FDA Issues Warning Letter for Repeated CGMP Violations and Quality Control Failures

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a Warning Letter dated 03 September 2024 to a Canadian over-the-counter (OTC) product manufacturer. The letter follows an inspection conducted in April 2024, discovering multiple violations of Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMP).

Key Findings
Key findings of the FDA include: 

Failure to Perform Identity Testing on Components: The company did not adequately perform identity testing for all incoming components used in drug manufacturing. The firm's failure to conduct these tests raises concerns about the potential for contamination or mislabeling of their products. The company also relied on certificates of analysis (COA) from suppliers without verifying the identity of the components themselves, which further compounded the issue.
Inadequate Validation of Manufacturing Processes: Another significant issue identified by the FDA was the company's failure to adequately validate its manufacturing processes. The inspection revealed that the firm did not establish and document the effectiveness of their manufacturing procedures through appropriate validation studies.
Lack of Proper Oversight by the Quality Control Unit: The inspection further highlighted deficiencies in the quality unit (QU), which failed to ensure the consistent quality of drug products. The FDA noted that the QU did not have sufficient oversight to review and approve materials used in production, the manufacturing processes themselves, and the final product testing.
Repeat Violations
The letter emphasized that many of the current violations were previously identified in earlier inspections of the facility. In fact, the FDA had already issued a warning about similar problems in the past, yet the company had failed to implement sufficient corrective actions. This repeated non-compliance indicates a systemic failure to maintain proper manufacturing standards over time, and the FDA expressed serious concerns about the company's commitment to adhering to CGMP regulations.

Conclusion
In light of these significant violations, the FDA strongly recommended to hire an external consultant to assist in bringing their operations back into compliance. The FDA expects a detailed action plan to address the specific issues identified in the inspection report. If the company does not take adequate corrective measures, it may face further regulatory actions, including the seizure of products or legal injunctions. The company was already placed on Import Alert 66-40 ("Detention Without Physical Examination of Drugs From Firms Which Have Not Met Drug GMPs").

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

FDA describes detailed CAPA Procedure in Warning Letter

An FDA Warning Letter is a formal communication from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) notifying a company or individual of regulatory violations. These typically describe observations made during an inspection and list violations found (referencing the specific sections of the FD&C Act, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and other applicable laws as appropriate). In addition, specific measures are listed that the recipient must take to remedy the violations. It does not go into great detail, especially not with regard to instructions on the desired procedure. In a Warning Letter issued to Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (India) at the beginning of July, this is now different. It describes in great detail what the FDA considers to be appropriate CAPA measures in a specific case. What happened? The company was criticised for not adequately cleaning and maintaining the equipment used to manufacture drug products. According to the company's response, a defective
Read more

FDA Warning Letter Missing Ongoing Stability Studies for APIs

Company Antaria Pty. Ltd, Australia Synopsis  1.Inadequate Investigation  2. Own Analytal Methods used but proved to equivalent to USP methods 3.Annual Stability missed 1.Failure to adequately investigate and document out-of-specification results and implement appropriate corrective actions . Your firm manufactures API (b)(4) USP, labeled in part to be the active ingredient used in (b)(4). You failed to adequately investigate out-of-specification (OOS) test results. Specifically, your firm lacked adequate investigations and corrective actions for numerous OOS results obtained during laboratory testing of your API, including assay and loss on ignition (LOI) testing. The root causes were not clearly defined nor adequately documented, and lots with OOS results were released by your quality unit (QU). In your response, you state that staff turnover and insufficient staff training attributes to the lack of competency in good laboratory practices . Additionally, you state that you will rev
Read more

Understand ICH Q7

What is meant by ‘quality unit(s) independent from production The intent of the term ‘independent’ is to prevent any conflict of interest and ensure unbiased decision-making regarding quality-related decisions in the organization structure. The person in the quality unit who is responsible for final decision-making (e.g., batch release decision) should not have responsibilities for production activities [ICH Q7, 2.13]. Does ICH Q7 expect that the quality unit performs API release testing While the quality unit has responsibility for the release of the API, which includes oversight of the testing and results, ICH Q7 does not prescribe specifically who performs testing. ‘Quality control’ in the ICH Q7 Glossary [ICH Q7, 20] refers to the activities, not the organisational structure. For examples of quality responsibility related to testing and release, refer to [ICH Q7, 2.13, 2.22, and 11.12]. Appropriate laboratory controls should be followed [ICH Q7, 11.10, 16.10] regardless of who
Read more