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!

FDA WL on Memory based working

Here’s a rewritten and detailed version of the FDA Warning Letter topic for your blog:

---

🧪 “Memory‑Based Manufacturing” and the Critical Omission of Analytical Testing

Inspection Overview:

On May 29, 2025, the FDA issued a Warning Letter to Amish Origins Management, LLC after a January 2025 inspection at its facility in Worland, Wyoming .

1. Reliance on Memory Instead of Documentation

Inspectors discovered that the facility depended on decades-old “recipes and procedures” that were entirely undocumented, with operators following them “based on memory.”

This blatant disregard for written batch records and formal SOPs is a severe violation of cGMP regulations, which require standardized, traceable manufacturing protocols .

2. No Release Testing for Product Quality

The company failed to perform any release testing on finished products, including:

Identity verification

Potency/strength confirmation

Impurity profiling

Microbiology assessments

Such omissions nullify any assurance of quality, safety, or efficacy before products reached the market .

3. Raw-Material Risks Ignored

Critical raw materials like glycerin were accepted without identity testing, raising the risk of contaminants such as diethylene glycol (DEG) or ethylene glycol (EG)—substances known to be toxic .

4. OTC Products Found Non‑Compliant

The inspection revealed several topical analgesics and a medicated lip balm:

Classified as unapproved new drugs

Misbranded, due to:

Unsupported therapeutic claims

Lack of required safety warnings

These products fell outside applicable OTC monographs and lacked FDA approval .

5. FDA’s Recommended Course of Action

The scale and severity of violations prompted the FDA to strongly recommend hiring an external cGMP consultant.

A detailed corrective action plan is expected to address:

Formalization of written processes and batch records

Institution of a comprehensive analytical testing program

Regulatory approval pathway for OTC products .

---

Why This Warning Letter Matters

Traceability vs. Memory: cGMP demands documented procedures to ensure reproducibility and audit readiness—practically impossible to enforce when relying on memory.

Quality Management Gap: Analytical testing (identity, strength, impurities, microbiology) is indispensable—without it, product safety is unverified.

Contamination Risk: Raw material testing is non-negotiable, especially for substances with known contamination risks.

Regulatory Compliance: Marketing unapproved or misbranded OTC products can result in enforcement and legal consequences.

---

Lessons for Manufacturers

1. Write It Down

Every step—from ingredient receipt to product shipment—must be recorded, reviewed, and approved.

2. Test Before Release

Products should never leave the facility without passing identity, potency, impurity, and microbial tests.

3. Validate Raw Materials

Confirm identity and quality of each incoming batch to prevent serious health risks.

4. Follow OTC Monographs

Only market products that comply with applicable monographs—or obtain proper FDA approvals.

5. Consult When in Doubt

When systemic problems surface, external GMP expertise is often key to remediation.

---

Final Takeaway

This Warning Letter offers a cautionary blueprint: without proper documentation and analytical controls, companies risk non-compliance and endangering consumer health. For your blog readers—especially those in pharmaceutical or nutraceutical production— this case illustrates how memory-based shortcuts can unravel quality systems and prompt enforcement action.

---

Would you like to dive deeper into any area—like best practices for raw material testing, batch record design, or cGMP consulting strategies?

Key Issues Identified in the FDA Warning Letter to AACE Pharmaceuticals

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a Warning Letter to AACE Pharmaceuticals, a U.S.-based company, on April 9, 2025, following an inspection that revealed significant violations of Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) regulations. These violations, detailed in the FDA Warning Letter, highlight serious issues in the company’s manufacturing processes for over-the-counter (OTC) drug products, specifically ophthalmic (eye-related) drugs. Below, I’ll break down the key issues in a clear and detailed manner, explain their implications, and explore related information from other sources to provide a comprehensive understanding of the topic.

### Key Issues Identified in the FDA Warning Letter to AACE Pharmaceuticals

1. **Lack of Adequate Release Testing**  

   AACE Pharmaceuticals failed to conduct proper release testing for their drug products before distribution. Release testing involves checking each batch of a drug to ensure it meets quality standards, such as the correct identity and strength of active ingredients. Without these tests, there’s no assurance that the drugs are safe or effective. For example, the FDA noted that AACE did not test the active ingredients in their ophthalmic drugs to confirm their identity or potency, which could lead to ineffective or harmful products reaching consumers.

