification Team (PQT) by an authorization
letter (as per the template annexed to Appendix 3, Part A) that the applicant is acting for, or pursuant
to rights derived from, the WHO PQ holder, and that the PQ holder agrees with the application of the
Procedure in the country concerned.
295
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
Packaging:
Manufacturing site(s), including block(s)/unit(s), if appropriate:
2
Within the context of this Procedure, the same pharmaceutical product/same vaccine is characterized by
the same product dossier; the same manufacturing chain, processes and control of materials and finished
product, and in the case of vaccines also by the same batch release scheme; the same active ingredient
and finished product specifications; as well as the same essential elements of product information for
pharmaceutical products, and, in the case of vaccines, by the same product information, packaging
presentation and labelling.
3
Only the technical data included in the dossier must be the same. There may be country-specific
differences in administrative data, or if required by NRAs under exceptional circumstances, additional
technical data can be provided (e.g. bioequivalence with a country-specific comparator).
296
Annex 8
Subject to the NRA agreeing to conduct the assessment and consider the
accelerated registration of the Product under the Procedure, the Applicant:
1. undertakes to adhere to, and collaborate with the NRA and WHO/
PQT in accordance with the terms of the Procedure; and
2. will authorize WHO/PQT 5 to provide the NRA confidential access
to the following information and documentation and to freely
discuss the same with the aforesaid NRA for the above-mentioned
Purpose:
the full WHO/PQT assessment and inspection outcomes
(reports), results of laboratory testing and if relevant, also
assessment and inspections reports of other regulatory bodies,
provided that these bodies gave their written consent to the use
of such reports for the purpose of the Procedure,
information and documentation on subsequent variations
(as defined in WHO guidelines 6), as well as information and
documentation on any actions taken by WHO/PQT post-
prequalification of the Product.
4
As defined in section 3.2 of the Procedure, in the case of pharmaceutical products, examples of minor
differences which are not considered essential may include differences in administrative information,
brand name, name of applicant (provided that the applicant is acting for, and has the authority to
represent the WHO PQ holder), format of product information, level of detail of product information,
labelling of internal and external packaging and language of product information.
5
If the applicant for national registration is not the same as the WHO PQ holder, then the authorization to
WHO/PQT must be provided by the WHO PQ holder or their legal representative.
6
For pharmaceutical products: WHO guidelines on variations to a prequalified product. In: WHO Expert
Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations: forty-seventh report. Geneva: World Health
Organization; 2013: Annex 3 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 981), (and any updates thereto).
For vaccines: http://www.who.int/immunization_standards/vaccine_quality/variations_pq_vaccine/en/
(and any updates thereto).
297
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
The application for national registration was submitted before the Applicant
decided to apply the Procedure to the Product and therefore at the time
of submission the registration dossier did not respect conditions of the
Procedure. Steps taken to update the submission to the NRA to make the
dossier the same as required by the Procedure are listed and referenced in
the attached letter.
The Applicant is not the WHO PQ holder. An authorization letter from the
WHO PQ holder is attached.
Appendix 3, Part B
Decision on acceptance by the NRA to apply the Procedure to a specified WHO-
prequalified product and request for access to product-specific information and
documentation
Please complete all fields marked *. For other fields, if there have been changes
to the details as completed in Part A, please complete the relevant fields below.
Where fields below are left blank, the data in Part A are considered to be valid.
Application details:
Name of entity: (the Applicant)
Street:
City and country:
Email:
Telephone:
*Date of receipt of submission (dd/mm/yyyy):
Product name in national system (if known):
*National reference number:
Packaging:
Manufacturing site(s), including block(s)/unit(s), if appropriate:
299
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
300
Annex 8
Appendix 3, Part C
Notification of outcomes of national registration procedure by the NRA
Product details (if different from those specified in Parts A and B):
Product details for pharmaceutical products:
API(s) (INN):
Dosage form and strength:
Packaging:
Manufacturing site(s), including block(s)/unit(s) if appropriate:
Email:
Telephone:
Deviation Reason
Section B
Please complete as appropriate:
The application for registration of the Product was rejected for the following
reasons:
The collaborative procedure was discontinued for this application for the
following reasons:
Signature:
Name:
Title:
Place:
Date (dd/mm/yyyy):
This refers to deviations in indications, contraindications, posology (dosing), special warnings and
7
precautions for use, adverse drug reactions, storage conditions and shelf life. For pharmaceutical products
differences in brand name, name of applicant/PQ holder, format of product information, level of detail of
product information, labelling of internal and external packaging and language of product information
are not considered to be a deviation from the PQ conclusions.
302
Annex 8
Appendix 4
Report on post-registration actions in respect of a product
registered under the Procedure
Variation of the national registration resulting in the national registration
conditions being inconsistent with the WHO/PQT prequalification conclusions
Deregistration or suspension of the registration of the product
Product details:
Product name in national system: (the Product)
National registration number:
Date of registration (dd/mm/yyyy):
Deviation Reason
Within the context of this Procedure, the same pharmaceutical product/same vaccine is characterized
1
by the same product dossier; the same manufacturing chain, processes and control of materials and
finished product, and in the case of vaccines also by the same batch release scheme; the same active
ingredient and finished product specifications; as well as the same essential elements of product
information for pharmaceutical products, and, in the case of vaccines, by the same product information,
packaging presentation and labelling.
303
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
The variation notified to the NRA by WHO/PQT has not been followed
by a variation of the nationally-registered Product and, as a consequence,
the nationally-registered product is no longer the same1 as the WHO-
prequalified product.
Deviation Reason
The Product has been deregistered or the registration of the Product has
been suspended.
Deregistration: (yes/no)
suspension of registration: (yes/no)
Effective date: / / (dd/mm/yyyy)
Reasons:
Title:
Place:
Date (dd/mm/yyyy):
304
Annex 9
Guidance for organizations performing in vivo
bioequivalence studies
Background
During an informal consultation held in 2014, and at the forty-ninth meeting
of the World Health Organization (WHO) Expert Committee on Specifications
for Pharmaceutical Preparations, discussion took place regarding the possible
revision of the guidance for organizations performing in vivo bioequivalence
studies (WHO Technical Report Series, No.937, Annex 9, 2006). The WHO
Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations agreed that
in light of the new developments a draft for revision would be prepared.
