FDA 发布上市后检查合规程序 7356.843，实施日期为 2023 年 3 月 13 日
Postapproval Inspections (7356.843)
FDA 发布合规程序 7356.843，用于对已批准 NDA、ANDA 及其原料药生产设施的上市后检查，实施日期为 2023 年 3 月 13 日，签发日期为 2023 年 1 月 27 日。
文件列出上市后检查的四个产品专属目标，可用于对照工艺验证生命周期、变更管理与数据完整性等核查范围。
PDF 文字版；图形和原始排版请参阅官方 PDF。
第 1 页
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
COMPLIANCE PROGRAM PROGRAM 7356.843
CHAPTER 56—DRUG QUALITY ASSURANCE
SUBJECT: IMPLEMENTATION DATE:
Postapproval Inspections 03/13/2023
DATA REPORTING
PRODUCT CODES PRODUCT/ASSIGNMENT CODE (PAC)
Human Drugs PAC Subject
Industry Codes: 56843 Post-approval Inspections
50, 54–56, 59, 60–66. 56R927 Remote Interactive Evaluation (RIE)
Activities—Human Drugs
56R928 704a4 Activities—Human Drugs
Remarks:
1. ORA should use this compliance program for postapproval inspections of manufacturing
facilities in support of approved new drug applications (NDAs) and abbreviated new drug
applications (ANDAs). 1
2. For reporting biological postapproval inspections, use the PAC 56843 under this compliance
program (7356.843).
3. For reporting positron emission tomography (PET) postapproval inspections, use the PAC
56843 under this compliance program (7356.843).
4. When postapproval inspection coverage is concurrent with or expanded to provide inspection
coverage under other compliance programs, follow the appropriate compliance program for
inspection and report the coverage under separate captions in the establishment inspection
report (EIR) in accordance with directions provided in the applicable compliance program.
FIELD REPORTING REQUIREMENTS:
1. Instructions for Firm Responses
The investigator instructs the firm’s management to submit Form FDA 483 responses to the
designated Office of Pharmaceutical Quality Operations (OPQO) division in the Office of Regulatory
Affairs’ (ORA’s) Office of Medical Products and Tobacco Operations (OMPTO), with a copy to the
lead investigator. The investigator reviews the postapproval inspection portion of Form FDA 483
responses and, if inadequate, provides comments to ORA and to the Office of Pharmaceutical
Manufacturing Assessment (OPMA) in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research’s (CDER’s)
Office of Pharmaceutical Quality (OPQ).
1 In this compliance program, the terms facility, firm, site, and establishment are used synonymously.
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 1 of 50
第 2 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
2. Communication of Inspectional Results
The investigator completes the EIR—which includes the cover sheet, attachments, and exhibits—in
eNSpect within established ORA time frames. 2 ORA notifies OPMA via the OPMA Postapproval
Program mailbox ([email protected]) when the EIR is available in an FDA
electronic repository system.
3. Facility Alerts
• Enter a potential Official Action Indicated (pOAI) alert in Panorama no later than 2 business
days after the inspection end date if significant current good manufacturing practice (CGMP)
deficiencies were identified per Part V of compliance program 7356.002—Drug
Manufacturing Inspections and the deficiencies could potentially impact marketed drug
products. 3
4. Inspection Classification
• Enter a No Action Indicated (NAI) classification in eNSpect if no deficiencies are noted.
• Enter a Voluntary Action Indicated (VAI) classification in eNSpect if deficiencies cited do not
rise to the level of significance noted in Part V of this compliance program.
• Enter an Official Action Indicated (OAI) classification in eNSpect for:
PAC 56843 when significant deficiencies were identified for the subject drug per Part V
of this compliance program. 4
PAC 56002 when significant CGMP deficiencies were identified per Part V of compliance
program 7356.002 and the deficiencies could potentially impact marketed drug products.
5. Firm Profile Class Code Update
Do not update the profile class unless at least one of the following applies:
• The drug product or active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) under inspection is the only drug
product or API manufactured under that profile.
2 See the ConOps agreement Integration of FDA Facility Evaluation and Inspection Program for Human Drugs: A
Concept of Operations, section 3.3, Communicating the Findings of the Inspection.
3
In rare cases, if significant CGMP deficiencies observed for the subject drug under Part V of this compliance program
(7356.843) could potentially impact other marketed drugs but inspectional coverage was not expanded to compliance
program 7356.002, a pOAI alert in Panorama should be entered no later than 2 business days after the inspection end date,
as appropriate, in consultation with the ORA preapproval program manager. For conditions that recommend addition of
coverage under compliance program 7356.002, see also Part II.3.E—Expanding Inspection Coverage to Compliance
Program 7356.002.
4
Significant deficiencies can include CGMP deficiencies and application-related issues, which are further described in
Part V of this compliance program.
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 2 of 50
第 3 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
• Surveillance coverage (compliance program 7356.002) is added to the postapproval
inspection.
For inspections that are deemed acceptable following ORA’s review (i.e., NAI or VAI for PAC
56843), ORA updates and finalizes PAC statuses and profiles, as appropriate, in eNSpect.
For inspections that are found initially unacceptable following ORA’s review (i.e., initially OAI for
PAC 56843), ORA enters the initial PAC status and profiles, as appropriate, in eNSpect and forwards
to the lead CDER office, as described in Part V, for final review, classification, issuance of an FMD-
145 letter, and modification in eNSpect.
6. Sample-Related Reporting Requirements
The designated analytical servicing laboratory in ORA’s Office of Regulatory Science (ORS) uploads
completed analytical worksheets to Compliance Management Services (CMS) and submits the
original worksheet package to the ORA home district office of the manufacturing facility.
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 3 of 50
第 4 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
CONTENTS
PART I—BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 6
PART II—IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................................................... 9
1. Scope ............................................................................................................................................ 9
2. Strategy ........................................................................................................................................ 9
A. Risk-Based Determination for Postapproval Inspections ..................................................... 9
B. Inspection by Objective ...................................................................................................... 10
3. Program Management Instructions ............................................................................................ 11
A. Facility Selection ................................................................................................................ 11
B. Postapproval Inspection Assignment Requests .................................................................. 11
C. Inspection Scheduling and Preparation ............................................................................... 12
D. Inspection Team .................................................................................................................. 13
E. Expanding Inspection Coverage to Compliance Program 7356.002 .................................. 13
F. CDER Consultation During Inspection .............................................................................. 13
G. Refusals ............................................................................................................................... 14
4. Importance of Application Assessment Integration ................................................................... 14
PART III―INSPECTIONAL ............................................................................................................... 15
1. Inspection/Audit Strategy .......................................................................................................... 15
2. Inspection/Audit Coverage, Objectives, and Techniques .......................................................... 15
A. Objective 1: Process Validation Lifecycle and State of Control ........................................ 16
B. Objective 2: Investigations and CAPA Program ................................................................ 22
C. Objective 3: Change Management, Change Effectiveness, and Conformance to the
Application and Other Postmarketing Reports and Requirements ................................................ 24
D. Objective 4: Integrity of Product Quality Data ................................................................... 33
3. Inspection Reporting .................................................................................................................. 35
A. Issuance of Form FDA 483 ................................................................................................. 35
B. Completion and Assessment of the Establishment Inspection Report................................ 35
4. Sample Collection or Sample Submission Requests ................................................................. 36
PART IV—ANALYTICAL ................................................................................................................. 37
PART V―REGULATORY / ADMINISTRATIVE STRATEGY ...................................................... 38
1. Significant Issues ....................................................................................................................... 38
2. Coordination for Regulatory/Administrative Follow-Up Actions to Inspection Findings ........ 39
A. Issues That Are Considered Significant for PAC 56843 .................................................... 39
B. Issues That Are Not Considered Significant for PAC 56843 ............................................. 41
PART VI—REFERENCES, ATTACHMENT, PROGRAM CONTACTS, AND ACRONYMS ...... 42
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 4 of 50
第 5 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
1. References .................................................................................................................................. 42
A. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21 ................................................................................ 42
B. Compliance Programs ......................................................................................................... 42
C. Compliance Policy Guide ................................................................................................... 42
D. FDA Guidances................................................................................................................... 43
E. Other Procedures and References ....................................................................................... 44
2. Attachment ................................................................................................................................. 45
3. Program Contacts ....................................................................................................................... 45
A. Office of Regulatory Affairs ............................................................................................... 45
B. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research .......................................................................... 46
4. Acronyms ................................................................................................................................... 46
PART VII―OVERVIEW OF CDER-ORA RESPONSIBILITIES ..................................................... 48
ATTACHMENT A: REMOTE REGULATORY ASSESSMENTS .................................................... 49
1. FDA Records and Other Information Requests Under Section 704(a)(4) of the FD&C Act
(Statutorily Authorized RRA) ........................................................................................................... 49
2. Remote Interactive Evaluation (Voluntary RRA)...................................................................... 49
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 5 of 50
第 6 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
PART I—BACKGROUND
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) provides that FDA may approve an NDA or
ANDA if, among other requirements, the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for,
the manufacture, processing, packing, and testing of the drug are found adequate to ensure and
preserve its identity, strength, quality, and purity. 5 In certain circumstances, FDA may approve
applications without performing an inspection of the facility manufacturing the application product
(e.g., the facility has a good CGMP compliance history, the application product is not a new profile
class for the facility, the facility has a successful history with the manufacturing method being
employed).
In 2002, FDA announced a significant initiative called Pharmaceutical CGMPs for the 21st Century
to enhance and modernize the regulation of pharmaceutical manufacturing and product quality. 6 This
initiative encourages implementation of risk- and science-based approaches that focus FDA attention
on critical areas to promote better and more consistent decisions among regulators. In accordance
with the initiative, this postapproval compliance program includes science- and risk-based
approaches to the inspection of the firm’s manufacturing process, product understanding, and quality
controls; assurance of quality over the product lifecycle; evaluation of the firm’s manufacturing
capability; and verification of authenticity of the application data and conformance to approved
application commitments.
In 2017, CDER and ORA entered the ConOps agreement Integration of FDA Facility Evaluation
and Inspection Program for Human Drugs: A Concept of Operations, which outlines the roles and
responsibilities of CDER and ORA for facility evaluation and preapproval, postapproval,
surveillance, and for-cause inspections for human drugs. FDA components involved in this
compliance program—CDER’s OPQ and Office of Compliance (OC), ORA, and FDA
laboratories—are committed to coordinating efforts and communications to resolve outstanding
quality issues. This postapproval inspection compliance program aligns with this agreement.
To facilitate the management of postapproval chemistry, manufacturing, and controls (CMC)
changes in a more predictable and efficient manner, FDA published the International Council for
Harmonisation (ICH) guidance for industry Q12 Technical and Regulatory Considerations for
Pharmaceutical Product Lifecycle Management and its Annexes and the draft guidance for industry
ICH Q12: Implementation Considerations for FDA-Regulated Products (ICH Q12 implementation
guidance) in 2021. 7 When used jointly with increased product and process knowledge—and in the
context of the risk management principles in ICH guidance for industry Q9(R1) Quality Risk
Management and an effective pharmaceutical quality system (PQS) as described in ICH guidance for
industry Q10 Pharmaceutical Quality System—these guidance documents should enhance industry’s
ability to manage CMC changes effectively with less need for extensive regulatory oversight before
implementation.
5
See sections 505(d) and 505(j)(4)(A) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355(d)(3) and (j)(4)(A)).
6
See Pharmaceutical Quality for the 21st Century—A Risk-Based Approach: Progress Report.
7
When final, the ICH Q12 implementation guidance will represent FDA’s current thinking on this topic. For the most
recent version of a guidance, check the FDA guidance web page at https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-
fda-guidance-documents.