2. **Unsupported Expiry Dates**  

   The company assigned a five-year expiration date to their OTC drug products without conducting stability studies to justify this shelf life. Stability studies are critical to determine how long a drug remains safe and effective under specific storage conditions. The FDA found that AACE lacked a written stability testing program and did not perform essential tests, such as those for microbial contamination (e.g., bacteria or fungi) or impurities, to ensure the product remained within quality specifications over time. This oversight increases the risk that products could degrade, becoming unsafe or ineffective before the labeled expiry date.

3. **Inadequate Quality Oversight**  

   The FDA identified significant weaknesses in AACE’s Quality Unit (QU), which is responsible for overseeing all aspects of manufacturing to ensure compliance with CGMP standards. The QU lacked authority and control over critical activities, including:

   - **Training**: Employees were not adequately trained to perform their roles, which could lead to errors in manufacturing or testing.

   - **Documentation**: The company failed to maintain proper records, making it impossible to trace the manufacturing process or verify compliance.

   - **Complaint Handling**: There were no effective procedures to investigate and address customer complaints about product quality.

   - **Supplier Qualification**: AACE did not properly evaluate or monitor their contract manufacturing organization (CMO), which produced the ophthalmic drugs. The FDA emphasized that companies are responsible for ensuring their CMOs meet CGMP standards, even if production is outsourced.

4. **Poor CMO Qualification and Oversight**  

   AACE relied on a contract manufacturing organization to produce their ophthalmic drugs but failed to adequately qualify or monitor the CMO. The FDA pointed out that AACE simply compared the CMO’s Certificates of Analysis (COAs) against pre-approved specifications without independently verifying the CMO’s processes or quality controls. Even after the CMO was re-qualified three years later, AACE did not assess whether previous deficiencies had been corrected. This lack of oversight led to the distribution of products that did not meet quality standards, posing risks to consumers.

5. **Unapproved and Misbranded Products**  

   The FDA also noted that AACE’s OTC drug product was illegally marketed because it lacked FDA approval and was misbranded. The product made therapeutic claims (e.g., health benefits) that went beyond what is allowed under the relevant OTC monograph (M017), a set of FDA guidelines for certain OTC drugs. This violation means the product was not legally authorized for sale in the U.S. and could mislead consumers about its safety or efficacy.

6. **Inadequate Response to FDA Observations**  

   After the FDA inspection, AACE received a Form 483, which lists observations of non-compliance. The company’s response to these observations was deemed inadequate by the FDA because it lacked sufficient documentation and corrective actions to address the identified issues. For example, AACE did not provide a detailed plan to implement proper testing, stability programs, or quality oversight improvements.

### Implications of These Violations

The violations outlined in the Warning Letter are serious because they compromise the safety, efficacy, and quality of AACE’s drug products. Ophthalmic drugs, which are applied to the eyes, require particularly stringent quality controls due to the sensitivity of the eye and the risk of infections or other adverse effects. The lack of release testing and stability data means that patients could be exposed to substandard or contaminated products. Additionally, the inadequate quality unit and CMO oversight indicate systemic failures in AACE’s quality management system, which could affect all their products, not just the ophthalmic drugs mentioned.

As a result of these violations, the FDA took significant enforcement actions:

- **Import Alert**: The FDA placed AACE on Import Alert 66-40, which allows for the detention of their products at U.S. borders without physical examination. This restricts the company’s ability to distribute products in the U.S.

- **Corrective Action Required**: AACE was required to submit a comprehensive corrective action plan within 15 working days, detailing how they would address the deficiencies and prevent future violations. The FDA also recommended hiring a CGMP consultant to assist with compliance.

### Related FDA Warning Letters and Trends

To provide a broader context, I explored related FDA Warning Letters and trends in CGMP violations, as the issues at AACE Pharmaceuticals are not isolated. Several other companies have recently been cited for similar deficiencies, indicating ongoing challenges in the pharmaceutical industry. Below are key examples from related sources:

1. **Chinese Manufacturer (Shantou S.E.Z. Baojie Industry Co., Ltd.)**  

   On April 15, 2025, the FDA issued a Warning Letter to a Chinese OTC drug manufacturer for similar CGMP violations. The company failed to:

   - Conduct adequate identity testing for high-risk raw materials, relying solely on supplier COAs without independent verification.