These new guidelines take into consideration the revision of the
multisource guidelines, as well as the creation of new guidance on good data
management. The revision will also take into account the experience accumulated
in the area of assessing and inspecting bioequivalence (BE) studies since 2006.
In areas where the same problems are repeatedly identified by inspectors, the
new guidelines provide clarifications, and supplementary details have been
added on bioanalysis. The guidelines also put increased emphasis on subject
safety and data integrity.
Based on the first working document:1 this second version incorporates
the numerous comments and the feedback received from the public consultation,
the WHO Prequalification Team (PQT) and from the Consultation on data
management, bioequivalence, GMP and medicines inspection held in 2015.
WHO/PQT was set up in 2001 to assure that medicinal products supplied
for procurement meet WHO norms and standards with respect to quality, safety
and efficacy (http://www.who.int/prequal/). Specifically, there is a requirement
that the submitted product dossier with all its necessary contents is assessed
and found acceptable, and that the manufacturing sites for the finished
pharmaceutical product (FPP), as well as the active pharmaceutical ingredient
(API), are inspected and found to comply with WHO good manufacturing
practices (GMP). Since products submitted to WHO/PQT are usually multisource
(generic) products, therapeutic equivalence is generally demonstrated by
performing a BE study, for example in a contract research organization (also
known as a clinical research organization) (CRO). For prequalification of such
http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/quality_assurance/BE-invivo-studies-guidance-
1
QAS15-622_21052015.pdf?ua=1.
305
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
306
Annex 9
Introduction 309
1. Scope 309
2. Glossary 310
A. GENERAL SECTION 314
3. Organization and management 314
4. Computer systems 316
General 316
Hardware 316
Software 317
Networks 318
Data management 318
5. Quality management 319
6. Archive facilities 321
7. Premises 321
8. Personnel 323
B. CLINICAL SECTION 324
9. Clinical phase 324
10. Clinical laboratory 325
11. Ethics 326
11.1 Independent ethics committee 326
11.2 Informed consent 326
12. Monitoring 327
13. Investigators 328
14. Receiving, storage and handling of investigational products 329
15. Case report forms 332
16. Volunteers and recruitment methods 333
17. Food and fluids 335
18. Safety, adverse events and adverse event reporting 335
C. BIOANALYTICAL SECTION 336
19. Method development 336
20. Method validation 336
21. Sample collection, storage and handling of biological material 337
22. Analysis of study samples 337
307
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
308
Annex 9
Introduction
Multisource pharmaceutical products need to conform to the same standards
of quality, efficacy and safety as the originators (comparator) product.
Specifically, the multisource product should be therapeutically equivalent and
interchangeable with the comparator product. Testing the BE between a product
and a suitable comparator (pharmaceutically equivalent or a pharmaceutical
alternative) in a pharmacokinetic study with a limited number of subjects is
one way of demonstrating therapeutic equivalence without having to perform
a clinical trial involving many patients. In such a pharmacokinetic study any
statement about the safety and efficacy of the test product will be a prediction
based on measurement of systemic concentrations, assuming that essentially
similar plasma concentrations of the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API)
and/or of its metabolite will result in essentially similar concentrations at the
site of action and therefore an essentially similar therapeutic outcome. The BE
study thus provides indirect evidence of the efficacy and safety of a multisource
pharmaceutical product. Often this will be the only evidence that the product
is safe and efficacious. It is therefore crucial that the BE study is performed in
an appropriate manner. Several guidance documents stress the importance of
onsite inspections to verify compliance with standards of GCP (13).
1. Scope
The objective of this document is to provide guidance to organizations that
are involved in the conduct and analysis of in vivo BE studies. This guidance
supersedes the version published in the WHO Technical Report Series, No. 937,
2006 (4).
BE studies should be performed in compliance with the general
regulatory requirements and good practices recommendations as specified in
the WHO BE guidelines (5), GCP (1) and GLP (2) guidelines. It is acknowledged
that GLP formally apply only to nonclinical safety studies. However the WHO
BE guidelines require that the validation of bioanalytical methods and the
analysis of BE study samples be performed following the principles of GLP.
This does not imply that the laboratory in charge of the bioanalytical part of the
study should be monitored as part of a national GLP compliance programme.
These guidelines provide advice on the conduct of BE studies and the
bioanalysis of study samples. Particular consideration is given to premises,
equipment, organization and management. Recommended documents, standard
operating procedures (SOPs) and records are listed in Appendix 1, but this is
309
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
2. Glossary
The definitions given below apply to the terms used in this guidance. They
may have different meanings in other contexts. Unless otherwise stated, the
definitions are reproduced from Guidelines for good clinical practice for trials on
pharmaceutical products (1).
adverse event. Any untoward medical occurrence in a clinical trial
subject administered a pharmaceutical product; it does not necessarily have a
causal relationship with the treatment.
audit of a trial. A systematic examination, carried out independently of
those directly involved in the trial, to determine whether the conduct of a trial
complies with the agreed protocol and whether the data reported are consistent
with the records on site, e.g. whether data reported or recorded in the case-report
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
forms are consonant with those found in hospital files and other original records.
bioequivalence. Two pharmaceutical products are bioequivalent if they
are pharmaceutically equivalent or pharmaceutical alternatives, and their
bioavailabilities, in terms of rate (C max and t max) and extent of absorption (area
under the curve), after administration of the same molar dose under the same
conditions, are similar to such a degree that their effects can be expected to be
essentially the same.
calibration curve samples (or calibration standards). A matrix to which
a known amount of analyte has been added or spiked. Calibration standards are
used to construct calibration curves.
case-report form. A document that is used to record data on each trial
subject during the course of the trial, as defined by the protocol. The data should
310
Annex 9
and ethically sound and that the clinical properties of the pharmaceutical
product (diagnostic, therapeutic or prophylactic) under investigation are
properly documented.
good laboratory practice. A quality system concerned with the
organizational process and the conditions under which nonclinical health and
environmental safety studies are planned, performed, monitored, recorded,
archived and reported.