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 6 of 50
第 7 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
For example, any change to an established condition (EC)—legally binding information considered
necessary to ensure product quality—requires a submission to FDA (PAS, CBE-30, CBE-0, or
annual report) as detailed in the regulations (e.g., 21 CFR 314.70 and 314.97). 8 Although these
regulations do not explicitly specify what constitutes an EC, they do set forth a risk-based paradigm
for reporting changes. In addition, existing FDA guidance documents on postapproval changes
provide recommendations for how to report a broad set of postapproval changes. 9 ICH Q12 and the
ICH Q12 implementation guidance provide an opportunity for applicants to specifically define ECs
and gain clarity around which elements of the product, manufacturing process, facilities and
equipment, and control strategy in their applications are considered to be ECs and therefore require
reporting if changed. Proposing ECs in the application is entirely voluntary. If specific ECs are not
proposed, ECs would be those (e.g., parameters, attributes, controls, specifications, facilities, and
other elements necessary to ensure product quality) that FDA typically considers to be ECs based on
the risk-based paradigm set forth in the regulations and the recommendations contained in guidance
regarding postapproval changes.
Any ECs identified in an application, and any proposed reporting categories for changes in those
ECs, are evaluated by the CDER members of the integrated quality assessment (IQA) team. In
assessing specific ECs and reporting categories, the IQA team will consider areas that may need to
be covered on a postapproval inspection, such as information about the PQS at establishments where
the ECs will be implemented as well as the applicant’s scientific justification, which can include
development studies. For example, an effective PQS as described in ICH Q10 is critical for the use
of the tools described in ICH Q12. An evaluation of a firm’s change management system, as part of
the PQS, helps to ensure that there will be appropriate reporting of changes in ECs, including that
the reporting is consistent with any postapproval change management protocol (PACMP) and the
product lifecycle management (PLCM) document, if submitted in the application. Under ICH Q12,
PACMPs are regulatory tools that (1) describe CMC changes the applicant intends to implement
during the commercial phase of a product’s lifecycle; (2) propose the requirements and studies
needed to implement product changes; (3) identify specific conditions and acceptance criteria to be
met; (4) explain how changes would be prepared and verified, including assessment of the impact of
the proposed change; and (5) suggest reporting categories to notify FDA. FDA refers to PACMPs as
comparability protocols, which can be submitted independent of any prior identification of ECs in
the original application or supplement. 10 In all cases, changes are to be appropriately identified and
implemented in accordance with CGMP requirements.
8
PAS=prior approval supplement; CBE=changes being effected.
9
See, e.g., FDA’s Scale-Up and Postapproval Changes (SUPAC) guidances and the guidances for industry Changes to
an Approved Application for Specified Biotechnology and Specified Synthetic Biological Products, Changes to an
Approved NDA or ANDA, CMC Postapproval Manufacturing Changes To Be Documented in Annual Reports, and
Comparability Protocols for Postapproval Changes to the Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls Information in an
NDA, ANDA, or BLA.
10
Comparability protocols are synonymous with protocols as defined in 21 CFR 314.70(e) and 601.12(e). See guidance
for industry Comparability Protocols for Postapproval Changes to the Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls
Information in an NDA, ANDA, or BLA.
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 7 of 50
第 8 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
Further, to facilitate FDA’s initiative to enhance the regulation of pharmaceutical manufacturing and
product quality, FDA has developed additional tools to augment its regulatory oversight. As a result
of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency, FDA has relied on various
alternative tools to advance its regulatory responsibilities. This may include the following: (1)
requesting existing inspection reports from trusted foreign regulatory partners through mutual
recognition agreements (MRAs) and other confidentiality agreements; 11 and (2) conducting remote
regulatory assessments (RRAs), 12 including (a) requesting records and other information directly
from facilities and other inspected entities related to the application under section 704(a)(4) of the
FD&C Act, and (b) conducting remote interactive evaluations (RIEs) where appropriate. As
described further in relevant Agency policies and in this compliance program (including Attachment
A), FDA may, under certain circumstances, use these tools to evaluate facilities and support
regulatory decisions on applications.
11
For existing FDA MRAs with the European Union and the United Kingdom, this includes the use of official inspection
reports issued by a recognized authority for manufacturing facilities located inside and outside the territory of the issuing
authority. For more information, see https://www.fda.gov/international-programs/international-arrangements/mutual-
recognition-agreement-mra.
12
An RRA is an examination of an FDA-regulated establishment and/or its records, conducted entirely remotely, to
evaluate compliance with applicable FDA requirements. RRAs assist in protecting human health, informing regulatory
decisions, and verifying certain information submitted to the Agency.
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 8 of 50
第 9 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
PART II—IMPLEMENTATION
1. Scope
ORA and CDER work together under this compliance program to evaluate marketed drug products
manufactured under approved NDAs or ANDAs or their associated APIs (hereinafter subject
drugs). 13 Postapproval inspections are similar to preapproval inspections (PAIs) in that they are
product-specific, but unlike PAIs, they are conducted after applications have been approved.
Postapproval inspections for subject drugs are led by ORA with optional CDER participation.
A postapproval inspection focuses on process validation lifecycle, change management, changes
submitted to the application, and execution of supporting activities per application commitments and
CGMP requirements. 14
This compliance program provides risk-based strategies for the scope of inspectional coverage and
clarifies roles to establish efficient communication.
CDER uses information from postapproval inspections to update the lifecycle risk profile for a
subject drug or to determine regulatory action.
2. Strategy
A. Risk-Based Determination for Postapproval Inspections
The IQA team 15 uses a risk-based approach to product quality assessments, which includes facility
evaluations and, if deemed necessary, inspections of manufacturing facilities listed in the
application. During the review and approval of a marketing application, the IQA team assesses the
potential risks concerning product, process, and facility and determines whether a postapproval
inspection is needed. Such determinations are based on the totality of information that would
indicate potential facility-relevant risks. In these cases, the ORA preapproval program manager
(PAM) would consult with OPMA via the OPMA Postapproval Program mailbox
([email protected]) to coordinate with the IQA team and confirm that a
postapproval inspection is needed. In the absence of any potential concern for product quality from
the IQA team or the ORA PAM based on their risk assessment of the application product, the
13
In this compliance program, the terms API and drug substance are synonymous.
14
For (a) PET drug products, refer to 21 CFR part 212 and compliance program 7356.002P—Positron Emission
Tomography (PET) CGMP Drug Process and Pre-approval Inspections/Investigations; (b) drug products, refer to 21
CFR parts 210 and 211; (c) biological products, refer to 21 CFR parts 210, 211, 600, and 610; (d) APIs in general, refer
to the recommendations in the ICH guidance for industry Q7 Good Manufacturing Practice Guidance for Active
Pharmaceutical Ingredients; and (e) APIs labeled as sterile per compliance program 7356.002A—Sterile Drug Process
Inspections, refer to 21 CFR parts 210 and 211.
15 For the purpose of this compliance program, the IQA team refers to a designated team of subject matter experts (e.g.,
drug substance assessor, drug product assessor, biopharmaceutics assessor, manufacturing assessor, ORA preapproval
program manager or designee as needed) who are assigned to assess quality aspects of application submissions (i.e.,
original applications or postapproval submissions thereof). It may also include other roles, as needed. See the ConOps
agreement.
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 9 of 50
第 10 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
manufacturing process, and the facility named in the application, a product-specific postapproval
inspection of a facility may not be needed.
As appropriate, OPMA will identify additional assignments to those recommended by the IQA team
based on the combined risk of the product, drug class, and dosage form and based on process and
facility considerations. The overall purpose of this effort is to confirm that the risk to the patient
from product quality issues is minimized.
The need for a postapproval inspection can be determined before, as well as after, application
approval. For example:
• Before application approval, the IQA team may anticipate an increased risk of variability in
product quality during scale up and sustained commercial production and decide that a
postapproval inspection may be needed, instead of or in addition to a PAI. In these cases,
either the IQA manufacturing assessment document or the final OPMA recommendation in
Panorama Inspection View should indicate that a postapproval inspection should be
performed.
• In some cases, concerns may arise during a PAI that will need to be addressed by a future
postapproval inspection.
• After application approval, OPMA evaluates information from multiple sources in
developing a list of postapproval inspection candidates. Sources can include completed IQA
manufacturing assessments, assessments from OPQ’s Office of Quality Surveillance (OQS)
about the state of pharmaceutical quality at sites (e.g., site dossier), and any changes
described in postmarket submissions.
B. Inspection by Objective
There are four primary product-specific objectives for postapproval inspections, each of which
requires strategies that consider potential risks and identified concerns:
1. Objective 1: Process Validation Lifecycle and State of Control
Verify that there is a high degree of assurance that the commercial manufacturing process is
in a state of control and consistently produces a subject drug that meets the applicable
requirements for identity, strength, quality, and purity. 16 Ensure that the firm’s
manufacturing process, control strategy, test methods, and process performance and product
quality monitoring system for the subject drug are well-designed, implemented, validated as
applicable, and verified throughout the product lifecycle as necessary.
2. Objective 2: Investigations and Corrective Action and Preventive Action (CAPA) Program
Determine whether investigations and CAPAs associated with the subject drug and
associated processes and equipment were thoroughly evaluated and effectively implemented
using quality risk management as an enabler in support of continual improvement.
16
See section 501(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act and 21 CFR 210.1(a) and 211.100(a).
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 10 of 50
第 11 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
3. Objective 3: Change Management, Change Effectiveness, and Conformance to the
Application and Other Postmarketing Reports and Requirements
Determine whether implemented changes in the product, process, components, equipment,
and/or facility associated with the subject drug were implemented effectively using quality
risk management as an enabler in support of continual improvement. Verify that the subject
drug is being manufactured in accordance with the approved application or active drug
master file (DMF) referenced in the approved application, including filed postapproval
changes. Confirm that the firm is fulfilling or is on track to fulfill commitments (e.g.,
providing additional stability data) made at the time of approval (of an original application or
in subsequent submissions) and is meeting drug quality reporting requirements in a timely
manner.
4. Objective 4: Integrity of Product Quality Data
Audit manufacturing controls, test results, and the related raw data for starting materials, in-
process materials, and batches of the subject drug. Ensure that the test and production data
are authentic, computed correctly, accurate, and documented per CGMP and that they
support the associated decisions by the firm, application submissions, and lifecycle changes.
For details on inspectional and auditing techniques related to these objectives, refer to Part
III―Inspectional.
3. Program Management Instructions
A. Facility Selection
OPMA selects a subject drug and associated manufacturing facilities as described in Part II.2.A—
Risk-Based Determination for Postapproval Inspections. OPMA ensures that the manufacturing
facility selected for postapproval inspection, including a facility named in a referenced DMF, is still
named in an approved drug application. OPMA should, to the extent possible, confirm that the drug
product is marketed using the Electronic Drug Registration and Listing System (eDRLS), Online
Reporting Analysis Decision Support System (ORADSS), and the OQS site dossier, which may
contain information useful for this determination.
B. Postapproval Inspection Assignment Requests
OPMA issues postapproval inspection assignment requests to the ORA Pharmaceutical Assignment
mailbox ([email protected]) and the appropriate ORA division manager or
ORA PAM. OPMA summarizes product and process knowledge from the application and identifies
and advises on onsite coverage of potential risks to and concerns for product and process, which the
investigator can use to develop an inspection plan.
These assignment requests could involve multiple applications for one facility, with different
degrees of coverage of the four objectives. Reasons for the assignment could include the level of
manufacturing experience, risk factors that apply to two or more subject drugs, and an efficient use
of resources by covering multiple applications at one inspection, among others.
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 11 of 50
第 12 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
Postapproval inspection assignments should include the selection rationale, a product risk
assessment based on the original application and postapproval submissions thereto, and the criteria
for choosing applications, as necessary.
OPMA expects postapproval inspection assignments to be covered by ORA field personnel as part of
ORA’s work plan for the fiscal year. Resources allocated under PAC 56843 are intended for this
compliance program. ORA notifies OPMA via the OPMA Postapproval Program mailbox
([email protected]) if ORA will be unable to complete an assignment
because of competing priorities.
ORA may find that the selected application product has not been marketed and may find a more
suitable application product for postapproval inspection coverage. In these situations, ORA can
exercise discretion and select a different application for postapproval inspection coverage than that
assigned. However, ORA should coordinate with OPMA before making any such changes in
assignment. A postapproval inspection may be combined with other programs or for-cause
inspections as necessary for efficient inspection coverage. A systems-based CGMP surveillance
inspection per compliance program 7356.002 may be added as per program management
instructions. ORA should send concerns, problems, or objections regarding the assignment request to
the OPMA Postapproval Program mailbox ([email protected]).
