Risk-Based Validation – The Benefits of the GAMP® Approach Kevin C. Martin Chair, GAMP® Americas Sr. Vice President Azzur Group LLC April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show Agenda • 20 Years of the GAMP® Organization • GAMP Benefits • GAMP Contribution • Validation Productivity • Lean Validation • Current Technology Trends • Current Regulatory Activity April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 2 20 years of GAMP Development Validation Productivity! plus … April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 3 April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 4 GAMP® Americas Leadership • Officers • • • • Steering Committee Chairman: Kevin Martin, Azzur Group Co-Chairman: Michael Rutherford, Eli Lilly Secretary: Lorrie Schuessler, GSK • • • • • • • • • • • ISPE Staff PM • • Scott Ludlum Winnie Cappucci* , Retired- Bayer Waunetka Clark, Abbott Jim John, ProPharma Group Paige Kane, Pfizer Klaus Krause, Allergan Eugene Longo , GAMP® Puerto Rico Randy Perez, Novartis Judy Samardelis, Medimmune Eric Staib, Covance Robert Tollefsen, FDA Bob Wherry, Sunovion Blue indicates GAMP® Council *Denotes GAMP Council Chair April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 5 Active GAMP® SIGs GAMP® Americas GAMP® Europe • • • • • • • • Process Control Systems • • Open Source Software • • • • Laboratory Systems Manufacturing Execution Systems (co-chaired with Europe) Risk Management Joint Equipment Transition Team (JETT) • • Supplier Relationships Outsourcing and Offshoring (with USA) Calibration GxP Controls Framework (proposed) R&D / Clinical Systems (coordinated ® D-A-CH GAMP with Europe) • Supplier Cooperation Automated Testing (sub-set of Testing SIG) • Testing (with USA) Outsourcing and Offshoring (with Europe) GAMP® Italia IT Infrastructure Control & Compliance (with Europe) • Metrics • April 10, 2012 Development Models and Methods Equipment Qualification Workgroup GAMP® Nordic Virtualization ISPE CASA Technology Show 6 Active GAMP® SIGs - Brazil • • • • • • • • • GTG "Validation of IT Infrastructure and Processes” GTG " Validation of PLCs, Automated Systems, Shop-floor Systems, MES and BMS” GTG "Change Management for Computerized Systems and Maintenance of Validated Status”: GTG “Understanding e-records and e-signatures (ANVISA / EMA Annex 11 / 21CFR Part 11 / GAMP)” GTG “Validation Master Plan and Validation Plan for CSV” GTG “Legacy Systems” GTG " Qualification and Suppliers Assessment” GTG "Testing GxP Systems (base GPG GAMP)“ GTG "Organizational Structure for CSV” April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 7 GAMP Good Practice Guides 1. Validation of Process Controls Systems (Second Edition Feb 2011) 2. Calibration Management (Second Edition Nov 2010) 3. Manufacturing Execution Systems – A Strategic and Program Management Approach (Feb 2010) 4. A Risk-Based Approach to Operation of GxP Computerized Systems - A Companion Volume to GAMP® 5 (Jan 2010) 5. Electronic Data Archiving (Jul 2007) 6. Testing of GxP Systems (Dec 2005)* (2nd Edition 3Q2012) 7. Global Information Systems Control and Compliance (Nov 2005) 8. IT Infrastructure Control and Compliance (Sep 2005) 9. Validation of Laboratory Computerized Systems (Apr 2005) (2nd Edition 2Q2012) 10. Risk-Based Approach to Electronic Records and Signatures (Feb 2005) 11. Legacy Systems (Nov/ Dec 2003)* * Available as a download at no cost to ISPE Members Only April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 8 GAMP® 5 GAMP® 5 Overview Published: Feb 2008 April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 9 GAMP® 5 Continues to Address… • Current regulatory initiatives FDA’s cGMPs for the 21st Century PIC/S Guidance Risk-based Part 11 Guidance • Global Standards ICH Q8, Q9, Q10 ASTM E2500 • Escalating cost pressures mandate efficiency Facilitate a single company QMS Need to take full advantage of supplier capability Better compliance with less cost! April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 10 GAMP® 5 Simplified V-model Verifies Validationmodel better illustrates scalability Validation This options for phases Plan Report Validation Activities • Blended specifications (e.g. URS/FS, FS/DS, even URS/FS/DS) • Design review as opposed to formal DQ • Blending User of “classical” qualification Acceptance of Verifies(e.g. IOQ, OQ/PQ, melding Requirements testing computer validation with equipment C&Q) (URS) (PQ) Plan Functional Specification (FS) Development Activities Design Specify Specification Risk Management throughout the Verifies process (DS) GAMP® 5 stresses that this model does not imply aSystem waterfallBuild development methodology Activities April 10, 2012 Report Functional testing (OQ) Verifies Installation