informed consent. A subjects voluntary confirmation of willingness
to participate in a particular trial and the documentation thereof. This consent
should be sought only after all appropriate information has been given about the
trial, including an explanation of its status as research, its objectives, potential
benefits, risks and inconveniences, alternative treatment that may be available,
and of the subjects rights and responsibilities in accordance with the current
revision of the Declaration of Helsinki.
inspection. An officially conducted examination (i.e. review of
the conduct of the trial, including quality assurance, personnel involved,
any delegation of authority and audit) by relevant authorities at the site of
investigation and/or at the site of the sponsor in order to verify adherence to
good clinical practices and good laboratory practices as set out in this document.
internal standard. Test compound(s) (e.g. a structurally similar analogue
or stable isotope-labelled compound) added to calibration standards, quality
control samples and study samples at a known and constant concentration to
correct for experimental variability during sample preparation and analysis.
investigational labelling. Labelling developed specifically for products
involved in a clinical trial.
investigational product (or study product). Any pharmaceutical product
(see definition) or placebo being tested or used as a reference in a clinical trial.
investigator. A person responsible for the trial and for the rights, health
and welfare of the subjects in the trial. The investigator should have qualifications
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
contained in the final report match original observations. These procedures may
apply to raw data, data in case-report forms (in hard copy or electronic form),
computer printouts and statistical analysis and tables.
A. GENERAL SECTION
3. Organization and management
Note: the acronym CRO is used throughout this document to refer not only
to a contract research organization, but also to any organization involved in the
conduct of in vivo BE studies or in the analysis of samples or of data from such
in vivo BE studies
314
Annex 9
3.1 Where national requirements exist as to the legal status of a CRO these
have to be complied with. This also applies to the research unit which is a
subsidiary of the manufacturer.
3.2 The CRO should have an organization chart depicting key positions and
the names of responsible persons. The organization chart should be dated,
authorized and kept up to date.
3.3 There should be job descriptions for all personnel, including a description
of their responsibilities. Every job description should be signed and dated
by the staff member to whom it applies.
3.4 There should be a list of signatures of the authorized personnel performing
tasks during each study.
3.5 For the bioanalytical part of the trial, the principles of GLP clearly establish
the responsibilities of the test facility management. For the clinical part
ofthe trial, the CRO management should be aware that as the investigator
is an employee of the CRO, some of the responsibilities usually assigned to
the investigator would in a similar way reside with the CRO management.
At a minimum, the CRO management should:
ensure that the principles of GCP and GLP, as appropriate, are
complied with in the CRO;
ensure that a sufficient number of qualified personnel, appropriate
facilities, equipment and materials are available for the timely and
proper conduct of the study;
ensure the maintenance of a record of the qualifications, training,
experience and job description for each professional and
technicalindividual;
ensure that personnel clearly understand the functions they are to
perform and, where necessary, provide training for these functions;
ensure that appropriate and technically valid SOPs are established
and followed, and approve all original and revised SOPs and ensure
the maintenance of a historical file of all SOPs;
ensure that there is a quality assurance (QA) programme with
designated personnel and assure that the QA responsibility is being
performed in accordance with the principles of GLP and GCP,
asappropriate;
ensure that an individual is identified as responsible for the
management of the archive(s), and ensure that the documents
315
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
4. Computer systems
Note: this section highlights only some of the requirements for computer
systems that are specific to BE studies. Organizations involved in BE studies
should ensure that the relevant principles of the following guidelines are
appropriately followed:
GAMP 5: A risk-based approach to compliant GxP computerized
systems (7);
Good practices for computerised systems in regulated GXP
environments, PIC/S guidance (8);
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Guidance for industry:
part 11 (9);
EU guidelines for good manufacturing practice and medicinal products
for human and veterinary use Annex 11, Computerised systems (10);
WHO Guidance on good data and record management practices (11).
General
4.1 Computer systems should be qualified and validated (hardware, software,
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
Hardware
4.2 There should be a sufficient number of computers to enable personnel
to perform data entry and data handling, required calculations and
compilation of reports.
4.3 Computers should have sufficient capacity and memory for the
intendeduse.
316
Annex 9
Software
4.4 There should be access control to the trial-related information entered
and stored in computers. The method of access control should be specified
(e.g. password protection) and a list of people who have access to the
database should be maintained. Secure and unique, individual-specific
identifiers and passwords should be used.
4.5 The software programs used to perform key steps detailed in these
guidelines should be suitable and validated for the intended use. Whether
standard, off-the-shelf software is purchased or bespoke software is
developed, developer, vendor and/or service provider qualification and/or
validation certificates may be provided but it is the users responsibility to
ensure that the software is validated for its intended use and that it was
developed in a controlled manner in accordance with a QA system.
4.6 Formal qualification and validation should generally be carried out by the
developer. Performance qualification should take account of the specific
users requirements, of regulatory/guideline requirements for BE studies,
of the operating environment in which it will be used, and of how it will
be used by an organizations staff in the context of a study. Quality risk
management should be applied when deciding which components need
to be validated. All phases of their life cycle should be considered. For
example, when a CRO decommissions the software in use for high-
performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and mass spectrometric
(MS) analysis (e.g. HPLC-MS/MS), it should ensure that the data collected
by the system using this software remain fully readable. This could be
done, for instance, by having the old software installed on a workstation
for inspection and/or verification purposes only.
4.7 There should be SOPs in place for usage of each software program that is
used to perform activities of a BE study.
4.8 There should be a system in place for the implementation of regular
updates to key software programs (e.g. those used for control and data
processing of chromatographic and MS systems) whenever required,
following an appropriate risk assessment on the potential impact that it
could have on current data and on qualification or validation status.
4.9 Software programs used, frequency of virus testing, storage of data and the
procedure for backups and long-term archiving of all relevant electronic
data should be specified in writing. The frequency of backups and archiving
should be specified. If back-up data are periodically rewritten as part of
the back-up procedure, the data from the backups should be archived
regularly, preferably before rewriting is done.
317
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
4.10 The programs used should be able to provide the required quality and
management information, reliably and accurately. Programs necessary
for data management include word processing, data entry, databases,
graphics, pharmacokinetics and statistical programs. Self-designed software
programs must be suitable and validated for their intended use.
4.11 Since data for BE studies are often transferred electronically between
organizations involved in the studies, verification that the software used by
each organization is compatible with the others and that there is no impact
on the data so-transferred, should be conducted prior to commencing key
study-related tasks.