C. Inspection Scheduling and Preparation
During logistics planning (e.g., determining the inspection start date), and before initiating the
postapproval inspection, ORA may decide to confirm with the firm that the drug is manufactured at
the inspection site.
In addition to following the steps in section 5.5.1.1—Preparation and References—of the
Investigations Operations Manual (IOM), investigators should prepare for a postapproval inspection
by conducting the following activities:
• Review the completed DMF/drug process/micro IQA reviews and the CMC section of the
application (including the original development report), related supplements and
postapproval changes, annual reports, application postapproval commitments, and related
DMFs associated with the inspection assignment.
Note: This information can be accessed electronically via Panorama or DARRTS/Lorenz
docuBridge. Applications often contain trade secrets or confidential commercial information,
and it is essential that the information be carefully protected to prevent its release outside
FDA. ORA divisions are expected to establish a controlled access filing system to prevent
the unauthorized use or release of application information.
• Based on the assignment request, contact the drug process, microbiology, and facility
assessors assigned to the application, as applicable, to discuss special areas for coverage and
questions regarding the submitted information (e.g., test methods, data tables, raw material
attributes, justifications for finished product specifications).
• Access the application’s most current PLCM document or comparability protocols via an
OPMA request or docuBridge to ensure inspection coverage is relevant.
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 12 of 50
第 13 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
• After reviewing the assignment request and the related PAI’s EIR (if performed), contact
OPMA with questions about the application and contact the ORA PAM or designee with
questions about the performed PAI, EIR, and firm history.
• In consultation with other inspection team members, develop an inspection plan that is
specific to the establishment and its compliance history and to the subject drug being
inspected and is consistent with this compliance program’s objectives and inspectional and
auditing techniques.
D. Inspection Team
ORA leads postapproval inspections and CDER participates with CDER and ORA management
concurrence. ORA investigators and CDER application assessors or CDER subject matter experts
are encouraged to jointly participate in postapproval inspections, particularly for those subject drugs
that are a new molecular entity, incorporate a new molecular entity, are a novel formulation or
dosage type, are produced using a novel unit operation or processing method, or use a novel
analytical test method or technique. While the ORA investigator is responsible for reporting
inspection findings in the EIR, all participants on an inspection team are responsible for submitting
their portion of the EIR and supporting exhibits to the lead investigator in a timely manner, as
directed by the lead investigator.
E. Expanding Inspection Coverage to Compliance Program 7356.002
The inspection team should add surveillance coverage with PAC 56002 under compliance program
7356.002 17 if it finds objectionable conditions for the assigned subject drug during the postapproval
inspection and if one of the following conditions exist:
• The subject drug is the only product manufactured at the establishment; or
• The objectionable conditions identified for the subject drug as per part V of this compliance
program could potentially impact other marketed drug products manufactured at the
establishment.
F. CDER Consultation During Inspection
When product-specific issues arise that cannot be immediately resolved by the investigator on-site
and may need the subject matter expertise of product assessors from CDER (OPQ), ORA can reach
out to the appropriate OPMA/review division representative for clarification.
17
Unless there is an assignment from the current Site Surveillance Inspection List or there is justification based on
objectionable observations that could impact marketed drug products, surveillance coverage (56002(X)) would not
typically be added to postapproval inspection assignments.
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 13 of 50
第 14 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
G. Refusals
Under section 501(j) of the FD&C Act, a drug is adulterated that “has been manufactured, processed,
packed, or held in any factory, warehouse, or establishment and the owner, operator, or agent of such
factory, warehouse, or establishment delays, denies, or limits an inspection, or refuses to permit
entry or inspection.” 18
Investigators should fully document the circumstances of the denial, delay, limitation, or refusal as
outlined in the IOM. The ORA program division should attempt to resolve the issue, but if initial
attempts are unsuccessful, the ORA program division should notify its Office of Chief Counsel
senior enforcement advisor, if needed, and OC for awareness and assistance. In the event a denial,
delay, limitation, or refusal occurs during an inspection where the circumstances indicate a
significant threat to humans or animals, the investigator should attempt to collect an inventory of all
drugs (components and finished products) at the establishment.
4. Importance of Application Assessment Integration
Achieving a science-based approval decision about each application from a pharmaceutical quality
perspective requires an integrated assessment of the application and associated facilities. Because
this requires input from multiple disciplines in FDA, differences of opinion may occur. FDA offices
involved in the postapproval inspection program are covered by an equal voice philosophy. Under
this philosophy, all appropriate expertise should be considered in the important decisions made about
applications, and the perspective from each FDA office assigned a role in reviewing and evaluating
drug applications is valuable. This equal voice environment is achieved, in practice, when each
organizational unit:
• Integrates each contribution to enhance the decision of the multidisciplinary team.
• Provides an environment where all team members can express their views for the areas in
which they have a recognized responsibility.
• Ensures an avenue for promptly raising unresolved differences of opinion through the
management chain for prompt resolution.
• Maintains transparency with a full and adequate record documenting decisions, including
significantly differing views.
18
See also guidance for industry Circumstances That Constitute Delaying, Denying, Limiting, or Refusing a Drug
Inspection for additional information.
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 14 of 50
第 15 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
PART III―INSPECTIONAL
1. Inspection/Audit Strategy
There are four primary product-specific objectives to be covered under this compliance program:
1. Objective 1: Process Validation Lifecycle and State of Control.
2. Objective 2: Investigations and CAPA Program.
3. Objective 3: Change Management, Change Effectiveness, and Conformance to the
Application and Other Postmarketing Reports and Requirements.
4. Objective 4: Integrity of Product Quality Data.
The inspection team should provide the coverage described in the assignment memo as well as
provide additional, in-depth coverage of potential issues identified during the inspection.
2. Inspection/Audit Coverage, Objectives, and Techniques
Subsequent to an application approval, the firm should have generated and collected substantially
more manufacturing and laboratory data than what is typically provided at filing and made available
during the application review. Product and process knowledge gained by analysis of such data
should help firms demonstrate their ability to consistently maintain process controls, meet quality
specifications, reliably produce subject drugs of intended quality, and adequately respond to
unexpected or aberrant results in a timely manner to prevent poor quality drug products from
reaching consumers.
Postapproval inspection focuses largely on the product lifecycle, including the process validation
lifecycle and manufacturing changes that may have occurred after approval. During a postapproval
inspection, the inspection team reviews records and processes for changes related to the subject drug
that have occurred from the time the application was approved up to the time of the inspection. The
inspection team should also confirm that manufacturing-related commitments made by applicants
during the application or supplement approval stage have been completed or are underway. It is not
uncommon for manufacturers to change production equipment, manufacturing procedures, and
associated control strategies based on scale-up, process qualification, process verification, and
capacity needs. Such modifications, which generally need to be submitted for FDA review (see 21
CFR 314.70) unless otherwise provided for as approved ECs, reflect changes to the approved
application and must conform to CGMP regulations (see 21 CFR 211.22 and 211.100).
This section further explains each postapproval inspectional objective and provides examples of
documents and processes to review, guiding points for inspectional focus areas and coverage, a
framework for assessing the firm’s performance, and references to applicable regulations and
guidance documents.
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 15 of 50
第 16 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
A. Objective 1: Process Validation Lifecycle and State of Control
Summary: Verify that there is a high degree of assurance that the commercial
manufacturing process is in a state of control and consistently produces a subject drug
that meets the applicable requirements for identity, strength, quality, and purity. 19
Ensure that the firm’s manufacturing process, control strategy, test methods, and
process performance and product quality monitoring system for the subject drug are
well-designed, implemented, validated as applicable, and verified throughout the
product lifecycle as necessary.
Process validation is defined as the collection and evaluation of data from the process design stage
through commercial production, which establishes scientific evidence that a process is capable of
consistently delivering quality product. Process validation is grouped into three stages: (1) process
design, (2) process qualification, and (3) continued process verification. 20 Process validation
coverage during postapproval inspection primarily focuses on stages 2 and 3—process qualification
and continued process verification—for the commercial manufacture of the subject drug. Stage
1―process design―is expected to require less coverage, particularly for subject drugs for which
PAIs were conducted. During a postapproval inspection, the investigator may need to evaluate
certain aspects of process design if they observe variability in commercial manufacturing data (stage
3 data, e.g., trends, deviations, failures) or process qualification studies and data (stage 2 data).
Suggested focus areas within the three process validation stages are described below.
(1) Objective 1A: Review of Process Design (Process Validation—Stage 1)
Sufficient documentation of process design activities is necessary to ensure that process knowledge
is appropriately captured, evaluated, and leveraged for use in subsequent stages of process
validation. Product development activities, including design of experiment (DoE) studies and
appropriate application of risk analysis tools in particular, are perhaps among the best industry
practices that manufacturers can use to develop process knowledge.
Process design and development studies, in particular DoE studies, typically help reveal
relationships between variable inputs (e.g., component characteristics, process parameters) and
resulting outputs (e.g., in-process material, intermediates, subject drug). Additionally, process design
studies (e.g., laboratory or pilot-scale models, computer-based or virtual simulations of certain unit
operations or process dynamics), and in particular the scale-up studies to commercial production,
address the functionality and operational limitations of commercial equipment and the anticipated
contributions to variability posed by different component lots (e.g., impact of component particle
size on unit operations such as mixing/blending, filling, or compression), production operators,
environmental conditions, and measurement systems in the production setting. The scientific data
resulting from process design, including DoE studies, can contribute to process understanding and
19
See footnote 16.
20
See guidance for industry Process Validation: General Principles and Practices for expectations about the scope and
purpose of these three stages.
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 16 of 50
第 17 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
thereby help manufacturers justify ranges for incoming component quality, equipment parameters,
in-process material quality attributes, and the design of manufacturing process and controls.
Inspection Coverage 21
• If objective 1A was not previously evaluated (e.g., during a PAI or during an RIE 22 or an
assessment conducted under section 704(a)(4) of the FD&C Act), or there was a quality
concern identified from the previous evaluation, review the product development activities,
experimental reports, and other supportive data and reports available—whether they were
included in the original application or they were performed as part of a research or trial batch
on a different manufacturing scale―to determine if the process was designed to produce the
subject drug meeting the established critical quality attributes before the firm initiated stage 2
process validation activities.
• Determine if the firm appropriately executed relevant process design activities in response to
deviations observed in stage 2 or 3.
(2) Objective 1B: Review of Process Performance Qualification (Process Validation—
Stage 2)
The focus of postapproval inspections during the process qualification stage is on process
performance qualification (PPQ), which is primarily concerned with achieving a level of confidence
that the commercial process and controls consistently result in high-quality product and that
commercial distribution is justified.
Firms can achieve this by (1) designing and executing a written protocol (hereinafter PPQ protocol)
that specifies manufacturing conditions, controls, testing, and expected outcomes, and (2) generating
a report (hereinafter PPQ report) that documents adherence to the PPQ protocol and draws
conclusions as to whether the process (a) meets the conditions established in the PPQ protocol and
(b) is in a state of control. 23
Inspection Coverage
• Verify that the PPQ protocol for the subject drug has been reviewed and approved by
appropriate departments, including the quality unit, before its execution as per the established
procedure.
• Evaluate the adequacy of the PPQ protocol in terms of the essential elements it describes,
which may include but are not limited to the following:
21
Refer to the original application and IQA for information regarding manufacturing of the drug substance or drug
product, batch formula and components, unit operations, process development activities, in-process controls and
specifications, and identified lifecycle considerations.
22
For more information on this topic, see guidances for industry Remote Interactive Evaluations of Drug Manufacturing
and Bioresearch Monitoring Facilities During the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency and Manufacturing, Supply
Chain, and Drug and Biological Product Inspections During COVID-19 Public Health Emergency: Questions and
Answers.
23
For further details, see guidance for industry Process Validation: General Principles and Practices.
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 17 of 50
第 18 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
A reflection of the approved application.
Primary features and layout of the commercial production facilities.
