From Roadblocks to Roadmap 2017, with a 2020 Vision

NIPTE 2016
From Roadblocks to Roadmap- 2017,
with a 2020 Vision
Ajaz S. Hussain, Ph.D., President NIPTE
http://nipte.org/ 12/20/16 President’s Report 2016

12/20/2016 NIPTE 2016: From Roadblocks to Roadmap 2017, with a 2020 Vision 1
CONTENTS
Preamble........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Table 1: List of significant NIPTE discussions in 2016................................................................................................................................... 3
Table 2: Overview: From Roadblocks to Roadmap 2017, with a 2020 Vision.................................................................................... 4
The 3rd leg of the stool: 2020 Vision.................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
2016 NIPTE strategic themes................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6
NIPTE’s Center of Excellence (CE) in Pharmaceutical Formulations............................................................................................................ 6
The Center would support FDA................................................................................................................................................................................. 6
Proposed benefits of the Center model.................................................................................................................................................................. 7
NIPTE’s recommendations on research priorities FY 2017 GDUFA Regulatory Science Program ................................................ 8
Specific Contributions & NIPTE Team.................................................................................................................................................................... 8
NIPTE Recommendation: FY 2017 GDUFA Regulatory Research............................................................................................................. 8
Team-based science practice in NIPTE........................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Why Team-Based Science?........................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Table 3. Reasons for Team-based Science in NIPTE....................................................................................................................................... 9
Showcase Team-based: Gabapentin Project........................................................................................................................................................ 9
Continuing Education and Certification ....................................................................................................................................................................10
Not Scientific to Scientific...........................................................................................................................................................................................10
Launch of NIPTE-Sun Pharma Education and Certification Program...................................................................................................10
2016 Observations and Assessment of impact made by NIPTE...........................................................................................................................11
Office of Pharmaceutical Quality: Challenges & Focus Areas..........................................................................................................................11
Table 4. FDA/CDER/OPQ Challenges and focus areas..................................................................................................................................11
OPQ perspective on how can NIPTE assist.........................................................................................................................................................12
Observations on the proposed NIPTE Center of Excellence Concept....................................................................................................13
GDUFA Research Priorities FY 2017...........................................................................................................................................................................13
Observations: NIPTE’s recommendations & OGD Priortzation FY 2017 GDUFA Regulatory Science Program...............14
Table 5. NIPTE Presentations at Regulatory Science Initiatives Part 15 Public Meetings (2014-2016).............................15
Roadblocks to Roadmap 2017: A Commentary..........................................................................................................................................................16
Translational Needs, One Quality Voice & Voice of NIPTE..............................................................................................................................16
Table 6. Description of the product quality challenge –then and now.................................................................................................16
Need for proactive practice of Team-based science............................................................................................................................................18
NIPTE Centers of Excellence ...........................................................................................................................................................................................18
NIPTE Certification: Continuing Education and New Prior Knowledge ....................................................................................................19
Continuing Education...................................................................................................................................................................................................19
New Prior Knowledge ..................................................................................................................................................................................................20
Closing Remarks..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................23
Table 7. Directional Vectors, Aligning Themes, FDA PrioritIes,& NIPTE’s Strategic Interests.................................................24
References......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................26

PREAMBLE
Over a decade ago, the National Institute for Pharmaceutical
Technology and Education, Inc. (NIPTE), began a journey to improve
awareness of the need and the value of pharmaceutical technology
research and education in addressing some of the most significant
challenges that repeatedly plague the Nation’s pharmaceutical
supply. In May 2006 Senator Lugar introduced a draft legislation
“Pharmaceutical Technology and Education Enhancement Act” to the
US Congress. His introductory remarks described the need and the
mission - which NIPTE continues to pursue today (see sidebar).
Dr. Janet Woodcock, Director FDA/CDER, reemphasized this mission
at the NIPTE Conference 2016. She suggested that, ideally,
academia should be “the third leg of the stool” - to nudge the FDA and
the industry to improve their policies and practices.
The FDA’s Process Analytical Technology and the Pharmaceutical
Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMP) for the 21st Century: A
Risk-based Approach initiatives were launched at the beginning of
the 21st Century(2). Later these merged with the “Critical Path
Initiative” to transform the way FDA-regulated products are
developed, evaluated, manufactured, and used (3). Today NIPTE
continues to collaborate with FDA to facilitate this transformation.
In 2015 FDA reorganized OPS to the Office of Pharmaceutical Quality
(OPQ) and added an emphasis on One Quality Voice (4). In 2017
novel pharmaceutical technologies, the aspirational 21st Century
Cures Act (5), and the President-elect Trump’s Administration are
juxtaposed to re-shape, perhaps radically so, the Critical Path
transformation underway since the beginning of this century.
How will the Nation’s life-science research priorities change? What
should be the next steps that optimally integrate 21st Century
Quality, Cures and the Voice of Patients? What can/should NIPTE do
next? Do better? Do more -be the third leg of the stool? This report,
From Roadblocks to Roadmap 2017, with 2020 Vision, reviews and
reflects on strategic directions emphasized by NIPTE in 2016. It
recommends ways to strengthen the Voice of NIPTE to advocate its
mission more persuasively and to facilitate its members to apply
their full potential in the interest of the Nation.
2005
NIPTE & FDA/CDER Office of Pharmaceutical Science
(OPS) sign a Memorandum of Understanding to work
together to progress the FDA initiatives.
2009
NIPTE awarded FDA contract to develop and conduct
continuing education programs for FDA reviewer on state-
of-the-art pharmaceutical manufacturing and technology.
2011
Research UO1 grant entitled “Critical Path Manufacturing
Sector Research Initiative.”
S. 2793. A bill to
enhance research and
education in the areas of
pharmaceutical and
biotechnology science
and engineering,
including therapy
development and
manufacturing, analytical
technologies, modeling,
and informatics.
Senator LUGAR: Mr.
President, I rise today to
introduce the
Pharmaceutical
Technology and
Education Enhancement
Act. The legislation that
I introduce today would
improve pharmaceutical
and biotechnological
development and
manufacturing through
education and research
at our nation’s
institutions of higher
education.
By expanding
pharmaceutical science,
technology and
engineering research
within our universities,
this bill aims to expedite
the drug manufacturing
process thereby
producing quality
pharmaceuticals at a
more affordable cost to
consumers.
MAY 11, 2006
CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD—SENATE

INTRODUCTION
In 2016 the NIPTE faculty leaders undertook several strategic
discussions (see Table 1) that were motivated and informed,
among other things, of the reasons FDA/CDER reorganized its
pharmaceutical quality oversight function under the new OPQ (see
sidebar). From these discussions, three areas of strategic
emphasis are identified:
1. Center of Excellence for Pharmaceutical Formulations
2. Pharmaceutical Technology Education & Certification
3. Team-based science, as the way to work in NIPTE
TABLE 1: LIST OF SIGNIFICANT NIPTE DISCUSSIONS IN 2016
In parallel to these strategic discussions, significant efforts were
devoted to progressing current projects (with FDA and Sun
Pharmaceuticals Ltd.) and for developing new proposals (e.g., the
National Network for Manufacturing Innovation; NNMI). On 16th
December 2016, NIIMBL (The National Institute for Innovation in
Manufacturing Biopharmaceuticals) was awarded a $70 million
Date Discussions and Key Presentations
3/16/2016
Seminar at FDA entitled “NIPTE Center of Excellence for
Pharmaceutical Formulations” (NIPTE speakers included
Vadim Gurvich, Ajaz Hussain, Steve Byrn, Ken Morris, Steve
Hoag and Raj Suryanarayan)
5/20/2016
Presentations at the GDUFA Regulatory Science Initiatives
Part 15 Public Meeting 2016 under the umbrella topic of
“Confidence in Generics: Need for and integrated approach
to formulation research and knowledge management.
8/16/2016 –
10/2016
Round-table discussions* facilitated by Vadim Gurvich & Ajaz
Hussain @ University of Iowa*: Integrated Pharmaceutical
Development & Regulatory Review: How is NIPTE
contributing? (*similar discussions held at University of
Wisconsin, Purdue, and UT @ Austin)
8/2/2016
Team-based Science. Faculty leadership meeting and
discussion in Silver Springs, MD.
8/3-4/2016:
Conference
2016 @ FDA
An example of team-based science: Gabapentin—Optimizing
Design Space Specifications Across Scales with
Considerations to Stability.
NIPTE’s Interest and Efforts to Support Integrated Scientific
Development of Pharmaceutical Products. Eric Munson.
Objective risk assessment via asking the right question at the
right time: Knowledge-based decisions for dosage form
design/development/control. Ken Morris.
8/3-4/2016:
Conference
2016 @ FDA
Pharmaceutical Technology, Education and Confidence in
Assurance of Quality. Ajaz Hussain
NIPTE’s Interest and Effort to Fill Gaps in Education Need –
Industry and FDA. Raj Suryanarayanan.
The FDACDEROPQ
was stood up in 2015 to
integrate and streamline -
One Quality Voice -quality
oversight over product
lifecycle across the two
functions:
1) regulatory review of
drug applications, and
2) inspection of facility
compliance with current
good manufacturing
practices (CGMPs)
OPQ aims to work
proactively with the
pharmaceutical industry to
prevent quality issues from
occurring and help
mitigate them before
quality issues result in drug
shortages.
At the launch of OPQ
FDA specifically
acknowledged that:
Significant, technological &
policy, progress occurred
with the 21st Century
Initiative program.
To effectively implement
these technological
advances in current
regualtory procedures and
practices the FDA also
needed to change and
improve.
The launch of OPQ is:
21st
Century Initiative 2.0.
OPQ: 21ST CENTURY
PHARMACEUTICAL
QUALITY INITIATIVE