4.12 These requirements apply to all systems used in clinical BE studies,
e.g. subject database, electronic case report forms, electrocardiogram
(ECG) recording software, HPLC-MS/MS software, software used for
pharmacokinetic analysis, for statistical analysis and any other relevant
system.
Networks
4.13 Networks, including the full client/server architecture and interfaces such
as laboratory information management systems, when used, should be
appropriately designed, qualified, managed and controlled.
4.14 Access to each component of the system by the different users at any given
organization involved in the studies, should be appropriately defined,
controlled and documented.
4.15 There should be a documented inventory of all computerized systems on
the network, with a clear identification of those which are GXP regulated.
Any changes to the network, including the temporary addition or removal
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
Data management
4.16 Data entry includes transfer of the data from case report forms (CRFs),
analytical data and any other data relevant to the reliability and integrity of
a study, to the computerized system.
4.17 Data entry procedures should be designed to prevent errors. The data
entry process should be specified in the SOP.
4.18 Data validation methodology (proofreading, double data entry, electronic
logical control) should be specified in writing and performed.
318
Annex 9
5. Quality management
5.1 The CRO should have appropriate QA and QC systems with written SOPs
to ensure that trials are conducted and data are generated, documented
and reported in compliance with the protocol, GCP, GLP, GMP and the
applicable regulatory requirements.
319
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
6. Archive facilities
6.1 The CRO should have sufficient and appropriately secure storage space,
which should be fireproof, relative humidity-controlled and pest-controlled,
for archiving of the trial-related documentation. Archives should also be
protected from flooding.
6.2 An SOP should be in place for archiving.
6.3 Access to archive storage areas should be controlled and restricted to
authorized personnel.
6.4 Records of document access and return should be maintained.
6.5 The length of time for which study documentation, including raw data, is
kept in the archive should be defined in the SOP and may vary depending
on country requirements. This period should be specified in the contract
between the sponsor and the CRO, which should include provisions for
financing of the archiving.
6.6 All data, including both paper and electronic versions, should be easy to
retrieve and traceable.
7. Premises
7.1 The facilities should be kept clean and should have adequate lighting,
ventilation and, if required, environmental control. Floors, walls and
working bench surfaces should be easy to clean and to decontaminate.
7.2 Clinical trials must be carried out under conditions that ensure adequate
safety for the subjects. The site selected should be appropriate to the
potential risk involved.
7.3 The CRO should have sufficient space to accommodate the personnel
and activities required to perform the studies. The trial site must have
adequate facilities, including laboratories, and equipment. The facilities
used for the clinical phase of the study, including areas listed in paragraph
9.6, should be well organized in order to carry out the activities in a
logical order.
7.4 Entry to the facility should be restricted and controlled. There should be
alarm systems to detect the exit of subjects from clinical facilities, or the
doors should be locked (but only if emergency evacuation can still be
ensured). Any entry to and exit from the facility should be recorded.
321
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
7.5 Sites where clinical activities take place should include a pharmacy where
investigational products should be stored under appropriate conditions
with entry and exit restricted by access control. Appropriate entry/exit
records of each visit to the pharmacy should be maintained.
7.6 Utilities such as water, air, gas and electricity should be adequate, stable
and uninterrupted.
7.7 Access to telephone, email and facsimile facilities should be available to
ensure proper communication. The CRO should have the necessary office
equipment (printer, copy machine) to perform the required activities.
7.8 Laboratory premises should be designed to suit the operations to be
carried out in them. Sufficient space should be provided to avoid mix-ups,
contamination and cross-contamination. Adequate storage space suitable
for samples, standards, solvents, reagents and records should be available.
7.9 Laboratory premises should be designed to provide adequate protection
to all employees and authorized external personnel, including inspectors
or auditors, by ensuring their safety while handling or working in the
presence of chemicals and biological samples. Inappropriate working
conditions can have a negative impact on the quality of the work performed
and of the data generated.
The general rules for safe working in accordance with national
regulations and SOPs normally include the following requirements.
Safety data sheets should be available to staff before testing is
carried out. Staff working in the laboratory should be familiar with
and knowledgeable about the material safety data sheets for the
chemicals and solvents that they are handling.
Smoking, eating and drinking in the laboratory should be prohibited.
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
8. Personnel
8.1 There should be a sufficient number of medical, paramedical, technical and
clerical staff with the appropriate qualifications, training and experience
to support the trial and to be able to respond effectively to all reasonably
foreseeable emergencies. The number of members of staff required
depends on the number and complexity of the trials performed by the CRO.
At all stages of the trial, including at night, there should be a sufficient
number of appropriately qualified and trained personnel to ensure that the
rights, safety and well-being of the subjects are safeguarded, and to care for
the subjects in emergency situations.
8.2 The delegation of significant trial-related duties should be documented
inwriting.
8.3 Contract workers may be employed to perform certain activities. All
contract workers who have access to the clinical or bioanalytical areas
or who are performing trial-related activities should be provided with
adequate information, training and job descriptions. Their contracts
should be signed before beginning their work.
8.4 Current curricula vitae and training records should be kept for full-time
and contract workers.
323
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
8.5 The personnel responsible for the planning and conduct of the study
should have appropriate qualifications and sufficient knowledge and
experience in the relevant field. They should receive the study-specific
information and training required for the performance of their work.
8.6 Records of training and assessment of knowledge of GCP, GLP and any
other relevant area or technique should be maintained.
8.7 There should be adequate measures in place to protect personnel from
accidental infection (e.g. from accidental needle pricks) while obtaining
blood samples from subjects or while handling samples that are derived
from blood products (e.g. plasma and its extracts) or while handling or
disposing of infectious waste.
B. CLINICAL SECTION
9. Clinical phase
Note: As in vivo BE trials are considered as clinical trials, specifically as a PhaseI
study, the general requirements and recommendations of GCP apply to all BE
trials. Clinical trials must be carried out under conditions that ensure adequate
safety of the subjects. The clinical phase of the study can be performed on the
premises of a CRO or by contracting suitable premises in a hospital.
9.1 A CRO should have rooms meeting the requirements listed in the
sectionsbelow.