Qualifications of utilities, equipment, raw material (including starting materials),
components, and personnel.
Description of manufacturing conditions, identification of relevant quality attributes,
including critical quality attributes, along with description of their controls.
Acceptance criteria for each significant processing step and for the cumulative
process.
Identification of the data to be collected and a description of when and how it will be
evaluated.
Limitations for proposed commercial manufacturing conditions, including equipment
operating parameters and processing limits.
Identification and validation status of test methods used for process measurements (e.g.,
in-process, release testing).
A representative sampling plan including sampling points, sampling strategy (frequency
and number), and acceptance criteria with an objective to provide sufficient statistical
confidence of quality both within a batch and across batches. 24
Provision for addressing deviations from expected conditions and handling of
nonconforming data.
Documentation of science-based justification if excluding PPQ data from further
consideration.
• Evaluate the adequacy of the information summarized in the PPQ report, which may include
but is not limited to the following:
Summary and analysis of data collected, as specified by the PPQ protocol.
Evaluation of unexpected observations and additional data not specified in the PPQ
protocol.
Summary and discussion of manufacturing nonconformances such as deviations, aberrant
test results, and other information that may have a bearing on the validity of the process.
Description in sufficient detail of corrective actions or changes that need to be made to
existing procedures and controls.
A conclusion that is based on a compilation of process knowledge and information from
the design stage through the process qualification stage and includes the following:
24
For FDA’s current thinking regarding sampling for blend uniformity/content uniformity, see
https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm124782.htm#16 rather than
relying solely on the requirements of USP General Chapter <905> Uniformity of Dosage Units or EP 2.9.6 Uniformity of
Content of Single-Dose Preparations without performing additional developmental activities. USP= United States
Pharmacopeia; EP= European Pharmacopeia.
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 18 of 50
第 19 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
Clear establishment of the degree to which PPQ protocol study conditions, acceptance
criteria, and process performance indicators for product quality and process
consistency have been met, including a description of the control of and justification
for changes made to PPQ criteria during the study.
Sufficient description of manufacturing conditions or quality attributes identified
during the PPQ study that, per a risk analysis, will require either correction or
changes to existing procedures and controls.
Conclusion as to whether the process is in a state of control. If not, the report should
describe the conditions to be met before such a conclusion can be reached.
Approval of the PPQ report by appropriate department and quality unit personnel.
• Determine whether the conclusions on the manufacturing process’ state of control and
commercial distribution are justified and supported by the information in the PPQ report.
• Determine the accuracy and authenticity of the data and calculations generated during
execution of the PPQ protocol (e.g., raw data including laboratory notebooks, executed batch
records, internal quality decisions). Evaluate and determine the adequacy of the executed
PPQ protocol and the final written report, including deviations, results, outcomes, and
conclusions drawn.
• Evaluate the investigation reports for the firm’s resolution of product quality/process control
issues that arose during the PPQ study (e.g., specifications not met, process controls not
adequate, variability exceeding acceptance criteria, lots rejected). 25
• Evaluate the impact of recent changes to commercial manufacturing facilities, processing
conditions, or critical quality attributes in the approved application on the validity of the PPQ
study.
• Evaluate whether the equipment and utilities remain suitable for their intended use and
whether the preventive maintenance program remains appropriate based on information
collected since PPQ completion.
(3) Objective 1C: Review of Continued Process Verification (Process Validation—Stage 3)
Continued process verification provides assurance throughout the lifecycle that the commercial scale
process remains in a state of control (i.e., the validated state). During continued process verification,
manufacturers enhance, as necessary, mechanisms for detecting and monitoring signals of process
drift, shift, or loss of control to identify the source and scope of newly identified variations.
Manufacturers evaluate the commercial process and product data to identify and prevent
unacceptable variability. As manufacturers accumulate information during commercial production,
25
An unresolved PPQ processing issue may allow for variation in process parameters or in commercial product quality
that unexpectedly becomes unacceptable. The source of an unresolved PPQ processing issue may be a hitherto
unidentified process design (stage 1) defect. An unresolved PPQ processing issue may allow for episodic or persistent
process variation in process parameters or in product quality that is revealed by a careful inspection of commercial
product data and information (stage 3).
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 19 of 50
第 20 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
component variability that was not observed during process design and development (stage 1) or
PPQ (stage 2) can manifest in the in-process materials and thereby contribute to variability in
product quality. When variability is detected, manufacturers should investigate and determine if
process parameter ranges need to be adjusted, process changes are needed to manage the variability,
or increased sampling is needed to better monitor and understand in-process material attribute
variability. Changes in operating conditions (e.g., ranges/set-points), process controls, components
or in-process material attributes/characteristics, and specifications may require additional process
design or PPQ studies to maintain compliance with 21 CFR 211.180(e) and sections 506A(a)(1) and
(b) of the FD&C Act.
Inspection Coverage
• Review and evaluate the firm’s quality management oversight and the methods used to assess
the commercial product data; determine if the firm adequately detects emerging trends
related to product quality from the information found in product data analysis reports; and
determine if the firm adequately incorporates risk analysis into decisions regarding continued
process verification data. This information may be found in:
Analysis of nonconforming product data from complaints, product rejections, recalls,
NDA/ANDA field alert reports (FARs), adverse event reports, audits, regulatory
inspections, and similar sources.
Investigations into unexpected trends recognized from the analysis of process, material,
or product variability.
Process performance and product quality monitoring data, including control charts,
process deviations, in-process batch release testing results, process yield variations,
nonconformances, and batch records.
Documentation of the appropriate statistical process control techniques applied as part of
the product and quality improvement program.
Laboratory records, including stability data trend analysis and reports, testing deviations,
nonconformances, investigations, and CAPA reports 26 with discussions of root cause
factors for out-of-trend (OOT) and out-of-specification (OOS) test results for raw
materials, in-process materials, and the subject drug.
• Determine if the firm adequately considered the need for additional process design or process
qualification studies when changes are made to the process after the initial PPQ, including
necessary adjustment of the sampling plan (e.g., frequency, sample size, location) to better
monitor and understand process variability.
• Determine if the firm evaluates production data and leverages such data to identify changes
needed in the manufacturing process, control procedures, or specifications, thereby
promoting continual improvement throughout the product lifecycle.
26
Refer to objective 2 regarding important elements to be considered for investigations and CAPAs.
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 20 of 50
第 21 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
(4) Related Resources
Regulations
• 21 CFR 211.22, 211.63, 211.84, 211.100, 211.110, 211.180
Guidance for Industry
• Analytical Procedures and Methods Validation for Drugs and Biologics (July 2015)
• Control of Nitrosamine Impurities in Human Drugs, Rev. 1 (February 2021)
• Data Integrity and Compliance With Drug CGMP Questions and Answers (December 2018)
• Manufacturing, Supply Chain, and Drug and Biological Product Inspections During COVID-
19 Public Health Emergency: Questions and Answers (May 2021)
• Media Fills for Validation of Aseptic Preparations for Positron Emission Tomography (PET)
Drugs (April 2012)
• PET Drugs—Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) (December 2009)
• PET Drugs—Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP), Small Entity Compliance
Guide (August 2011)
• Process Validation: General Principles and Practices (January 2011)
• Quality Systems Approach to Pharmaceutical CGMP Regulations (September 2006)
• Remote Interactive Evaluations of Drug Manufacturing and Bioresearch Monitoring
Facilities During the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (April 2021)
• Sterile Drug Products Produced by Aseptic Processing—Current Good Manufacturing
Practice (October 2004)
Draft Guidance for Industry 27
• ICH Q12: Implementation Considerations for FDA-Regulated Products (May 2021)
ICH Guidance for Industry
• Q7 Good Manufacturing Practice Guidance for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients
(September 2016)
• Q8(R2) Pharmaceutical Development (November 2009)
• Q9(R1) Quality Risk Management, Draft (June 2022)
• Q10 Pharmaceutical Quality System (April 2009)
• Q12 Technical and Regulatory Considerations for Pharmaceutical Product Lifecycle
Management (May 2021)
27
When final, this guidance will represent the FDA’s current thinking on this topic.
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 21 of 50
第 22 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
B. Objective 2: Investigations and CAPA Program
Summary: Determine whether investigations and CAPAs associated with the subject
drug and associated processes and equipment were thoroughly evaluated and
effectively implemented using quality risk management as an enabler in support of
continual improvement.
(1) Objective 2A: Investigations
In general, the depth and breadth of investigations of any product- or process-related deviation
should be governed by a documented risk assessment and should take a structured approach to
determining the root cause of the deviation.
The level of effort, formality, and documentation of the investigation should be commensurate with
the level of risk. The firm should support its conclusions with scientific rationale and data generated
through investigations. Where applicable, the firm should use retain samples or confirmatory testing
to aid in its investigations. Laboratory error should be rare and is not sufficient to justify invalidating
data, unless there is clear evidence that it was the root cause of a failing result.
The analysis of product risk should be commensurate with the significance and risk of the
nonconformity and its perceived impact on the quality, safety, or effectiveness of the drug product.
The firm should conduct the risk assessment in a timely manner, using sound scientific and quality
risk management principles. This includes consulting subject matter experts from departments within
the organization with the expertise needed to ensure a full understanding of the scope of the problem
and its implications for product quality and risk to public health. 28
Inspection Coverage 29
• Review the firm’s response to both internal (e.g., deviation, OOT, OOS, errors) and external
(e.g., drug quality reports, recalls, complaints) signals for the subject drug. Investigations
involving released drug product should be given priority.
• Ascertain if the firm conducts or has conducted a thorough root cause investigation to
identify product quality issues for the subject drug.
• Determine if the firm’s investigations included an analysis of product risk and an evaluation
of risk to public health.
• Confirm that the firm expanded the scope of the investigation to include any and all lots of
the subject drug and any other drug products that may have been affected.
28
Departments include those involved in pharmaceutical development, manufacturing, quality, technical services,
laboratory work, materials management, regulatory affairs, and medical services.
29 During a postapproval inspection, coverage should focus on the investigations and CAPAs pertaining to the subject
drug rather than on the overall effectiveness or validity of the investigation system itself, which is the typical focus of a
surveillance-based inspection.
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 22 of 50
第 23 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
(2) Objective 2B: CAPA Program
The CAPA program considers the risk that the problem poses to product quality. The level of effort,
formality, and documentation of CAPAs should be commensurate with the level of risk. The CAPA
program should also address identified problems, prevent their recurrence, and trigger improvements
through change management as necessary.
Inspection Coverage
• Based on the firm’s response to internal and external signals for the subject drug, check
whether the firm has a procedure to prioritize CAPAs based on risk and manage CAPAs for
the released subject drug in a timely manner. Through this coverage, assess the adequacy of
the firm’s approach, actions, and responses regarding the following:
Routine, proactive identification and analysis of quality data regarding product and
quality problems.
Evaluation of deviations, nonconformances, investigations, complaints, Process
Performance and Product Quality Monitoring System data/trends, and other external
reports to determine an appropriate CAPA.
Documentation of the full extent of a problem before conducting risk analysis or
determining the proper course of a CAPA.
Application of quality risk management concepts in the CAPA approach.
Review of proposed CAPAs by a cross-functional team with the necessary training and
experience before management approval.
• Evaluate the firm’s CAPAs to ensure they were implemented in a timely manner and that
they are effective and prevent recurrence. Through this coverage, assess the adequacy of the
firm’s CAPA approach, actions, and responses regarding the following:
Documentation of effectiveness check criteria (e.g., implementation timeline and
milestones, collection of feedback, validations, other evidence of the success of the
corrections made).
Monitoring for recurring deviations.
Evaluation and mitigation of new or recurring risks derived from the CAPA effectiveness
check, with management review and approval.
Management assurance that responsible parties will follow through on CAPA
commitments, including reporting as postapproval changes, as applicable.
Timely filings of regulatory submissions and postmarketing reports.