   - Establish a robust stability testing program, relying only on organoleptic (sensory) assessments, which are insufficient to confirm product integrity over time.

   - Maintain proper quality oversight, with deficiencies in process controls and quality unit authority.

   Like AACE, this manufacturer was placed on Import Alert 66-40 and required to submit a corrective action plan.[](https://www.gmp-compliance.org/gmp-news/fda-warning-letter-for-chinese-manufacturer-inadequate-testing-and-stability-program-deficiencies)

2. **PMS4PMS, LLC (U.S. Manufacturer)**  

   On April 23, 2025, the FDA issued a Warning Letter to PMS4PMS, LLC, another U.S.-based OTC drug manufacturer, for issues nearly identical to those at AACE:

   - No testing for the identity or strength of active ingredients before product release.

   - No stability data to support a five-year expiration date.

   - A non-functional quality unit lacking control over training, documentation, complaint handling, and supplier qualification.

   - Marketing an unapproved and misbranded OTC product.

   The company’s response to the FDA’s Form 483 was also deemed inadequate, highlighting a pattern of insufficient corrective actions among violators.[](https://www.gmp-compliance.org/gmp-news/otc-drug-production-ceased-after-fda-warning-letter)

3. **Linghai ZhanWang Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (Chinese Manufacturer)**  

   On April 1, 2025, the FDA cited this company for inadequate raw material testing and stability programs for their anti-microbial wipes. The company used “accelerated aging experiments” without scientific justification and failed to conduct long-term stability studies. Their quality unit also lacked the authority to ensure CGMP compliance, similar to AACE’s issues.[](https://www.gmp-compliance.org/gmp-news/fda-issues-warning-letter-due-to-gmp-violations-at-chinese-drug-manufacturer)

4. **Tyche Industries Ltd. (Indian Manufacturer)**  

   In February 2025, the FDA issued a Warning Letter to Tyche Industries for inadequate documentation practices and data integrity issues, including failure to test the identity of incoming production materials. This underscores the FDA’s focus on ensuring robust testing and documentation across the supply chain.[](https://gmp-compliance.org/gmp-news/fda-warning-letter-caused-by-insufficient-documentation-practices)

5. **General Trends in FDA Enforcement**  

   Recent FDA Warning Letters indicate a strong emphasis on quality oversight, with the Quality Unit being a focal point. The FDA views deficiencies in the QU as systemic failures that undermine the entire quality management system. Other common issues include inadequate cleaning validation, poor supplier qualification, and insufficient stability testing. The FDA has also increased scrutiny of CMOs, holding companies like AACE accountable for their contractors’ compliance.[](https://gmp-compliance.org/gmp-news/more-fda-warning-letters-citing-quality-oversight)[](https://pharmtech.com/view/fda-posts-slate-of-seven-warning-letters-following-company-inspections)

### Why These Issues Matter

CGMP regulations, outlined in 21 CFR Parts 210 and 211, are designed to ensure that drugs are safe, effective, and of consistent quality. Violations like those at AACE Pharmaceuticals can lead to:

- **Patient Harm**: Substandard or contaminated drugs, especially ophthalmic products, can cause infections, vision damage, or other adverse effects.

- **Regulatory Consequences**: Warning Letters, import alerts, fines, product recalls, or license revocations can disrupt a company’s operations and market access.

- **Consumer Trust**: Non-compliance erodes confidence in the pharmaceutical industry, affecting both the company and the broader market.

The FDA’s enforcement actions, such as Import Alert 66-40, aim to protect consumers by preventing non-compliant products from reaching the market. However, these actions also place significant pressure on companies to address deficiencies quickly and effectively.

### Steps to Address CGMP Violations

To avoid similar issues, pharmaceutical companies should:

1. **Implement Robust Testing Programs**: Conduct thorough release testing for each batch, including identity, strength, and purity tests for active ingredients and raw materials.

2. **Establish Stability Programs**: Develop scientifically justified stability studies to support expiration dates, including tests for chemical and microbiological stability under long-term storage conditions.

