Gap Assessment Schedule M

To conduct a **gap assessment** between the **old Schedule M** and the **revised Schedule M** of the **Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945**, we need to compare the key provisions of the old framework with the changes introduced in the notification dated **December 28, 2023**, effective with staggered compliance deadlines (June 28, 2024, for large manufacturers and extended to December 31, 2025, for MSMEs). The goal is to identify differences, new requirements, and gaps that pharmaceutical manufacturers, particularly those involved in quality assurance and API production (aligned with your prior interests), must address to comply with the revised standards. Below is a structured gap assessment, organized by key areas of Schedule M, focusing on clarity and brevity while covering essential changes.

### Gap Assessment: Old Schedule M vs. Revised Schedule M

| **Aspect** | **Old Schedule M (Pre-2023)** | **Revised Schedule M (2023)** | **Gap Identified** | **Action Required for Compliance** |

|------------|-------------------------------|-----------------------------|--------------------|-----------------------------|

| **Terminology** | Referred to as "Good Manufacturing Practices" (GMP) under Rules 71, 74, 76, and 78. | Renamed to "Good Manufacturing Practices and Requirements of Premises, Plant and Equipment for Pharmaceutical Products." | Shift in terminology to emphasize infrastructure and equipment alongside GMP. | Update documentation, training materials, and SOPs to reflect new terminology. |

| **Scope of Drug Categories** | Covered general pharmaceuticals (e.g., tablets, capsules, injectables) but lacked specific guidelines for certain drug types. | Added five new categories: hazardous substances (e.g., sex hormones, steroids, cytotoxics), biological products, radiopharmaceuticals, phytopharmaceuticals, and investigational products for clinical trials. | No specific provisions for these categories in the old version, increasing compliance complexity. | Develop category-specific SOPs, infrastructure, and validation protocols for these new drug types. |

| **Pharmaceutical Quality System (PQS)** | No explicit requirement for a comprehensive PQS. Quality assurance relied on basic GMP compliance. | Mandates a PQS to ensure consistent product quality across the manufacturing lifecycle. | Lack of a formalized PQS in old Schedule M. | Implement a PQS framework, including quality objectives, documentation, and continuous improvement processes. |

| **Quality Risk Management (QRM)** | Risk management was not explicitly mandated; ad-hoc approaches were common. | Introduces QRM to proactively identify and mitigate quality risks. | Absence of structured risk management processes. | Develop QRM protocols, train staff on risk assessment tools (e.g., FMEA), and integrate into operations. |

| **Product Quality Review (PQR)** | No mandatory requirement for periodic quality reviews. | Requires regular PQRs to evaluate product quality consistency. | No systematic review process in place. | Establish PQR procedures, including data collection and analysis for all products. |

| **Equipment Qualification and Validation** | Basic requirements for equipment maintenance, but no detailed validation protocols. | Mandates documented qualification and validation of equipment to ensure reliability. | Lack of comprehensive validation documentation. | Conduct equipment qualification (IQ/OQ/PQ) and maintain validation records. |

| **Computerized Storage Systems** | No specific requirement for digital inventory management. | Requires computerized systems for inventory and storage traceability. | Manual or outdated storage systems may not comply. | Implement or upgrade to computerized inventory management systems with audit trails. |

| **Change Control Management** | Limited guidance on managing changes in manufacturing processes. | Formal change control system required to document and approve changes. | Absence of a structured change control process. | Develop change control SOPs, including impact assessments and approval workflows. |

| **Self-Inspection and Quality Audits** | Self-inspections were recommended but not mandatory. | Mandates regular self-inspections and quality audits to ensure GMP compliance. | Inconsistent or absent internal audit programs. | Establish a self-inspection schedule and train auditors on revised GMP requirements. |

| **Supplier Audits and Approval** | No explicit requirement for supplier qualification. | Requires audits and approval of suppliers to ensure raw material quality. | Lack of supplier qualification processes. | Implement supplier audit programs and maintain records of supplier approvals. |