(3) Related Resources
Regulations
• 21 CFR 211.22(c), 211.84, 211.100, 211.110(a)
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 23 of 50
第 24 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
Guidance for Industry
• Current Good Manufacturing Practice Requirements for Combination Products (January
2017)
• Investigating Out-of-Specification Test Results for Pharmaceutical Production (October
2006)
• Quality Systems Approach to Pharmaceutical CGMP Regulations (September 2006)
ICH Guidance for Industry
• Q9(R1) Quality Risk Management, Draft (June 2022)
• Q10 Pharmaceutical Quality System (April 2009)
C. Objective 3: Change Management, Change Effectiveness, and Conformance to the
Application and Other Postmarketing Reports and Requirements
Summary: Determine whether implemented changes in the product, process,
components, equipment, and/or facility associated with the subject drug were
implemented effectively using quality risk management as an enabler in support of
continual improvement. Verify that the subject drug is being manufactured in
accordance with the approved application or active DMF referenced in the approved
application, including filed postapproval changes. Confirm that the firm is fulfilling
or is on track to fulfill commitments (e.g., providing additional stability data) made at
the time of approval (original application or subsequent submissions) and is meeting
drug quality reporting requirements in a timely manner.
It is not uncommon for manufacturers to change facilities (e.g., add a new facility or replace an
existing facility), introduce changes within a facility, or change production equipment or
manufacturing and control procedures because of scale-up, process qualification, process
verification, capacity needs, or improvement plans. The impetus for change may originate from
internal sources (e.g., the outputs of process performance and product quality monitoring, CAPAs,
product reviews, audits, adverse trends, OOS results, adoption of advanced manufacturing) or
external sources (e.g., adverse event reports, FDA inspections, compendia modifications). Change
management ensures the appropriate execution of changes so that information relevant to the subject
drug is fed back into the process and control strategy to effect continual improvement and ensure the
maintenance of a state of control.
A change management system:
• Controls and implements proposed changes that are expected to improve product quality,
process performance, and robustness.
• Ensures that proposed changes that might impact product quality (and thereby potentially
product safety, effectiveness, or both) are evaluated commensurate with the level of risk to
patients by using sound scientific and quality risk management principles.
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 24 of 50
第 25 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
• Documents how the assessed risk was categorized and how it will be managed, controlled, or
mitigated in the event the proposed change is not implemented.
• Ensures that implementation takes place in a timely manner with the approval of the quality
unit.
• Monitors the effects of changes to ensure that they have the intended effect and that there are
no unintended consequences.
The change control process should involve input from departments with the expertise needed to
assess the specific change and to ensure a full understanding of the scope of the change and its
implications for the process and control strategy.
Subject matter experts from the relevant departments responsible for implementing a specific change
determine the type and extent of data (existing or to be newly generated) needed to support the
change, and develop study protocols describing the methods, prospective acceptance criteria, and
additional post-implementation process performance or product quality monitoring as necessary.
As mentioned above, the change control process should also verify that changes have been effective
in achieving the desired outcome with no unintended consequences. For example, a sufficient
number of post-implementation commercial batches may be identified for review and evaluation. As
another example, increasing data-gathering efforts (e.g., evaluating stability batches), as needed,
confirms that the change objectives are achieved, that there is no deleterious impact on product
quality, and that the knowledge gained is captured. The impact of each implemented change should
be evaluated before the affected batches are released.
During a postapproval inspection, coverage should focus on changes pertaining to the subject drug
under evaluation rather than on the overall effectiveness or validity of the change control or change
management system, which is the typical focus of a surveillance-based inspection.
(1) Objective 3A: Change Management and Change Effectiveness
The change management system ensures that appropriate science- and knowledge-based risk
assessments are performed and documented for changes, taking into account the points below:
• The level of rigor, effort (e.g., testing, validation, review), and documentation is
commensurate with the level of risk associated with each change, and each change is
appropriately categorized according to the associated level of risk as defined by the site.
• Risk assessment adequately evaluates the potential risks and benefits of changes to product
quality, safety, and effectiveness.
• Changes and their risks are assessed using current product and process knowledge, including
appropriate data (available or generated, if needed), to identify current and needed risk
controls for each change.
The change management system also ensures that appropriate time and effort have been considered
in change planning, prioritization, and implementation, taking into account the points below:
• The outcomes of risk assessments and the assigned risk levels drive change planning,
prioritization, and implementation expectations.
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 25 of 50
第 26 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
• Data to support the change, as well as acceptance criteria and change effectiveness criteria,
are predefined in change planning. These may include continued process verification and
statistical assessments, including process capability and process performance indices—Cpk
and Ppk—to aid with the quantitative assessment of risk control.
• Risks with the current state (until changes are implemented) and risks that might be
temporarily introduced during the change process are adequately assessed.
• Interim controls (short-term measures) are identified and implemented in a timely manner to
monitor and mitigate risks associated with the current state.
• Identified risk control measures are adequately implemented in a timely manner.
• Approval to proceed with change implementation or rejection of the change is documented
with appropriate justification.
• Relevant risk assessments are reviewed and are updated after the implementation of changes.
• Relevant and timely updates are made to regulatory filings, when appropriate (e.g., annual
reports must include all changes of relevance to filings; see 21 CFR 314.81 and 314.98).
In addition to general inspection coverage considerations regarding change management and
effectiveness, this section includes considerations covering product quality review (PQR) through
the PQS as an input to change management, ECs, comparability protocols, PLCM documents, and
supply chain-related changes. 30 For example, changes in the supply chain for APIs, excipients, and
primary packaging components that occur after approval should be thoroughly evaluated, approved,
and documented to ensure that they are unlikely to pose an adverse risk to product quality and
thereby to patients.
Inspection Coverage
• Evaluate changes to facility, product, process, and practices that have occurred since the
application was approved, or since the last inspection providing coverage of changes for this
product, that may have affected product quality. Evaluate the scientific justification for and
implementation of the changes and compare them to the changes contained in postapproval
submissions.
• Determine whether:
The factors or reasons triggering changes and the related evidence are clearly
documented. 31
30
See ICH Q12. The PQR is also referred to as an annual product review, which is a regulatory requirement per 21 CFR
211.180(e).
31 Examples of common lifecycle factors that trigger change include but are not limited to the following: upgrades to
equipment or facilities; changes in raw material quality or sourcing; improvements in manufacturing performance and
consistency (to reduce variability, improve yield, etc.); enhancements in manufacturing capacity; corrections of quality
issues; and addressing of signals from the PQS such as deviations, complaints/adverse events, CAPAs, product quality
review, operational review metrics, management review, new regulations, compliance gaps, implementing innovation,
and continual improvement initiatives.
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 26 of 50
第 27 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
Proposed changes for the subject drug have been adequately evaluated using quality risk
management principles 32 and have been validated (if needed) and approved for
implementation through a formal change control system.
Proposed changes have been adequately justified with a scientific rationale and data.
Confirm that the evaluation of each change has been completed before affected batches
were released. 33
Relevant experts and stakeholders (e.g., subject matter experts, specific departments) are
involved in change proposal development and approval. 34
The objectives, scope, expected outcomes, and anticipated benefits of proposed changes
are documented.
Changes are proposed and formally evaluated in a timely manner, and a decision to
accept or reject the proposal is documented. For rejected change proposals, the rationale
for rejection is adequately documented.
Before change closure, the firm has ensured that:
Changes have met their intended objectives and predefined effectiveness criteria.
Deviations from those criteria are adequately assessed, approved, and managed or
justified. Whenever possible, quantitative data are leveraged to objectively determine
change effectiveness (e.g., statistical confidence and coverage).
As part of the quality risk management activities, residual risks are assessed and
managed to acceptable levels, and appropriate adaptations of procedures and controls
are implemented.
Unintended consequences or risks introduced as a result of changes are evaluated,
documented, approved, handled adequately, and are subject to a predefined
monitoring time frame.
Before or after change closure, the firm has ensured that:
Post-implementation actions (including those for deviations from predefined
acceptance criteria or CAPAs) are identified and completed adequately.
Relevant risk assessments are updated after changes are implemented and their
effectiveness is assessed. New product/process knowledge resulting from risk
assessments are captured in the appropriate quality and operations documents (e.g.,
standard operating procedures, reports, product control strategy documents).
32 See ICH Q9(R1), and Annex II in particular. Bear in mind that an impact assessment, typically performed within the
change control system, may not be as comprehensive as a risk assessment for proposed changes. Impact assessments
often assign categorization and determine the change’s regulatory filing but may not always fully address what might go
wrong or would be improved in the context of current product and process knowledge, the control strategy, and the
product lifecycle.
33 See footnote 32 with regard to impact assessment.
34
See footnote 28.
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 27 of 50
第 28 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
The effects of implemented changes are actively monitored (e.g., use of additional
samples for in-process or stability testing, review of data results after completion of a
prespecified number of batches) to confirm that change objectives are achieved and
that there is no deleterious impact on product quality.
Changes are monitored via ongoing monitoring systems to ensure maintenance of a
state of control, 35 and lessons learned are captured and communicated. When
deviations associated with postapproval changes are detected:
o Risk-mitigating steps are developed in the case of deviations from acceptance
criteria or identification of unanticipated risks.
o The issue is managed via the firm’s deviation management process and
appropriate CAPAs are identified and undertaken via the firm’s CAPA program.
• Confirm that implemented changes, as appropriate, were captured and assessed as part of the
PQR procedures, which are described in further detail under objective 3B in Part III.2.C(2) of
this compliance program. (Also see “Inspection Coverage—Pharmaceutical Quality System
Assessment” below.)
Inspection Coverage—Pharmaceutical Quality System Assessment
• Through the review of PQR procedures, confirm that senior management is responsible for
PQS governance through periodic management review to ensure its continuing suitability and
effectiveness. 36 When confirming that periodic management reviews are occurring:
Determine whether management reviews include:
Measurement of achievement of PQS objectives.
Assessment of performance indicators used to monitor the effectiveness of processes
within the PQS (e.g., complaints, deviations, CAPAs, self-assessments, external
assessments).
Determine whether outcomes of management review of the PQS and monitoring of
internal and external factors include:
Improvements to the PQS and related processes.
Allocation or reallocation of resources and personnel training.
Revisions to quality policy and quality objectives, as appropriate.
Documentation and timely and effective communication of the results of the
management review and actions, including escalation of appropriate issues to senior
management.
35
The inspection coverage related to state of control under this objective may overlap with the inspection coverage
recommended for stages 2 and 3 of process validation under objectives 1B and 1C, respectively.
36
See ICH Q10.
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 28 of 50
第 29 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
Inspection Coverage—Comparability Protocols and Product Lifecycle Management
• Determine whether the applicant has an approved comparability protocol or specified and/or
categorized postapproval changes in a PLCM document.
If there is an approved comparability protocol, verify the implementation status of any
change.
Review that the change as implemented aligns with the comparability protocol.
Verify whether the data generated demonstrate that the change objective and
acceptance criteria were met.
If there is an approved PLCM document:
Verify that changes to all ECs are handled per the approved PLCM and changes to
parameters unrelated to ECs are managed appropriately under the firm’s PQS.
Verify the maintenance status of the document in terms of when and how the
document is updated.
Review that the document was updated after the change was implemented to capture
new product/process knowledge gained during implementation.
Verify whether subsequent regulatory filings for the subject drug have been included
in the document.
• If the applicant/manufacturer is not using an approved PLCM document for the subject drug,
assess and report whether the changes are being reported in a manner that is consistent with
the appropriate regulations (see 21 CFR 314.70 and 314.97) and guidance documents 37 to
provide continued assurance of quality for the subject drug over the product lifecycle.
Inspection Coverage—Supplier/Vendor Qualification and Agreements Assessment
• Assess the adequacy of the firm’s supplier qualification program by ensuring that the firm:
Evaluated supplier changes for the raw materials, intermediates, or components of the
subject drug, as applicable, using the site change management system, evaluated the risk
of the supplier change before implementation, and evaluated the quality of the drug and
its individual characteristics (such as the impurity profile).
Evaluated changes to individual raw material and qualified component suppliers before
authorizing the material from those suppliers for use, and reevaluates the reliability of the
supplier’s analyses through appropriate validation of the supplier’s test results at
appropriate intervals.
Maintains defined sampling plans for components to obtain samples that are
representative of the shipment and defined acceptance levels to detect unacceptable
component variability.