3. **Strengthen Quality Units**: Ensure the QU has the authority, resources, and training to oversee all CGMP activities, including documentation, complaint handling, and supplier qualification.

4. **Qualify and Monitor CMOs**: Regularly audit and evaluate contract manufacturers to ensure they meet CGMP standards. This includes verifying their processes, not just relying on COAs.

5. **Maintain Compliance with FDA Regulations**: Ensure all products are approved or compliant with relevant OTC monographs and avoid unapproved therapeutic claims.

6. **Respond Effectively to FDA Observations**: Provide detailed, documented corrective action plans in response to Form 483 observations to demonstrate a commitment to compliance.

### Broader Context and Industry Challenges

The FDA’s recent wave of Warning Letters reflects a heightened focus on CGMP compliance, particularly for OTC drugs and outsourced manufacturing. The agency is cracking down on systemic issues like inadequate quality oversight and reliance on unverified suppliers, which are common in both U.S. and international manufacturers. Additionally, industry groups have raised concerns about inconsistencies in government laboratory practices, suggesting that regulatory scrutiny should also extend to testing labs to ensure fairness and accuracy in identifying substandard products.[](https://insights.citeline.com/hbw-insight/health/policy-and-regulation/regulation/fda-takes-world-tour-in-recent-otc-warnings-NZS2OA3MSZFADNDPE5PNOMQJJQ)[](https://gmp-compliance.org/gmp-news/more-fda-warning-letters-citing-quality-oversight)[](https://business-standard.com/health/pharma-licence-suspension-nsq-drugs-quality-tests-health-ministry-125062600334_1.html)

The use of Quality by Design (QbD) principles, as highlighted in guidance from BioPhorum, could help companies develop more robust analytical procedures and avoid deficiencies like those cited in AACE’s Warning Letter. QbD emphasizes defining clear performance criteria (e.g., Analytical Target Profile) for testing methods, which can improve reliability and compliance.[](https://www.gmp-compliance.org/gmp-news/biophorum-publishes-guidance-for-ich-q2r2-and-q14-implementation)

### Conclusion

The FDA Warning Letter to AACE Pharmaceuticals underscores critical deficiencies in release testing, stability data, quality oversight, and CMO qualification, reflecting broader challenges in the pharmaceutical industry. These violations highlight the importance of adhering to CGMP regulations to ensure drug safety and efficacy. By addressing these issues through robust testing, stability programs, and effective quality management, companies can avoid regulatory actions and protect consumers. The FDA’s ongoing enforcement efforts, as seen in similar Warning Letters to other manufacturers, signal a continued commitment to upholding high standards in pharmaceutical manufacturing.

For further details, you can refer to the original Warning Letter on the FDA’s website or related articles on gmp-compliance.org and raps.org.[](https://www.gmp-compliance.org/gmp-news/fda-warning-letter-missing-testing-for-toxic-impurities-and-lack-of-stability-data-in-otc-drug-products)[](https://www.gmp-compliance.org/gmp-news/fda-warning-letter-for-chinese-manufacturer-inadequate-testing-and-stability-program-deficiencies)[](https://www.gmp-compliance.org/gmp-news/otc-drug-production-ceased-after-fda-warning-letter)

Is Knowledge Management Part of the Pharmaceutical Quality System?