Verify Verification Activities (IQ) This can be applied to nonlinear approaches like spiral or or SystemBuild Build Developer testsiterative methodologies, agile (Structural, unit, & (including Configure integration) software development, etc. developer tests) ISPE CASA Technology Show 11 GAMP® 5 Life Cycle Concept Features: • Simplified V- Repetitive “V” Activities Within the Life Cycle migration Model URS Release Changes GxP Assessment Concept Project Operation Retirement Supplier Involvement* * • This could be a complex supply chain • Supplier may provide knowledge, experience, documentation & services throughout lifecycle April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 12 Plan Specify Build Verify Report Risk mgmt throughout process • Repetition of Vactivities for changes • Incorporates end-of-life activities Risk Management Goals • Systematic process for identifying, assessing, mitigating, controlling, and communicating risk, based on Good science Process and product understanding • Recognize that zero risk is impractical and unattainable Aim is for acceptable risk • Consistent with risk-based approach based on ISO 14971 (and ERES GPG) as well as other contemporary risk based tools April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 13 5-Step Quality Risk Management Process Step 1 Perform initial risk assessment & determine system impact Step 2 Identify functions impacting patient safety, quality, and data integrity Step 3 Perform functional risk assessments & identify controls Step 4 Implement & verify appropriate controls Step 5 Review Risks and monitor controls April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 14 The Desired State… Historical State Desired State High Medium Low Risk Based Approach Focus Validation Effort Focus Validation Effort 1990’s Validation Approach High Medium Low April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 15 Stakeholders – the GAMP® Benefits • All stakeholders depend on reliable systems Performing as expected … from the beginning … …continuously … with minimal attention • A proven roadmap when going from ‘manual’ to automated systems We have a great responsibility! April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 16 GAMP® 5 – Enables Increased Validation Productivity • Focussed on efficient and effective validation • Making validation ‘productive’ • OED: ‘producing abundantly’ • Webster's: ‘Yielding results, benefit or profit’ Eliminate the Waste!!! April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 17 Universal Approach • GAMP methodology applies to all • • • • types of systems Large database systems Process control systems Spreadsheets etc. Needs tailoring to each project for maximum efficiency April 10, 2012 Consider all the elements of the validation process ISPE CASA Technology Show 18 Uniform Approach • The ‘V’ model is almost universally applicable • It is capable of considerable flexibility • Many ‘dialects’ exist • Fundamentals remain Document Handover Design Review Plan >Check > Do > Record Planning Specifications April 10, 2012 Protocols Change management ISPE CASA Technology Show 19 QMS* for Systems Validation The Validation Process is well-documented • Based on QMS principles • Widely understood • Adopts standard elements of QMS Planning Specifications Risk-based approach Verification Documentation Change management Continuous improvement *QMS = Quality Management System April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 20 Knowledge of Systems • To validate effectively we need to know our systems; Why we want them What they do How they do it Where the risks lie How the risks are controlled • Follow a System Life Cycle - Use GAMP5® as a tool • Payback is immediate – increased efficiency of operation April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 21 Benchmarking for Continuous Improvement 12 Good Validation Practices • • • • • • Policies and Procedures Good Project Management Practices Validation Planning Validation Strategy Specifications and Design Review Protocols • • • • • • Documentation Change Management Practices Training Handover Maintaining Control in Operation Post-project reviews Acknowledgment: David Selby, NSF-DBA April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 22 Benchmark Assessment • Highest scores highlighted Green • Next lowest highlighted Yellow • Lowest Scores highlighted Red • Absolute numbers not meaningful • Averages are more reliable • Look at the concentration of colour Acknowledgment: David Selby, NSF-DBA April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 23 Benchmarking Results - Typical •8 •9 •7 •6 •7 •7 •9 •9 •8 •6 •6 •7 •7 •5 •5 •8 •8 •10 •6 •5 •7 •8 •9 •8 •7 •6 •6 •5 •4 •5 •7 •8 •4 •5 •7 •8 •5 •4 •7 •5 •7 •6 •7 •6 •7 •6 Protocols, •6 •8 •6 Documentation •6 •8 •8 Change •8 •7 •8 Management •5 •4 •5 •1 •3 •5 •7 •6 •8 •4 •5 •6 •10 •8 •5 •3 •7 •9 •8 •6 •4 •5 •7 •7 •7 •8 •8 •4 •3 •2 •7 •6 •8 •6 •5 •2 •5 •6 •7 •7 •4 •6 •6 •8 •9 •7 •6 •7 •8 •8 •9 •3 •4 •3 •1 •6 •5 •3 •8 •9 •8 •6 •3 •6 •4 •4 •6 •7 •6 •8 •7 •6 •4 •2 •2 •0 •6 •5 •5 •5 •7 •7 •7 •5 •4 •4 •1 •8 •4 •3 •8 •6 •7 •7 •7 •4 •4 •3 •1 •7 •4 •5 •5 •6 •8 •6 •8 •4 •5 •3 •5 •6 •6 •8 •7 •5 •7 •7 •6 •3 •5 •5 •3 •5 •3 •6 •8 •7 •2 •3 •4 •3 •5 •5 •8 •9 •6 •6 Training •4 •5 •3 •7 •6 •7 •8 •6 •6 •5 •6 •6 •6 •6 •7 •8 •9 •8 •7 •8 •5 Policies and •4 Procedures•7 •3 •7 •7 •8 •4 •6 Specifications and •5 •6 •5 Design Review •9 Project •2 •4 Management •5 •4 Planning •5 •7 Strategy •7 •4 Handover •4 •4 •3 Control in Operation •3 •6 •5 Post-project Reviews •8 •7 •5 •6 •6 •8 •8 •8 •7 •5 •6 •5 •7 •7 •3 •3 •4 •6 •6 •7 •6 •5 •4 •4 •145 •137 •133 •126 •120 •154 •165 •162 •121 •97 •101 •79 •6.6 •6.2 •6.0 •5.7 •5.5 •7.0 •7.5 •7.4 •5.5 •4.4 •4.6 •3.6 Acknowledgment: David Selby, NSF-DBA Example 1: Ampoule Filling Line • Mid ’90s • Comparison of validation of two liquid injection filling lines Pre-GAMP Post-GAMP2 Specification Development 5 days Specification Development 5 weeks Protocol Development 1 week Protocol Development 4 weeks FAT Testing 3 days FAT Testing 2 weeks Initial efficiency 35% Initial efficiency 75% Final Efficiency 65% Final Efficiency 95% April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 25 Cost Effective Approach How much does Validation Cost? • Some figures (% of total project cost): Current industry average 20 – 25% Major pharma company (top 10) 16% GSK ≤ 4%* Pfizer ≤ 4%* Best in class ~ 1.2% * Figures published in 2008 April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 26 Example 2: SAP Financials • GAMP methodology applied to global implementation of SAP Financials Scenario: – Lead site – Decision to use “validation rigor” (GAMP Methodology) for all modules – Lead by QA validation expert – Tough to get Finance to understand what that meant – IT Project manager: “This guy has no idea how to implement a finance system.” – Testing went like a dream! – Project on time and on budget – “We’ve never had a test phase that went so smoothly with so few problems” Acknowledgment: Randy Perez, Novartis April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 27 Example 3: Re-engineering the Verification Process Validation Waste Waiting Motion Slow project initiation Inactive players Physical document circulation Sequential activities Priority conflicts Long lead times for meetings High training requirement Defects Late detection Staff turnover Wrong skills mix Effort to re-work WASTE Implementation of optional features Unclear purpose Multiple planners Multiple forms Too many signatures Over-production Transportation Too many documents Too many people Inventory Extra Processing Acknowledgment: Guy Wingate, GSK April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 28 Example 3: Re-engineering the Verification Process Savings identified: Adopting good practices ~5% Adopting standardized practices Focussing of GMP activities ~30+% ~20% Scaled approach ~10% Leverage supplier expertise Rigorously applied risk-based approach Average Cost of Validation Acknowledgment: Guy Wingate, GSK April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 29 Example 3: Re-engineering the Validation Process Upgrade Projects Cost Savings* 1 50% 2 58% 3 72% Total Savings >$1.5m Cost savings comparing V model alone (GAMP 4) vs. V model + E 2500 (GAMP 5) Acknowledgment: Lily Mo, Pfizer Global Quality Operations April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 30 Example 4: Application of Risk Management (Scaleability) High Medium Low Definition Severe potential harm to patients, (e.g. death, hospitalization, long term effects). Risk has potential for nonserious impact on patient safety and/or product quality. Risk has little or no potential impact on patient safety and/or product quality. Criteria •Product is unusable or ineffective such that harm is likely. •Loss or corruption of records has potential for severe harm to patients. •....and so on for your organisation. •Impacts product quality but with no or negligible impact on patient safety (e.g. cosmetic defect). •Loss or corruption of records would have non-serious impact on patient safety or product quality. •..... and so on for your organisation. •Regulatory requirement with little or no impact on product quality and/or patient safety. •Loss or corruption of records would violate regulatory requirements but have no impact on patient safety or product quality • ...and so on for your organisation. ...Think carefully here... Possible Examples •Training management for staff operating in aseptic area. •Dispensing of active ingredients for production, sterilization hold times. •Incomplete break line on OTC tablet. •Checkweigher detection of incompletely filled blister packs. Acknowledgment: Ellis Daw, GSK April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 31 •Training management for nonproduction staff. •Corrupt electronic signature on audit report. Example 4: Application of Risk Management (Scaleability) Probability of Failure (Development Classification) Severity 1 (Customised) 2 (Configurable) 3 (Non-Configurable) High (H) Intensive Standard Minimal Medium (M) Intensive Standard Minimal Low (L) Standard Minimal Minimal Rigor of Verification Intensive Standard Minimal Positive and negative testing (as appropriate) -evidence required (e.g., critical screen shots, report(s), witness signatures - QA and 2nd person review required Positive testing, including multiple/alternative path testing -standard evidence required (outcome, tester initials, date) - 2nd person review required (QA review not required) Minimal testing -Vendor or leveraged documentation - verification may be required to test requirement - 2nd person review required (QA review not required) High: functions impacting product release, process control, batch records, complaints, recall, regulatory filings, adverse event recording etc. Medium: functions impacting support processes driven by GMP regulations, critical business processes Low: functions impacting supporting processes NOT driven by regulation Acknowledgment: Lily Mo, Pfizer Global Quality Operations April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 32 Example 5: Leveraging Supplier Testing • System – Business Workflow Mapping Tool – Limited configuration required to implement at customer’s site • Approach – Extended audit to verify Supplier Functional Risk Assessment and Testing – Additional effort, 4 days to conduct the review of Functional Risk Assessment and Supplier Testing • Outcome – Regulated company testing more spot checks of high impact functions (3 days) – Original regulated company test plan allowed for 6 man weeks testing Acknowledgment: Chris Reid, Integrity Solutions Ltd. April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 33 Example 6: Business Benefits • Pre GAMP Business processes not defined Requirements unclear/incomplete Projects over-ran User expectations not met • Post GAMP • Adoption of lifecycle approach • Brought discipline (painfully!) • Users understood business processes • Users understood business needs • Requirements and quality attributes traceable to business process • Requirements prioritised • Compliance to timelines and costs (mostly) • System understood by users • Systems accepted by users • Traceability made maintenance easy Acknowledgment: Winnie Cappucci (formerly Bayer) April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 34 What is Lean Validation? • Lean Validation is defined as the delivery of validation services with as little “waste” as possible. April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 35 History of the Problem April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 36 Problem Statement • COST OF VALIDATION ~ 25% of the total capital • TIME April 10, 2012 Inadequate cycle times Effort takes too long Inability to support timelines based on business needs ISPE CASA Technology Show 37 What have we typically seen? • • • • • • • • No uniform practice Unclear expectations Unclear roles and responsibilities Duplication of effort and rework Significant resource commitment Inconsistencies Functionally siloed activities Re-interpretation of requirements leading to re-drafting of protocols • Multiple reviews / approvals for each protocol April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 38 What is the impact? • Major cause of contract breaks schedule cost • Work environment April 10, 2012 stress anxiety morale ISPE CASA Technology Show 39 Current Qualification Practice rework IQ “churn” OQ PQ rework April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 40 Let’s Re-design the Process • Integration and alignment of Qualification & Capital execution • Application of Front-End Loading (FEL) principles Early cross-functional involvement, understanding, consensus and commitment • Conformance to regulatory and cGMP expectations from the start April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 41 Re-design Tools • Defined, integrated work flow process Identification of key milestones identified interdependencies between construction & qualification activities • Responsibilities Matrix Defined roles and responsibilities • Standard Qualification templates Process & Packaging Equipment