cost-shared cooperative agreement with the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST). NIPTE and several of its
member institutions are among the 70+ collaborators in NIIMBL
which seeks to innovate biomanufacturing in America.
Clearly, 2016 was a very signi�icant year for NIPTE. Despite this
progress, and, also, perhaps because of it, a question that lingers
on– what is (and should be) the role of NIPTE in the Critical Path
transformation process. In 2016 the leadership perceived several
roadblocks to achieving the proper recognition for NIPTE to be able
contribute to the ongoing transformation process optimally. Their
efforts identi�ied three areas of strategic emphasis which should
guide the development of the Roadmap 2017.
This report seeks to understand and elaborate on the main
roadblocks to NIPTE’s progress. Changes in the macro-environment
(sidebar) are considered to inform the process for developing the
Roadmap 2017. Furthermore, the report shares a perspective on
what can/should NIPTE do next? Do better? Do more -be the third leg
of the stool? A framework, 2020 Vision, is constructed to provide
clear sight of opportunities to advance NIPTE’s mission along the
3rd leg of the stool metaphor. Table 2, below gives an overview of
this report. Starting with column 1, the questions listed categorize
roadblocks discussed. Followed by consideration for Roadmap
2017 and an extend 3-year outlook – the 2020 Vision.
TABLE 2: OVERVIEW: FROM ROADBLOCKS TO ROADMAP 2017,
WITH A 2020 VISION
Roadblocks
to Consensus
2016 Strategies to Roadmap
2017
2020 Vision: NIPTE “3rd
leg of the stool.”
Why is NIPTE
still crucial to
the Nation?
How should
NIPTE
function in
2017 and
beyond?
What should
NIPTE
contribute in
2017and
beyond?
Centers of Excellence (CE)
1.Specific population (e.g.,
pediatric)
2. Specific quality attribute
(e.g., Abuse Deterrence,
nano-delivery)
3.Integrated Analytical
Characterization &
Product Development:
Totality of Evidence
4.Other centers
NIPTE Pharm.Tech
Curriculum and
Certification (C&C)
Practice Team Science to
ensure the success of on-
going projects and to realize
the envisioned paradigm
shift in how medicines are
designed, developed and
manufactured.
NIPTE a Certifier of
New Prior Knowledge
a. Certification of
Continuing PT
Education
b. Monographs for
Quality Target
Profile for Generic
and Biosimilar
Reports to the Nation:
State of Nation’s
Pharmaceutical
Quality Assurance and
Recommendation on
PT Research Priority
Huge bipartisan majorities
in Congress supported the
21st
Century Cures Act;
President Obama signed
into law 12/13/2016 (5)
The following subtitles are
of specific interest to
NIPTE:
A—Patient-Focused Drug
Development
B—Qualification and Use
of Drug Development
Tools
Subtitle C—FDA
Advancement of Precision
Medicine
Subtitle D—Modern Trial
Design and Evidence
Development
J—Domestic
Manufacturing and Export
Efficiencies
K—Enhancing
Combination Products
Review
P—Improving Scientific
Expertise and Outreach at
FDA
New Secretary DHHS &
Commisnor of FDA
Added push to speed up
regualtory approvals and
reduce regualtory burden
Revitalize US
manufactruing
PDUFA, BsUFA &
GDUFA: OPQ & OGD
Priorities 2017
21ST CENTURY CURES
& TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION

THE 3RD LEG OF THE STOOL: 2020 VISION
Reliability of the Nation’s pharmaceutical supply is critical.
Unfortunately, it is often called into question because of
recurring drug shortages, recalls, warning letters, import alerts,
and other failures (4). Gaps in pharmaceutical technology
applications (6) and education (7, 8) are at the root of many of
these challenges; attempts at correcting and improving the
system often do not get to these underlying causes.
Over the past decade, the rapid rate of globalization exposed
several vulnerabilities, and Dr. Woodcock had to issue a call to
revitalize pharmaceutical manufacturing in the USA (9). Her
request was founded on a recognition of the potential for higher
assurance of quality and reliability via technologies for real-time
measurements and controls and continuous manufacturing.
Today this call reverberates loudly in the 21st Century Cures Act,
in NIIMBL, and is juxtaposed with the priorities of President-
elect Donald Trump.
The process of transformation is like ‘building a plane in the sky.'
Agenda of the FDA User Fee Programs (PDUFA, GDUFA, & BsUFA)
for 2018-2022, have been proposed or set (10-12).
Technological Progress is only a step in the transformation
process. For the paradigm to shift the current heterogeneous
practices and set- minds that will need to change. Recognizing
some of these challenges, the FDA reorganized its quality
oversight function to create the OPQ and added an emphasis on
One Quality Voice (4).
[Re-]education and continuing education, in the context of 21st
Century Quality, are urgently needed to build expertise and to
help current practitioners, who are distributed globally, to
recognize the need, the reality and the technological
opportunities of the 21st Century to re-set their minds.
The need for One Quality Voice plus the increasing material,
professional, organizational and geopolitical complexities, calls
for a strong academic voice, metaphorically, the third leg of the
stool. On matters related to technological and educational
solutions and to improve assurance of pharmaceutical quality
the Nation is in need of an organization such as NIPTE (not-for-
profit, multi-university, etc.) to serve as the 3rd leg of the stool. If
NIPTE chooses to step-up, it should, among other things,
contemplate the following responsibilities:
NIPTE Reports to the Nation: (a) State of Nation’s Pharmaceutical
Quality Assurance System, and (b) Recommendation on
Pharmaceutical Technology Research & Education Priority
NIPTE a Certifier of “New Prior Knowledge”: (a) Pharmaceutical
Technology Continuing Education & Certification Criteria, and (b)
Monographs on Quality Target Profile for Generic and Biosimilar
Products to complement compendial & other public standards
Our Vision …to be the
recognized world leader in
pharmaceutical technology
and education to improve
human health through
excellence in research,
education, and
collaboration. NIPTE will
create a paradigm shift in
how medicines are
designed, developed and
manufactured. NIPTE will
be an advocate for
scientific advances to
optimize the application of
pharmaceutical technology
to improve human health.
The mission of NIPTE is to
improve human health
through multi-university
collaborative to advance
the quality, safety,
affordability and speed to
market of medicines
through interdisciplinary
research and education in
pharmaceutical technology.
A paradigm shift is a
fundamental change in the
basic concepts and
experimental practices of a
scientific discipline (Kuhn).
Pharmaceutical Quality by
Design, is a paradigm and a
methodology, awaiting a shift
in “Good” development,
review, manufacturing,
quality assurance and
inspectional practices!
NIPTE VISON &
MISSION

2016 NIPTE STRATEGIC THEMES
The preposition for in the National Insititute for Pharmaceutical
Technology & Education was reasoned to describe its goal;
facilitating its member universities sustain and strengthen their
research and education programs that are critical to National
interests. NIPTE, in part via the experience gained by the FDA
U01 Research Grant in 2011, has become very proficient in its
ability to rapidly respond to FDA’s research needs and to assemble
multi-disciplinary teams to meet the demands for Requests for
Proposals (RFPs). Building on this capability, in 2016, NIPTE
sought to highlight the value of, and to leverage the strength in,
its multi-university collaboration for offering solutions for the
optimal and the integrated development of pharmaceutical
formulations and in their regulatory assessment.
The efforts initiated in 2016 (Table 1 and sidebar on the right )
sought to reflect on its abilities to:
• Showcase its capacity to undertake large multi-disciplinary
projects,
• Express interest to translate science into policy and to
facilitate transformation in current practice,
• Inform FDA about current gaps and educational needs, and
recommend research priorities
NIPTE’S CENTER OF EXCELLENCE (CE) IN
PHARMACEUTICAL FORMULATIONS
CE is to provide an integrated approach to understanding
(complex/critical) drugs and dosage forms, convert accumulated
information into a public knowledge base and to translate that to
FDA and industry through education and tools. This proposal
aimed at highlighting the need to generate fundamental
understanding and expertise on formulations, of the many
nuances and critical aspects of manufacturing and how processes
influence formulations in the context of stability, bioavailability,
and potential failure modes. To effectively achieve this goal such
a Center would serve as a curator of pharmaceutical technology
knowledge and builder of an informatics system.
THE CENTER WOULD SUPPORT FDA
• FDA’s asking the right question – at the right time critically
contributes to effective and efficient development of
pharmaceutical products
• To ask the right question at the right time, FDA needs
portions of development reports available for review by
reviewers with the necessary technical expertise
Center of Excellence for
Pharmaceutical
Formulations
Confidence in Generics:
Need for and integrated
approach to formulation
research and knowledge
management
NIPTE’s recommendations
on research priorities in FY
2017 GDUFA Regulatory
Science Program (Docket:
FDA-2013-N-0402; 16 June
2016)
Gabapentin—Optimizing
Design Space Specifications
Across Scales with
Considerations to Stability
Objective risk assessment
via asking the right
question at the right time:
Knowledge-based decisions
for dosage form design/
development/ control.
Pharmaceutical
Technology, Education and
Confidence in Assurance of
Quality
Interest and Effort to Fill
Gaps in Education Need –
Industry and FDA.
Team-based Science -
NIPTE’s Interest and
Efforts to Support
Integrated Scientific
Development of
Pharmaceutical Products.
STRATEGIC EFFORTS
& THEMES 2016

