language: Deutsch   Français   italiano   Español   Português   日本語   russian   arabic   norwegian   swedish   danish   Nederlands   finland   ireland   English  

Responding to 483s and Warning Letters | ISPE Boston Area Chapter complaint definition fda

Responding to 483s and Warning Letters

by David L. Chesney and Anne E. Kelly December 1998

At the conclusion of an inspection, FDA investigators issue a form FDA-483 which lists the adverse observations made during the inspection. Following review of the 483 and the establishment inspection report (EIR), the FDA District Office may elect to send the inspected company a Warning Letter. Most companies prepare elaborate responses to 483s and Warning Letters. This article presents the views of a two former FDA compliance officials regarding what makes an inspection response letter effective. It also reviews some common problems and pitfalls companies should avoid when writing response letters to the FDA.

Introduction

At the conclusion of an FDA inspection, the inspection team communicates its observations to the inspected company via Form FDA-483 (or simply, "483"). In an April, 1996 article in BioPharm this author described the history and present use of the 4831. In the current article, we will explore how to respond to both 483s and Warning Letters in effective ways, and how to avoid some common pitfalls.

A Comparison of 483s and Warning Letters

First, it is important to understand the distinction between a 483 and a Warning Letter.

FDA will first communicate inspection findings to company officials by presenting the 483 at the conclusion of the inspection. Companies have an opportunity to make an initial response during an exit discussion. Subsequently, most companies elect to send a formal written response. Although the law does not require any response at all, such responses are common practice and failing to respond would be seen as unusual by the FDA. Hence, a written response should always be prepared (unless legal counsel advises against it).

Upon returning to the FDA District Office, the inspection team writes an Establishment Inspection Report (EIR) which elaborates and expands on the inspection observations and links the observations to the evidence collected to support them. The EIR is reviewed, and if the conditions it describes are serious enough in the minds of the reviewing officials, a Warning Letter may follow.

A Warning Letter differs from a 483 in several important respects. A 483 represents the observations of the inspection team (or lone investigator, if such is the case). A Warning Letter indicates that higher level FDA officials have reviewed the inspection findings and have concluded that the findings warrant further formal notification to the inspected company that FDA believes serious violations may exist.

A Warning Letter has a twofold purpose: (1) To stimulate voluntary corrective action and (2) to establish a background of prior warning should further regulatory action by FDA be needed at a later date. As FDA itself states in its Warning Letter Reference Guide2, "Warning letters should be issued only for violations of "regulatory significance." The threshold for determination of what constitutes "regulatory significance" is that failure to adequately and promptly achieve correction to the warning letter may be expected to result in enforcement action...the warning letter would be appropriate to document prior warning if adequate corrections aren’t made and subsequent enforcement action is warranted, i.e., injunction or prosecution."

FDA also takes the position that a Warning Letter is not a final agency action. This has generally served to ward off judicial review of Warning Letters with the exception of a provision found in certain Warning Letters which states that Federal agencies that procure medical material will be advised that the Warning Letter recipient is an unacceptable supplier. On this topic, FDA’s Warning Letter Guide states "In order to minimize the possibility that a court might consider the Agency’s action to be final and permit an immediate court challenge, FDA officials should not make public statements which state that the Agency has reached a definitive position about the subject of a warning letter." FDA has also toned down the statement about Federal agencies that purchase medical material to read "Federal agencies are advised on the issuance of all warning letters about drugs and devices so that they may take this information into account when considering the award of contracts." Legislative efforts to force judicial review of Warning Letters have thus far failed.

Another key difference between a 483 and a Warning Letter is in the two documents’ accessibility under FOI. Although 483s are theoretically available immediately after they have been issued [see 21 CFR 20.101(a)]3, in practice it is often difficult to obtain them quickly, and one must know the record exists in order to request it. Warning Letters, on the other hand, are published upon issuance and promptly posted on the agency’s internet web site (www.fda.gov).

Both the 483 and the Warning Letter are serious documents which warrant a prompt and thoughtful reply. Companies often tend to rush replies, at the expense of careful consideration of the issues. Many companies believe that a rapid response to a 483 will prevent a Warning Letter. In certain cases this may be true, but a rapid 483 reply is no guarantee that a Warning Letter will not follow. A poorly written 483 response, on the other hand, may very well increase the likelihood of a subsequent Warning Letter.