| **Stability Studies** | Stability studies were required but not aligned with specific climatic conditions. | Mandates stability studies per recommended climatic conditions. | Inadequate or non-standardized stability testing protocols. | Update stability study protocols to align with WHO climatic zone requirements (e.g., Zone IVb for India). |

| **Bioburden and Endotoxin Control** | Limited focus on microbial contamination control. | Requires regular bioburden and endotoxin monitoring during production. | Inadequate microbial control measures. | Implement microbial testing protocols and upgrade cleanroom facilities if needed. |

| **Product Recall and Defect Reporting** | No mandatory reporting of defects or recalls to licensing authorities. | Manufacturers must inform licensing authorities about recalls, defects, deterioration, or faulty production. | No formal recall or defect reporting mechanism. | Develop recall procedures and establish communication channels with licensing authorities. |

| **Documentation and Traceability** | Basic documentation requirements, often lacking detail. | Enhanced emphasis on detailed, traceable records for raw materials, processes, and finished products. | Inadequate documentation systems. | Upgrade documentation systems to ensure traceability and compliance with digital record-keeping. |

| **Infrastructure Requirements** | General requirements for premises and equipment, with limited focus on cross-contamination. | Strict requirements for premises, plant, and equipment to prevent cross-contamination and ensure hygiene. | Outdated or non-compliant facilities. | Upgrade facilities (e.g., HVAC, segregation) to meet revised standards. |

| **Implementation Timeline** | No specific compliance deadlines for upgrades. | Large manufacturers: June 28, 2024; MSMEs: Extended to December 31, 2025. MSMEs must submit Form A upgrade plan by May 11, 2025. | No prior deadlines; new timelines require planning. | Prepare and submit Form A for MSMEs; plan infrastructure and process upgrades within deadlines. |

### Key Observations

- **Increased Stringency**: The revised Schedule M aligns with **WHO-GMP** and international standards (e.g., EU-GMP, US-FDA), introducing systems like PQS, QRM, and PQR that were absent or underdeveloped in the old version. This significantly raises the compliance bar.

- **New Drug Categories**: The inclusion of hazardous substances, biologicals, radiopharmaceuticals, phytopharmaceuticals, and investigational products requires specialized infrastructure and expertise, posing challenges for manufacturers not previously handling these categories.

- **Digitalization and Traceability**: The shift to computerized systems and enhanced documentation reflects a move toward modern, traceable manufacturing practices, addressing gaps in manual or inconsistent record-keeping.

- **MSME Support**: The extended deadline (December 31, 2025) and **RPTUAS scheme** provide financial and temporal relief for MSMEs, but the gap in infrastructure and expertise remains a challenge for smaller players.

### Relevance to Your Interests

Given your prior queries about **API production** and **quality assurance** (e.g., API course development, QA resume optimization), the gaps in **PQS, QRM, equipment validation, and API-specific requirements (Part 1F)** are particularly relevant. Manufacturers, especially MSMEs, will need to:

- Upgrade QA processes to include risk management and validation, aligning with your expertise.

- Train staff on new systems, which could inform your API course content (e.g., modules on revised Schedule M compliance).

- Highlight compliance with revised Schedule M in QA resumes, as companies prioritize these skills to meet the 2025 deadline.

### Recommendations for Bridging Gaps

1. **Conduct a Facility Audit**: Assess current infrastructure, equipment, and processes against revised Schedule M requirements (e.g., Part 1F for APIs, cross-contamination controls).

2. **Develop a Compliance Roadmap**: For MSMEs, submit Form A by May 11, 2025, outlining upgrades. Large manufacturers should already be compliant but may need to refine systems.

3. **Invest in Training**: Train staff on PQS, QRM, and validation protocols. Use platforms like Thinkific (from your course-building query) to create targeted training modules.

4. **Upgrade Infrastructure**: Invest in cleanrooms, HVAC systems, and computerized inventory systems to meet new standards.

5. **Leverage RPTUAS**: MSMEs should apply for financial assistance under the Revamped Pharmaceutical Technology Upgradation Assistance Scheme to fund upgrades.

