POST APPROVAL CHANGE MANAGEMENT PROTOCOLS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
6th European Patients’ Rights Day The EMA Geriatric Medicines Strategy and the empowered aging patient Francesca Cerreta EMA (European Medicines Agency)
Advertisements

Registration in Europe Current situation and future outlook Thomas K ü rner, M.D. Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim Co., Ltd.
Rule-Making Book II EU Administrative Procedures – The ReNEUAL Draft Model Rules 2014 Brussels, May th Herwig C.H. Hofmann University of Luxembourg.
© Safeguarding public health BROMI Variations ·Launch Meeting The Cumberland Hotel, London Anne Ambrose 8 th May 2008.
Disclaimer The presentation is intended for educational purposes only and does not replace independent professional judgement. Statements of fact and opinions.
The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products 1 FFUL LisbonHilde Boone - EMEA 29 May 2003 EU Variation Regulations (541/95 and 542/95) Final.
The Paediatric Regulation
FEDERAL AGENCY FOR MEDICINES AND HEALTH PRODUCTS Federal Agency for Medicines and Health Products (FAMHP) Compassionate Use and Medical Need Program Pharma.be-BeApp,
Introduction to PPDs Regulatory requirements and rationale.
Sultan Ghani WHO Prequalification Programme of Priority Essential Medicines, October 2010, Abu Dhabi, U.A.E. Variations Maintenance of Prequalified.
Variations to Prequalified Medicines Rutendo Kuwana Workshop on WHO prequalification requirements for reproductive health medicines, Jakarta, October 2009.
Acceptable Means of Compliance & Alternative Means of Compliance Margit Markus Moossen Legal department 31 January 2013.
European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines & health care (EDQM)
IPhVWP Polish Presidency, Warsaw October 6 th 2011 Almath Spooner Irish Medicines Board Monitoring the outcome of risk minimisation activities.
Registration in lebanon
1 Supplements and Other Changes to an Approved Application By: Richard J. Stec Jr., Ph.D. February 7, 2007.
An agency of the European Union Presented by: David Mackay Head of Unit, Veterinary Medicines & Product Data Management Unit Incident Management Plan Veterinary.
Authorisation of medicinal products: selected challenges Rocío Salvador Roldán Pharmaceuticals Unit/DG SANCO This presentation only reflects the views.
DMF Procedures and Communication between API, FP Manufacturers and Regulatory Authorities Jean-Louis ROBERT National Health Laboratory L – 1011 LUXEMBOURG.
Introducing Regulatory Impact Analysis into the Turkish Legal Framework “Training the Trainers” November 2008 RIA in the EU by Lydia Jørgensen, Senior.
Review of veterinary medicines legislation in 2010 Mario Nagtzaam Unit F2 „Pharmaceuticals“ Directorate-General Enterprise and Industry European Commission.
Projects spanning over two programming periods Department for Programme and Project Preparation Beatrix Horváth, Deputy Head of Department Budapest, 5.
Ivowen Ltd1 Ivowen Limited Preparation and Submission of a Traditional Herbal Medicinal Product Application.
COMPARABILITY PROTOCOLUPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCE Manufacturing Subcommittee July 20-21, 2004 Stephen Moore, Ph.D. Chemistry Team.
Pilot Project on implementation of SEA for regional planning in Ukraine Prof. Dr. Michael Schmidt Dmitry Palekhov Brandenburg University of Technology.
June 2009 Regulation on pesticide statistics Pierre NADIN ESTAT E1- Farms, agro-environment and rural development
China EU Pharmaceutical Forum
An agency of the European Union Principles for the assessment and authorisation of antimicrobials in the EU VICH Outreach Forum, October 2015 Presented.
Date Insert on Master Slide Slide 1 Regulatory Framework within which patients can have safe and more convenient access to medicines Royal College of Physicians.
DMF Procedures and Communication between API, FFP Manufacturers and Regulatory Authorities Jean-Louis ROBERT National Health Laboratory L – 1011 LUXEMBOURG.
1 From Regulatory Intelligence to Compliance Debbie Henderson Head, Global Regulatory Policy EU Ring May 13, 2014.
We personally care 31 May 2016 – Working Group on Cosmetic Products EU Cosmetics Regulation – Article 15.2 Criteria for exempting CMR1A and 1B from being.
In the name of God. Common Technical Document On Biotech.
ICORD 2006 Kerstin Westermark Md, PhD, Assoc. prof. COMP Chairperson.
Variations regulation – an Industry experience
An agency of the European Union Guidance on the Submission of Clinical Reports intended for Publication in Accordance with Policy 0070 Principles Industry.
1 Package on food improvement agents Food additives Food enzymes Flavourings Common procedure Developments since earlier consultation.
Off-label Use.
Paediatric Medicine: The Paediatric Investigation Plan
A capacity building programme for patient representatives
Dr Pascale POUKENS-RENWART Scientific Officer
Periodic Safety Update Reports (PSUR)
Information on Medicinal Products
Post-Notice of Compliance (NOC) Changes
PAEDIATRIC REGULATION
CHANGE CONTROL.
Regulation EU 536/2014 on clinical trials
ICH-GCP Avinash Kondawar M. Pharm Lead CRA
Risk Communication in Medicines
FDA’s IDE Decisions and Communications
Sophie Skorupka M2 AREIPS 15 novembre 2016
REGULATORY PROBLEMS IN CARING OUT PRE- AND POST- AUTHORISATION CLINICAL TRIALS Dr Penka Decheva GCP Inspector, BDA.
Good Clinical Practice
UK Legal Requirement for Notification of Serious Breaches of Good Clinical Practice or The Trial Protocol John Poland, PhD Senior Director, Regulatory.
Business environment in the EU Prepared by Dr. Endre Domonkos (PhD)
Multinational collaboration in the Authorisation of VMPs: the EU approach VICH Outreach Forum Tokyo, Nov 2017 Noel Joseph European Commission.
CONDITIONAL MARKETING AUTHORISATION
TAIEX, Istanbul, April 19th, 2011
Union referral procedures
TRACEABILITY REQUIREMENTS UNDER EU GENERAL FOOD LAW
Vytenis Andriukaitis European Commissioner for Health and Food Safety
The Mutual Recognition Regulation
UA – Same biocidal product SPC translation review
Linda M. Chatwin, Esq. RAC Business Manager, UL LLC
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)
Prescription-only vs. over-the-counter medicines
EUnetHTA Assembly May 2018.
GL8 (R) – Stability testing for medicated premixes
Process mapping of registration to reimbursement for new pharmaceuticals in UK Description: A systematic methodology was developed in order to create the.
EU Regulatory Pathways for ATMPs: Standard, Accelerated and Adaptive Pathways to Marketing Authorisation  Giulia Detela, Anthony Lodge  Molecular Therapy.
Presentation transcript:

POST APPROVAL CHANGE MANAGEMENT PROTOCOLS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION (EC) No 1234/2008 1 October 2012 CHMP / CVMP Quality Working Party /EMA

Summary 1. Post approval change management protocol (PACMP) 2. Concepts 3. Variation categories in the EU 4. Mechanism for the submission and evaluation of a PACMP 5. The principle of the Change Management Protocol: a 2-step implementation approach 6. Content of a PACMP: generalities 7. Content of a PACMP: The Variations Classifications Guideline 7.1. The Variations Classifications Guideline. Examples 8. Benefits

1. Post approval change management protocol (PACMP) Concept Introduced in EU through Variations Regulation (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1234/2008). Text that supports the Variations Regulation: The Variations Classifications Guideline (2010/C 17/01) Classification of variations into categories. Details, on the scientific data to be submitted for specific variations and how this data should be documented.

2. Concepts A PACMP is a description of specific change(s) that a company would like to implement following marketing authorization and how these would be prepared and verified. A PACMP applies to all types of medicinal products for human and veterinary use including biotechnological or biological products. Traditional or enhanced (Quality by Design) approach has been used for its development. AIM: establish a simple, clearer and more flexible legal framework for the handling mentioned variations of medicinal products, while ensuring a high level of protection of public and animal health.

2. Concepts Incorporates a science and risk-based approach to evaluate impact of change(s) on product quality in a proactive manner. A PACMP should not include changes that would in itself result in a line extension. Each variation should require a separate submission. Grouping variations are allowed in certain cases, in order to facilitate the review of the variations and reduce the administrative burden JUSTIFICATION showing that the changes are related, and that a simultaneous review under a single protocol is meaningful.