Responding to an FDA-483

A company’s first look at the 483, and hence, first opportunity to respond comes at the conclusion of the inspection during the exit discussion. The inspection team presents the 483 and provides an opportunity for discussion. Companies should take full advantage of this opportunity to gain an understanding of the issues as FDA sees them, and, where practical, to make commitments about corrective action. The inspection team will take notes of company officials’ statements during the exit discussion and will report those statements in the EIR. However, companies should emphasize that their formal reply will follow in writing within a short period of time after the inspection. A week or two (or longer in some cases) is normally an acceptable response time, provided there are no serious health hazards involved nor any threats of imminent regulatory action, such as seizure or temporary restraining order, by the agency.During the exit discussion, companies should carefully point out any immediate corrective actions taken during the inspection, and ascertain whether the inspection team deemed the actions sufficient to address the concern.

Companies should also feel free to challenge the inspection team to explain the basis of citations. Many companies are unwilling to challenge the inspection team, out of fear of provoking some sort of "retaliatory" response. However, FDA will usually interpret silence as agreement, and if there are serious questions or concerns they should be raised for discussion. In reality, questions and challenges are not uncommon, and do not tend to upset most investigators, as long as the discussion is focused on the issues and not directed personally at the investigator or their competence. FDA’s policy is that if convincing information is presented that nullifies an observation, then the inspection team will delete the item from the FDA-4834.

Following the inspection, a carefully written response to the FDA-483 should be sent promptly, addressed to the District Director, with a courtesy copy to the lead investigator. If a Warning Letter is received, either respond within the time period prescribed (almost always 15 calendar days) or request an extension of time, providing a justification for why more time is needed.

Guidelines for Preparing the Response Letter

Whether responding to an FDA-483 or a Warning Letter, the following general guidelines may be of assistance in composing the response: Begin with a statement of commitment to comply with applicable laws and regulations. Make it clear that your company understands its obligation under the law and is serious about its intent to follow the law.

Address each item on the FDA-483 or in the Warning Letter individually. For convenience, quote each specific citation verbatim and follow with your reply.

Where there is actual or potential impact on product (for example, excursions in critical process parameters, repeated failures or deviations, unresolved environmental monitoring excursions, etc.) provide an assessment of product impact and the basis for the assessment.

Describe the scope of the corrective action plan. Include a report of the corrective action for each of the specific examples listed in the observation, the steps taken to address any other area which may be subject to the same deficiency, and the measures taken to prevent the reoccurrence of the problem in the future.

Avoid long-winded discussions of background information. Remember, FDA’s main interests are:

What is the impact on the product? What are you doing about the specific citation? What was the root cause failure in the implicated quality system and how is that being addressed? How will you prevent reoccurrence? When making root cause determinations in quality systems, always ask "How-Why-What-Who?": How and why did this happen? What could have prevented it? Who was responsible?

The answers to these questions will provide the information you will agrxyvuk. outlet moncler via vittor pisani milanoneed to formulate a corrective action plan that will work and will provide a lasting "fix". For example, propose to prevent reoccurrence through directed internal audits until consistent satisfactory performance is documented. (Do not promise to share internal audit findings with the FDA, however. See FDA Compliance Policy Guidance Manual Section 130.300, CPG 7151.02,"FDA Access to Results of Quality Assurance Program Audits and Inspections"5 for information about FDA’s position on this issue.)

Avoiding Common Problems and Pitfalls

Be careful to avoid common pitfalls in your response. Among the most common pitfalls (but by no means the only ones) are these:

Incorrectly ascribing root cause to a lack of training or poor training. There are many roadblocks to compliance. Lack of training or poor training is only one. Ask yourself: Did the problem really arise because people did not know the right thing to do, or did they know what to do and simply not do it? If people did not do the right thing, why not? Was it a lack of resources, lack of supervision and discipline, an unclear Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), lack of clear role definition, or some other cause? Make certain that the issue has been properly assessed before prescribing training or retraining as the corrective action.

Setting unattainable goals. Only commit to what you are sure you can accomplish, and keep time lines and milestones realistic. In many cases, FDA will even agree to extensions of time when original objectives turn out to be unreasonable. If an extension of time is needed, communicate your request to the agency as soon as possible; be absolutely certain the proposed new date is attainable; clearly articulate the reason(s) the extension is needed; and demonstrate that there is no significant risk to the product or the consumer arising from the delay. Finally, set and meet a new date. FDA may lose confidence if there are repeated requests for modifications to corrective action plans or for extensions of time.

Too Much or Too Little Supporting Documentation. FDA will consider documented evidence provided as an attachment to the response. Provide documentation that supports your point, or demonstrates a corrective action was taken, as part of your written response. This may be literature search material, sections of a revised SOP which was not available at the time of the 483 exit discussion, qualification/validation documents, or similar information.

Pertinent documentation that supports your point can be very valuable, but there is such a thing as too much. Do not overwhelm FDA with volumes of supporting information. Keep the documentation succinct and on point. Express a desire to cooperate with FDA by providing anything further that the agency feels it needs upon request, and offer to meet with the agency to clarify the response if a meeting would be deemed useful.