In the pharmaceutical industry, maintaining high-quality standards is critical to ensuring safe and effective products. A key component of this process is the Pharmaceutical Quality System (PQS), which helps companies meet regulatory requirements and deliver consistent results. But where does knowledge management fit into this framework? Let’s explore how knowledge management supports quality systems and why it’s essential for pharmaceutical operations.What Is Knowledge Management in Pharma?Knowledge management involves collecting, organizing, and sharing information to improve processes and decision-making. In the pharmaceutical industry, it means capturing insights from manufacturing, testing, and quality control to ensure products meet strict standards. This includes data from product development, process improvements, and compliance activities. By effectively managing this knowledge, companies can streamline operations and avoid costly errors.Why Knowledge Management Matters in the PQSThe PQS, as outlined in guidelines like ICH Q10, is a structured approach to ensuring quality throughout a product’s lifecycle. Knowledge management plays a vital role in this system by:Supporting Informed Decisions: Access to accurate, up-to-date information helps teams make better choices during production and quality checks.Driving Continuous Improvement: Lessons learned from past processes can be applied to enhance efficiency and product quality.Ensuring Compliance: Regulatory bodies like the FDA and EMA expect companies to maintain detailed records and use data to demonstrate control over processes.Reducing Risks: Well-managed knowledge helps identify potential issues early, preventing defects or recalls.For example, during drug development, knowledge about raw materials or manufacturing challenges can guide teams to optimize processes, ensuring consistency and safety.How Knowledge Management Integrates with the PQSICH Q10, a global standard for pharmaceutical quality systems, emphasizes knowledge management as a core element. It encourages companies to use data from development and manufacturing to maintain quality over time. This involves:Documenting Processes: Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and batch records capture critical knowledge for consistent production.Training Staff: Sharing expertise ensures employees understand quality requirements and best practices.Using Technology: Tools like electronic Quality Management Systems (eQMS) help store and access data efficiently, supporting compliance and traceability.By embedding knowledge management into the PQS, companies create a culture of learning and accountability, which strengthens overall quality.Challenges and SolutionsImplementing knowledge management isn’t always easy. Companies may face challenges like siloed information, outdated systems, or lack of employee training. To overcome these, they can:Invest in modern eQMS software to centralize data and improve access.Foster collaboration across departments to share insights.Regularly train staff to keep knowledge current and relevant.The Bottom LineKnowledge management is not just a nice-to-have; it’s a critical part of the Pharmaceutical Quality System. By systematically capturing and using information, companies can improve quality, meet regulatory expectations, and protect patient safety. As the industry evolves, integrating knowledge management into daily operations will be key to staying competitive and compliant.For more insights on pharmaceutical quality systems, check out resources from regulatory bodies like the FDA or EMA, or explore ICH Q10 guidelines for a deeper understanding.

US FDA WL on Microbiology OOL

The company experienced seven out-of-limit (OOL) events for microbial content in a system used to generate a major component of drug products. Notably, at least two events showed microbial levels as high as 10,000 colony-forming units (CFU) per milliliter, far exceeding acceptable limits.

Despite the severity and frequency of these events, the company's investigations were deemed inadequate. The findings raise concerns about the company's ability to consistently produce components suitable for pharmaceutical use, with particular focus on "root cause determinations, corrective actions and preventive actions (CAPAs), and assessment of all potentially affected batches". Instead, the company limited its response to a narrow review of system test results from the day before and after each OOL event and relied on finished product test results to justify continued production-without demonstrating control over the system itself.

In the response to the observations, the company then indicated that "individual investigations with impact assessments will be created" for OOL results. Additionally, it was decided that the "quality lead will review and document results" on a defined basis. Furthermore, the company committed to train the quality team accordingly.

However, the FDA rates this response as "inadequate". The authority misses a "comprehensive retrospective risk assessment" and an evaluation of "the full scope and impact of OOL results". Also supporting documentation about the CAPAs was missing.

The FDA is now looking for an "independent assessment of the overall system for investigating deviations, discrepancies, complaints, out-of-specification results, and failures" plus a "detailed action plan to remediate this system". The action plan should also include, "significant improvements in investigation competencies, scope determination, root cause evaluation, CAPA effectiveness, quality assurance oversight, and written procedures".

This case underscores the importance of a thorough root cause determination and CAPAs, particularly when dealing with repeated events

Access Warning Letter here

ICH: New Guideline for Stabilities

The draft guideline "STABILITY TESTING OF DRUG SUBSTANCES AND DRUG PRODUCTS" of the ICH (INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR HARMONISATION OF TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PHARMACEUTICALS FOR HUMAN USE) was published in April 2025 and is now open for public comment. Comments are possible until the end of July 2025, with some exceptions specifically indicated on the ICH website.