9.2 There should be sufficient space to accommodate the study subjects.
9.3 Where appropriate, beds should be available for the subjects. The
necessity for beds and for overnight stays depends on the type of trial
and investigational product and should be specified in the trial protocol.
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
Overnight stays are usually required for the night prior to dosing to
ensure adequately controlled conditions and that there is no intake of
food or medication within the number of hours that is specified in the
trial protocol.
9.4 Systems should be in place in the accommodation facilities so that subjects
can alert CRO staff in case of need.
9.5 Facilities for changing and storing clothes and for washing and toilet
purposes should be clean, well ordered, easily accessible and appropriate
for the number of users. Lockable toilets should be alarmed and doors
should be designed to ensure that they can be opened from the outside
should there be a medical emergency.
324
Annex 9
9.6 The study site should have rooms or areas, as appropriate, for the following:
subjects registration and screening;
obtaining informed consent of individual subjects without
compromising privacy;
subjects housing;
subjects recreation;
pharmaceutical operations (restricted access room, e.g. for storage,
repacking, dispensing, documentation) (see also section 14);
administration of the investigational products and sample collection;
sample processing (e.g. plasma separation) and storage (freezer);
controlled access storage of study materials, medication and
documentation including CRFs;
preparation of standardized meals and a dining hall;
proper care of subjects who require emergency or other medical
care, with emergency or first-aid equipment and appropriate
medication for use in emergencies;
archiving.
9.7 Provisions should be made for the urgent transportation of subjects to a
hospital or clinic equipped for their emergency care, if required.
9.8 Access to key documents, such as the randomization list, should be
restricted to specific personnel, such as the pharmacist in charge of the
study. Such documents should be password-secured (if electronic) or kept
under lock and key (if in the form of a hard copy) and their distribution
should be documented.
9.9 Equipment used should be appropriately calibrated at predefined intervals.
9.10 The adequate function and performance of emergency-use equipment
(e.g. defibrillators) should be verified at appropriate intervals.
10.4 The CRO should receive information about the analytical methods used
in the laboratory, a dated list of laboratory normal ranges and, if available,
the accreditation certificate of the laboratory. These should be available for
inspection by regulatory authorities upon request.
10.5 The laboratory should provide the CRO with current and signed curricula
vitae of the responsible individuals.
10.6 Individual reports should be created by the laboratory for each subject
and should be included in the CRFs. Source or raw data for all tests
performed should be archived by the laboratory in electronic or paper
formats, depending on their source and the laboratorys storage capacity.
Electronic formats are preferred.
10.7 Data integrity requirements apply to all tests related to the study (11).
For instance, raw data should be adequately protected from modification
ordeletion.
11. Ethics
11.1 Independent ethics committee
Trials must be approved by an independent ethics committee (IEC) (or
equivalent) before any study is conducted, according to WHO operational
guidelines for ethics committees that review biomedical research (6), and to
the legislation in force. This Committee must be independent from the
sponsor, the investigator and the CRO. Detailed minutes should be kept
of the discussions, recommendations and decisions of the IEC meetings.
The IEC should be given sufficient time for reviewing protocols, informed
consent forms (ICFs) and related documentation.
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
12. Monitoring
Note: monitoring is an essential activity to ensure the quality of the clinical trial.
12.1 The monitor should be appropriately qualified (see section 8: Personnel).
The main responsibility of the monitor for a BE study is to ensure that
the study is conducted in accordance with the protocol, GCP, GLP and
applicable ethical and regulatory requirements. This includes verification
of the use of correct procedures for completion of CRFs and verification of
the accuracy of data obtained.
12.2 The sponsor can delegate the monitoring function to the CRO. In such
cases the CRO should be able to arrange for the monitoring of the trial
according to regulatory requirements. In this situation, attention should
be paid to the independence of the monitoring function to avoid conflicts
of interest and pressure on the monitors. The monitoring reports should
always be provided to the sponsor.
12.3 A risk-based approach to monitoring can be considered. However, a pre-
and post-study visit, as well as a monitoring visit during the conduct of the
trial, are usually performed. The monitor should prepare a written report
327
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
after each site visit and communicate any issues to the CRO and to the
sponsor as quickly as possible, even while the study is being conducted,
if possible, to enable prompt corrective action. Such communications and
corrective actions should be documented.
12.4 When the monitoring is delegated to the CRO, SOPs should be available
todescribe:
the designation of monitors, who should be independent from the
personnel performing the trial;
procedures for the monitoring visit;
the extent of source data verification, including with regard to
accountability of the investigational products and adherence to
theprotocol.
The extent of the monitoring, including the number of visits to be
performed, should be agreed with the sponsor.
12.5 Separate SOPs (with checklists for the monitor) for the initiation visit,
routine monitoring visits and a closing visit are recommended.
12.6 Appropriate entry/exit records of each monitoring visit should be
maintained.
13. Investigators
13.1 The principal investigator (PI) should have the overall responsibility for
the clinical conduct of the study, including clinical aspects of study design,
administration of the products under investigation, contacts with local
authorities and the ethics committee and for signing the protocol and the
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
study period,
active ingredient and dosage,
the storage conditions,
expiry date (month/year) or retest date,
identification of the product (i.e. test or reference).
Compliance of all labels with the randomization list should be
verified once they have been printed and prior to labelling of the
containers.
Labels should be pasted onto the container, not on the lid, to ensure
that the information is not lost once the lid is removed.
The system used for labelling and documenting the administration
of the product should make it possible to verify that each subject did
receive the product dispensed for him or her, for instance, by using
labels with a tear-off portion. In this case, labels should be designed
in such a way that two identical labels are pasted onto the container
and the second label can be easily cut or detached and pasted onto
the CRF at the time of dosing (e.g. two labels printed side by side,
with only one that is actually pasted onto the container and another
that remains attached but unpasted. Using two independent labels
one stuck on the container, one kept loose should be avoided
owing to the risk of mix-ups).
The empty containers should be labelled separately for the test and
the reference investigational products and should remain adequately
segregated in a secure area under lock and key to avoid the risk of
any potential mix-ups, until the dispensing stage.
Label reconciliation should be performed.
Appropriate, detailed records should be maintained for each of the
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
above steps.
14.7 Dispensing and packaging should be performed in accordance with the
following requirements.