• Until the implementation of
ICH Q8 –FDA CMC Review
was structured not to
review development
reports (the old “Art not
Science” argument).
• Even with ICH Q8 –
optimally useful/congruent
review of new drug
development reports is yet
to be achieved across the
ICH regions, so the time is
right for facilitating this in
the U.S.
• With the formation of OPQ
and the efforts to align new
chemical and biotech drugs
and generic and biosimilar
CMC review process, the
question-based review
approach holds promise but
is in need of significant
update and attention to
ensure it is efficient and that
it facilitates development
efficiency;
• With the curation of
knowledge and developing
an NIPTE network of
experts could be a way
forward; not just in the USA
but across the world; and
• One of the most valuable
components is that this can
incentivize fundamental and
applied research in the most
relevant domains on an unprecedented scale.
PROPOSED BENEFITS OF THE CENTER MODEL
• Develop knowledge and understanding of FDA
• Science-based review assessment of “Pharmaceutical Equivalence.”
• Facilitate evaluation of generic submissions
• Develop standards for formulations and excipients
• Develop standard test methods
• Facilitate approval of pediatric formulations
• Faster post-approval changes
• New innovations

NIPTE’S RECOMMENDATIONS ON RESEARCH PRIORITIES FY 2017 GDUFA
REGULATORY SCIENCE PROGRAM
An NIPTE team sought to highlight research and education needed to address ongoing challenges
related quality of
the submission
(multiple review
cycles), need for
on-time approval
of ‘first generics’
and the FDA’s
expressed
concern on the
vulnerabilities in
the global supply.
These issues, as
illustrated in the
figure (right) were described in a recent testimony of Dr. Janet Woodcock to the House Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform (13).
SPECIFIC CONTRIBUTIONS & NIPTE TEAM
1. Confidence in Generics: Need for an Integrated Approach to Formulation Research and
Knowledge Management. Ajaz Hussain
2. Mechanism for an integrated approach to Formulation Research, Knowledge Management,
& Knowledge sharing with FDA & Industry. Steve Byrn
3. Integrated approach for evolving standards for formulation design - case example Narrow
Therapeutic Index drugs (NTI's). Ken Morris
4. An integrated approach for evolving standard for analytical characterization - case example
excipient variability. Eric Munson
These presentations emphasized, with examples, some of the challenges in generic drug
development and review; time crunch, and increasing the complexity of the materials and product
attributes, growing the need for extensive analytical characterization and of information
integration to assess the weight of evidence. Increasing complexity poses a disproportionally higher
risk to maintaining & improving confidence in generic drugs. Protracted and expensive
development, multiple review cycles, and delayed launch dates (for reasons beyond IP issues) are
at the risk of becoming the norm. Competition, even among generics, is decreasing; consolidation is
on the rise and so are generic prices. There is an increased risk of continued challenges to
approved complex generics (e.g., via continued analytical characterization post approval) and there
are many reasons for significant delays; particularly to the on-time approval of first generics.
NIPTE RECOMMENDATION: FY 2017 GDUFA REGULATORY RESEARCH
Confidence in generic drugs is built upon an optimal integration of evidence derived from
formulation and process design, analytical characterization and, confidently knowing when in vivo
assessment is necessary. In their allocation of FY 2017 funding for GDUFA regulatory science
research, the FDA is urged to consider prioritizing efforts towards the development of knowledge
bases and standards to guide optimal development and integration of the multifaceted scientific
evidence of Therapeutic Equivalence (recommendations were submitted to the FDA Docket: FDA-
2013-N-0402).

TEAM-BASED SCIENCE PRACTICE IN NIPTE
Towards the end of 2016 (in October) it increasingly became apparent that NIPTE needed to adopt
and promote the practice of team-based science. Eric Munson (Chair, Faculty Committee) led this
discussion at a faculty meeting on 2 October, and he presented NIPTE’s perspective on the topic at
the annual conference on 4th October. The information below is derived from his presentation.
WHY TEAM-BASED SCIENCE?
NIPTE is an organization that has many, if not most, of the [pharmaceutical technology] content
experts in their respective disciplines. Typical faculty members work individually on projects, and
often lack perspective or understanding [of the regulatory context]. NIPTE lacks coordinated goals,
interdisciplinary interactions; e.g., Pre-formulation, Formulation, and Manufacturing.
TABLE 3. REASONS FOR TEAM-BASED SCIENCE IN NIPTE
SHOWCASE TEAM-BASED: GABAPENTIN PROJECT
The project entitled “Gabapentin—Optimizing Design Space Specifications Across Scales with
Considerations to Stability” was recognized within NIPTE as exemplary of team-based science and it
was showcased at the NIPTE Conference 2016 by Lee Kirsch.
The scholarly output of this one project is clearly impressive. It's translational contributions-
regulatory recognition and utility – however, remain unconfirmed and unrealized.
Synergy
Need to rely upon team-based science to drive advances in the
understanding of drug substance and drug product. Educational
opportunities to drive consensus knowledge
Teamwork
Necessary to solve complex problems, a collection of people with different
areas of expertise are needed. Previous example: Gabapentin
Predictive Ability to predict quality and performance is essential
Proactive
The regulatory system is reactive, and impetus to change is harm caused to
patients. Cumulative approach to regulations keeps the system in a reactive
mode.
Translational NIPTE research should be used to propose regulatory policies and guidance
14 Peer-reviewed publications; 4+ manuscripts in preparation
7 Doctoral theses; partially or wholly based of project data
10 graduate students and 10 post-doc and research scientists trained
40+ invited presentations; 50+ posters

CONTINUING EDUCATION AND CERTIFICATION
At the NIPTE Conference 2016, the NIPTE keynote address was entitled “Pharmaceutical
Technology, Education and Confidence in Assurance of Quality” by the author to emphasize an
urgent need for all to pay attention to pharmaceutical technology education and certification. In
summary, the following arguments were presented - pharmaceutical quality decisions are made by
multidisciplinary teams, at different times and in various organizations. Knowledge and
understanding of the Quality by Desing (QbD) paradigm (the mindset; a way of thinking) and
methodology (for example as outlined in ICH Q8 Guideline) continues to be derived experientially
(weak in epistemology). The challenge of integrated development and review cannot be
underestimated - “One Quality Voice” is hard to achieve! Legacy challenges, different ontological
assumptions, and weak epistemology curtails knowledge sharing, delays consensus and keeps us
trapped in a reactive mode. The risk of irrational decisions is often not adequately accounted.
Continued ”cut-paste” or “check-the-box” practices are constant reminders that we – the
pharmaceutical community - are not achieving an optimal integration or practicing systems thinking.
A reactive approach to filling the noted gaps poses a risk of continued erosion in the confidence the
public should have in our assurance of pharmaceutical quality. There is an urgent need for a
thoughtful, planned approach to filling these gaps –NIPTE can and should take on this challenge!
NOT SCIENTIFIC TO SCIENTIFIC
It should be appreciated that in 1995 when the author joined the FDA, CMC review did not utilize
pharmaceutical
development
reports – primarily
because the
information
contained was not
considered
“scientific.” In
2005, ICH Q8
guideline outlined a
methodology for
quality-by-design;
which had been and
continued to be, the
paradigm (plan-do-
check-act) for
CGMPS. A systems
orientation and
product life-cycle considerations are necessary. The problems at hand need to be defined carefully
and compressively.
LAUNCH OF NIPTE-SUN PHARMA EDUCATION AND CERTIFICATION PROGRAM
This exciting collaboration was initiated in October 2016, and it aims to develop a customized
Pharmaceutical Quality by Design Education and Certification program. This program is targeted
for staff in multiple functions and at multiple levels. The program is expected to span up to five
years. Raj Sury serves as the Chairperson of the NIPTE Curriculum Committee. At the NIPTE
Conference 2016 @ FDA Sury presented on “NIPTE’s Interest and Effort to Fill Gaps in Education
Need –Industry and FDA.”

