蒲公英 - 制药技术的传播者 GMP理论的实践者

搜索
查看: 3045|回复: 12
收起左侧

[GMP相关] 关于监管文化,PDA前任主席怎么看?

[复制链接]
药士
发表于 2016-10-4 20:45:44 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式

欢迎您注册蒲公英

您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有帐号?立即注册

x
本帖最后由 beiwei5du 于 2016-10-4 20:48 编辑

关于监管文化,PDA前任主席怎么看?2016-09-20 Kieffer博士

PDA前任主席Kieffer博士通过阐述目前监管文化中的弊端分析质量问题产生的根本原因。

其中关于质量人的职责的思考也有助于企业优化自身质量体系:质量部门承担过多职能;除了质量人员,企业高层也需要对PQS负责。

制药行业当前有很多关于质量文化的讨论,且许多专业组织正在认真解决这个问题。因为我们都意识到,很多医药行业质量问题的根源其实都可以上溯到文化问题。

本文认为,目前业内质量文化受到监管文化的影响很大,而监管文化本身却又存在某些问题。本文将对监管文化的不足进行阐述,并就行业如何克服这些问题给大家提供一些建议。


监管文化

监管中的困惑

CDER(药品审评与研究中心)总监Janet Woodcock女士在一场ISPE决策座谈会坦言,即使是在美国,人们对于‘GMP符合性’的确切含义也没有共识。她对美国监管系统所提供的不必要的复杂性感到不满。

关于cGMPs

cGMP中的“ c”代表“现行”的意思,但我认为这些概念都已经非常过时。药品GMP反映的是上世纪50年代的质量理念,当时人们对质量的普遍认识是,生产部门负责生产,另一部门负责检查产品确认其符合质量标准。而现在我们知道,这样的运作系统不仅对质量没有丝毫的帮助作用,还非常昂贵。当今的质量理念是,生产者必须负责自己的产品的质量。这需要通过十分严谨的生产工艺设计和验证,以及训练有素的质量工作负责人来实现。

质量部门的作用

如今监管环境过分强调质量部门对于质量体系和产品质量的作用。质量部门已经承担了过多的工作,而这些工作本应由生产、工程、技术服务和人力资源等部门进行的。这样导致质量部门常常没有能力去充分执行这些任务。

值得记住的是在1979年GMP序言所指出的问题:

“某些应当为工程部门或其他专业部门的职能,不应被质量部门复制或占用,因为这些职能的执行需要特有的培训和专业知识。质量控制部门的职责只是确保其他部门的专长已经被发挥利用。为了表明质量控制职能可以被质量部门以外的其他部门执行,‘执行’一词被替换为‘负责’。”

质量人在现在质量体系的角色是过程改进者和质量促进者。质量人要具备设计有效、高效的流程的技能,或至少具备推动团队实现这些设计和流程的进行的能力。此外,还需要创造推广和促进方式,使得这些流程在整个组织能被理解并接受,尤其重要的是能对好的执行力达成共识。除了能发现错误和不好的地方,能够找到做得正确和做得好的地方也相当重要。

ICH Q10中的药品质量体系(PQS)部分表明,高层管理人员应对PQS负责。我们距离实现这一目标还很远,目前仍然在依靠质量部门来建立和管理PQS。

持续改进

行业中的每个人和监管部门都在谈持续改进,但目前的监管环境却使其变得举步维艰。目前,改变处方或改变工艺的一个变更审批,企业就得等上漫长的好几年。这些审批要求并不是全球统一的,就算局限于某一个市场区域的审批,亦可能至少花上一年的时间才能拿到变更批准。 ICH Q12号文称试图努力消除这种障碍。 ICH Q12的这些目标是:

  • “一个最高效、敏捷、灵活的医药制造业,在没有强有力的法规监管下仍然可以可靠地生产出高质量的药品”。

  • 大多数的生产变更完全由公司的药品质量体系(PQS)单独进行管理,而不需要在实施之前获得监管机构的批准。


我怀疑这种理想的状态能否在我有生之年实现,这是我五十年药学工作生涯中大部分时间中的一个不可能的梦。监管政治是一个太大的障碍。


医药行业可以为此做什么?

虽然医药行业不能直接改变监管文化,但可以间接地影响它,还可以提高自身的质量文化。以下是我的一些建议:

1. 首先认识到,质量并不等同于符合性。

符合性虽然重要,但仅是符合性远远不够。我们估计很多年前,就算100%符合GMP要求也只会让你得到麦尔肯鲍瑞品质奖10%的分数。行业本身就需要志存高远,以卓越运营为目标。

