GMP Violations and Citations.

As this year draws to near its ending it is sad, frustrating and worrisome to read an FDA Warning Letter (WL) that cited a company for using a Design Qualification (DQ) protocol in which 75% of the test scripts had no Summation of Test Results.  How is it possible for a company to produce a protocol that is so appallingly inadequate?  A DQ is subjected to several peer reviews and in its final acceptable form; review and sign off by management.  Click here (its free) and ensure your test scripts are formatted correctly.

It is shocking to see companies shooting themselves in the foot as above, but the next WL not only proves that it happens all the time, but also shows the enormity of it.  This WL concerns a company carrying out EO sterilization of regulated product for third parties.  Their obvious total disregard of the cGMP requirements means that all the sterilizations they contracted to do, have been categorized as ‘Adultered’.  The enormity of this is absolutely staggering since the product so categorized; has all been consumed and or applied and or implanted.  Do you use subcontracting companies?  If so; do you have a completed approved Vendor Audit document that verifies their cGMP status and will it stand up to regulatory inspection and perhaps even judicial judgement?

This current year has seen us introduce several new documents and document packages.  The most popular new documents haves undoubtedly been the combined IQ-OQ-PQ protocol and SOP for equipment, followed very closely by the IQ-OQ-PQ protocol and SOP for computers.  These documents have been supplied to customers in 22 different countries and to circa 60% of the multinationals.  As a trial we soon be offering these documents not only through our normal PayPal payment process; but also using Google Checkout.  If Google appears popular we will offer it as an alternative on all sales.  In the meantime if you want to make a purchase and can’t or don’t want to use PayPal, please CLICK IN BOX BELOW and lets us know how we can assist.    

I would like to make a purchase using Google/PayPal

The Importance of Correct Procurement.

When an analysis of the end user's priorities, in procurement priorities, is made the importance of the equipment / programs being validateable ranks at number two out of ten.  Second only to delivery; with cost ranking around sixth. This has been true in over 80% of all cases we have been involved with.

For the-would-be purchaser, it gives enormous reassurance to know that regulatory compliant validation protocols and plans are supplied.  They are often willing to pay a 15 to 30 percent surcharge for these documents.  If a consultant is hired to produce the full suite of validation documents (8/9 documents) considerable costs are involved.  However it is the question; is the system / program actually capable of being validated?  That makes people hesitate.  I doubt (after over twenty years as an auditor) if there is any pharmaceutical company that has not at some time had to abandon new programs or equipment for these reasons.

The FDA have actually stated that 70% of validation problems are directly related to none compliant procurement methods.

Your comments about you having to validate the equipment or program are completely erroneous.  The end user has that task; your task is to ensure that your product is validatable.  That means in all ways it must be compliant with the applicable directives in cGMP.  On our site we carry further details of all these requirements.

Some of Our Current Fast Moving Documents.