Designing systems using the principles of good documentation practice, including validated audit trails, is a key piece of a manufacturing data integrity program.
Data integrity, which refers to the completeness, consistency,
and accuracy of data, is a key part of CGMP compliance for drugs, said FDA in
its April 2016 draft guidance (1). The agency said at a 2014 conference that it
anticipated more enforcement of data integrity issues, including warning
letters, product seizures, import alerts, and broader injunctions (2), and
indeed, several warning letters since then have focused on data integrity.
Regulatory and industry organizations have tried to clearly
spell out what data integrity means. Several other regulatory bodies have also
published guidelines and guidance regarding data integrity. The United Kingdom
Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) published a guidance
for industry defining data integrity in March 2015 (3). The United States
Pharmacopeial Convention (USP) proposed a new General Chapter <1029> on
good documentation practices (4). And in June 2016, the World Health
Organization (WHO) published a guidance on good data and record management
practices (5).
Data integrity should be thought of as a whole system, says
Rebecca Brewer, strategic practice lead for Quality Executive Partners. “All
components of the system—organization, culture, and oversight; training and
performance management; data management; physical controls; and documentation
practices—must be working effectively to provide the highest level of assurance
of data integrity.”
"Management must align expectations with the capability of
a process, site, or even a person," adds Monica Cahilly, president of
Green Mountain Quality Assurance. "If the infrastructure or the resources
aren't there—for example, to achieve a certain throughput—errors may result and
there may be a greater risk for falsification of data to try to meet targets.
Establishing and staying within the boundaries of a design space that yield a
safe and effective product is fundamental to meaningful data integrity and data
governance programs."
"In large-molecule production, with all the complexities of
this technology compared to small molecule, companies must be mindful of what
targets can be realistically achieved given the variability of the technology.
Saying we can hit a target that we can not is a mistake," says Cahilly.
Regulatory guidance documents are beginning to acknowledge this with more
realistic targets specific to large-molecule testing. For example, a 2013 FDA
draft guidance on bioanalytical methods (6), which revises a 2001 guidance,
gives broader acceptance criteria (e.g., for accuracy and precision) for
ligand-binding assays, notes Cahilly.
As companies work to improve data integrity, computerized
systems and electronic records are playing a key role. The International
Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering (ISPE) GAMP Community of Practice
started a data integrity special interest group (SIG) in January 2014 due to
the high interest in this area, says Michael Rutherford, the GAMP global chair
and sponsor of the SIG. The group has published concept papers and offered
education sessions to help members get a handle on data integrity, including
challenges with electronic records.
Paper and electronic records
Recent attention to electronic records is primarily because these systems have not yet been as closely examined as traditional paper systems, says Cahilly. But whether records are paper or electronic doesn't really matter, say experts; the core principles of ALCOA+ (data must be attributable, legible, contemporaneous, original, accurate, complete, consistent, and enduring) apply to both.
Recent attention to electronic records is primarily because these systems have not yet been as closely examined as traditional paper systems, says Cahilly. But whether records are paper or electronic doesn't really matter, say experts; the core principles of ALCOA+ (data must be attributable, legible, contemporaneous, original, accurate, complete, consistent, and enduring) apply to both.
Manual systems most commonly suffer from failure to be a
contemporaneous record, and may not be original, accurate, and complete,” notes
Brewer. “Since the inception of GMPs, the industry has been emphasizing the
importance of good documentation practices, yet today we still see occasional
‘pencil whipping’ of records, where an employee finishes a series of tasks and
then signs for all of them (rather than completing the entries as the tasks
were accomplished) or occasions where one employee signs for another employee’s
activities.” Automated, electronic systems can be better if they restrict access
and ensure that entries are attributable.
Making sure records are original is key in both paper and
electronic versions. "There is a trash can on the computer just like a
trash can in the lab," notes Lorrie Schuessler, a co-leader of the GAMP
SIG. "Controls must be in place for computers to prevent deleting or
renaming files or changing a record's date. Inspectors are trained to detect
the specific ways that data changes can be covered up in computer systems just
as they look for fraud in paper records."
"Sometimes people change records intentionally, but
sometimes they may just be trying to make it less sloppy, for example,"
notes Rutherford. "Any time you have a human in the process, we make
mistakes. Someone might not strictly follow procedures, and there might not be
strict enough controls that force good data integrity."
One challenging area is having controls to prevent 'orphan
data', which are results that are acquired but not reported or reviewed.
"A good example of orphan data is when there are 'test' injections
performed under the auspices of an investigation or in preparation for running
a sample on a chromatography system, where these samples are never included in
the formal investigation or run report," explains Brewer. "These unreported
sample results can, intentionally or unintentionally, prevent failing data from
coming to light or serve as a way in which an operator can change the operating
conditions to ensure a good result. Management oversight should include a
combination of policy, procedure, training, monitoring, and metrics. 'Trust but
verify' should be the watchwords for the program, with frequent inspection to
look to ensure that no orphan data are detected and to ensure that all
operations comply with the intended policies and procedures.”
Self-recorded data (i.e., data that are not captured directly
from a networked automation system) is another concern. "In these cases,
it is important to think carefully about when the 'four eyes' principle should
be employed and when a 'second check' is required," suggests Brewer.
A special concern for electronic data is security—changes should
be made only by authorized personnel and these changes should be recorded.
"Making a change on paper is more obvious, because you can easily initial,
date, and note a reason for the change," notes Rutherford, but with
electronic records, systems need to be set up to control changes. "Shared
accounts or roles are common in manufacturing control systems, but this is a
challenge for data integrity because, for example, six different engineers
could change a parameter. Regulatory agencies would prefer to not have shared
accounts. But for situations where they are necessary, such as for running a
test over a 24-hour period, there must be other ways of showing the integrity
of the data."