The surface on which the product will be handled should be
thoroughly cleaned before bringing bottles of the product into
the area. Any product containers (full or empty), lone dosage
formulations, labelling materials, contaminants, dirt and debris
should be removed from the area.
A second person should verify that the surface area (otherwise
referred to as the line) is indeed clear and clean before bringing in
and opening containers of the product.
330
Annex 9
14.10 Samples of the product in the original container should be retained for
possible confirmatory testing in the future for a period of at least one
year after the expiry date of the newest product (test or reference) or in
compliance with the applicable national requirements or international
recommendations, as appropriate. Sample retention should be defined
and described in an SOP and be specified in the contract between the
sponsor and the CRO. Dispensed products that were not administered
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
15.2 The CRO should have a procedure for designing CRFs if the sponsor
requests the CRO to do so. The use of a standardized format or template
is recommended. This should be adapted for each study protocol in
accordance with the requirements for that particular study. The CRF
should be reviewed against other trial documentation, such as the protocol
332
Annex 9
and trial database, to ensure that appropriate information and data are
captured and that the CRF is consistent with other trial documentation.
15.3 The data to be collected on each volunteer should be specified in the
trial protocol. Any data to be recorded directly on the CRF (i.e. no prior
written or electronic record of data), and to be considered to be source
data, should be identified in the protocol.
15.4 CRFs should reflect the actual results obtained during the study and allow
easy access for verification, audit and inspection of the data.
15.5 Appropriate procedures should be established and followed to document
the investigators certification of the accuracy of CRFs. Any errors or
omissions should be clarified with the investigator, corrected, dated and
signed and explained on the CRF.
15.6 Copies of the clinical laboratory reports and all ECGs should be included
with the CRFs for each subject and should be submitted together with
the dossier, if applicable, in accordance with the requirements of the
regulatory authority to which the dossier is submitted.
16.3 The informed consent of potential subjects should be obtained for any
screening procedures required to determine eligibility for the study in
addition to informed consent for participation in the research portion of
the study.
16.4 Criteria for subject selection (inclusion and exclusion criteria) and
screening procedures should be described in the clinical trial protocol.
16.6 Ideally the CROs database should record and allow the users to query:
contact details;
sex;
status: e.g. eligible, disqualified, not eligible, quarantined, and the
reason for this status if applicable;
date and place of last study participation, if applicable/if known;
date of last screening;
a unique code assigned to the subject which will never change;
outcome of last trial: e.g. completed, randomized but not dosed,
withdrawn for personal reasons, withdrawn for medical reasons.
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
16.7 Medical records should be generated for each subject and should include
information obtained during each screening visit and from each study
in which the subject has participated, which could be relevant for the
inclusion and follow-up of the subject in subsequent trials. Access to
previous medical records for individual subjects should be available and
a consistency check conducted where trial-specific medical records are
generated. This is important to ensure that safety issues can be assessed
before a subjects enrolment in a study.
334
Annex 9
17.2 Records should be maintained of the timing, duration and amount of food
and fluids consumed. Prior to samples being obtained from ambulatory
subjects, they should be asked about their food and drink consumption, if
the protocol contains specific requirements.
18.4 The CRO should have appropriate adverse event registration and reporting
forms, which should be provided to the investigator; these forms can be
part of the CRF. If required the sponsors forms may be used.
335
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
C. BIOANALYTICAL SECTION
Note: The measurement of analyte concentrations (API or metabolites) may be
performed by the same CRO as conducted the clinical study, or this work may
be contracted to another laboratory or CRO.
24.6 Balances, other measuring devices and equipment and instruments used
during the conduct of a trial should be periodically calibrated and verified
before use. They should be fit for their intended purpose.
24.7 There should be SOPs for the operation, use, calibration, checks and
preventive maintenance of equipment. Records should be maintained.
Items of equipment used during the course of the trial should be
identified to enable verification that they have been appropriately qualified
andcalibrated.
340
Annex 9
D. PHARMACOKINETIC, STATISTICAL
CALCULATIONS AND REPORTING SECTION
25. Pharmacokinetic and statistical calculations
25.1 The statistical model underlying any primary BE analysis should be stated
in the protocol and/or a statistical analysis plan. It should be made clear
which factors are fixed and which are random and whether the model is a
mixed effects model, a normal linear model, or another type. If the methods
of statistical analysis are amended following approval of the protocol then
this should be documented in a protocol amendment and should also be
reported in the clinical study report together with the reason for change.
25.2 Calculations should be made by suitably qualified personnel (see section 8:
Personnel).
25.3 The means of performing pharmacokinetic and statistical calculations
(both software and scripts) should be specified in the study protocol and/
or a pharmacokinetic analysis plan and a statistical analysis plan. Data
analysis should conform to these requirements. This should include the
manner in which area under the curve from time zero to infinity (AUC inf )
isderived (i.e. how the points used for extrapolation are selected).
25.4 Calculations should be made using validated software and scripts. Software
and scripts should be validated or qualified using an SOP, ideally with
datasets of varying complexity and with the alpha level(s) actually in use.
Self-designed software should be demonstrated as suitable for intended use.
For guidance on the use of computerized systems (see section 4: Computer
systems) (8).
25.5 Data values input should be double-checked by a second qualified person
in accordance with an SOP.
25.6 A database of trial records should be maintained and should ideally be
locked as soon as possible after completion of the study. Once it is locked
the study can be unblinded and statistical analysis performed. The dates of
locking and statistical analysis should be documented and mentioned in
the study report, and the process should be defined in a suitable procedure.
341
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
References
1. Guidelines for good clinical practice for trials on pharmaceutical products. In: WHO Expert
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
Committee on Selection and Use of Essential Medicines: sixth report. Geneva: World Health
Organization; 1995: Annex 3 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 850), pp. 97137.
2. WHO handbook on good laboratory practice: Quality practices for regulated non-clinical research
and development. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2009.
3. OECD series on principles of good laboratory practice and compliance monitoring, number 1:
OECD principles on good laboratory practice (as revised in 1997). Paris: Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development; 1998 (ENV/MC/CHEM(98)17. 26).
4. Additional guidance for organizations performing in vivo bioequivalence studies. In: WHO
Expert Committee on Selection and Use of Essential Medicines: fortieth report. Geneva: World
Health Organization; 2006: Annex 9 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 937).