6. **Engage Consultants**: Firms like Pharmadocx (mentioned in web sources) can assist with compliance audits and documentation.

### Additional Notes

- **Source Reference**: This assessment is based on the notification dated December 28, 2023, and updates from web sources like Pharmabiz and industry reports (e.g., Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance). For the full text, refer to **https://www.cdsco.gov.in**.

- **Visual Aid**: If you’d like a flowchart or table comparing specific sections (e.g., Part 1F for APIs), I can create one in a canvas panel. Let me know!

- **DeepSearch Limitation**: Since the query focuses on a specific regulatory change, DeepSearch wasn’t needed, but I can activate it for real-time updates on compliance progress if required.

If you need a deeper dive into specific parts (e.g., API requirements), sample SOPs, or assistance with compliance planning, please specify!

FDA Issues Warning to Horizon Tool Inc. for Manufacturing Violations

On June 6, 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sent a stern warning letter to Horizon Tool Inc., a Greensboro, North Carolina-based company, following an inspection of their manufacturing facility from January 14 to 16, 2025. The FDA flagged serious violations of Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) regulations for their product, AllShield E2 Sanitizing Hand Soap, raising concerns about product safety and quality.

### Key Violations Uncovered

1. **No Microbiological Testing Conducted**  

   The FDA found that Horizon Tool Inc. failed to perform required microbiological testing on a batch of AllShield E2 Sanitizing Hand Soap (lot 25009). According to the inspection, no samples were collected for testing, and the company’s quality assurance team couldn’t explain why. This oversight means there’s no evidence to confirm the product is free from harmful microorganisms, a critical requirement under federal regulations (21 CFR 211.165(b)). Without this testing, consumers could be at risk from contaminated products.

2. **Missing Stability Testing Program**  

   The company also neglected to conduct stability testing for the same hand soap product. Stability testing ensures a product remains safe and effective throughout its shelf life, but Horizon Tool Inc. provided no data to support this. Their response to the FDA admitted the issue but fell short, lacking details on corrective actions or a risk assessment for products already on the market. This gap violates CGMP standards and undermines trust in the product’s quality.

### Why This Matters

The FDA classified AllShield E2 Sanitizing Hand Soap as "adulterated" under federal law (21 U.S.C. 351(a)(2)(B)) because it was manufactured in a facility not adhering to CGMP standards. This designation signals serious quality control issues that could compromise consumer safety. The FDA stressed that the violations listed aren’t exhaustive, meaning other problems may exist. Horizon Tool Inc. is now responsible for investigating and resolving all issues to prevent future violations.

### What’s Next for Horizon Tool Inc.?

The FDA has given Horizon Tool Inc. 15 working days to respond with a detailed plan to address these violations. This includes a thorough assessment of their manufacturing processes and a corrective action and preventive action (CAPA) plan to fix their stability testing program. Failure to comply could lead to serious consequences, such as product seizures, legal injunctions, or restrictions on federal contracts and export certificates. The FDA may also block approval of any new drug applications from the company until compliance is confirmed, potentially through a follow-up inspection.

### Takeaway for Consumers and Businesses

This warning letter serves as a reminder of the FDA’s commitment to enforcing strict manufacturing standards to protect public health. For consumers, it underscores the importance of knowing the products you use meet rigorous safety and quality requirements. For businesses, it’s a wake-up call to prioritize compliance with federal regulations to avoid costly penalties and reputational damage.

Stay tuned for updates on how Horizon Tool Inc. responds and what this means for their products in the market. If you’re using AllShield E2 Sanitizing Hand Soap, consider reaching out to the manufacturer or checking for any recalls tied to this issue.

*Note: For more details, you can read the full FDA warning letter on the [FDA’s website](https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/horizon-tool-inc-706567-06062025).*

---

This version is concise, reader-friendly, and tailored for a blog audience, summarizing the key points from the FDA warning letter while emphasizing the implications for consumers and businesses. Let me know if you’d like adjustments, such as a different tone, length, or additional details!