2016 OBSERVATIONS AND ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT MADE BY NIPTE
OFFICE OF PHARMACEUTICAL QUALITY: CHALLENGES & FOCUS AREAS
In a review article published in 2016 (14) leaders of OPQ and CDER described their science and
research focus in three areas:
• testing and scientific investigation of methods and data that aid drug quality evaluation
• proactive research for the development of scientific tools
• approaches for evaluating the safety, performance, and quality of products
In Table 4 their key challenges and focus areas are summarized. A significant shift can be noted in
the list of difficulties described in 2016 (14) from the description in late 2014 to early 2015 when
OPQ was introduced (4). This point will be discussed in the following section.
TABLE 4. FDA/CDER/OPQ CHALLENGES AND FOCUS AREAS
OPQ Challenges Focus Areas
• Product quality failure, mainly manufacturing issues
and facility remediation, account for most drug
shortages and product recalls in the United States
• Science to policy pressures; biosimilars, precision
medicine, combination products, emerging
manufacturing technologies, and the use of real-
world data
• Pharmaceutical manufacturing is increasingly
globalized, prompting the need for more efficient
surveillance systems for monitoring product quality
• Increasing scrutiny and accelerated approval
pathways provide a driving force to be even more
efficient with limited regulatory resources.
• Manufacturing and controls for drugs &
biotechnology products
• Drug quality standards
• Advanced characterization of complex
mixtures and biologics
• Physicochemical characterization of
complex formulations and dosage forms
• Post-market product quality and public
health issues
• Immunogenicity and immunology
• Linking biomarkers and drug attributes to
safety and efficacy
Many of these focus areas (Table 4) are already aligned with some of the provisions of the 21st
Century Cures Act. Clearly, control strategy with the real-time release and continuous
manufacturing are a primary area of interest. Furthermore, a growing emphasis on ‘clinical
relevance of quality specifications’ in conjunction with modeling and simulation can be expected to
have a high priority – particularly in the context of specification setting and to justify a less
burdensome approach to post-approval changes. It is important to note that ICH Q 12 guidelines is
progressing, and perhaps will be released in late 2017 (15).
This guideline is intended to work with ICH Q8 to Q11 Guidelines and will provide a framework
to facilitate the management of post-approval CMC changes in a more predictable and
efficient manner across the product lifecycle. Adoption of this guideline will promote
innovation and continual improvement, and strengthen quality assurance and reliable supply
of product, including proactive planning of supply chain adjustments. It will allow regulators
(assessors and inspectors) to understand better, and have more confidence and trust in a
firm’s Pharmaceutical Quality System (PQS) for the management of post-approval CMC
changes.

OPQ PERSPECTIVE ON HOW CAN NIPTE ASSIST
Michael Kopcha’s (Director OPQ/CDER/FDA) keynote address at the NIPTE Conference 2016 noted
how NIPTE could assist the pharmaceutical community and OPQ.

OBSERVATIONS ON THE PROPOSED NIPTE CENTER OF EXCELLENCE CONCEPT
1. The perspective shared by OPQ, in the context of future collaboration with NIPTE, was
indifferent on the CE proposal. The major intent of the CE proposal, establishing fundamental
understanding and knowledge platform in the public domain, was appreciated but under the
broader context of pharmaceutical community.
2. Potential translational contributions – guidelines for emerging technologies; are also valued in
the wider context of pharmaceutical community.
3. For future collaboration with NIPTE, OPQ’s interest appears to remain unchanged (from the
current U01 grant format); i.e., the focus remains on - complement FDA labs, help address
urgent issues; with one possible exception – help OPQ develop formal risk assessment in the
context of the control strategy.
4. Training contributions of NIPTE were clearly recognized, and not shown on the slide (above) is
the significant request by the Director of the Office of Generic Drugs (Kathleen Uhl) for NIPTE
to consider conducting training for the industry.
GDUFA RESEARCH PRIORITIES FY 2017
On 27 October 2017, FDA’s Office of Generic Drugs (OGD) announced how they plan to prioritize
GDUFA Regulatory Science funding for (FY) 2017 (16). Their description of FY 2017 priorities is
provided below.
• Post-market evaluation of generic drugs includes research into monitoring methods, understanding
patient perceptions of generic drug quality and effectiveness, and verifying therapeutic equivalence via
patient brand-to-generic switching studies. These investigations provide additional data in therapeutic
areas where concern exists about the substitutability of generic drugs and allow FDA to verify that generic
drugs are fully interchangeable, safe, and effective in comparison to their reference listed drug (RLD).
Ongoing activities include evaluating modified release formulations, identifying the role replicate design
studies may add to bioequivalence determinations, and piloting surveillance methodologies for generic
drugs within FDA’s Sentinel program
• Equivalence of complex drug products includes research into making generic versions available in all
product categories, including complex drugs with unique characteristics. FDA spends an increasing amount
of time reviewing and developing a policy for complex drug products, and future generic products will need
to demonstrate equivalence to increasingly complex RLDs. This scientific research supports the
development of guidance and policy that clarifies the Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) pathway
for complex products, such as drug-device combinations, transdermal systems, implants and parenteral
microspheres, nanomaterials (e.g. liposomes and iron colloids), and products that contain complex mixtures
and peptides. Research continues into new guidance for transdermal irritation studies and for human
factors studies that will aid in the evaluation of product substitutability and robustness for drug-device
combinations.
• Equivalence of locally-acting products includes research into new bioequivalence methods and pathways
for locally-acting drugs. To date, the lack of efficient bioequivalence pathways for locally acting drug
products has limited the availability of generic drugs in this category, which includes inhalation, topical
dermatological, nasal, ophthalmic, gastrointestinal, and otic drug products. This research priority includes
evaluating in vitro alternatives to clinical endpoint bioequivalence studies. Often these in vitro alternatives
are based on microstructure characterization (Q3 equivalence) for products that are qualitatively (Q1) and
quantitatively (Q2) similar in formulation, with a research goal of guidance for Q3 bioequivalence
approaches. To provide access to generic products for which a Q3 approach is not sufficient, research

continues into BE approaches for non-Q1 and Q2 complex formulations for nasal, inhalation, and dermal
products.
• Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluation and Standards research supports the evolution of risk-based
equivalence and product quality standards to ensure therapeutic equivalence across all dosage forms and
routes of delivery. FDA continues to prioritize research that supports a pathway for generic versions of
abuse-deterrent formulations, improves the evaluation of excipients both for safety and for their impact on
BCS class III biowaivers, increases our understanding of solid dispersions of low solubility drugs and
supports equivalence of modified release solid oral dosage forms. Many of these goals include research
related to improving manufacturing quality through advances in process control, continuous
manufacturing, and quality metrics, advancing analytical characterization of the release or abuse
deterrent mechanisms and improvement to IVIVC/dissolution methods.
• Computational and Analytical Tools impact the other four GDUFA regulatory science priority areas and
are essential to modernizing the ANDA review process. Modeling and simulation tools that FDA will
investigate include physiologically-based pharmacokinetic or absorption models; pharmacodynamic
models or clinical trial simulation; systems biology; and quantitative risk modeling. Research priorities for
advanced analytical methods include developing methods that characterize peptides and other complex
mixtures and that evaluate particle size, surface chemistry, and gene expression for impurities or
immunogenicity. Investment in data warehouse infrastructure is needed to further enable computational
tools for research and regulatory review, risk assessment and fraud/outlier detection. Research continues
in the use of modeling and simulation tools to address questions of substitutability outside the range of
traditional bioequivalence studies such as pediatric and geriatric populations or patients taking proton-
pump inhibitors and generalization of statistical methods for evaluating in vitro equivalence.
OBSERVATIONS: NIPTE’S RECOMMENDATIONS & OGD PRIORTZATION FY 2017 GDUFA
REGULATORY SCIENCE PROGRAM
1. Priority description for FY 2017 funding (above) is surprisingly broad; in the previous year, for
example, new research priorities were specifically identified.
2. This vast, all-encompassing, description of priorities includes several topics of interest to
NIPTE and member universities; and these would appear to be congruent with the
recommendation submitted by NIPTE. However, any such conclusion cannot be derived until
the time RFPs are issued; it would then become apparent if NIPTE’s recommendations were
persuasive or not.
3. Over the years, NIPTE has actively participated in the GDUFA part 15 public meetings. A list of
presentations by NIPTE representatives is listed in Table 5 below. Note that presentations by
faculty at NIPTE member schools, representing themselves, do not appear in this table.
4. NIPTE as an organization participated only once in this program– a project on abuse deterrent
formulation.
5. Over the years’ faculty at some NIPTE member schools (such as Universities of Michigan,
Connecticut, Maryland) have been able to contribute to the GDUFA Regulatory Science
program; however, as seen in the figure below, these contributions, in the overall scope of this
program, are relatively small and appear to be declining.
6. In the chart below, it seems the funding to non-university entities (e.g., CRO’s) shows an
increasing trend.