"Ideally there would be a technological solution to the
problem of having shared accounts by keeping track of who to attribute data
to," adds Schuessler. "If an electronic solution isn't available,
sometimes the way to deal with this situation is a paper log."
"Whether you use a computer or paper, you can have data
integrity issues," concludes Rutherford. "The key is to manage and
control the risk so it doesn’t affect patient safety. Doing this includes
having a quality culture, proper procedures, and making sure people are
reviewing data properly and catching problems before they impact product
quality and ultimately patient safety."
Audit trails
A data integrity program should include a review of an audit trail, in which critical data points are reviewed. FDA's data integrity guidance promotes a risk-based approach to reviewing the content of the original electronic record, with a focus on changes to critical data, explains Cahilly. It is important to understand that the entire original electronic record is considered the original, even if only a subset of it is printed. "Regulators and quality units are now starting to understand where to find meaningful data and metadata and make more informed decisions about whether products are safe and effective," says Cahilly. "The challenge is to facilitate an efficient review by thinking through what is critical when you’re validating the system."
A data integrity program should include a review of an audit trail, in which critical data points are reviewed. FDA's data integrity guidance promotes a risk-based approach to reviewing the content of the original electronic record, with a focus on changes to critical data, explains Cahilly. It is important to understand that the entire original electronic record is considered the original, even if only a subset of it is printed. "Regulators and quality units are now starting to understand where to find meaningful data and metadata and make more informed decisions about whether products are safe and effective," says Cahilly. "The challenge is to facilitate an efficient review by thinking through what is critical when you’re validating the system."
In addition, people need to be trained to review audit trails to
find problems in electronic data, says Cahilly. "On paper, reviewers are
already trained to look for cross-outs and focus on the ones that may represent
significant changes that could affect process, or method, or product, for
example. In computer audit trails and metadata, reviewers would also look at
audit trails and other meaningful metadata to determine whether a change to
data was appropriate and properly investigated, if required. A review that is
risk-based requires process understanding and thus would focus on changes to
data potentially impactful to process rather than those of indirect or no
impact. For example, was a datapoint changed, or was the change to correct a
misspelling? Audit trails in process control systems in manufacturing may track
alterations to recipe parameters, some of which may be significant. A focus on
prevention makes less work in detection. For example, by securing the recipe to
prevent alteration of significant parameters, there will be less metadata to
review.”
Electronic records can be an advantage in the review process,
because the data are more accessible than with paper. However, "Reviewing
all data all the time is impossible," notes Rutherford. "Review by
exception allows you to focus on what is most critical. Computerized systems do
this well by flagging unusual conditions to be reviewed." A
manufacturing execution system (MES) can flag when numbers are modified, for
example, or when set-up parameters are out of specification. "If there are
too many flags, they may be ignored," warns Rutherford. "It gets back
to understanding the process and knowing which ones are important to
flag."
Current coding systems often have audit trail or
"history" features, but they may need to be turned on. In some cases,
software systems don’t have what is needed, such as the ability to capture data
at the time of the analysis or activity, so some redesign of software is
occurring as the industry's understanding of good documentation practice grows,
notes Cahilly.
Because process understanding is crucial, audit trail review
should be done by the business function—by the operators, engineers, or
laboratory analysts—rather than by the information technology (IT) group.
"The quality group can oversee the review and IT can implement a system,
but the business needs to own the data and its integrity," says
Rutherford.
The business group, not IT, should also be doing validation of
flags and the audit system. "Validation is proving that the system meets
your needs and is fit for purpose—that it provides technological control of
data integrity," says Rutherford. "Some consider validation merely a
documentation exercise, but really it comes down to whether you care if it
works. You should know what a flag is supposed to do and test to show that it
functions that way." Periodic reviews and a change-control process are
also important.
A practice that can be used in addition to audit trail review is
a forensic audit, which involves selecting high-risk targets based upon
triggering criteria. "These targets are then reviewed and traced from
initial data source to final data output—an end-to-end evaluation—to detect any
wrong-doing," explains Brewer. "Forensic audits can be used either
proactively, as part of the monitoring associated with the site management
controls, or in response to a specific known failure or suspected wrong-doing.”
References
FDA, Draft Guidance for Industry: Data Integrity and Compliance
With CGMP (April 2016).
- J.
Weschler, Pharm. Tech. 38 (9) (2014).
- MHRA, GMP Data Integrity Definitions and Guidance for Industry(March
2015).
- USP, Proposed General Chapter <1029> Good Documentation
Guidelines (May 2014).
- WHO, Annex 5 Guidance on good data and record management
practices, WHO Technical Report Series No. 996 (June
2016).
- FDA, Draft Guidance for Industry: Bioanalytical Method Validation(September
2013).
Article Details
Pharmaceutical Technology
Vol. 40, No. 7
Pages: 50–54
Vol. 40, No. 7
Pages: 50–54
Citation:
When referring to this article, please cite it as J. Markarian, "Data Integrity Challenges in Manufacturing," Pharmaceutical Technology 40 (7) 2016 (Pharmtech).
When referring to this article, please cite it as J. Markarian, "Data Integrity Challenges in Manufacturing," Pharmaceutical Technology 40 (7) 2016 (Pharmtech).
www.gmpviolations.com (This story has not been edited by GMP Violations staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.) Disclaimer: The Logos/Images posted here are belongs to respective to Authority / owners of firm.
Posts
