By Ali Afnan, Contributing Editor
The drug industry takes pride in providing for patients who depend on its products. But whenever a new product, process or analytical technique is being considered, or an improvement to an existing process, the first question invariably is, “What will the FDA say about this?”
FDA’s approval is critical to every pharmaceutical manufacturer’s existence and survival, so it’s understandable that companies spend considerable time, effort and energy trying to optimize the outcome.
Until FDA formally responds, however, there is uncertainty. Over time, this has set up an adversarial relationship between the regulator and the regulated.
Often, and especially with newer initiatives such as Quality by Design, those within industry question the level of training and education of FDA inspectors and reviewers. “Do they have enough training to be able to review a QbD-based submission?” some ask.
Perhaps this is the result of past disappointment with a particular inspector or review process. But will a passive response from industry lead anywhere? As Einstein once asked, isn’t insanity defined as doing things the same way over and over again and expecting a different response?
FDA opened the door to dialogue with pharmaceutical manufacturers several years ago, with the PAT initiative, its guidance on dispute resolution and other programs designed to increase transparency and communication with both field staff and reviewers.
However, the basis for meaningful dialogue with FDA or any regulatory agency remains the same: the ability to show process and product understanding, good science, and process control.
How many drug manufacturers today have mastered even the rudiments of this language?
Consider the following:
- The pharmaceutical industry’s Lean indicators have changed little in over a decade, with stock turnovers averaging 2.33 this year, only 0.03 higher than they were 10 years ago .
- Manufacturing issues continue to result in critical drug shortages, suggesting insufficient product and process knowledge and control .
- The number of pharmaceutical recalls has increased .
- Drug approvals are down .
FDA’s job is to be reactive. After all, regulators stand in for consumers, the patients that this industry is proud to provide for. Their stance cannot change. What would today’s increasingly well-informed public say or do?
However, by failing to engage FDA actively, and to question its responses, when warranted, with science, pharmaceutical manufacturers have only themselves to blame for the current impasse and industry’s lack of innovation and process improvement.
And those are the manufacturers that already have process knowledge, and know how to get it. Many more manufacturers don’t know which questions to ask or what information to provide.
At this point, regulatory uncertainty, rather than process and product understanding, still drives the approval and inspection processes—and the industry’s subpar quality performance.
Regulation will always be subordinate to good science. As my friend and former boss Ajaz Hussain would say, “Science will prevail.”
Surely, one of the biggest questions facing the industry today is how to utilize the best science and engineering practices to understand the causal relationship between product and process, and better manage and control the manufacturing process.
Are not sound science and engineering practices the best, and perhaps the only, means to achieve the “Desired State?”
The questions, and the supporting knowledge behind them, are often far more critical than the answers.
But who must take the lead on all this? Hint: It’s not the FDA.
Pharmaceutical quality and innovation demand a cooperative interaction between the regulator and the regulated. A culture of operational excellence and continual improvement can only be achieved, within industry and even, perhaps, within FDA, when our first question changes from “What will the FDA say?” to “Can I demonstrate knowledge and control of the process and product to the FDA?”.
Unless firms are willing to use or learn this language—to be open with the Agency, proactively communicate process and product knowledge and demonstrate real-time process control, all regulation-dependent activities will continue to depend on what the FDA says.
3. The Gold Sheet, reported on August 17th via http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/23120.
About the Author
Ali Afnan, formerly a scientist at CDER’s Office of Pharmaceutical Sciences, and a member of FDA’s original PAT Team, is now principal of the consulting firm, Step Change Pharma.
- Ali Afnan: Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus (But Little Science, or Change, in Pharma…Yet)
- In the end, this industry is what we make it. Let’s base our actions on science and our goals, on...
- Drug Manufacturing: Still Waiting for the Sea Change?
- Pharmaceutical Manufacturing's April cover story asks the question, have we made real and tangible progress in the past decade?...
- Afnan: 2010 – A Time for Reflection
- The underlying challenges that drug manufacturers face, the real-time control of attributes critical to quality, still remain. In the first...
- Culture Change Needed to Apply Risk Management Correctly
- What may be dooming some pharma risk management projects? PharmaQbD.com spoke recently with risk management consultant Karen Ginsbury to get...
- Nice Ride: Debating the Vehicle for Industry Change
- A enjoyable LinkedIn group discussion agrees: whether it be more like a Rolls Royce or Fiat, the industry needs a...