37
See footnote 9.
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 29 of 50
第 30 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
Has appropriate controls in place to measure and control variability, such as by
periodically challenging the accuracy of the certificate of analysis via performing
independent confirmatory testing at a defined frequency.
• If the firm has a quality agreement in place with other facilities, including drug applicants,
for either critical inputs (e.g., ingredients, raw materials) or outputs (e.g., bulk API for
micronization, bulk in-process material or bulk finished product for further processing such
as packaging), confirm that it defines communication roles and CGMP responsibilities of
suppliers, contract manufacturers, and drug manufacturers regarding the notification and
impact of changes in or deviations from processes or acceptance criteria for the inputs or
outputs.
(2) Objective 3B: Conformance to the Application and Other Postmarketing Reports and
Requirements
In accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements, 38 applicants must notify FDA of
manufacturing changes to approved applications before distributing drug products made with such
changes. Under 21 CFR 314.70 and 314.97, applicants must notify FDA about changes made to the
conditions and the variations in the conditions that were established in approved applications. These
regulations identify three broad reporting categories: major changes, which require submission of a
prior approval supplement (PAS); moderate changes, which require submission of a changes being
effected in 30 days (CBE-30) supplement or a CBE-0 supplement; and minor changes, which must
be reported in an annual report. The reporting category for a change is based on the potential risk for
the change to have an adverse effect on the identity, strength, quality, or purity of the drug product
as these factors may relate to its safety or effectiveness. If an application includes approved ECs
with specified reporting categories (see Part 1—Background), the reporting category reflected in the
PLCM document is considered the appropriate submission type for a postapproval change to that
EC.
Applicants of NDAs and ANDAs are required to file FARs for relevant quality issues concerning
distributed product batches pursuant to 21 CFR 314.81. A failure to file a report is considered a
significant violation and subject to a Form FDA 483 citation. 39
Firms conduct periodic PQRs—annually at a minimum or more frequently on a rolling basis—to
verify reliability and performance of the existing process in delivering quality product, verify the
appropriateness of current specifications for raw materials (including starting materials),
components, and the subject drug, and identify trends in product quality and process performance
that warrant change. 40
PQRs, taking into account previous reviews, include at least the following for the subject drug, as
applicable:
38 See section 506A of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 356a).
39
See compliance program 7356.021—Drug Quality Reporting System (DQRS) (MedWatch Reports) NDA Field Alert
Reporting (FARs) and guidance for industry Field Alert Report Submission: Questions and Answers.
40
See 21 CFR 211.180(e).
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 30 of 50
第 31 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
• Review of quality specifications for raw materials, intermediates, components, container
closure systems, and packaging materials as pertain to the subject drug, especially those from
new sources.
• Review of supplier qualification or requalification reports for supplied materials,
components, or other outsourced contract manufacturing activities or services.
• Review of critical in-process controls, tests, in-process specifications, test results for in-
process materials, and the final specifications and test results for the subject drug.
• Review of batches that failed to meet established specifications and their related
investigations.
• Review of significant deviations or nonconformances, their related investigations, and the
effectiveness of resultant CAPAs taken.
• Review of changes to processes or analytical methods.
• Review of supplements approved or issued a complete response action.
• Review of the results of the stability monitoring program and adverse trends.
• Review of quality-related returns, complaints, and recalls and the investigations performed at
the time.
• Review of the adequacy of previous product process or equipment corrective actions.
• The qualification status of relevant equipment and utilities (e.g., HVAC, water, compressed
gases).
Inspection Coverage 41
• Review the timeliness of notification via FARs for issues that have the potential to impact
product on the market.
• Evaluate the status of defined postmarketing commitments or postmarketing reporting
requirements that the applicant had agreed to fulfill in a timely manner as part of the
authorization for the initial approval of the NDA. 42
• Review changes that have been implemented since approval for the drug product and
determine whether the changes were properly reported to FDA.
• Evaluate if the firm has underestimated changes in terms of their potential impact on product
quality and type of change to the regulatory filing (e.g., as a minor change requiring an
annual report submission instead of as a moderate change requiring a CBE-30 supplement).
41See footnote 21.
42
Postmarketing commitments are otherwise known as quality postmarketing agreements (QPAs) as defined in the draft
guidance for industry Benefit-Risk Considerations for Product Quality Assessments. Postmarketing reporting
requirements refer to “Other postmarketing reports” as required under 21 CFR 314.81—in particular 314.81(b)(2)(iv),
(vii), (viii), and (ix) for NDAs—and the same for ANDAs under 21 CFR 314.98—in particular 314.98(c).
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 31 of 50
第 32 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
• Evaluate if the firm manufactured and improperly distributed any batches with changes that
required prior FDA approval.
• Determine whether manufacturing is consistent with what was included in the application
(e.g., if manufacturing and analytical equipment, manufacturing process, process controls, in-
process and release tests, specifications, and methods employed are the same as those
documented in the application).
• Confirm and as necessary report back whether the commitments made by the applicant, at the
time the application or application supplement was approved, have been completed or are
underway.
• Verify that the firm:
Evaluates PQR results and assesses whether to undertake CAPAs, change proposals, or
process revalidation for continual improvement.
Uses quality risk management to evaluate proposed CAPAs, changes, or process
revalidation.
Completes actions that are undertaken as a result of a PQR in a timely and effective
manner.
Has procedures for the ongoing management and review of actions undertaken as a result
of PQRs and verifies the effectiveness of these procedures during self-inspection.
Reviews the effectiveness of actions undertaken as a result of a PQR at the next PQR.
(3) Related Resources
Regulations
• 21 CFR 211.198, 310.305, 314.70, 314.80, 314.81, 314.97, 314.98
Guidance for Industry
• Changes to an Approved Application for Specified Biotechnology and Specified Synthetic
Biological Products (July 1997)
• Changes to an Approved NDA or ANDA (April 2004)
• Changes to an Approved NDA or ANDA: Questions and Answers (January 2001)
• CMC Postapproval Manufacturing Changes for Specified Biological Products to be
Documented in Annual Reports (December 2021)
• CMC Postapproval Manufacturing Changes To Be Documented in Annual Reports (March
2014)
• Comparability Protocols for Postapproval Changes to the Chemistry, Manufacturing, and
Controls Information in an NDA, ANDA, or BLA (October 2022)
• Field Alert Report Submission: Questions and Answers (July 2021)
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 32 of 50
第 33 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
• SUPAC-IR: Immediate-Release Solid Oral Dosage Forms: Scale-Up and Postapproval
Changes: Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls, In Vitro Dissolution Testing, and In Vivo
Bioequivalence Documentation (November 1995)
• SUPAC-MR: Modified Release Solid Oral Dosage Forms: Scale-Up and Postapproval
Changes: Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls; In Vitro Dissolution Testing and In Vivo
Bioequivalence Documentation (September 1997)
• SUPAC-SS: Nonsterile Semisolid Dosage Forms; Scale-Up and Postapproval Changes:
Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls; In Vitro Release Testing and In Vivo
Bioequivalence Documentation (May 1997)
Draft Guidance for Industry 43
• ICH Q12: Implementation Considerations for FDA-Regulated Products (May 2021)
• Postapproval Changes to Drug Substances (September 2018)
• SUPAC: Manufacturing Equipment Addendum (December 2014)
ICH Guidance for Industry
• Q10 Pharmaceutical Quality System (April 2009)
• Q12 Technical and Regulatory Considerations for Pharmaceutical Product Lifecycle
Management (May 2021)
D. Objective 4: Integrity of Product Quality Data
Summary: Audit manufacturing controls, test results, and the related raw data for
starting materials, in-process materials, and batches of the subject drug. Ensure that
the test and production data are authentic, computed correctly, accurate, and
documented per CGMP and that they support the associated decisions by the firm,
application submissions, and lifecycle changes.
This section emphasizes the importance of data integrity when it has been specifically requested as
part of inspectional coverage in the assignment. Additionally, at the discretion of the lead
investigator, data integrity coverage may be added when problems are found. Sufficient coverage
should be afforded to confirm the integrity of data relating to process performance and product
quality.
During routine production, firms generate a substantial amount of manufacturing and laboratory
data. Analysis of these data and evaluation of analytical methods ensures that firms are capable of
consistently maintaining process control, meeting quality specifications, and reliably producing
product of intended quality. Complete, consistent, and accurate data should be attributable, legible,
43
When final, these guidances will represent the FDA’s current thinking on these topics.
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 33 of 50
第 34 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
contemporaneously recorded, original or a true copy, and accurate (ALCOA). 44 Analysis of product
quality data (e.g., release and stability data) also ensures that the quality unit adequately responds to
unexpected or aberrant results in a timely manner so as to prevent poor quality drug products from
reaching the marketplace.
If a pattern of data reliability issues is identified during the inspection, the investigator should consider
expanding the coverage to surveillance of marketed products manufactured in the facility using
compliance program 7356.002. If data reliability issues are documented for other products during an
expanded inspection, this suggests a broader pattern that implicates all products manufactured at the
facility. If so, ORA should consider submitting a recommendation that CDER consider invoking the
Application Integrity Policy (AIP) or that a for-cause inspection be planned to further define the scope of
the data reliability issues. 45
Inspection Coverage
• Assess the firm’s ability to effectively manage hard copy (paper), computerized, and hybrid
data systems by having user access control mechanisms and verifiable audit trails, where
appropriate, for collection, reporting, and archiving of information for the subject drug.
Determine whether data are calculated and reported using reliable and verifiable
mechanisms, interpreted using sound scientific rationale, and maintained using validated
systems.
Determine if there were data not reported in the submission, supplement, or annual report
that should have been.
Evaluate whether there were inaccurate, misleading, manipulated, or incomplete data in
CGMP documents and submissions.
• Evaluate representative raw data relating to process performance and product quality,
including the raw data from the in-process, release, and stability testing, to determine if there
is a pattern of data reliability issues that impact:
The quality specifications of the subject drug.
The retest or expiry date or labeled expiration dating.
44
These characteristics are important to ensuring data integrity and are addressed throughout the CGMP regulations for
drug products. For attributable, see 21 CFR 211.101(d), 211.122, 211.186, 211.188(b)(11), and 212.50(c)(10); for
legible, see 21 CFR 211.180(e) and 212.110(b); for contemporaneously recorded (at the time of performance), see 21
CFR 211.100(b) and 211.160(a); for original or a true copy, see 21 CFR 211.180 and 211.194(a); and for accurate, see
21 CFR 211.22(a), 211.68, 211.188, and 212.60(g).
45
Contact information and procedures for OC’s Office of Manufacturing Quality are on the AIP website at
https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/compliance-actions-and-
activities/application-integrity-policy. See also CPG Sec 120.100 Fraud, Untrue Statements of Material Facts, Bribery,
and Illegal Gratuities, https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/cpg-sec-120100-
fraud-untrue-statements-material-facts-bribery-and-illegal-gratuities.
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 34 of 50
第 35 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
The analytical methods employed as part of the approved control strategy (e.g., methods
do not conform to those approved in the application). 46
(1) Related Resources
Guidance for Industry
• Analytical Procedures and Methods Validation for Drugs and Biologics (July 2015)
• Data Integrity and Compliance With Drug CGMP: Questions and Answers (December 2018)
• Investigating Out-of-Specification (OOS) Test Results for Pharmaceutical Production
(October 2006)
Other FDA Resources
• Compliance program 7346.832―Preapproval Inspections, III.1.B(3) Data Integrity Audit
(October 2022)
• Guide to Inspection of Microbiological Pharmaceutical Quality Control Laboratories (July
1993)
• Guide to Inspection of Pharmaceutical Quality Control Laboratories (July 1993)
3. Inspection Reporting
The inspection team performs the inspection following this compliance program and provides
coverage in the areas of concern.
A. Issuance of Form FDA 483
Consistent with instructions in the IOM, use Form FDA 483 to communicate reportable observations
and CGMP deficiencies pertaining to the subject drug.
Refer to Part V—Regulatory/Administrative Strategy―for a list of issues that may result in a 483
observation.
