Open AccessReview of Quality Deficiencies Found in Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient Master Files Submitted to the WHO Prequalification of Medicines Programme
Author(s) -
Isabel Ortega Diego,
Antony Fake,
Matthias Stahl,
Lembit Rägo
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
journal of pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 1482-1826
DOI - 10.18433/j3q60j
Subject(s) - medicine , food and drug administration , ctd , agency (philosophy) , quality (philosophy) , pharmacology , philosophy , oceanography , epistemology , geology
Purpose. The aim of this work was to determine the number and type of active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) quality deficiencies in API Master Files (APIMFs) as submitted to the World Health Organization (WHO) Prequalification of Medicines Programme (PQP). Methods. We conducted a retrospective review of API quality deficiencies identified following the assessment of new APIMFs for non-sterile APIs during a 6-year period from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2012. All deficiencies were collected, classified and quantified according to the Common Technical Document (CTD) sections and subsections and as groups of commonly raised questions. Results. There were 5446 deficiencies collected from 159 APIMF deficiency letters by CTD section, by selected CTD subsections and by selected CTD subsections and year. More than 50% of the total number of deficiencies related to the manufacturing sections of the CTD, followed by deficiencies concerning the impurities, the API specification and the stability sections of the CTD. A pattern of API deficiencies across the different CTD subsections and over time was identified. Conclusions. The most frequent critical deficiencies were related to how the specific manufacturing process and the key materials used, in particular the API starting material, impact the API impurities content. The number and pattern of APIMF deficiencies did not change over time. The results are compared to the findings in similar studies as reported by the United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA), the European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines (EDQM) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and similarities and differences are discussed. Our findings highlight the need for greater guidance and technical assistance for API manufacturers submitting APIMFs to the PQP. This article is open to POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW. Registered readers (see “For Readers”) may comment by clicking on ABSTRACT on the issue’s contents page.