TABLE5. NIPTE PRESENTATIONS AT REGULATORY SCIENCE INITIATIVES PART 15 PUBLIC
MEETINGS (2014-2016)
Meeting date NIPTE Presenter Topic
16 May 2014 Stephen W. Hoag.
Raw Material and Manufacturing Factors Affecting the
Quality of Generic Pharmaceutical Products
16 May 2014 Michael J. Pikal
The impact of Formulation and Process Variations on the
Quality of Freeze Dried Products: How do we identify,
control, and characterize critical variations?
16 May 2014 Daniel T. Smith
Research Opportunities in Evaluating Abuse-Deterrent
Opioid Formulations
5 June 2015 Stephen W. Hoag
Research needs in pharmaceutical excipients: implications
of a global supply chain
5 June 2015 James K. Drennen, III Quality by Design Training for FDA/OGD Staff
5 June 2015 Daniel T. Smith
Solid State Chemistry and Regulatory Science of Abuse
Deterrent Medications
5 June 2015 Raj Suryanarayanan (Sury)
Advanced Characterization of Complex Dosage Forms to
Demonstrate Product Equivalence
5 June 2015 Eric J. Munson
Advanced Characterization of Complex Dosage Forms to
Demonstrate Product Equivalence
20 May 2016 Eric J. Munson
Integrated Approach for Evolving Standards for Analytical
Characterization: Case Example – Excipient Variability
20 May 2016 Ken Morris
QBR as an Organizing Principle for the Pre-Approval
Development of Generic Drugs
20 May 2016 Steve Byrn
Mechanism for an integrated approach to Formulation
Research, Knowledge Management, & Knowledge sharing
with FDA & Industry
20 May 2016 Ajaz S. Hussain
Confidence in Generics: Need for an Integrated Approach to
Formulation Research & Knowledge Management

ROADBLOCKS TO ROADMAP 2017: A COMMENTARY
Over the past several years NIPTE’s activities have focused on conducting research projects under
the FDA UO1 research grant (2011). This funding support has been tremendously useful to sustain
NIPTE. As an organization, NIPTE has improved its ability to respond to FDA's research needs
rapidly and can quickly assemble multi-disciplinary teams to address the described problem.
Today the question why NIPTE remains and increasingly so; both within NIPTE and broadly. Merely
sustaining the current state will tend to diminish NIPTE’s potential – which was so compellingly
described in May 2006 by Senator Lugar (1).
Significant changes at FDA and in the macro-environment necessitates NIPTE to adopt a proactive
stance on its stated mission and vision (see the sidebar on page 5). The strategic efforts in 2016
sought to build on the established foundation. These efforts sought to understand how to create the
capacity needed to identify, describe and prioritize problems that should be addressed to make
drug product development and regulatory approval processes more efficient (e.g., on-time First
Generic) and effective (e.g., reducing the rate of failures that erode publics’ confidence). These
initial steps were intended to move NIPTE on a path (to be described in the Roadmap 2017)
towards a more credible and persuasive advocacy of NIPTEs mission.
TRANSLATIONAL NEEDS, ONE QUALITY VOICE & VOICE OF NIPTE
It has been noted that drug shortages, recalls, warning letters, import alerts, and other related
challenges reoccur frequently. Some, not all, of these difficulties, can be addressed via the
technological progress in PAT based real-time measurement and controls and continuous
manufacturing. Today these technologies are on the verge of a Tipping Point – i.e., at "the moment
of critical mass, the threshold.” At FDA, there is a sense of urgency, to push forward these solutions.
To appreciate this need for urgency, consider the public stance taken by Dr. Woodcock;
In April 2013 - Nobody Can Really Tell Me If FDA Inspections Are Effective (17) and a few months later
in December 2013 to the US Congress - These new ways of making drugs could, with the proper
strategies, revitalize pharmaceutical manufacturing in the United States (9).
Now consider, how the FDA description of challenges evolved from – at the launch of the OPQ late
2014 and early 2015 (4) to the description in 2016 (14). See Table 6., a significant difference.
TABLE 6. DESCRIPTION OF THE PRODUCT QUALITY CHALLENGE –THEN AND NOW
At the launch of the OPQ (4) Currently in 2016 (14)
Product recall and defect reporting data
demonstrate unacceptably high occurrences of
problems attributed to inherent defects in
product and process design; these data further
indicate failures in the implementation of
manufacturing process scale-up as well as
routine production.
There have been alarming shortages of critical
drugs over the past few years. Many of these
shortages were caused by the use of outdated
equipment, reliance on aging facilities operating
at maximum production capacity, and lack of
effective quality management systems.
Product quality failure, mainly manufacturing issues
and facility remediation, account for most drug
shortages and product recalls in the United States

Why this shift; from unacceptably high occurrences of problems attributed to inherent defects in
product and process design to Product quality failure, mainly manufacturing issues and facility
remediation? FDA seeks to make decisions on scientific evidence. Since 2014 a significant amount
of funding was directed to testing of drug products from companies under warning letters and
import alerts and other products (18). Some results of these studies have been published other
have not yet been shared publicly. It would be prudent to consider that these efforts informed the
shift in the description of the challenges in Table 6. Clearly, recalls due to design issues such as the
case of extended release methylphenidate products have been acknowledged and steps take to
correct these (19); furthermore, prevention of such cases is likely to have been embedded in
changes in the integrated review process established in the OPQ. In this context, from the FDA’s
perspective, the NIPTE proposal on CE may have been too broad and focused on (long-term)
solutions that are important but urgent.
Returning to the sense of urgency discussion above – the priority of FDA is evident in its research
funding: to push PAT based real-time measurement and controls and continuous manufacturing over
the Tipping Point. These efforts are expected to
get a boost with the 21st Century Cures Act and,
perhaps, with the juxtaposition with President-
elect Trump’s stated agenda. It is important here
for NIPTE to note that, unlike the relatively limited
scope of FDA’s UO1 Research Grant to NIPTE
(2011), current research grants - particularly
those for continuous manufacturing, have a built-
in translational requirement. For example to
propose “regulations that would govern the
introduction and exampansion..” ( See: insert on
the right). This then poses the question:
• Could the omission of a translational
requirement in the 2011 UO1 grant,
inadvertently, handicapped NIPTE?
• If so, is this disadvantage also an additional
reason why some faculty in member schools
prefer to engage with FDA outside of NIPTE?
It is proposed that NIPTE, as an organization, is in
need to re-establish its Voice. The Voice of NIPTE is
the Voice of Faculty who choose to engage in
NIPTE, as it was intended to be; the preposition
“for” in the National Institute for Pharmaceutical Technology & Education is by design. By this
virtue, NIPTE defines and celebrates success – as whenever pharmaceutical science, engineering,
and technological contributions, by any organization, are translated into policies and practices to
improve public health objectives. A reminder of this virtue was published in the first NIPTE
Newsletter (June 2016):
You are NIPTE and NIPTE is You: It is expected that individual faculty and those working via
NIPTE may participate in the same conferences under different banners or may compete for
research funding. Just remember when you are not carrying the NIPTE banner, NIPTE is still
there to support You. NIPTE celebrates the success of Pharmaceutical Technology &
Education; within or without NIPTE!

NEED FOR PROACTIVE PRACTICE OF TEAM-BASED SCIENCE
Clearly, when presented with a problem, challenge, or an RFP, as in the Gabapentin project, NIPTE
can practice team-based science. Going forward NIPTE will need to emphasize a proactive practice
of team-based science to more confidently achieve its translational objectives (as in Table 3). This
specific need was more broadly recognized within the NIPTE leadership in 2016. How to
operationalize such a practice should be elaborated in the Roadmap 2017 with the objective of
placing NIPTE on a firmer footing. To do so, NIPTE should consider:
• What would constitute a proactive practice of team-based science in NIPTE? How should it be
operationalized to strengthen the “Voice of NIPTE specifically”?
• Given the what and how (above); would such a practice established in 2015 had made the “Voice
of NIPTE ” more persuasive when in 2016 when it sought to emphasize the need to prioritize and
integrated approach to product development, at the CE Seminar at FDA and the topic covered at
GDUFA Regulatory Research Public Meeting?
• What steps should NIPTE take next (Roadnap 2017-)?
The substantial literature on Science of Team Science and recommendation on the topic by the
Nationa Institutes of Health; particular the Team Science Toolkit offered by the National Cancer
Insitute (20) should inform a serious attempt to progress this strategic theme. In doing so, NIPTE
and member institutions should consider and account for factors that influence the effectiveness
of Team Science. The NCI Toolkit suggests: (a) Funding trends; (b) Institutional infrastructure and
resources for communication and data sharing; (c) Organizational policies—such as promotion
and tenure policies—that impact team-based endeavors; (d) Team processes, including the
existence of agreements related to proprietary rights to data and discovery, as well as
mechanisms for feedback and reflection; and, (d) Interpersonal dynamics among team members.
NIPTE CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE
Operationalizing the concept of NIPTE Centers in 2017 in collaboration with FDA and
industry is highly recommended. This strategic theme can provide a basis to create a
platform to engage, recognize, reward and motivate individual faculty leaders and faculty
teams and to strengthen the Voice of NIPTE. Initially, these Center could serve as “think-
tanks” to articulate and champion translational objectives in the broader context of public
health. These ‘think tanks’ would need to be supportive of other efforts (e.g., such as in
PQRI or professional associations such as AAPS, ISPE, and PDA) and decidedly different - on
academic rigor for defining the problems and in outlining solutions; the NIPTE signature.
Several CEs should be envisioned; for example, Pediatric Formulations, Nano-Formulation,
Abuse-deterrent Formulations, Lyophilization, Formulation Design for Continuous
Manufacturing, Analytical Characterization & Weight of Evidence, Material Science, New
Prior Knowledge and Risk Assessment, Pharmaceutical Knowledge Management, etc. The
LyoHUB consortium progressed by several member institutions, outside NIPTE but in
collaboration with it, could and perhaps can still be such a CE.
The 21st Century Cures Act is expected to open several new opportunities; some of these
possibilities, particularly the subtitle J—Domestic Manufacturing and Export Efficiencies,
can be supposed to get juxtaposed with President-elect Trump administrations’ intent on
reducing regulatory burden and to increase investment in America. The timing of this
juxtaposition seems to be coinciding with the expected releases of ICH Q12. Given the