If the postapproval inspection is concurrent with or expanded to CGMP surveillance, organize Form
FDA 483 according to compliance program 7356.002 and the IOM.
B. Completion and Assessment of the Establishment Inspection Report
The inspection team prepares a narrative EIR per instructions in the IOM (chapter 5). In all cases,
ORA and CDER (OPMA, Office of Manufacturing Quality (OMQ), or both as described in Part V)
collaboratively evaluate the inspection team’s report within the context of the application and
communicate relevant findings or concerns to the IQA team.
46
FDA expects the quality unit to control and approve changes made to these methods and, based on the significance of
the change in the method, communicate those changes to FDA.
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 35 of 50
第 36 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
For postapproval inspections with significant deficiencies, CDER (OPMA, OMQ, or both as
described in Part V) evaluates the inspection team’s findings and the firm’s response and makes a
final recommendation on the adequacy of the firm’s response for the covered application and/or the
facility. CDER (OPMA or OMQ as appropriate) communicates the final recommendation
(concurrence/nonconcurrence) to ORA.
4. Sample Collection or Sample Submission Requests
Investigators should not routinely collect samples during the postapproval inspection. Samples of
potentially defective subject drugs may be collected to constitute persuasive evidence that significant
CGMP problems exist. Physical samples may be an integral part of a CGMP inspection where
control deficiencies are observed. Physical samples should be correlated with observed control
deficiencies. Contact a program coordinator in the ORS Office of Medical Products, Tobacco, and
Specialty Laboratory Operations ([email protected]) for guidance
on the types of samples to be collected (in-process or drug product) and for the appropriate analytical
servicing laboratory. Documentary samples may be submitted when the documentation illustrates the
deficiencies better than a physical sample. ORA divisions may elect to collect, but not analyze,
physical samples, or to collect documentary samples to document CGMP deficiencies. Physical
sample analysis is not necessary to document CGMP deficiencies. For sampling guidance, refer to
IOM chapter 4—Sampling.
If an official sample is collected at an establishment, use the PACs on the assignment to report
sample collection/analysis time.
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 36 of 50
第 37 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
PART IV—ANALYTICAL
Contact ORS’ Office of Medical Products, Tobacco, and Specialty Laboratory Operations
([email protected]) for the analytical servicing laboratories for
chemical and microbiological testing. When contacting ORS for analytical servicing laboratories,
provide the product description, lots to be tested, analyses to be performed, and reason for the
sample collection.
The analytical servicing laboratory uploads completed analytical worksheets for the product samples
analyzed to CMS and submits the original worksheet package to the ORA home district office of the
manufacturing facility.
If warranted, ORA division offices will recommend an appropriate regulatory action to CDER.
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 37 of 50
第 38 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
PART V―REGULATORY / ADMINISTRATIVE STRATEGY
ORA inspects the establishment named in an application and provides an initial recommendation on
its acceptability. If there are significant issues that would adversely impact the establishment’s
ability to perform its designated functions as described in the application, the lead investigator
documents the nature and scope of significant deviations and observations found during the
postapproval inspection for the subject drug.
1. Significant Issues
Examples of significant issues for the subject drug include but are not limited to the following 47:
1. Lack of or inadequate process validation (e.g., unsuitable equipment, inadequate process
performance qualification, unreliable state of control) to support distribution of the subject
drug.
2. Lack of or inadequate validation of test methods for raw materials, in-process materials, or
the subject drug.
3. Release or distribution of batches that deviated from the site’s established procedures as well
as the controls in the approved application (e.g., reprocessing or rework operations, process
controls, test methods, raw material, in-process material specifications, and subject drug
specifications).
4. Failure to investigate and resolve quality problems (e.g., manufacturing issues, including
stability failures, OOS or OOT results, consumer complaints) for distributed batches.
5. Failure to investigate and document the root cause of deviations, failure to initiate CAPAs to
correct deviations and prevent them from recurring, and failure to assess the impact on
product quality.
6. Failure of the quality unit to adequately review, assess, and approve changes relevant to the
subject drug.
7. A finding of data integrity problems. 48
8. Failure to meet application commitments by the agreed-upon timeline without a reasonable
justification and with no or inadequate communication to FDA.
9. Failure to report or inadequate reporting of changes made to the subject drug, as applicable
(e.g., changes made to approved ECs).
47
In general, issues 1 to 7 are considered typical examples of CGMP deficiencies, whereas issues 8 and 9 are typical
examples of application-related issues. Issues related to drugs that have already been distributed are considered more
significant for potential negative impact to patients or consumers.
48
Findings related to raw data integrity or falsification of data generated at the manufacturing site and used in support of
product quality decisions relevant to the subject drug should be considered for a systemic CGMP impact on current
operations (e.g., across all manufacturing operations or across all manufactured products as applicable) at the
establishment.
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 38 of 50
第 39 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
If significant issues are identified during the postapproval inspection, the lead ORA investigator, as
indicated in Part II.3.E of this compliance program, should consider expanding the scope of the
inspection to include compliance program 7356.002 coverage.
2. Coordination for Regulatory/Administrative Follow-Up Actions to Inspection Findings
Inspection findings that demonstrate that the manufacturing process is not operating under a state of
control may be used as evidence for taking appropriate advisory, administrative, or judicial actions.
The initial classification of the inspection should be based on the ORA division’s assessment of the
seriousness of the inspectional issues observed.
The endorsement of the inspection report will point out the actions by the firm that have been or will
be taken and the timeline for the actions. All deficiencies noted in inspections under this compliance
program must be addressed by stating the firm’s corrective actions, accomplished or projected, for
each deficiency as established in the discussion with the firm’s management at the close of the
inspection.
If an inspection report documents significant deficiencies for the subject drug or finds one or more
systems at the establishment that are not in a state of control with or without the expanded inspection
coverage under compliance program 7356.002, consider an initial OAI classification for impacted
PACs.
A. Issues That Are Considered Significant for PAC 56843
The issues that are considered significant for PAC 56843 may impact other drug products or APIs
besides the subject drug under inspection. OMQ and OPMA, when appropriate (i.e., specifically for
the subject drug), will collaborate on the determination of combined actions (e.g., regulatory,
advisory, enforcement). OMQ, ORA, and OPMA will subsequently collaborate on related
communication with the firm or applicant, as appropriate.
When the postapproval inspection identifies the presence of significant CGMP deficiencies for the
subject drug, as described in Part V of this compliance program, or if the postapproval inspection is
combined with surveillance inspection coverage and there are significant deficiencies identified as
described in Part V—Regulatory/Administrative Strategy of compliance program 7356.002, the
inspection should result in an initial OAI classification recommendation to OMQ.
In these instances, OMQ will act as the lead office tasked with completing the final assessment,
providing a compliance recommendation, and issuing the FMD-145 letter to the firm. To support
OMQ’s efforts, OPMA may assign a point of contact to actively assist in the review of the inspection
report and the firm’s responses to the 483 observations. When appropriate, OMQ can also initiate a
product-specific consult to OPMA (such as to solicit subject matter expert opinion on the impact of
identified microorganisms or other complex manufacturing process or facility issues). When
necessary, OPMA will reach out to appropriate OPQ suboffices in response to the OMQ consult.
Regulatory, advisory, or enforcement actions may include one or more of the following:
• Hold a regulatory meeting (or meetings) with the manufacturer.
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 39 of 50
第 40 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
• Issue a warning letter (or other advisory notice).
• Pursue an import alert (for foreign manufacturers).
• Order a cease distribution or product recall or recommend a product recall. 49
• Pursue product seizure.
• Pursue establishment injunction.
• Suspend product approval.
• Withdraw or revoke product approval (following the opportunity for a hearing or an
opportunity to demonstrate compliance).
• Withhold the approval of pending applications and application supplements requiring an
evaluation of the establishment.
• Invoke FDA’s Application Integrity Policy.
• Pursue prosecution.
• Pursue the imposition of civil money penalties.
• Initiate an administrative detention of the subject drug, per 21 CFR 1.980.
The postapproval inspection may find no significant CGMP deficiencies but may identify
application-related issues with an initial OAI classification for PAC 56843 requiring CDER’s
follow-up. 50 In these instances, OPMA will lead the assessment of the inspection outcomes on the
subject drug application, coordinate with the IQA team for subsequent follow-up actions or
communications with the applicant or the facility as necessary, and act as the lead office tasked with
completing the final assessment and issuing the FMD-145 letter to the firm. To support OPMA’s
efforts, OMQ may assign a point of contact to actively assist in the review of the inspection report as
well as other relevant inspectional documents. When appropriate, OPMA can also initiate a
compliance-specific consult to OMQ. When necessary, OMQ will reach out to appropriate OC
suboffices in response to the OPMA consult. OPQ can ask the applicant, site, and related programs,
as needed, to undertake follow-up actions regarding subject drug-related issues. Follow-up actions
may include, but are not limited to:
• Requesting that an applicant submit a supplement to modify ECs named in the application.
• Notifying the applicant that the reporting categories previously approved in the application
related to the facility subject to the postapproval inspection will revert to reporting categories
consistent with the risk-based paradigm in the regulations and as recommended in guidance
until adequate corrections have been verified.
Lack of follow-up on these application-focused corrections may also impact pending applications.
49
For a cease distribution or product recall of a controlled substance, refer to section 569D of the FD&C Act.
50
Examples of application-related issues include an inappropriate change reporting category, failure to meet application
commitments relevant to drug quality, failure to submit annual reports, and concerns about the PQS that impact an
approved PLCM document or suggest that additional ECs should be included in the application.
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 40 of 50
第 41 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
OPMA works with other offices (e.g., Office of Combination Products (OCP) and Office of the
Chief Counsel (OCC), Office of Generic Drugs (OGD), OMQ) to determine the appropriate
administrative actions, which may include but are not limited to the following:
• FDA-initiated request to the applicant to update an existing approved application.
• Withdrawal of approval status of the application (NDA and ANDA) or its suspension under
section 505(e) of the FD&C Act (see also 21 CFR 314.150(b), 314.151, and 314.153).
After the final classification of the inspection has been completed, OQS updates the surveillance risk
model, when appropriate, with the information gained from the inspection.
B. Issues That Are Not Considered Significant for PAC 56843
If the facility inspection indicates an NAI or VAI classification and no further action is
recommended, ORA issues an FMD-145 letter within the predefined timeline based on the date of
the inspection closing. 51 OPQ suboffices (e.g., OPMA) may assist ORA divisions as requested.
51
See FMD-145—Release of the Establishment Inspection Report (EIR).