Downplaying the significance of a reported complaint. Some companies attempt to minimize GMP issues by reporting a low incidence of complaints. FDA officials are well aware that not all product defects are reported to the firm by the product users. Also, for certain serious issues, even a single valid complaint can be extremely significant. Therefore, FDA is not likely to be influenced by this type of argument. Time is better spent resolving the GMP system issues suggested by the nature of the complaint.

Minimizing problems by stating that others in the industry do the same things. Even if an assertion of this sort is true, it may be that FDA considers the issue to be an industry wide problem. When faced with this argument, FDA may request a list of others in the industry with the same condition or practice, then follow up with inspections at those sites. A better approach is to deal with the issue on the merits, and avoid references to other firms’ practices.Failing to proofread the response for editorial errors. While this may seem obvious, many responses go through multiple drafts and may contain cut-and-paste errors, imbedded notations or be missing critical information. (Someone that has not been involved in the draft-and-redraft process may make the best proofreader.)

Failing to follow through with verification audits to ensure that corrective actions have been satisfactorily implemented. Many a management official of an FDA-regulated company has been dismayed to learn, during an FDA follow-up inspection, that a promised corrective action was not properly carried out. Leave nothing to chance. A company’s most valuable regulatory asset is its credibility with the FDA. Credibility is built through charting a proper course of action and following it in a manner that ensures that problems do not reoccur. In deciding whether to take regulatory action, FDA looks for repeated patterns of noncompliance. Where they exist, future promises of corrective action are unlikely to be believed, and the risk of further action by the agency is increased.

Summary

A 483 or a Warning Letter from the FDA are never welcome events, but they do not have to be disasters. By focusing communication with the FDA on the factors the agency considers important, developing well thought out corrective action plans, and by following through to make certain actions have been carried out as promised, companies can achieve genuine improvements in quality practice and thus reduce or eliminate the risk of further regulatory action.

References

Chesney, David L., "The FDA-483: Its History and Present Use", BioPharm 9 (4), 30-32 (1996).

Warning Letter Reference Guide, FDA, Office of Regulatory Affairs/Office of Enforcement, October, 1994.

Code of Federal Regulations, Food and Drugs. Title 21, Part 20, FDA FOI Policy, "Public Information," Subpart F, "Availability of Specific Categories of Records," 20.101(a), "Administrative Enforcement Records."

Investigations Operations Manual, FDA, Chapter 5, Section 512.

Compliance Policy Guidance Manual, FDA, Section 130.300, CPG 7151.02,"FDA Access to Results of Quality Assurance Program Audits and Inspections," as revised January, 1996.

Page last updated: 5 March 2009

 

Annual Meeting Committee Meeting Schedule ISPE Affiliates and Chapters ISPE Communities of Practice ISPE Conferences ISPE Global Calendar ISPE Glossary ISPE Guidance Documents ISPE Publications ISPE Volunteer Resources ISPEAK Newsletter Job Lists Online Learning Pharmaceutical Engineering Magazine Renew ISPE Membership Training Privacy Policy Contact Us Terms of Use Copyright © 2017 ISPE > Site Design, Implementation and Hosting by Ashdown Technologies, Inc.
complaint definition fda

moncler man coats
moncler jackets outlet womens
moncler mens shoes fall winter
moncler jacket mens uk
mens red moncler t shirt Fresenius Slammed With Warning Letter for Complaint Handling Home » News » Fresenius Slammed With Warning Letter for Complaint Handling Fresenius Slammed With Warning Letter for Complaint Handling August 26th, 2013 // 12:25 pm @ jmpickett

Latest FDA and cGMP Compliance News

FDA has issued another warning letter to the German health care company Fresenius, telling it to improve various cGMP procedures at its plants. This time the plant in the crosshairs is a blood bag making facility based in Puerto Rico.

The warning letter from FDA hit the company for its poor complaint-handling procedures and its labeling at the site in Puerto Rico. The company says that no patients have been put at risk, but getting a warning letter about your complaint handling is not a sign that all is well in that area. Fresenius is saying also that it is fully addressing the warning letter issues and that the plant is continuing to produce. It noted also that its full  year earnings are on target for its infusion drugs and blood transfusion products.

Last month, the company got a warning letter that was related to an audit of its cancer drug facility in India. Also, in March, the company’s subsidiary named Fresenius Medical Care, which is the world’s biggest dialysis company, was informed by FDA that it needed to improve how the firm is sterilizing some dialyzers for filtering the blood of patients.