FDA’s surveillance testing efforts starting in 2014, discussed in the context of Table 6
above, all the directional vectors are pointing in the same direction and can be expected to
provide the necessary impetus, and help to improve recognition of the need, the urgency
and the opportunity to reduce the regulatory reporting burden for post-approval changes;
this should be a significant area of focus at NIPTE.
NIPTE CERTIFICATION: CONTINUING EDUCATION AND NEW PRIOR KNOWLEDGE
CONTINUING EDUCATION
Perhaps the most underappreciated contribution of NIPTE, this far, had been its educational and
certification potential and offerings. This “bind-spot” started to fade starting in 2014. Today
request from several FDA leaders has emphasized the need for NIPTE to offer educational
programs. Discussions have been initiated with US FDA on developing a joint educational program
for the industry. A collaborative education and certification project with Sun Pharma were
launched in October 2016. Expressions of interest for similar educational programs have been
received from other companies.
Here it will be useful to review in more detail why in 2015 FDA began emphasizing One Quality
Voice to progress its Pharmaceutical Quality for the 21st Initiative that was launched a decade ago.
This discussion builds on the - public stance taken by Dr. Woodcock (above). The following quotes
from an FDA paper describe the current state (4):
• Current regulatory review and inspection practices tend to treat all products equally, in some
cases without considering specific risks to the consumer or individual product failure modes.
• A disproportionate amount of regulatory attention is devoted to low-risk products and issues,
diverting resources needed for the assessment of high-risk products.
• Inspection is not well-connected to knowledge gained from product review. Inspections often
cannot cover all products and
processes, so they rely on a
limited subset of representative
products and processes, often
without reference to the
specifics of the approved
application.
• Likewise, product-review is
often conducted based on
premarketing data from
“exhibit” or “clinical batches”;
there may be a significant
disconnect between these data and the conditions under which the material is manufactured
during commercial production.
If within the FDA, in 2016, quality risk assessment can be as unfocused as described above; imagine
the challenge across the global supply chain! To say the least, this is a significant gap. Although so
recognized more than a decade ago (7), only now it being appreciated more broadly (8). Education
is an important opportunity for notable NIPTE contribution. The OPQ’s suggestion that NIPTE
should assist in formalizing risk-assessment should be a major part of the training programs.

Risk-assessment must be based on scientific evidence. To a large extent currently available
information and knowledge of pharmaceutical formulation and manufacturing processes is
empirical (i.e., without sufficient theoretical basis) and derived experientially (i.e., can be highly
variable in its epistemological status). Such knowledge is often not predictive, or generalizable, or
objective. The strategic theme “NIPTE Education & Certification” is essential and it should be
progressed thoughtfully with an emphasis on defining objective criteria for standardized
certification that applies over the lifecycle of pharmaceuticals and covers relevant development,
technology transfer, validation and continued process verification processes. There is a critical
concept for consideration here – i.e., new prior knowledge which is discussed below. The
effectiveness of these programs would need to consider “meeting FDA requirements” – but with an
overlay of academic and operational rigor; that which should become the NIPTE signature. Scale-up
considerations for the education program and mechanisms for NIPTE Certification in the global
supply chain context should be considered. A CE for Continuing Education and Certification may be
needed to bring the focus and attention necessary for this vital area of emphasis.
NEW PRIOR KNOWLEDGE
The term new prior knowledge is used here partly in an aspirational context to recognize the
extensive research on quality by design, design space and Bayesian methodologies already funded by
FDA and conducted by NIPTE member institutions (e.g., the Gabapentin project discussed
previously). Aspirational - because the translational opportunities of some of the developed
concepts and methodologies remain, to a large extent, unrealized. The qualifier “new” refers to
efforts by NIPTE that can judiciously be expended (such to establish mechanism basis, application
of modeling and simulation, and or additional experimentation) to improve confidence in prior
knowledge for re-use and regulatory decisions.
The objective of new prior knowledge is to improve efficiency and reduce the cost of drug product
development, improve clinical relevance of quality specifications, provide confidence in quality risk
assessment, support innovation, and continual improvement, and ensure appropriate approval of
‘First Generics” which is a public health need. It should be applicable for New (e.g., support post-
approval changes; conventional to continuous manufacturing), Generic and Biotech products. The
concept of NIPTE Certification (of the prior knowledge) is conceived as the built-in peer review,
challenge and verification that a multi-university collaboration can muster as part of the
translational (research to policy to practice) process. In the context of 2020 Vision – this can
include NIPTE Monographs that supplement Compendial monographs. The following example is
developed to illustrate what new prior knowledge could mean for a generic nasal spray formulation
development and approval.
The accompanying figure was constructed using FDA and USP web images to illustrate and
demarcate public
(e.g., USP
monograph and
FDA review
information
available under
the Freedom of
Information Act)
and proprietary
information
(including patents
and exclusivities).

The case example is a ‘First Generic’ approval of Mometasone Furoate Nasal Spray on 3/22/2016.
The information for developing the case example is purposefully limited only to the information
shared by FDA (consistent with 21CFR10.85(k)) in their publication entitled FDA Embraces
Emerging Technology for Bioequivalence Evaluation of Locally Acting Nasal Sprays (21). It is also
noted here – for disclosure purposes – that the author served in an advisory capacity, not related to
his NIPTE responsibilities, to the sponsor of this product and participated during a formal FDA
Scienti�ic Dispute Resolution process. Important facts about this case:
• ANDA was submitted in December 2008 and approved in March 2016; about 8 years in review.
• The generic applicant used a different polymorph so as not in infringe on the RLD patent
(additional note from published media sources - in June 2013 a Federal Circuit Court affirmed
the dismissed claims that the generic applicant had infringed on the RLD patents).
• The application history included a refuse-to-receive determination, a scienti�ic dispute resolution,
and a signi�icant number of amendments
• In September 2015 FDA published its draft guidance for establishing Therapeutic Equivalence
and adopted a weight of evidence approach: (a) Similarities in device and formulation, (b)
Equivalent in vitro performance, (c) Equivalent PK studies, and (d) Equivalent local delivery
through pharmacodynamic (PD) or clinical studies.
• During the review of the ANDA, it was communicated that “the clinical endpoint BE study was
unacceptable to FDA because it used API manufactured from a site that was not intended to
produce the commercial batch. The two API batches showed some degree of difference regarding
their particle size distribution.”
• Note that the conclusion from the already conducted clinical endpoint BE study was that the test
and reference products were equivalent; although particle size differences were found in vitro
and the pharmacokinetic study. Subsequently, these differences were minimized, and in vitro
and PK equivalence was re-established. The OGD’s insistence of requiring the sponsor to repeat
the clinical study was disputed.
• The dispute was settled and the evidence derived from in vitro data on particle size and shape
via the Morphologically-Directed Raman Spectroscopy was accepted for quality risk assessment
(stability of particle size and shape across appropriate environment conditions in which the
product may be used and stored).
• In its publication, the FDA stated that - Successful use of this technology sets a precedent to accept
an in vitro approach instead of a clinical endpoint BE study. It opens the possibility to change the
FDA’s historical paradigm for the BE evaluation of locally acting nasal suspension products (the
weight-of-evidence approach).
• The new prior knowledge would build on this prior knowledge to facilitate approval of other
generic nasal spray and similar products where physical attributes (e.g., size and shape of
particles) are critical to facilitate single cycle development and FDA approval.
Other examples of “new prior knowledge” can include -
• Quality Target product Profile for generics and biosimilars derived following extensive
characterization of RLD samples to obtain information about the Critical to Quality Attributes
(CQAs), acceptable ranges, and stability consideration based on potential failure modes
• Description of analytical methodology for in vitro characterization of the reference products;
justification of analytical methods used and their validation, and methodology for integrated
equivalence assessment. Note that heterogeneity in the interpretation of equivalence, in the
context of the weight of evidence, needs to be reduced. Especially for building consensus on
conditions when in vivo studies should not be required.