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 41 of 50
第 42 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
PART VI—REFERENCES, ATTACHMENT, PROGRAM CONTACTS, AND ACRONYMS
1. References
A. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21
21 CFR part 1
21 CFR part 210
21 CFR part 211
21 CFR part 212
21 CFR part 310
21 CFR part 314
B. Compliance Programs
https://www.fda.gov/drugs/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information/drug-compliance-programs
7346.832—Preapproval Inspections
7356.002—Drug Manufacturing Inspections
7356.002A—Sterile Drug Process Inspections
7356.002C—Radioactive Drugs
7356.002F—Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients
7356.002P—Positron Emission Tomography (PET) CGMP Drug Process and Pre-approval
Inspections/Investigations
7356.021—Drug Quality Reporting System (DQRS) (MedWatch Reports) NDA Field Alert
Reporting (FARs)
C. Compliance Policy Guide
https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/compliance-
manuals/manual-compliance-policy-guides
CPG Sec. 120.100 Fraud, Untrue Statements of Material Facts, Bribery, and Illegal Gratuities
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 42 of 50
第 43 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
D. FDA Guidances
https://www.fda.gov/drugs/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information/guidances-drugs
(1) Guidance for Industry
Analytical Procedures and Methods Validation for Drugs and Biologics (July 2015)
Changes to an Approved Application for Specified Biotechnology and Specified Synthetic Biological
Products (July 1997)
Changes to an Approved NDA or ANDA (April 2004)
Changes to an Approved NDA or ANDA: Questions and Answers (January 2001)
Circumstances That Constitute Delaying, Denying, Limiting, or Refusing a Drug Inspection
(October 2014)
CMC Postapproval Manufacturing Changes for Specified Biological Products to be Documented in
Annual Reports (December 2021)
CMC Postapproval Manufacturing Changes To Be Documented in Annual Reports (March 2014)
Comparability Protocols for Postapproval Changes to the Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls
Information in an NDA, ANDA, or BLA (October 2022)
Control of Nitrosamine Impurities in Human Drugs, Rev. 1 (February 2021)
Current Good Manufacturing Practice Requirements for Combination Products (January 2017)
Data Integrity and Compliance With Drug CGMP: Questions and Answers (December 2018)
Field Alert Report Submission: Questions and Answers (July 2021)
Investigating Out-of-Specification (OOS) Test Results for Pharmaceutical Production (October
2006)
Manufacturing, Supply Chain, and Drug and Biological Product Inspections During COVID-19
Public Health Emergency: Questions and Answers (May 2021)
Media Fills for Validation of Aseptic Preparations for Positron Emission Tomography (PET) Drugs
(April 2012)
PET Drugs—Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) (December 2009)
PET Drugs—Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP), Small Entity Compliance Guide
(August 2011)
Process Validation: General Principles and Practices (January 2011)
Quality Systems Approach to Pharmaceutical CGMP Regulations (September 2006)
Questions and Answers on Current Good Manufacturing Practices for Drugs (March 2018)
Remote Interactive Evaluations of Drug Manufacturing and Bioresearch Monitoring Facilities
During the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (April 2021)
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 43 of 50
第 44 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
Sterile Drug Products Produced by Aseptic Processing—Current Good Manufacturing Practice
(October 2004)
SUPAC-IR: Immediate-Release Solid Oral Dosage Forms: Scale-Up and Postapproval Changes:
Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls, In Vitro Dissolution Testing, and In Vivo Bioequivalence
Documentation (November 1995)
SUPAC-MR: Modified Release Solid Oral Dosage Forms: Scale-Up and Postapproval Changes:
Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls; In Vitro Dissolution Testing and In Vivo Bioequivalence
Documentation (September 1997)
SUPAC-SS: Nonsterile Semisolid Dosage Forms; Scale-Up and Postapproval Changes: Chemistry,
Manufacturing, and Controls; In Vitro Release Testing and In Vivo Bioequivalence Documentation
(May 1997)
Draft guidance 52
Benefit-Risk Considerations for Product Quality Assessments (May 2022)
Conducting Remote Regulatory Assessments: Questions and Answers (July 2022)
ICH Q12: Implementation Considerations for FDA-Regulated Products (May 2021)
Postapproval Changes to Drug Substances (September 2018)
SUPAC: Manufacturing Equipment Addendum (December 2014)
(2) ICH Guidance for Industry
Q7 Good Manufacturing Practice Guidance for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (September
2016)
Q8(R2) Pharmaceutical Development (November 2009)
Q9(R1) Quality Risk Management, Draft (June 2022)
Q10 Pharmaceutical Quality System (April 2009)
Q11 Development and Manufacture of Drug Substances (November 2012)
Q12 Technical and Regulatory Considerations for Pharmaceutical Product Lifecycle Management
(May 2021)
E. Other Procedures and References
Application Integrity Policy, https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-
criminal-investigations/compliance-actions-and-activities/application-integrity-policy
FMD-145—Release of the Establishment Inspection Report (EIR) (July 2019),
https://www.fda.gov/media/83055/download
52
When final, these guidances will represent the FDA’s current thinking on these topics.
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 44 of 50
第 45 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
Inspection Guides, https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-
investigations/inspection-references/inspection-guides
• Pharmaceutical Quality Control Laboratories (July 1993)
• Microbiological Pharmaceutical Quality Control Laboratories (July 1993)
Integration of FDA Facility Evaluation and Inspection Program for Human Drugs: A Concept of
Operations (June 2017), https://www.fda.gov/drugs/pharmaceutical-quality-resources/integration-
fda-facility-evaluation-and-inspection-program-human-drugs-concept-operations
Investigations Operations Manual (2021), https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-
enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/inspection-references/investigations-operations-manual
Pharmaceutical Quality for the 21st Century—A Risk-Based Approach: Progress Report (May
2007), https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/center-drug-evaluation-and-research/pharmaceutical-quality-
21st-century-risk-based-approach-progress-report
Points to Consider for Internal Reviews and Corrective Action Operating Plans (June 1991),
https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/application-
integrity-policy/points-consider-internal-reviews-and-corrective-action-operating-plans-june-1991-
food-and-drug
Regulatory Procedures Manual (July 2021), https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-
enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/compliance-manuals/regulatory-procedures-manual
Staff Manual Guide 9004.1, Policy and Procedures for Requesting Records in Advance of or in Lieu
of a Drug Inspection (August 2017), https://www.fda.gov/media/124338/download
United States Pharmacopeia (USP), https://www.uspnf.com
An Update to the Resiliency Roadmap for FDA Inspectional Oversight (November 2021),
https://www.fda.gov/media/154293/download
2. Attachment
Attachment A: Remote Regulatory Assessments
3. Program Contacts
A. Office of Regulatory Affairs
Office of Medical Products and Tobacco Operations
Office of Pharmaceutical Quality Operations, Division of Pharmaceutical Quality Programs,
Pharmaceutical Quality Initiatives Branch
ORA program coordinators: See the ORA Directory in the IOM for updated references,
https://www.fda.gov/files/inspections,%20compliance,%20enforcement,%20and%20criminal
%20investigations/published/ORA--Directory.pdf
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 45 of 50
第 46 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
Office of Regulatory Science
Office of Medical Products, Tobacco, and Specialty Laboratory Operations
Staff Director
[email protected]
B. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
CGMP or Quality-Related Policy Questions
For CGMP or quality-related policy, technical, or scientific questions or information needs,
including questions about this program, send an email to the following address and it will be
handled as a top priority:
[email protected]
Product-Specific Inspection-Related Questions:
For questions about a product-specific postapproval inspection under this program, contact
the OPMA Postapproval Program mailbox:
[email protected]
Office of Compliance: Enforcement-Related Guidance or Policy
For enforcement-related guidance or policy, including evidence need and sufficiency,
citations, and case evaluation/recommendation advice related to marketed products or
surveillance coverage, send an email to the following address and it will be handled as a top
priority:
[email protected]
4. Acronyms
ALCOA attributable, legible, CDER Center for Drug Evaluation and
contemporaneously recorded,
Research
original or a true copy, and
accurate CGMP current good manufacturing
practice
ANDA abbreviated new drug application
CMC chemistry, manufacturing, and
API active pharmaceutical ingredient controls
CAPA corrective action and preventive CMS Compliance Management
action Services
CBE changes being effected Cpk process capability index
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 46 of 50
第 47 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
DMF drug master file OPMA Office of Pharmaceutical
Manufacturing Assessment
DOE design of experiment
OPQ Office of Pharmaceutical Quality
EC established condition
OPQO Office of Pharmaceutical Quality
eDRLS Electronic Drug Registration and
Operations
Listing System
OQS Office of Quality Surveillance
EIR establishment inspection report
ORA Office of Regulatory Affairs
FAR field alert report
ORA PAM ORA preapproval program
FD&C Act Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
manager
Act
ORADSS Online Reporting Analysis
ICH International Council for
Decision Support System
Harmonisation
ORS Office of Regulatory Science
IOM Investigations Operations Manual
PAC product/assignment code
IQA integrated quality assessment
PACMP postapproval change management
MRA mutual recognition agreement
protocol
NAI No Action Indicated
PAI preapproval inspection
NDA new drug application
PET positron emission tomography
OAI Official Action Indicated
PLCM product lifecycle management
OC Office of Compliance
pOAI potential Official Action Indicated
OCC Office of the Chief Counsel
Ppk process performance index
OCP Office of Combination Products
PPQ process performance qualification
OGD Office of Generic Drugs
PQR product quality review
OMPTO Office of Medical Products and
PQS pharmaceutical quality system
Tobacco Operations
RIE remote interactive evaluation
OMQ Office of Manufacturing Quality
RRA remote regulatory assessments
OOS out-of-specification
SUPAC Scale-Up and Postapproval
OOT out-of-trend
Changes
VAI Voluntary Action Indicated
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 47 of 50
第 48 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
PART VII―OVERVIEW OF CDER-ORA RESPONSIBILITIES
CDER and ORA redefined their roles and responsibilities regarding application assessments and
inspections of human drugs facilities under the ConOps agreement Integration of FDA Facility
Evaluation and Inspection Program for Human Drugs: A Concept of Operations. This ConOps
operating model applies to pre- and postapproval, surveillance, and for-cause inspections.
Postapproval facility inspections are led by ORA with CDER participation. The roles and
responsibilities for postapproval inspections as laid out in ConOps are subject to this compliance
program.
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 48 of 50
第 49 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
ATTACHMENT A: REMOTE REGULATORY ASSESSMENTS
In addition to its inspectional authority, FDA may conduct remote regulatory assessments (RRAs),
under certain circumstances, to support oversight of FDA-regulated products and establishments. 1
An RRA is an examination of an FDA-regulated establishment and/or its records, conducted
remotely, to evaluate compliance with applicable FDA requirements. RRAs assist in protecting
human health, informing regulatory decisions, and verifying certain information submitted to the
Agency.
RRAs used in lieu of or in advance of inspections have allowed FDA to remotely evaluate drug
manufacturing establishments to mitigate risks. However, RRAs are not the same as an inspection as
described in section 704(a)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), and FDA
does not consider them to satisfy the statutory requirement for an inspection under section 510(h) of
the FD&C Act.
The following RRAs, along with applicable FDA policies, can be used to support the objectives of
this compliance program when, in the opinion of FDA experts, they would enable FDA to determine
whether the establishment meets applicable requirements for the product’s identity, strength, quality,
and purity for an application subject to section 505 of the FD&C Act.
1. FDA Records and Other Information Requests Under Section 704(a)(4) of the FD&C Act
(Statutorily Authorized RRA)
In 2012, with the passage of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act to amend
the FD&C Act, Congress gave FDA the authority to request “any records or other information” in
advance of or in lieu of an inspection related to human or animal drugs, including human biological
drug products. Section 704(a)(4) of the FD&C Act requires “a person that owns or operates an
establishment that is engaged in the manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or
processing of a drug” to provide FDA, upon request, records or other information that FDA may
inspect under section 704(a)(1).
With regards to this compliance program, a 704(a)(4) request may be used in lieu of or in advance of
a postapproval inspection to support preparation and assessment of product-specific inspection
coverage. 2 The use of 704(a)(4) authority does not prevent an FDA investigator from requesting
records or other information on inspection.
2. Remote Interactive Evaluation (Voluntary RRA)
A remote interactive evaluation (RIE) is an evaluation of a firm’s compliance with regulations
1
See FDA’s An Update to the Resiliency Roadmap for FDA Inspectional Oversight, section 704 of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and draft guidance for industry Conducting Remote Regulatory Assessments: Questions and
Answers.
2
Staff Manual Guide 9004.1, Policy and Procedures for Requesting Records in Advance of or in Lieu of a Drug
Inspection.
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 49 of 50
第 50 页
PROGRAM 7356.843
and/or conformance with an application submission that a firm participates in voluntarily. 3 RIEs are
defined as FDA’s use of any combination of remote interactive tools (e.g., remote livestreaming
video of operations, teleconferences, screen sharing) to evaluate facilities where drugs are
manufactured, processed, packaged, or held. FDA may request to conduct an RIE whenever a
program office determines it is appropriate based on mission needs.
With regards to this compliance program, an RIE may be used in lieu of or in advance of a
postapproval inspection to evaluate marketed drug products manufactured under approved new drug
applications or abbreviated new drug applications or their associated active pharmaceutical
ingredients. During an inspection, FDA may collect copies of previously received documents and
other documents not previously requested.
3
See guidance for industry Remote Interactive Evaluations of Drug Manufacturing and Bioresearch Monitoring
Facilities During the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency.
Date of Issuance: 01/27/2023 Page 50 of 50
来源：FDA Pharmaceutical Quality Documents · fda.gov