In June, Fresenius Kabi recalled voluntarily some benztropine mesylate and magnesium sulfate injections in the US because of the risk of glass particles being in some vials.

Problems with complaint-handling procedures are extremely common, and FDA often gives out warning letters and 483s for easily-avoided problems with handling complaints. For more information about how to set up an effective complaint handling system, please review our upcoming Webinar, The Essentials of Complaint Handling and Post Marketing Management.

Search for: Upcoming Events How To Survive Your Next FDA Inspection – Survival Guide Tips and Techniques – Oct. 2, 2015, 2 PM EST | Moore   →

  Webinar Preview! How The Quality Manager Gets Fired, aka The $50,000 Compliance Mistake:  You'll learn about this in the… Read more…  →

Dangerous Documents – Avoiding Land Mines in Your Emails and Documents| Oct. 7, 2015, 2 PM EST   →

Dangerous Documents: Avoiding Land Mines in Your Emails and Documents is a absolutely unique 90 minute webinar with former DOJ prosecutor… Read more…  →

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to 483s and Warning Letters – FDA Compliance Trends, Response and Prevention |Oct. 15, 2015, 1 PM EDT | Bazigos   →

  In this light, entertaining but rigorous Webinar by Angela Bazigos, CEO Touchstone Technologies, presenter of our other excellent webinar… Read more…  →

Valuable Content from EB Abbreviations Terminology News Press Releases Upcoming Events 21 CFR Part 11 Clinical Research Compliance Tips Computer Validation FDA Enforcement FDA 483s Warning Letters

NPR NPR NPR Music NPR Books NPR About NPRPodcast Directory NPR Home News Arts & Life Music Topics Programs & Podcasts NPR Music Genres New Music Concerts & Videos Articles & Lists Tiny Desk NPR Books Author Interviews Find Books Reviews About NPR Overview Connect Support Press Careers Podcast Directory Categories NPR Shop Back News National World Politics Business Technology Science Health Race & Culture Education Arts & Life Books Movies Pop Culture Food Art & Design Performing Arts Photography Music First Listen Songs We Love Music Articles Tiny Desk Videos More Our Blogs Corrections All About NPR Back News & Conversations Morning Edition All Things Considered Fresh Air Here & Now 1A Code Switch Embedded It's Been a Minute with Sam Sanders Latino USA NPR Politics Podcast On Point Rough Translation Up First Weekend Edition Saturday Weekend Edition Sunday What's Good with Stretch & Bobbito Youth Radio Storytelling & Humor Ask Me Another The Best Of Car Talk The Big Listen Bullseye Hidden Brain How I Built This Invisibilia Live from the Poundstone Institute Only A Game Planet Money Pop Culture Happy Hour Radio Ambulante StoryCorps TED Radio Hour Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me! Wow in the World Music First Listen All Songs Considered Songs We Love Tiny Desk Alt.Latino From The Top Jazz Night In America Metropolis Mountain Stage Piano Jazz The Thistle & Shamrock World Cafe More All Programs Podcast Directory NPR Podcasts Back Rock Pop Jazz Classical Hip-Hop R&B/Soul Folk Latin World Electronic/Dance Back First Listen Songs We Love All Songs Considered Reviews Music Videos Back Tiny Desk Live Concerts Field Recordings Studio Sessions Music Documentaries Music Videos Festival Recordings Back Articles Interviews Quizzes Music Lists Best Music of the Year Back Art & Design Arts & Entertainment Biography & Memoir Business & Economy Children's Books Comedy Comics & Graphic Novels Digital Culture Faith & Spirituality Food & Wine History & Society Historical Fiction Horror & Supernatural Literary Fiction Mystery & Thrillers Parenting & Families Poetry Politics & Public Affairs Romance Science Fiction & Fantasy Science & Health Sports Travel Young Adult Nonfiction Fiction Back Book Reviews This Week's Must Read My Guilty Pleasure Three Books... PG-13: Risky Reads You Must Read This Summer Books Best Books of the Year Back Overview Overview and History Mission and Vision Stations and Public Media NPR Finances People Ethics Awards Back Visit NPR NPR Presents Studio 1 Events Generation Listen Book a Speaker Request Permissions Ways to Listen NPR Extra Blog Email Newsletters Shop NPR Get Help Contact Us Back Support Public Radio Corporate Sponsorship Volunteer Back Releases and Statements Photos and Logos Fact Sheet (PDF) Media Relations Contacts Back Careers at NPR Search Jobs Culture Applying Interns Fellows Digital Back Arts Business Comedy Education Games & Hobbies Government & Organizations Health Kids & Family Music News & Politics Religion & Spirituality Science & Medicine Society & Culture Sports & Recreation Technology TV & Film NPR Shop



\n