How to Respond to a PMDA Inspection: Mechanism by which the observation is issued

Date

2025-02-05

Author
Category
Tags

内容

The characteristics of PMDA inspectors are as stated in the previous blog—For an Effective Inspection Response. Let's consider what mechanism and what level of observations are issued by Japanese regulations. The structure of Japan's regulations regarding GMP has been explained in a previous blog—Regulations related to GMP in Japan. In addition, I would like to introduce another notification (#0329-9, March 29th 2024) regarding the level of observation from the Japanese authorities.

The definitions are as below….

<Critical>

If the identified deficiencies violate the Article(s) stipulated in the GMP Ministerial Ordinance and meet any of the following conditions.

  • When there is a clear risk of manufacturing harmful products or when harmful products have been produced that could adversely affect patients,
  • When falsification, false statement, or tampering by the manufacturer is identified regarding the product or records.

<Major>

If the identified deficiencies violate the clauses stipulated in the GMP Ministerial Ordinance but do not constitute a "critical deficiency."

<Minor>

If the identified deficiencies do not clearly violate the clauses stipulated in the GMP Ministerial Ordinance, but improvements are needed to ensure more appropriate operation in order to achieve complete manufacturing and quality control.

From the above, in my experience, except for intentional violations, you will not receive a critical rating right away. If any serious non-compliance with the GMP Ministerial Ordinance is found, it will be handled as Major first. From there, they will evaluate whether it is malicious and if so, it may be raised to critical status organizationally based on an internal meeting. In addition, according to the structure of the regulations, if the provisions of the supplementary notification (#0428-2) are not met, the parts related to the definition of the Ministerial Ordinance are generally likely to be major, and the rest are almost always likely to be minor. If the provisions of the GMP case studies are not met, they tend to be minor.

However, please understand that this is a general trend based on my experience and may not always be the case.

By the way, the recent trends in PMDA's observations can be understood from the contents of the ORANGE (Observed Regulatory Attention Notification of GMP Elements) Letter. It is only available in Japanese, but if you use some recent translation applications, you should be able to read it without any problems.

ORANGR Letter: https://www.pmda.go.jp/review-services/gmp-qms-gctp/gmp/0011.html

執筆者

寶田 哲仁 (たからだ てつひと)

現職:株式会社ファーマプランニング シニアコンサルタント


1983年 持田製薬株式会社入社

27年間品質保証業務を経験、この間、製造管理者・品質保証責任者等経験

2016年独立行政法人医薬品医療機器総合機構

GMP・GCTP調査(シニア調査員等)の他、アジアトレーニングセンターにて東南アジア諸国等の査察官指導体制の確立及び運用に関わる

2021年 学校法人東京理科大学研究推進機構総合研究院究

ヒト細胞加工製品のQbDアプローチ関連の研究支援の他、知識管理・品質文化に関する研究

2023年 現職にて、GMP・GCTPコンサルティング(PMDA/FDA対応等)


過去、日本製薬工業協会(JPMA)品質委員会GMP部会委員、ICHでJPMAの専門家として Q7、Q8R、Q9、Q10のガイドライン/Q&Aの作成、PIC/S WGにてAnnex 2A作成、厚生労働科学研究等でGMP省令改正案、GMP監査マニュアル等の作成に関わる。

 現在、継続して、国立保健医療科学院医薬品医療機器の品質確保に関する研修で講師の一人として都道府県の薬事監視員教育に関わる。公益財団法人神戸医療産業都市推進機構外部アドバイザー(GCTP関連)