2. 实施ICH Q10。

ICH Q10并不完美,但它比GMP要求更进一步。确保高级管理层要承担发展、实施和持续改进PQS的责任,转移上述质量部门的职责。

3. 改变企业文化。

这将是艰苦的工作,通常需要多年才能完成。如果成功了,也许监管者会从企业这儿学到有用的经验。

4. 行业需要教育和引导监管机构,而不是相反的由监管机构引导行业。

这就是PDA这样的一个专业组织的主要任务之一。

作者简介Robert G. Kieffer博士


  • 拥有超过45年制药业和医疗器械行业经验

  • 擅长质量管理和质量系统设计,在50多个国家担任技术讲师,并参与辅助和解决相关问题

  • PDA前任主席



本文由gempex China德恩获德国Maas&Peither出版社官方授权进行翻译及发布。
转载请注明出处——“德恩GMP咨询公众号”。



回复

使用道具 举报

药士
发表于 2016-10-4 22:33:44 | 显示全部楼层
当今的质量理念是,生产者必须负责自己的产品的质量。这需要通过十分严谨的生产工艺设计和验证,以及训练有素的质量工作负责人来实现。
回复

使用道具 举报

药徒
发表于 2016-10-5 07:41:31 | 显示全部楼层
现在的现状确实是质量部门承担了太多的责任!
回复

使用道具 举报

药士
发表于 2016-10-5 09:14:13 | 显示全部楼层
这个老外讲的不错啊
回复

使用道具 举报

药生
发表于 2016-10-6 20:18:25 | 显示全部楼层
好文章,引人思考,有营养。
回复

使用道具 举报

药生
发表于 2016-10-6 22:13:42 | 显示全部楼层
这个奖的不错
回复

使用道具 举报

药生
发表于 2016-10-6 22:13:57 | 显示全部楼层
不知道英文版在哪里
回复

使用道具 举报

药士
 楼主| 发表于 2016-10-6 23:25:25 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 beiwei5du 于 2016-10-6 23:27 编辑
一沙一叶 发表于 2016-10-6 22:13
不知道英文版在哪里

GMP LOGFILE FeaturesLOGFILE No. 18/2016 – Problems with the Regulatory Culture

Problems with the Regulatory Culture
by Robert G. Kieffer, Ph.D.

Today there is much discussion of the quality culture in the pharmaceutical industry. Many professional organizations are seriously addressing this topic. Why, because we are realizing that the root cause of many of the pharmaceutical industry’s quality problems can be traced to problems with the culture. It is the premise of this paper that the current industry quality culture is very much influenced by the regulatory culture and that this regulatory culture has problems embedded in it. After describing what we perceive to be some of the deficiencies of the regulatory culture we will make some suggestions on how industry can overcome them.

The Regulatory Culture
(1) Regulatory Confusion
“To my knowledge, there's no detailed common understanding within the United States about what GMP compliance exactly means,” CDER Director Janet Woodcock frankly stated at an exclusive ISPE Executive Forum. She further stated that she struggles to understand what a quality organization looks like. She bemoaned the unnecessary complexity provided by the regulatory system in the United States.
(2) cGMPs
We forget that the c in CGMPs stands for current. I think that they are very much out of date. The pharmaceutical GMPs reflect the quality philosophy of the 1950s. Then the common thinking about quality was that one had a production unit that produced and another unit that inspected the product for compliance with quality specifications. Today we know that that system doesn’t work and besides it is very costly. Today’s philosophy of quality is that the producers must be responsible for the quality of their work, the product. This is achieved by a robust production process design and validation, and well-trained personnel who take responsibility for the quality of their work.
(3) The Role of the Quality Unit
Today’s regulatory environment puts undue emphasis on the quality unit for the quality system and for product quality. The quality unit has taken on many tasks that should be performed by production, engineering, technical services, human resources, etc. Frequently the quality unit does not have the capability of performing these tasks adequately.
It is worth remembering what was stated in 1979 by the commissioner in the preamble to the GMPs:
”Functions that are properly those of the engineering department or other specialized units because of their unique training and expertise should not be duplicated or usurped by the quality control unit. Where expertise is in other units, the responsibility of the quality control unit is to assure that such expertise has been utilized. In order to make clear that quality control functions may be performed by persons assigned to units outside the quality control unit, the Commissioner is replacing ‘perform’ with ‘be responsible for’.”
The modern role of the quality professional is one of process improver and quality promoter. He has the skill to design effective and efficient processes or at least facilitate the work of teams that are performing the design and its implementation. Furthermore he creates ways to sell and promote quality throughout the organization. Especially important is recognition of good performance. This is looking for the things that are done correctly and not only the mistakes or bad things. (2)
ICH Q10 on the Pharmaceutical Quality System (PQS) indicates that senior management should take the responsibility for the PQS. We are a long way from achieving that goal. We still rely on the quality unit for establishing and managing the PQS.
(4) Continuous Improvement
Everyone in industry and the regulators talk about continuous improvement, but the regulatory environment makes this very difficult. Currently it can take years to get approval for a change in formulation or a change in the production process. The requirements are not harmonized across the world and even within one market it can take up to a year to get approval. ICH Q12 claims to attempt to remove this obstacle. ICH Q12 aims for,
  • “A maximally efficient, agile, flexible pharmaceutical manufacturing sector that reliably produces high-quality drug products without extensive regulatory oversight”
  • Most manufacturing changes are managed solely under the company’s Pharmaceutical Quality System (PQS) without the need for regulatory approval prior to implementation.
I’m skeptical whether this desired state will be achieved in my lifetime. This has been an impossible dream for most of my 50 years in the industry. Regulatory politics is too big hurdle.
What Can Industry Do?
Although the pharmaceutical industry cannot change the regulatory culture directly it can influence it indirectly and it can improve its own quality culture. Some suggestions,
(1) First recognize that quality does not equal compliance. Compliance is important but is not sufficient. We estimated many years ago that 100% compliance with GMPs would only get you 10% of the points of the Malcolm Baldrige Quality Award. Aim high, aim for Operational Excellence.
(2) Implement ICH Q10. ICH Q10 is not perfect, especially since it does not include efficiency, but it is a step above GMPs. Ensure that senior management take responsibility for the development, implementation and continuous improvement of the PQS. Shift the responsibilities of the quality unit as described above.
(3) Change your culture. This will be hard work and will usually take many years to accomplish. (3) Perhaps the regulators will learn from you.
(4) Industry needs to educate and lead the regulators, not the other way around. This is one of the main tasks of professional organizations like the PDA.
Sources:
1. Lori Clapper, Editor, Pharmaceutical Online, April 23, 2013
2. Robert Kieffer, “The Changing Role of Quality Assurance in the Pharmaceutical Industry”, PDA Journal, 2014, 68 313-31
3. Carolyn Taylor, “Walking the Talk”, Random House, 2005
Author:
Robert G. Kieffer. Ph. D.
President
RGK Consulting
4100 Ravenwood Court, NW
Albuquerque, NM 87107
Email: rkief81270@aol.com
Dr. Kieffer is a recognized authority on quality management and on quality system design, with over 45 years’ experience in the pharmaceutical and medical device, industries. He combines broad-based business, scientific and technical knowledge with skill as a teacher, facilitator and problem-solver. He has worked in over 50 countries.
Dr. Kieffer is a past president of the PDA, worked for Sterling Winthrop Inc for 19 years and since 1994 has been president of his own consulting business. He has numerous publications and presentations to his credit.