• FDA can potentially adopt the information package (above) as its guidance, or such information
may be offered as an NIPTE Monograph for industry to use and reduce their development time
and coast and achieve FDA approval in one single review cycle
• Considering the previous discussion on “the 3rd leg of the stool” concept; the NIPTE Monograph
can be analogous to, and supplement, the USP Monographs; particularly for a complex product
that increasingly requires extensive analytical characterization of material functionality and
product performance attributes that are not in the scope of traditional Compendial
monographs.
Note: Previously recognized roadblocks to generation of new prior knowledge
A large proportion of pharmaceutical development and manufacturing information content in the
public domain is in the context of approval decisions that are predominantly based on clinical trials.
The relationship between quality attributes and clinical safety and efficacy are often not clearly
evident (quality – to -clinical gap). Moreover, as discussed, these data are often empirical (i.e., weak
theoretical basis) and derived experientially (weak epistemology). Application of new analytical
methods to existing products is discouraged in practice – what if we find something new- is a major
concern which is a significant roadblock to continual learning and improvement in the regulated
sector. The FDA’s PAT Guidance (22) specifically attempted to address this concern:
When using new measurement tools, such as on- or in-line process analyzers, certain data trends,
intrinsic to a currently acceptable process, may be observed. Manufacturers should scientifically
evaluate these data to determine how or if such trends affect quality and implementation of PAT tools.
FDA does not intend to inspect research data collected on an existing product for the purpose of
evaluating the suitability of an experimental process analyzer or other PAT tool. FDA's routine
inspection of a firm's manufacturing process that incorporates a PAT tool for research purposes will be
based on current regulatory standards (e.g., test results from currently approved or acceptable
regulatory methods). Any FDA decision to inspect research data would be based on exceptional
situations similar to those outlined in Compliance Policy Guide Sec. 130.3004 Those data used to
support validation or regulatory submissions will be subject to inspection in the usual manner.
Integrated Application of NIPTE Education & New Prior Knowledge Certification
The real-time controls and continuous manufacturing ‘tipping point’ can ideally be supported via an
integrated NIPTE education & new prior knowledge certification program targeted to support the
combined regulatory intent in several guidance documents (PAT, FDA’s Process Validation 2011,
ICH Q8 -11 and the anticipated Q 12). NIPTE
pharmaceutical engineering members have made
outstanding contributions already – and NIPTE Board
and faculty leaders visited Rutgers in 2016 to
appreciate these contributions (see picture insert).
Today the higher level of quality assurance potential of
real-time controls is formally being recognized by FDA
and other regulators. An integrated NIPTE certification
can conceptually be positioned as a quantifiable risk-
mitigation contribution in the (expected) FDA calculus
(of facility risk classification and in reducing burden
for a post-approval change). Furthermore, in the context of the 3rd leg of the stool; the concern
related to Narrow Therapeutic Index drugs (Submitted to Docket: FDA-2013-N-0402; (23)) can,
and preferably should, be recast as an NIPTE advocacy position to help guide and prioritize
regulatory efforts and research funding under the subtitle J of the 21st Century Cures Act.

CLOSING REMARKS
Today NIPTE’s mission can not be clearer and its resolve stronger. The strategic themes identified
in 2016 are very relevant to address several roadblocks in the progress of NIPTE. Building on these
topics the steps we take next can and should put NIPTE on a path that would:
• Allow NIPTE to more effectively contribute independently and collaboratively in the
various efforts being undertaken (e.g., NIIMBL, other FDA supported centers, etc.) for
building a comprehensive pharmaceutical technology research and education based
solutions to address the recurring challenges in the assurance of pharmaceutical quality.
Currently, these challenges create system vulnerable and leave the Nation wanting for
constant availability and affordability of high-quality medicines.
• Facilitate communication and engagement, the Voice of NIPTE, necessary to convince the
US FDA, industry, the US Congress, the US Administration and the American public of the
need and value of the contributions NIPTE can provide and explain why these should be
an integral part of the Nation’s pharmaceutical quality management system.
The journey ahead will not be easy. With
a commitment first to Team Science, the
core leadership team can bring their
learnings from the strategic discussions
(Center of Excellence for Pharmaceutical
Formulation and Education and
Certification programs) in 2016 to create
a Roadmap 2017- that will let confidently
begin this new journey.
Development of the Roadmap 2017 is
envisioned to occur in phases. This report
is written to occupy position the purple
arrow; i.e., between the phase How NIPTE
adds Value (2016) and Develop Roadmap
(January -February 2017).
Suggested process for developing and Roadmap 2017
Table 7 below, provides an overall summary of the discussion in this report. In it, the macro-
environmental directional vectors and aligning themes, the stated FDA priorities and the NIPTE’s
strategic interests are juxtaposed. This arrangement should make easier to visualize the possible
interrelationships among these topics and assist in the development of Roadmap 2017. NIPTE’s
proposed solutions and prioritization for public research funding can then be compared with the
current focus areas and priorities at FDA.
How NIPTE
adds Value
Develop
Roadmap
Metrics of
Progress
Socialize
Roadmap
NIPTE BOD
Begin
Execution

TABLE 7. DIRECTIONAL VECTORS, ALIGNING THEMES, FDA PRIORITIES,& NIPTE’S STRATEGIC
INTERESTS
Strategic direction 2016 Roadmap 2017-
3rd
Leg of the Stool:
2020 Vision
Macro-
environment
FDA Priorities 2016-2017
NIPTE
2016
Recommendations
NIPTE + Pharmaceutical
Performance Standards &
Certification
Innovation &
revitalization
Faster approvals
Science to policy
pressures
OPQ
Manufacturing Science &
control
Drug quality standards
Rapid risk-based
development of
‘breakthrough” products
CE:Seminar@FDAentitled“NIPTECenterofExcellenceforPharmaceuticalFormulations”;“ConfidenceinGenerics:Needfor,andintegrated
approachtoformulationresearchandknowledgemanagementandNIPTErecommendationssubmittedtoFDADocket:FDA-2013-N-0402.
Outline a consensus Vision 2020;
targeting unmet National needs
Describe how can FDA be
supported on their requests,
challenges, focus areas, and
priorities; explain why NIPTE?
What topics/projects be
prioritized differently? Why?
NIPTE Monographs for
[Generic] Drug Product In Vitro
Performance & Equivalence
(based on advanced analytical
characterization of reference
products)*
NIPTE Monographs for
Excipient Functionality
NIPTE Methodologies for
Advanced Analytical
Characterization
Guides to Generic Product
Development: Product specific
guides to facilitate quality by
design and optimal integration
to ensure “totality of evidence”
or “weight of evidence”
(without the need for clinical
trials)
National New Prior-knowledge
and knowledge base for
modeling, simulation, and
prediction of Pharmaceutical
Quality and Performance
Report to the Nation: Current
State of Pharmaceutical Quality:
Annual Survey (post-market
evaluation)
National Curriculum for
Pharmaceutical Technology
Continuing Education &
Certification (A basis for FDA’s
GDP, GLP & and GMP risk-
classification)
Reduce
regulatory
burden
ICH Q12; & post-approval
changes without prior
approval supplement
Incorporate ICH Q12 & related
topics; initiate discussions with
PhRMA & Bio and member
companies
“First Generic”
“Submission
Quality”
Research:
Equivalence
Global supply
Vulnerabilities
OPQ & OGD
GDUFA FY 2017 Priorities
Post-market evaluation of
generic drugs.
Equivalence of complex
products
Equivalence of locally-
acting products
Therapeutic equivalence
assessment and standards
Computational and
analytical tools.
Leverage available opportunity to
outline Generic drug research and
education program to address
unmet needs of the Nation.
How NIPTE proposes these
solutions is not only critical for
success in 2017, it will define the
journey to the proposed Vision
2020.
Participate in GDUFA Regulatory
Science program engage with
GPhA and member companies.
Solutions that transform:
Generic Industry: “File first and
figure it out later” to “Figure it out
and File First.”
FDA: Integrated, risk-based,
assessment of “totality of
evidence” or “weight of evidence”;
right question and the right time
Global supply
Vulnerabilities
“Submission
Quality”
“First Generic”
Reduce
regulatory
burden
Improve submissions;
reduce multiple cycles
and CMC review
deficiencies.
Risk-based, efficient
review process
Reduce vulnerabilities in
global supply chain.
EC:NIPTE’sInterestand
EfforttoFillGapsin
EducationNeed–Industry
andFDA
Outline plan for success and scale-
up of Educational Programs
• Sun-Pharma Collaboration
• NIPTE-FDA Training for
Industry and FDA Staff
• NIPTE Certification Model
Integrated;
Centers
One Quality Voice
TS:
Integrated
Science
Utilize NIH|NCI Team Science
Toolkit and lessons learned
NIH Center Grants: Pediatric
Formulation and Performance
The macro-environment factors are useful. The roadmap, however, should primarily be informed of
the challenges faced by FDA and industry in realizing the objective of the FDA’s Pharmaceutical
Quality for the 21st Initiative 2.0. In this context, reasons why FDA made significant organizational
changes and added an emphasis One Quality Voice, are essential to understanding (4, 14).
NIPTE Basic Research
Programs