This new version is intended to merge and replace the previous individual ICH guidelines (ICH Q1A-Q1F and ICH Q5C) in the area of stabilities. It will apply to active substances and finished drug products and takes into account new scientific and risk-based approaches and technologies. The table of contents can be summarised in the following points and annexes:

1 INTRODUCTION

2 DEVELOPMENT STABILITY STUDIES UNDER STRESS AND FORCED CONDITIONS

3 PROTOCOL DESIGN FOR FORMAL STABILITY STUDIES

4 SELECTION OF BATCHES

5 CONTAINER CLOSURE SYSTEM

6 TESTING FREQUENCY

7 STORAGE CONDITIONS

8 PHOTOSTABILITY

9 STABILITY CONSIDERATIONS FOR PROCESSING AND HOLDING TIMES FOR INTERMEDIATES

10 SHORT-TERM STORAGE CONDITIONS

11 IN-USE STABILITY

12 REFERENCE MATERIALS, NOVEL EXCIPIENTS AND ADJUVANTS

13 DATA EVALUATION

14 LABELLING

15 STABILITY CONSIDERATIONS FOR COMMITMENTS AND PRODUCT LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT

16 GLOSSARY

17 REFERENCES

18 ANNEXES

ANNEX 1 REDUCED STABILITY PROTOCOL DESIGN

ANNEX 2 STABILITY MODELLING

ANNEX 3 STABILITY OF ADVANCED THERAPY MEDICINAL PRODUCTS (ATMPS)

Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 each have one or more detailed subsections.

The complete draft of the guideline "STABILITY TESTING OF DRUG SUBSTANCES AND DRUG PRODUCTS", the business plan and the concept paper as well as the work plan for this can be viewed on the ICH website under the "Public Consultations" tab. Under the "WG Presentation/Trainings" tab, you will also find instructions for commenting, which also contain a summary of the guideline.

Validation Master Plan and Validation Protocols Correlated

The FDA found that although there were requirements in the Validation Master Plan for process validation and hold times, no operating conditions such as bulk hold times, process limits or acceptance criteria for process parameters were specified in the validation protocol itself. 

In response, the inspected company submitted an updated validation protocol which, according to the FDA, still failed to address hold times and other details, such as information on sampling and the batch report that is used for the first validation batch. Subsequently, the FDA refers to its process validation guideline and describes the content of the guideline in a short section of the warning letter. 

Another point of criticism was the equipment. Contrary to the intended use, the circulation of the (water) system was stopped when it was not in operation. There was also a lack of monitoring of both chemical and microbiological parameters in accordance with the US Pharmacopoeia (USP). The response of the inspected company to operate the system permanently in the future is not sufficient. The entire system design is still to be assessed and monitoring introduced. In addition, the FDA requires interim measures and an investigation into the impact of the incorrectly validated system on product quality.

The FDA also expects a validation program, detailed PPQ plans, timelines for the PPQ, maintenance information, a description of monitoring and an assessment of the impact of defects on customer information and recalls.

Conclusion: Internal requirements in GMP documents must be implemented.

WHO: Updates on Method Transfer

In 2022, the WHO published the "Technical Report Series 1044, 2022" called "TRS 1044 - Annex 4: WHO guidelines on technology transfer in pharmaceutical manufacturing" on the subject of technology transfer. The previous document dates back to 2011 and has now been updated. 

The new annex consists of the following chapters and subsections and also lists an appendix 1:

Background

Abbreviations

1. Introduction

2. Scope

3. Glossary

4. Due diligence and gap analysis

5. Organization and management

6. Quality management and quality risk management

7. Documentation

8. Premises

9. Equipment and instruments

10. Qualification and validation

11. Life cycle approach

12. Phases of a technology transfer project 

       Phase I: Project initiation

       Phase II: Project planning

       Phase III: Project transfer execution

       Production (example: finished pharmaceutical product)

       Quality control: analytical procedure transfer

       Cleaning

       Phase IV: Project review and close-out

References

Appendix 1 Documentation commonly required for technology transfer

Chapter 12 "Phases of a technology transfer project" under "Quality control: analytical procedure transfer" and Appendix 1 deal specifically with the topic of method transfer.

Access guidelines here

Root Cause Analysis and FDA WL

Your firm failed to conduct adequate manufacturing investigations into out-of-specification (OOS) results obtained by your external laboratory for your (...), an over-the-counter (OTC) drug product. As such, root cause(s) for the OOS results were not determined and no corrective and preventive actions (CAPA) were identified."

"your cursory investigation lacked appropriate CAPA"

"As a manufacturer, you have a responsibility to fully investigate OOS results and process deviations that may impact product quality."

"the procedures for handling deviations and complaints are inadequate. For example, the deviations procedure lacks details for the investigation process".

FDA WL