On
August 21, 2002, the FDA announced its new initiative, “Pharmaceutical
CGMPs for the 21st Century: A Risk-Based Approach.”
In this announcement, the FDA indicated the importance that
“regulation and manufacturing standards are applied
consistently” and that “FDA resources are used most effectively
and efficiently to address the most significant health risks.”
In an effort to help assure these goals, it was decided to have
the appropriate Center “provide a scientific and technical
review of all drug CGMP Warning Letters.” In order to
accomplish this, the Warning Letter Group was formed to effect
the rescission of the field’s Direct Reference Authority for
issuance of cGMP Warning Letters for human and animal dosage
form drugs and medicated feeds. The memorandum rescinding this
authority is dated February 20, 2003. This rescission, which
went into effect on March 1, 2003, required all recommendations
for cGMP Warning Letters by the District to be submitted to CDER
or CVM Headquarters Compliance Offices for review and clearance
prior to issuance.
An
assessment of the content, consistency, and outcome of the Warning
Letter recommendation process related to cGMP deficiencies for human
and animal dosage form drugs and medicated feeds was completed in
March 2004. The intent of this assessment was to determine whether
the rescission of Direct Reference Authority added value to the cGMP
Warning Letter process.
The
assessment was based on a review of Warning Letter recommendations
received by Headquarters in the first 6-month period after the
rescission of the Direct Reference Authority by the Office of
Enforcement. A total of 44 Warning Letters were received (33 in CDER
and 11 in CVM) and were assessed based on criteria obtained from the
Centers’ Compliance Offices as well as any documented processes,
procedures or directives.
Overall,
the assessment showed that the rescission of Direct Reference
Authority added value to the CGMP Warning Letter process by
identifying inconsistencies as well as the need to clarify and
communicate policy to the field. The assessment revealed that there
were areas in which the process could be enhanced to improve the
consistency of recommendations between the field and Center Office(s)
of Compliance. For example, in many instances the recommendations
were changed because the Centers applied a risk-management strategy.
When the risk-management strategy is completely developed, conveyed
to the field, and implemented, it should help to more appropriately
balance the Agency’s enforcement resources between high risk and low
risk products and processes.
In
addition, the assessment noted that both Centers exceeded the 15-day
timeframe guide for processing Warning Letters. The scope of the
assessment did not include covering the timeliness of the entire
regulatory procedure (from the last date of inspection to the final
outcome).
Steps
have been initiated to address the concerns noted in the assessment.
The ORA Office of Enforcement is leading an agency-wide initiative to
identify opportunities for the application of quality systems
principles to enhance the overall Warning Letter process.