Pharmaceutical Compliance in Regulated Laboratories B
efore analytical results can be generated, a laboratory requires a suitable calibrated instrument, a trained analyst, an approved/ validated method, appropriate reference materials, a standard operating procedure to help ensure the instrument is used in a consis- tent and reproducible manner and samples to test. When considered from a “compliance principles” perspective, these points are essential to support/defend the validity of the analytical results and can be thought of as almost independent of the industry in which the instrument is used. At a high level, the “compliance life cycle” a laboratory follows for intro- ducing a new laboratory instrument—from initial business investment through justification, managing and approving the analytical results generated—should:
• Be based on sound business and scientific rationales • Consider the materials to be tested • Define how the instrument will be used • Document results calculation and reporting • Support the decisions the results will be used to make.
The various regulated industries approach the subject of laboratory com- pliance in different ways and can use compliance terms in unique ways. It’s not even unusual for laboratories in different parts of the same organiza- tion to have individual approaches to compliance or to use different terms. These differences can limit the exchange of information and sharing of best practices. Often, the jargon used in a particular sector or industry can make it hard for outside laboratories to understand. Differences may only become apparent where organizations decide to harmonize compli- ance approaches or where an analytical method is transferred from one laboratory to another.1
The term “calibration” can itself have a very specific
meaning and definition (e.g., an ISO 17025-accredited calibration service), or it may have a more general meaning in the laboratory. A metrologist will work with a definition of “calibration” that differs from that of an analytical scientist, laboratory manager or auditor. When the expression “calibration” is used in a pharmaceutical testing laboratory, it may have a range of possible meanings, depending on the quality management system in place and the communication preferences of the person. The expressions “Calibration, Qualification, Validation and Verification” are examples of compliance terms that are sometimes used more as labels that represent a type of activity rather than the very tight definition used in an ISO standard. In the interest of clarity, it may be necessary to request both an explanation and an example, the latter providing context and thus enabling a more meaningful compliance discussion.
While the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)2 often provides general guid- ance on the systems and policies a laboratory needs to have in place for
compliance, it does not necessarily define the exact details or processes a laboratory must follow to be compliant. For pharmaceutical laborato- ries, one way to interpret this position is that the CFR provides the Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) and it is up to the organization to make it current (e.g., cGMP). Generally, a Quality Management System (QMS) will provide the underlying compliance framework that satisfies general regu- latory requirements such as the CFR, as well as specific procedures and SOPs to satisfy the essential details of how laboratories remain compliant.
One potential risk in laboratories is that personnel may be well trained in the procedures but have a have a poor understanding of the underlying quality principles. This can mean that changes required to implement improvements can be difficult to put in place in laboratories where the focus and training are weighted on following procedures, rather than on applying the underlying compliance principles. Additionally, when thinking “outside of the procedures” is required (such as when a qual- ity deviation occurs), there can be an increased risk that the deviation is not well investigated/documented and that the potential consequences might not be fully appreciated.
Take something as apparently simple as documenting that an instru- ment is suitable for its intended use. In one industry, the combination of instrument and application may be treated as a “Black Box” or “Analyzer.” In a different setting, the instrument might be part of an ISO 17025- accredited method. Typically in the pharmaceutical industry, independent consideration is often applied to the training of the analyst, the qualifica- tion (compliance) of the instrument, the validation of the method, the validation of the software or the integrity of the data. The language and processes used in the pharmaceutical industry are often viewed with cau- tion by other industries. For example, discuss instrument compliance with an ISO 17025-accredited laboratory in terms of “operational qualification” and a typical response might be, “We are not a pharmaceutical laboratory and we don’t need to follow their approach.” Rephrase the question and ask if the laboratory would be interested in the principle of restoring and testing the accredited method as part of reducing the overall instrument down time before handing it back to the laboratory after maintenance and repair and you may receive a different response. But use the “wrong” com- pliance language to describe something and, irrespective of the potential benefits to the laboratory, the approach may not even be considered.
Part of the uncertainty around instrument compliance relates to the lack of definitive guidance. For example, in the absence of strong regulatory com- pliance guidance, many large pharmaceutical organizations have adopted Good Automated Manufacturing Practice (GAMP) principles.3
The United
States Pharmacopeia’s (USP) general chapter on Analytical Instrument Qualification <1058>4
AMERICAN LABORATORY • 10 • MARCH 2015 follows a different categorization process than GAMP on laboratory compliance. Both implement risk-based thinking by
by Paul Smith
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56