5. Guidance on the selection of comparator pharmaceutical products for equivalence assessment
of interchangeable multisource (generic) products. In: WHO Expert Committee on Specifications
for Pharmaceutical Preparations: forty-ninth report. Geneva: World Health Organization: 2015:
Annex8 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 992).
342
Annex 9
6. WHO Operational guidelines for ethics committees that review biomedical research. Geneva:
World Health Organization; 2000 (WHO, TDR/PRD/ETHICS/2000.1) (http://www.who.int/tdr/
publications/ documents/ethics.pdf?ua=1, accessed 11 January 2016).
7. The good automated manufacturing practice (GAMP) guide A risk-based approach to compliant
GxP computerized systems (GAMP5). Tampa (FL): International Society for Pharmaceutical
Engineering (ISPE); 2009.
8. Good practices for computerised systems in regulated GXP environments, PIC/S Guidance.
Geneva: Pharmaceutical Inspection Convention Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme;
2007 (PI 0113, 25).
9. Guidance for industry: part 11, electronic records; electronic signatures scope and application.
US Food and Drug Administration; 2003 (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/
Guidances/ucm125125.pdf, accessed 27 February 2016).
10. EU guidelines for good manufacturing practice and medicinal products for human and veterinary
use. Annex 11, Computerised systems. Brussels: European Commission (SANCO/C8/AM/sl/
ares(2010)1064599).
11. Guidance on good data and record management practices. In: WHO Expert Committee on
Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations: fiftieth report. Geneva: World Health Organization;
2016: Annex 5 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 996).
12. WHO good manufacturing practices: supplementary guidelines for the manufacture of
investigational pharmaceutical products for clinical trials in humans. In: WHO Expert Committee
on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations: thirty-fourth report. Geneva: World Health
Organization; 1996: Annex 7 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 863).
13. Guidelines on bioanalytical method validation. London: Committee for Medicinal Products for
Human Use (CHMP); 2012 (EMEA/CHMP/EWP/192217/2009 Rev.1 Corr.*).
14. Reflection paper for laboratories that perform the analysis or evaluation of clinical trial samples.
London: European Medicines Agency; 2012 (EMA/INS/GCP/532137/2010).
343
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
Appendix 1
Example list of standard operating procedures at a
contract research organization
The following is an example list of the standard operating procedures (SOPs)
that should be used at contract research organizations (CROs). This list is
not exhaustive as additional procedures may be necessary depending on the
functional and compliance requirements at the facility concerned.
All of the documents at the CRO related to a bioequivalence (BE) clinical
trial should be controlled (e.g. version date, date approved, etc.) documents.
This control is easier if the documents are in the SOP format or are appended
to SOPs.
SOPs should be in place at least for all the critical and major operations
in the BE/clinical trial.
346
Annex 10
WHO general guidance on variations to multisource
pharmaceutical products
1. Introduction 348
2. Scope 348
3. Glossary 349
4. General considerations 351
5. Reporting categories for quality changes 352
5.1 Notifications 353
5.2 Minor variations 353
5.3 Major variations 353
6. New applications 354
7. Considerations for changes in product information and labelling 354
8. Procedures 355
8.1 General 355
8.2 Presubmission meetings 355
8.3 Proposed documentation for minor variations 355
8.4 Proposed documentation for variations requiring prior approval 356
8.5 Review procedures 357
References 357
347
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
1. Introduction
A marketing authorization (MA) holder or applicant is responsible for the
quality, safety and efficacy (QSE) of a finished pharmaceutical product (FPP)
that is placed on the market, throughout its life cycle. After the FPP has been
authorized for marketing, the manufacturer will often wish to make changes
(variations) for a number of reasons, for example, to respond to technical
and scientific progress, to improve the quality of the FPP, to apply updates to
the retest period for the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) or shelf life
of the FPP, to meet market requirements such as for scale-up or additional
manufacturing sites, or to update product information (e.g. the information on
adverse reactions). Such changes, regardless of their nature, are referred to as
variations and may require the approval of the national medicines regulatory
authority (NMRA) prior to implementation.
NMRAs and MA holders should recognize that:
any change to the manufacture of the API or the FPP may impact
the QSE of that FPP;
any change to the information associated with the FPP (i.e. product
labelling information) may have an impact on the safe and effective
use of that FPP.
This document is intended to serve as a guide for establishing national
requirements for the regulation of post-approval changes. The proposed
categories of changes and reporting procedures are provided in these guidelines.
It is possible that modification of these principles may be justified in light of
riskbenefit and legal considerations specific to each NMRA.
2. Scope
WHO Technical Report Series No. 996, 2016
3. Glossary
The definitions provided below apply to the terms used in this guidance. They
may have different meanings in other contexts and documents.
active pharmaceutical ingredient. Any substance or mixture of
substances intended to be used in the manufacture of a pharmaceutical dosage
form, and that, when so used, becomes an active ingredient of that pharmaceutical
dosage form. Such substances are intended to furnish pharmacological activity
or other direct effect in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention
of disease, or to affect the structure and function of the body.
active pharmaceutical ingredient starting material. A raw material,
intermediate or an active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) that is used in the
production of an API and that is incorporated as a significant structural fragment
into the structure of the API. An API starting material can be an article of
commerce, a material purchased from one or more suppliers under contract or
commercial agreement or produced in-house.
biobatch. The batch used to establish bioequivalence or similarity to
the comparator product as determined in bioequivalence or biowaiver studies,
respectively.
finished pharmaceutical product. A finished dosage form of a
pharmaceutical product which has undergone all stages of manufacture
including packaging in its final container and labelling.
349
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
4. General considerations
For any change, the MA holder must consider the potential impact upon the
QSE of the FPP. As part of this consideration the MA holder should decide if
the information in the original MA needs to be supplemented and whether
this requires an official submission to the responsible NMRA or a change in
the application dossier, based on the recommendations in these guidelines.
Prior to implementing the variation, the MA holder should assess the effects
of the variation and demonstrate through appropriate studies the absence of
a significant negative effect of the change on the QSE of the FPP. MA holders
should be aware that some variations generate subsequent changes that might
require the submission of additional consequential variations. Therefore, for any
given variation, the MA holder should consider whether it is better to submit
more than one variation. In general no variation should be implemented without
the approval of the NMRA unless exempted in the national guidelines.