Laboratory Systems Any Automation!!! April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 42 Cost Savings • Reduced cost to less than 20% of capital expenses • Achieved a cost profile of 10% or less of capital expenses • Eliminating or reducing non-value added work April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 43 Some Other Cost Savings Measures… April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 44 Document Approvers • Typical approval cycle is five validation documents approvers • Lean Approach: Should be two document approvers April 10, 2012 System Owner Quality ISPE CASA Technology Show 45 Benefits (of reduced approvers) • Reduced cycle times • Faster turnaround of verification documents • Cost efficient • Reduced numbers of EDM users April 10, 2012 Lower license cost for reduced number of document approvers ISPE CASA Technology Show 46 Verification Forms Implementation of verification forms instead of protocols • Driven by SOP • Individual Forms are pre-approved • Installation & Functional Verification forms • Forms can be created by leveraging existing protocols April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 47 Verification Forms (cont.) • Forms can be created from requirements and design documents • Forms can be used for the validation of changes to existing systems • Examples of verification forms Security verification Recipe verification Audit trail verification Parameter verification P&ID verification Loop check verification April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 48 Benefits of implementing verification forms • • • • Cycle time reduction Faster turnaround time Only one approval cycle Cost reduction: ~ $ 750 per form vs $ 5,000 per protocol April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 49 Productive Validation – its Very Important! • Companies need systems for: operations to make much-needed products for patients • And to promote: increased assurance of product quality sustainability • Systems need validation • Validation needs to be efficient and effective by: April 10, 2012 having an efficient validation process applying effective governance good in-depth training and expertise continuous improvement ISPE CASA Technology Show 50 So what is left to do? • Improve our validation processes they’re capable of much further refinement • Standardize the approach • Judiciously apply risk management and E 2500 • Spend project time on the front end of the system life cycle process • Look at the final steps around handover • Get into the continuous improvement mind-set April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 51 Validation Productivity Priorities • Upgrade the validation system • Focus on the •6.6 April 10, 2012 the front end (validation planning, strategy and specification development) the back end (handover and maintaining control in operation) •6.2 •6.0 •5.7 •5.5 •7.0 •7.5 ISPE CASA Technology Show •7.4 •5.5 •4.4 52 •4.6 •3.6 Validation Productivity Priorities • Standardize the approach across the organization • Focus on April 10, 2012 Defining the deliverables Scalability Integration of E 2500 into the process Involvement of SMEs and QA Applying Globally ISPE CASA Technology Show 53 Validation Productivity Priorities • Focus on Integrating risk management into the entire process Apply it ruthlessly Spread it throughout the organization … … once it’s right High April 10, 2012 Medium ISPE CASA Technology Show Low 54 Validation Productivity Priorities • Spend project time April 10, 2012 on planning using risk management using the expertise of SMEs on design review ISPE CASA Technology Show 55 Validation Productivity Priorities • … and don’t forget Handover – data accessibility for users – knowledge transfer – measured performance criteria April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 56 Validation Productivity Priorities • Continuous Improvement April 10, 2012 Embrace new approaches Learn from each project Build the learning back into the validation process Spread the word ISPE CASA Technology Show 57 Validation Productivity – The target? • Continuous improvement cost effective validation projects – a few % of project cost from be part of the solution April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 58 Thank You! Resources / More Information Kevin C. Martin GAMP Americas Chair Azzur Group LLC Sr. Vice President +1.215.260.6327 [email protected] Michael L. Rutherford GAMP Americas Vice Chair Consultant – Business Systems Support Development Center of Excellence Eli Lilly and Company 317-276-1473 [email protected] ISPE GAMP Community of Practice (COP) Website http://www.ispe.org/gampcop April 10, 2012 ISPE CASA Technology Show 59
© Copyright 2024