Host Cell Proteins - FDA seeks Comments on Immunogenicity Assessment

Additional substantive information
I. Background
The FDA uses the term ‘peptide’ in this notice to refer to alpha-amino acid polymers consisting of 40 or fewer amino acids. Peptides can be isolated from natural sources or produced synthetically or by recombinant expression in a host cell. Peptides isolated from recombinant sources (i.e., genetically modified) prokaryotic or eukaryotic host cells by cell culture/fermentation processes are referred to as recombinant peptides (rPeptides). The FDA describes at this point:
HCPs are process-derived impurities from the host cell that copurify with the recombinant peptide of interest and may be present in the final drug product. HCPs are characterised and routinely well controlled during the manufacture of the peptide product. The types and amounts of HCPs in a product depend on many parameters, including differences in the substrate of the expression cells, culture conditions, purification procedure and between different facilities. Therefore, for a proposed rPeptide follow-on product, differences in HCP profiles between the follow-on product and the listed drug product are to be expected, and these differences may impact the safety and/or efficacy of the follow-on product by increasing the immunogenicity risk of that product. Advances in technology may support the use of IVISIA methods to assess comparative immunogenicity risk. Comments submitted by 23 September will be considered. This cannot be guaranteed for comments submitted later.

II. Request for comments
Interested parties are invited to submit detailed information (including supporting data) and comments on appropriate methods for the detection, identification and quantification of HCPs and the minimum residual levels of HCPs that can be achieved in commercial batches of rPeptide products. To assess the potential impact of HCP differences, the FDA is particularly interested in answers to the following questions:

1. What is the lowest and routinely achievable total HCP content in your well-controlled rPeptide manufacturing processes, and how is it calculated/determined?
2. What are the challenges in reducing HCP levels?
3. What analytical methods are currently used to detect, identify and quantify HCPs in a rPeptide product? Do you perform comparative assessments of HCPs during production development, e.g. ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) versus LC/MS/MS (liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry)? How sensitive are these methods for the detection of HCPs and what are their quantification limits? Do you use a combination of orthogonal analytical methods (e.g. ELISA + LC/MS/MS) for HCP control during process development and manufacturing?
4. What is the generally achievable percentage coverage of the HCP spectrum for your HCP quantification test? What considerations (e.g., percentage coverage of HCPs, other coverage characteristics, etc.) are important when selecting methods for evaluating HCPs?
5. Are there qualitative or quantitative characteristics of HCPs that are associated with a higher likelihood of adverse clinical outcomes?
6. What tools (in silico, in vitro or in vivo studies) do you currently use or plan to use to compare the potential immunogenicity risk of two products with different HCP profiles? What is your approach to risk assessment of HCPs based on such data?

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