Even well-resourced agencies find it difficult to evaluate all the
pharmaceutical changes that are made to all products. This has resulted in a
shift towards increased self-assessment of changes by the MA holder. Therefore
it is necessary to define those changes that can be made without the NMRAs
prior approval (self-assessable changes) and those that require prior approval
based on an understanding of the risk and how best to manage this risk. NMRAs
may also establish an intermediate category of changes that do not require prior
approval but must be notified (notifiable changes) and may or may not be
subject to assessment.
MA holders are expected to evaluate the specific change that they are
planning to make in the context of their particular circumstances to determine
the impact on product QSE. In an application to vary the MA, the MA holder
advises the NMRA of an intended change and submits appropriate supportive
data. To encourage MA holders to give prior notice regarding such changes,
submissions for variations should be processed as quickly as possible. The NMRA
should consider publication of the timelines for processing the variations.
Implementation of these guidelines should not affect supply of and
access to medicines. Therefore NMRAs are strongly encouraged to establish
requirements that are commensurate with public health priorities and their own
regulatory capacity and resources. Communication of proposed procedures and
requirements to the pharmaceutical industry should also be ensured so that they
can adequately plan for the implementation of any new guidance.
Regional NMRA associations or networks could serve as forums
for sharing information and exchanging experience on technical issues and
regulatory decisions. Use of such networks would expand the capacity of
individual NMRAs through work sharing and recognition of the decisions
351
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
5.1 Notifications
Notifications can be made for changes to the product that may have no potential
or a minimal potential to have a negative impact on the QSE. The MA holder
may implement such variations without prior approval by the NMRA. The
NMRA may require the MA holder to submit these variations as immediate
notifications (i.e. within a specific time frame after implementation) or as
annual notifications.
6. New applications
Certain changes are so fundamental that they alter the terms of the accepted
dossier and consequently cannot be considered as variations. In these cases
submission of a new dossier should be considered, in line with applicable
national requirements for applications for MA.
Examples of such changes are:
change of the API to a different API;
inclusion of an additional API in a multicomponent product;
removal of one API from a multicomponent product;
change in the dose and/or strength of one or more APIs;
change from an immediate-release product to an extended- or
delayed-release dosage form or vice versa;
change from a liquid to a powder for reconstitution or vice versa;
changes in the route of administration.
Different regions and countries use different terminology for product information. In this document,
1
package insert, the PIL and label are used to refer to product information.
354
Annex 10
8. Procedures
8.1 General
NMRAs should establish procedures and criteria for adequate oversight of
variations to authorized products. These should include written instructions
regarding the submission procedures and timelines with action dates, to
be consulted by MA holders when they prepare applications for variations.
Depending on the category of the variation, different timelines may be applicable.
Regulation of post-approval variations is part of the whole regulatory
framework, which includes among other aspects, MA, good manufacturing
practices (GMP) inspection and post-marketing surveillance. Different branches
of the NMRA often perform these activities. It is essential that these different
branches interact and exchange information effectively and that the roles and
responsibilities of each branch are clearly defined, particularly when they operate
as separate entities. When multiple branches are involved in the evaluation of
a variation a formal decision-making process should be in place to discuss, for
instance, whether a change may require a GMP inspection or may be reviewed
during the next routine inspection. Procedures should also be established so
that the outcomes of inspections are verified or taken into account prior to the
approval of variations. Good coordination and communication are pivotal.
an application form;
a list of subsections of the current dossier affected by the change(s);
a list and description of each change, reason for change(s) and
the date each change was implemented (each change should be
described in sufficient detail to allow for a quick assessment as to
whether the appropriate reporting category has been used);
the relevant summary of data from studies and tests performed to
assess the effects of each variation on product quality, including
(where applicable) a list of cross- references to the change control
and change validation protocols and standard operating procedures
(SOPs) that were used to assess or demonstrate the effect of
thevariation;
copies of the updated subsections of the original dossier.
The description should also include:
the name(s) of one or more FPP(s) affected or involved in the
change (e.g. different label strengths/product presentations);
reference to any previously approved variations, if the change
affected multiple products.
Executed batch records, SOPs and data from studies and tests performed
to assess the effects of each change should be kept on file and made available to
the NMRA upon request (e.g. during an inspection).
In the case of annual notifications, which represents the lowest risk
category, it may be permissible not to request any summary data if the
acceptability of the change can be determined without them.
8.4
requiring prior approval
Where applicable the following basic information may be included in the
application for variations requiring prior approval:
a covering letter (including a list of changes describing each in
sufficient detail to allow for a quick assessment as to whether the
appropriate reporting category has been used);
an application form;
a list of subsections of the original dossier affected by the change(s);
a document summarizing the current and proposed condition(s)
and the reason(s) for the change(s);
356
Annex 10
References
1. Guidelines on submission of documentation for a multisource (generic) finished pharmaceutical
product: quality part. In: WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations:
forty-eighth report. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014: Annex 6 (WHO Technical Report
Series, No. 986).
357
WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations Fiftieth report
358
SELECTED WHO PUBLICATIONS OF RELATED INTEREST
The WHO Technical Report Series makes available the findings of various international
groups of experts that provide WHO with the latest scientific and technical advice on
a broad range of medical and public health subjects. Members of such expert groups
serve without remuneration in their personal capacities rather than as representatives
of governments or other bodies; their views do not necessarily reflect the decisions or
the stated policy of WHO.
An annual subscription to this series, comprising about four to six such reports, costs
CHF 150.00/US$ 180.00 (CHF 105.00/US$ 126.00 in developing countries). For further
information, please contact: WHO Press, World Health Organization, 20 Avenue
Appia, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland (tel. +41 22 791 3264; fax: +41 22 791 4857;
email:[email protected]; order on line: http://www.who.int/bookorders).
Further information on these and other WHO publications can be obtained from
WHO Press, World Health Organization, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland
http://www.who.int/bookorders
tel.: +41 22 791 3264; fax: +41 22 791 4857; email: [email protected]
996
W H O Te c h n i c a l R e p o r t S e r i e s
996