回复

使用道具 举报

大师
发表于 2016-10-8 13:18:27 | 显示全部楼层
如今监管环境过分强调质量部门对于质量体系和产品质量的作用。质量部门已经承担了过多的工作,而这些工作本应由生产、工程、技术服务和人力资源等部门进行的。这样导致质量部门常常没有能力去充分执行这些任务。

回复

使用道具 举报

药徒
发表于 2016-11-17 11:14:48 | 显示全部楼层
如监管部门程序的繁琐、漫长的审批等待期。使得企业某些变更工作变得很漫长,最终导致有些企业在改进工艺、设备方面就很难做选择,不变,可能存在一定问题,对质量对成本吗;但如果改变的话,时间漫长。这也许是一些企业在一些工艺上造假的原因吧。

在药企,尤其是不规范的私企,很多部门会互相推诿工作,把很多工作推给质量部门
回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2016-11-24 14:47:32 | 显示全部楼层
好文章,谢谢分享
回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2020-7-24 08:14:43 | 显示全部楼层
楼主发中文啦!
回复

使用道具 举报

药神
发表于 2022-7-14 22:16:27 | 显示全部楼层
非常感谢分享
回复

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

本版积分规则

×发帖声明
1、本站为技术交流论坛,发帖的内容具有互动属性。您在本站发布的内容:
①在无人回复的情况下,可以通过自助删帖功能随时删除(自助删帖功能关闭期间,可以联系管理员微信:8542508 处理。)
②在有人回复和讨论的情况下,主题帖和回复内容已构成一个不可分割的整体,您将不能直接删除该帖。
2、禁止发布任何涉政、涉黄赌毒及其他违反国家相关法律、法规、及本站版规的内容,详情请参阅《蒲公英论坛总版规》。
3、您在本站发表、转载的任何作品仅代表您个人观点,不代表本站观点。不要盗用有版权要求的作品,转贴请注明来源,否则文责自负。
4、请认真阅读上述条款,您发帖即代表接受上述条款。

QQ|手机版|蒲公英|ouryao|蒲公英 ( 京ICP备14042168号-1 )  京ICP证150354号  互联网药品信息服务证书编号: (京)-非经营性-2024-0033

GMT+8, 2024-11-15 01:30

Powered by Discuz! X3.4运维单位:苏州豚鼠科技有限公司

Copyright © 2001-2020, Tencent Cloud.

声明:蒲公英网站所涉及的原创文章、文字内容、视频图片及首发资料,版权归作者及蒲公英网站所有,转载要在显著位置标明来源“蒲公英”;禁止任何形式的商业用途。违反上述声明的,本站及作者将追究法律责任。
快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表