3. Variation categories in the EU Minor variation of type IA/IAin: variation which has only a minimal impact, or no impact at all, on the quality, safety or efficacy of the medicinal product concerned and does not require prior approval before implementation (“Do and tell” procedure). e.g. variations related to changes in the packaging material not in contact with the finished product, which do not affect the delivery, use, safety or stability of the medicinal product. Major variation of type II : variation which is not an extension and which may have a significant impact on the quality, safety or efficacy of the medicinal product concerned. e.g. variations related to significant modifications of the summary of product characteristics due in particular to new quality, pre-clinical, clinical or pharmacovigilance findings. Source: The Variations Classifications Guideline (2010/C 17/01) & (EC) No 1234/2008

3. Variation categories in the EU Minor variation of type IB: variation which is neither a minor variation of type IA nor a major variation of type II nor an extension and require prior approval before implementation (‘‘tell, wait and do’’ procedure). e.g. Change in batch size (including batch size ranges) of active substance or intermediate More than 10-fold increase compared to the currently approved batch size. Source: The Variations Classifications Guideline (2010/C 17/01) & (EC) No 1234/2008

3. Variation categories in the EU Category Impact on quality, safety or efficacy? Notification and implementation Review time Type IA None / minimal impact Notification: “Do and tell”. within 12 months after implementation 30 days Type IAin Notification: immediate following implementation Type IB Minor potential impact; Classified by default, if change does not fall into another category Notification: before implementation, but no formal approval Implementation: ‘tell, wait and do’ – MAH implements changes unless negative opinion received within 30 days Type II Major potential impact Notification: EMA forwards positive CHMP opinion to EU Commission, and they amend the MA within one year Implementation: following CHMP opinion, without waiting for Commission approval 60 days normally 90 days for indication changes 30 day for urgent safety issues

4. Mechanism for the submission and evaluation of a PACMP May be included in an original marketing authorisation application (MAA) or (line) extension application.  the evaluation of a post approval change management protocol will follow the rules of procedure applicable to the actual MAA. Can be modified via a type II (major change) or type IB (minor change) variation. May be submitted subsequently as a stand alone variation.  the evaluation will follow the rules of procedure applicable for all Quality Type II variations.

5. The principle of the Change Management Protocol: a 2-step implementation approach Without PACMP With PACMP

6. Content of a PACMP: generalities Justification that there is a recognized future need for the specific change within a reasonable timeframe. A detailed description of the proposed change. Risk assessment of the impact of the change on product quality. Discussion on the appropriateness of the approved control strategy to identify and manage these risks. source: EMA/CHMP/CVMP/QWP/586330/2010

6. Content of a PACMP: generalities Description of the studies to be performed, the test methods and acceptance criteria that will be used to fully assess the effect of the proposed change on product quality. A plan for stability studies should be included, if appropriate. In case that the protocol describes several changes, a justification showing that the changes are related, and that a simultaneous review under a single protocol is meaningful. For small molecules, a proposed reporting category for step 2 (type IA or IB variation). For biologics, the approach to be used to demonstrate the comparability of the pre-, and post-change product. (spec’s and extended characterisation studies). The reporting shall always be made as a Type IB variation. Source: EMA/CHMP/CVMP/QWP/586330/2010

7. Content of a PACMP: The Variations Classifications Guideline Classification of variations into categories  Administrative changes Quality changes Safety, Efficacy and Pharmacovigilance changes Specific changes to Plasma Master Files and Vaccine Antigen Master Files Details, on the scientific data to be submitted for specific variations and how this data should be documented.

7.1. The Variations Classifications Guideline. Examples A) Administrative change B) Quality change

8. Benefits Expedited review and/or inspection at step 2 of PACMP procedure. Predictability and transparency in terms of requirements and studies needed to implement a change. Faster implementation, if the pre-determined criteria of the PACMP are met; use of the PACMP could allow an applicant to implement CMC changes and place a product in distribution sooner than without the use of the PACMP procedure.

9. References Variations Regulation (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1234/2008) The Variations Classifications Guideline (2010/C 17/01) EMA/CHMP/CVMP/QWP/586330/2010 Experience of Post approval change management protocol in EU. Mats Welin Senior expert Medical Products Agency Uppsala, Sweden. Post-approval Change Management Protocols Current Status and Next Steps on the Way towards a Global Tool. Dr. Markus Goese Lead EU CMC Regulatory Policy F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel – Switzerland. EMA/13667/2015

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!!