Category: CCS inside

We are pleased to announce on 1. July 2021 that the PIC/S Guidance on Good Practices for Data Management and Integrity in Regulated GMP/GDP Environments (PI 041-1) entered into force. The document marks the completion of significant effort by PIC/S Participating Authorities over an extended period of collaboration to address an area of significant industry and regulatory interest. The guidance has been developed primarily for inspectors, but also serves as a valuable resource for industry to provide clarity on areas of greatest risk and regulatory expectations. The PIC/S Working Group on Data Integrity acknowledges the support from professional associations across the pharmaceutical industry who contributed to a targeted stakeholder engagement exercise in 2019. The feedback received was highly valuable in identifying opportunities to further clarify regulatory interpretations and also collate topics for future revisions.

The draft guidance was first published by PIC/S in 2016 and applied by PIC/S Participating Authorities on a trial basis. Based on Members’ comments, it was revised by the Working Group on Data Integrity and then subject to a focused stakeholder consultation on specific issues (November 2018 – March 2019). The Working Group incorporated the feedback from stakeholders and submitted the final draft to the PIC/S Committee for adoption.

The Working Group continues its data integrity activities through development of training material for the PIC/S Inspectorates’ Academy (PIA) and other inspection-related resources for inspectors within the network.

To download this guidance (PI 041-1), please consult the page “Publications”.

Direct access to PI 041 final – 1. July 2021

On 30 November 2018 PIC/S revised the current revision of PI 041-1 – DRAFT 3.

UPDATE 2021 – PIC/S PI 041 – Final Version – 1. July 2021

Here is the announcement from the PIC/S website (source)

Focused stakeholders consultation on revised draft PIC/S guidance on Good Practices for Data Management and Integrity in Regulated GMP/GDP Environments

Geneva, 30 November 2018: a revised Draft PIC/S Guidance on Good Practices for Data Management and Integrity in Regulated GMP/GDP Environments (PI 041-1 (Draft 3)) has been prepared by the PIC/S Working Group on Data Integrity, co-led by Australia / TGA and UK / MHRA.

The purpose of the guidance is to serve to outline the position an inspector would adopt during the inspection of GDP/GMP facilities and is designed to facilitate a harmonised approach to the inspection, including reporting in regards to data management and integrity. A first draft (PI 041-1 (Draft 2)) was published by PIC/S on a trial basis in August 2016. Following feedback received from PIC/S Participating Authorities during its 6-month implementation trial-period, the draft of this guidance has been updated and expanded by the Working Group.

The document (PI 041-1 (Draft 3)) is subject to a focused stakeholder consultation seeking substantive comments from trade and professional associations on specific questions relating to the proportionality, clarity and implementation of the guidance requirements. In parallel to this stakeholder consultation, the new draft will be applied by PIC/S Participating Authorities on a trial basis for a new implementation trial period.

The consultation period will last 3 months and run from 30 November 2018 to 28 February 2019.

To submit feedback, please provide feedback exclusively on the dedicated template available on the websites of the below associations and submit by e-mail with subject line “PIC/S Focused Public Consultation – Data Management and Integrity” to one of the following associations which will collect and compile responses. Stakeholders should only reply once.

• ECA (European Compliance Academy) Foundation:
  send to: heimes@gmp-compliance.org
• IFPMA (International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations):
  send to: s.adam@ifpma.org
• ISPE (International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering):
  send to: regulatorycomments@ispe.org
• PDA (Parenteral Drug Association):
  send to: tmorris@pda.org

To download the consultation document (PI 041-1 (Draft 3)) please consult the page “Publications” or click on the link below:

PI 041-1 (Draft 3) Guidance on Data Integrity.pdf

After the British agency MHRA has published three (3) different draft versions of the – MHRA GMP Data Integrity Definitions and Guidance for Industry – in January and March 2015 (GMP) and in July 2016 (Draft for consultation – now for GXP) the final  “Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) ‘GXP’ Data Integrity Guidance and Definitions was published in March 2018.

Looking into the history of the document and content the major changes have been to replace and extend from “GMP” to GXP (covering  GCP, GDP, GLP, GMP and GPvP).  All this GXP areas had already requirements for data integrity or study integrity or similar for many years and are covered by European EMA regulations, directives and the EMA EudraLex Volumes or other regulations (e.g. chemical for GLP). The second change was the title “Guidance for Industry” to a “Guide“. Maybe the document type “Guidance for Industry” would remind you to US regulations and you are right. But in the EU such a document type in a regulatory structure and understanding is also not known. Maybe the roots of the first versions were coming from US or consultants or authors from this region. In general an own opinion might be better as to listen to any opinion-makers with commercial interests. Continue reading “MHRA’s GXP data integrity guide published – March 2018”

Read our new article on LinkedIn: Software Development

Validation of SDLC tools like Confluence, JIRA according ISPE GAMP 5.

Auszug aus dem GMP-BERATER

Dokumentation ist ein wesentlicher Bestandteil des pharmazeutischen Qualitätssystems. Sie spielt in jeder Phase des Lebenszyklus eines Arzneimittels eine wichtige Rolle, denn die Qualität eines pharmazeutischen Produktes muss zweifelsfrei nachweisbar sein! Deshalb ist es kaum verwunderlich, dass viele Verantwortliche aus dem Pharmabereich mit einer wahren Flut an Daten und Dokumenten kämpfen müssen.

Dieses Fachbuch hilft Ihnen Schritt für Schritt, den Überblick über die Datenflut zu behalten. Neben Erläuterungen zu aktuellen regulatorischen Anforderungen finden Sie hier auch das 1×1 der guten Dokumentationspraxis im täglichen Umgang mit Dokumenten. Das Buch liefert Ihnen Informationen zu unterschiedlichen Systemtypen, GMP-relevanten Funktionen und Einsatzmöglichkeiten elektronischer Systeme. Mit diesem Wissen sind Sie gut vorbereitet für die nächste Datenflut!

Aus dem Inhalt:

• Erstellung, Lenkung und Kontrolle von Dokumenten
• Dokumentation im Labor
• Anforderungen an die Datenintegrität
• Validierung eines Dokumentenmanagementsystems
• Umstellung auf elektronische Chargendokumentation

Mehr Informationen zum Buch: externer LINK

Please find below the German translation of PIC/S PI 041-1:

GOOD PRACTICES FOR DATA MANAGEMENT AND INTEGRITY IN REGULATED GMP/GDP ENVIRONMENTS

Deutsche Übersetzung (freie Übersetzung) des PIC/S PI 041-1:

Link: Übersetzung PI_041_1_Draft_2_Guidance_on_Data_Integrity

Find more information and download for free at: DOWNLOADS

Partnership Announcement Radbee and CCS

CCS is delighted to announce a strategic partnership with Radbee Ltd. London, UK. RadBee Ltd. offers software solutions for quality assurance in the medtech, biotech and pharmaceutical industries. By tailoring JIRA and Confluence software to meet their clients’ specific needs, RadBee Ltd. creates quality management systems that make compliance easy and help organizations achieve more.

Continue reading “GXP compliant JIRA & Confluence”

Seriously, who will review the Audit Trail Review? First who will execute the Audit Trail Review? An internal Quality role – in the course of the batch by batch execution and review of records, during internal inspections or during an regulatory inspection preparation? Or weekly, bi-monthly or every third batch – or simply just all audit trails created by a system?

And who will analyze in detail and  finally judge the results of the Audit Trail Review?

Continue reading “Who will review the Audit Trail Review?”