GMP Violations @ FDA warning letter

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspected your drug manufacturing facility, USV Private Limited at H-17/H-18, OIDC, Mahatma Gandhi Udyog Nagar, Dabhel, Daman from June 1 to 10, 2016.

 

This warning letter summarizes significant violations of current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) regulations for finished pharmaceuticals. See 21 CFR, parts 210 and 211.

 

Because your methods, facilities, or controls for manufacturing, processing, packing, or holding do not conform to CGMP, your drug products are adulterated within the meaning of section 501(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), 21 U.S.C. 351(a)(2)(B).

 

We reviewed your July 1, 2016 response in detail and acknowledge receipt of your subsequent correspondence.

 

During our inspection, our investigators observed specific violations including, but not limited to, the following.

 

1.    Your firm failed to establish laboratory controls that include scientifically sound and appropriate specifications, standards, sampling plans, and test procedures designed to assure that components, drug product containers, closures, in-process materials, labeling, and drug products conform to appropriate standards of identity, strength, quality, and purity (21 CFR 211.160(b)).

 

For example, during inspection of the QC microbiology testing laboratory, our investigators observed:

 

A.  No growth on the positive control plate for media used to test microbiological (b)(4) samples. When a positive control fails to yield growth, test results cannot be considered valid due to the potential for false negatives.

 

B.  Desiccation of a contact media plate used during environmental monitoring of the sterility testing area. Desiccated, cracked, or otherwise damaged (b)(4)  compromises microbial growth promotion and accurate enumeration, and can lead to artificially low microbiological counts and false negatives. Using deficient media compromises the validity of your microbiological test results.

 

Also, you did not appear to routinely identify (i.e., to species level) bacterial and fungal isolates recovered during environmental monitoring of your aseptic processing room.

 

C.  Air bubbles between filtration (b)(4)  and (b)(4)  plates in 13 out of (b)(4)  microbiological (b)(4)  system sampling plates. Inadequate contact between the filter (b)(4)  and the (b)(4)  plate may compromise recovery.

 

Your response indicates that you evaluated the impact of these laboratory deviations and believe they pose a low risk. The response lacks a commitment to perform a comprehensive evaluation of your microbiology laboratory controls and practices.

 

2.    Your firm failed to establish and follow appropriate written procedures that are designed to prevent microbiological contamination of drug products purporting to be sterile, and that include validation of all aseptic and sterilization processes (21 CFR 211.113(b)).

 

During review of your 2014 smoke studies, our investigators observed turbulent air flow in the ISO 5 area on the (b)(4)  vial filling and capping production line at approximately 09:53 and 10:39 minutes.

 

In your response, you state that you have performed new smoke studies and that these new studies demonstrate unidirectional airflow during manual interventions. However, your response is inadequate because you did not assess past occurrences of deficient airflow in smoke studies or provide corrective actions to your process design to resolve these issues. You also did not provide copies of the recent dynamic smoke studies.

 

In response to this letter, include a thorough retrospective review of smoke studies and a CAPA plan to address all deficiencies.

 

3.    Your firm failed to exercise appropriate controls over computer or related systems to assure that only authorized personnel institute changes in master production and control records, or other records (21 CFR 211.68(b)).

 

For example, during inspection of the sterile manufacturing and QC microbiology areas, our investigators observed:

 

A.  Deletion of at least six (b)(4) and (b)(4) tests in the audit trails for two instruments used to test sterile (b)(4). Your systems allowed operators to delete files. You had no procedure to control this practice or to ensure a backup file was maintained. When you reviewed the audit trail data further, you identified a total of 25 deleted (b)(4) test results. In your response, you state that the production staff now only have “view and print” privileges. However, your response is inadequate because it lacks details of how appropriate oversight will be exercised over data backup to ensure it is appropriately retained.

 

B.  No restricted access to the microbial identification instrument. Further, you lacked restricted access to the external hard drive used for backup of this instrument. All users could delete or modify files. In your response, you commit to limit access to the system and external hard drive. However, your response is inadequate because you did not provide a retrospective risk assessment of the impact and scope of inadequate system controls at your firm.

 

4.    Your firm failed to ensure that laboratory records included complete data derived from all tests necessary to assure compliance with established specifications and standards (21 CFR 211.194(a)).

 

(b)(4) failed identity testing. You accepted a passing retest result without any investigation of the failed result.

 

In your response, you state that you attempted to conduct a retrospective investigation of the analysis which occurred more than a year earlier, and tentatively concluded that the out-of-specification (OOS) result might have been caused by analyst error. Also, your investigation recommends replacement of the polarimeter on which the OOS result was obtained.

 

Your response did not include a commitment to revisit the adequacy of your OOS procedures. When an OOS result is obtained, initiation of a prompt laboratory investigation is critical. In addition, you must provide all data obtained during testing to the quality unit for batch record review. If the laboratory invalidates an OOS result, it is essential that the batch record include the relevant investigation. Only a scientifically sound and conclusive investigation can justify the exclusion of an OOS result from the final certificate of analysis.

Source: FDA

www.gmpviolations.com
GMP News, GMP guidelines, GMP Violations, GMP warnings, GMP Trends. A Public Health Global News Portal. (This story has not been edited by GMP Violations staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed/ experts experiences sharing.) Disclaimer: The Logos/Images & content posted here are belongs to respective to Authority / owners of firm. The Article posted under public health importance news. Please ensure the guideline as per Regulatory agencies.