NIPTE’s mission to support its faculty
conducting basic research is always an
important consideration. Although this was
not discussed in the report, the column
under the 2020 Vison heading maintains
this focus. An opportunity to establish NIH
Center Grant (e.g., Pediatric Formulations) is
also recognized. The Roadmap 2017 should
also address these possibilities.
When necessary NIPTE should consider
appropriate ‘nudges’ to help overcome
inertia within the system. This and success
of current projects can allow NIPTE move
forward, with 2020 Vison, to play a more
important role – the third leg of the stool.
The perspective gained as an observer of the pharmaceutical sector from outside of it, i.e., while
working on tobacco harm reduction in Switzerland 2009-2012; and more recently as an advisor to
several companies, point to the critical importance of the need to give attention to continued adult
human development or maturity (in cognitive, intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions). How
this development and maturity translates to the design of pharmaceutical products and in the
assurance of pharmaceutical quality is not adequately or specifically considered in the current
Human Resource Systems. NIPTE Certification should consider addressing this gap. For example,
the regulatory CGMP requirements at 21 CFR 211.25 on education, training, and experience today
have very limited regulatory utility; they are not on a solid theoretical foundation and nor can they
be expected to have a meaningful practice utility in its current state (24).
Systems thinking is an essential element of a systems approach to quality assurance; it requires a
level of maturity - the 4th level – the ‘Self-authored mind’ in the context of Constructive Development
Theory of adult human development progressed by Prof. Robert Kegan and others. For adult
human development to progress what we know is important but how we know what we know (i.e.,
epistemology) is essential. Unfortunately, in the current state, a majority of the practitioners are
dependent (check-the-box) on FDA’s guidance, Form 483 observations and Warning Letters as the
source of learning and decision-making; this tendency fits on the 3rd level – the ‘Socialized Mind’
and points to the set mind change needed for the transformation we seek (25).
NIPTE is well positioned to help change this state – but to do so, it will need to practice Team
Science and aspire and work towards becoming a credible 3rd leg of the stool.
• To get-it-right in the 21st Century, let’s remember Einstein’s challenge that we will never solve
the problems tomorrow with the same order of consciousness we are using to create the problems
of today!
• When we chose to take off our blindfolds, and we commit to recognizing that pharmaceutical
quality is like an elephant in the dark; Rumi’s centuries old strategy can still work for us - If each
of us held a candle there, and if we went in together, we could see it.
• Ultimately this is what Team Science is all about.

REFERENCES
1. Sen. Lugar, Richard G. [R-IN]. S.2793 - Pharmaceutical Technology and Education Enhancement Act.
Introduced 05/11/2006. Senate - Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
109th Congress, 2nd Session. 11 May 2006. https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/senate-
bill/2793/text
2. US FDA. Pharmaceutical cGMPs for the 21st Century - A Risk-Based Approach. Final Report. September
2004.
http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/Manufacturing/QuestionsandAnswersonCurr
entGoodManufacturingPracticescGMPforDrugs/ucm137175.htm
3. FDA's Critical Path Initiative. Challenges and Opportunities Report - March 2004.
http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/CriticalPathInitiative/CriticalPathOpportunitiesRe
ports/ucm077262.htm
4. FDA Pharmaceutical Quality Oversight. One Quality Voice. Office of Pharmaceutical Quality.
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDER/
UCM442666.pdf
5. 21st Century Cures Act. 13 December 2016. https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/12/12/3-letters-
explain-why-president-obama-signing-cures-act
6. US FDA. Pharmaceutical CGMPs for the 21st Century. Innovation and Continuous Improvement in
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing. September 2004.
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/04/briefing/2004-4080b1_01_manufSciWP.pdf
7. Hussain, A. S. The Nation Needs a Comprehensive Pharmaceutical Engineering Education and Research
System. Pharm. Tech. 120-121. September 2005.
http://images.alfresco.advanstar.com/alfresco_images/pharma/2014/08/22/fcb413f5-f60b-4316-a400-
c5e2f02cb9e8/article-178644.pdf
8. Hussain, A. S. Pharmaceutical Quality Assurance in the 21st Century: A sharper focus needed on education,
training, and experience. Express Pharma. 11(4): 20-21. 16 May 2016
https://issuu.com/indianexpressgroup/docs/ep-20160531pages/21
9. Woodcock, J. FDA Check Up: Drug Development and Manufacturing Challenges. Subcommittee on Energy
Policy, Health Care and Entitlements Committee on Oversight and Government Reform U.S. House of
Representatives. 12 December 2013. http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Testimony/ucm378343.htm
10. US FDA. PDUFA VI: Reauthorization Performance Goals and Procedures FY 2018-2022.
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/UCM511438.pdf
11. US FDA. GDUFA II: Reauthorization Performance Goals and Procedures FY 2018-2022.
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForIndustry/UserFees/GenericDrugUserFees/UCM525234.pdf
12. US FDA BsUFA II: Reauthorization Performance Goals and Procedures FY 2018-2022
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForIndustry/UserFees/BiosimilarUserFeeActBsUFA/UCM521121.pdf
13. Woodcock, J. Implementation of the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012 (GDUFA) - House
Testimony. February 4, 2016. http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Testimony/ucm485057.htm
14. Fisher, A.C., Lee, S.L., Harris, D.P., Buhse, L., Kozlowski, S., Yu, L., Kopcha, M. and Woodcock, J., 2016.
Advancing pharmaceutical quality: An overview of science and research in the US FDA’s Office of
Pharmaceutical Quality. International Journal of Pharmaceutics, 515(1: 390-402 (2016).
15. ICH Q12 EWG Work Plan. 21 July 2016.
http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Quality/Q12/Q12_EWG_Wor
k_Plan_21July2016.pdf
16. FDA/CDER/OGD. GDUFA Regulatory Science funding for (FY) 2017.
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForIndustry/UserFees/GenericDrugUserFees/UCM526900.pdf
17. Clapper, L. CDER's Janet Woodcock: Nobody Can Really Tell Me If FDA Inspections Are Effective.
Pharmaceutical Online. 23 April 2013. http://www.pharmaceuticalonline.com/doc/cder-s-janet-
woodcock-nobody-can-really-tell-me-if-fda-inspections-are-effective-0001

18. Edney, A. Generic-Drug Testing Goes Widespread in US FDA-Effort. Bloomberg. 22 February 2014.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-02-21/first-u-s-testing-of-generic-drugs-is-unveiled-
by-fda
19. FDA Proposes to Withdraw Two Generic Versions of ADHD Drug Concerta. RAPS 18 October 2016.
http://www.raps.org/Regulatory-Focus/News/2016/10/18/26027/FDA-Proposes-to-Withdraw-Two-
Generic-Versions-of-ADHD-Drug-Concerta/#sthash.um86zxzD.dpuf
20. The National Cancer Institute. Team Science Toolkit.
https://www.teamsciencetoolkit.cancer.gov/Public/WhatIsTS.aspx
21. FDA/CDER SBIA Chronicles. FDA Embraces Emerging Technology for Bioequivalence Evaluation of
Locally Acting Nasal Sprays. April 2016.
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/SmallBusinessAssistance/UCM5
02012.pdf
22. US FDA. Guidance for Industry PAT — A Framework for Innovative Pharmaceutical Development,
Manufacturing, and Quality Assurance. Pharmaceutical CGMPs September 2004.
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm07
0305.pdf
23. NIPTE recommended topics for inclusion in the FY 2017 Regulatory Science Plan. Generic Drug User Fee
Amendments of 2012; Regulatory Science Initiatives Part 15 Public Meeting (2016). Docket ID: FDA-
2013-N-0402. June 16, 2016
24. Hussain, A. S. Education, Training, Experience & 21 CFR 211.25: Theory, Practice, and Epistemology.
LinkedIn Post. March 24, 2016, March 24, 2016. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/education-
training-experience-21-cfr-21125-theory-hussain-ph-d-
25. Hussain, A. S. The Culture of Pharmaceutical Quality: Personnel Development. Biopharma Asia
March/April 2016
Additional notes:
• Presentation at the NIPTE Conference 2016 @ FDA are posted at http://nipte.org/october-2016-
conference
• Photo credit: Six blindfolded men and the elephant. Express Pharma. 11(4): 20-21. 16 May 2016
• Photo credit: Sun Academy – 2nd graduation ceremony and launch of the collaboration with NIPTE
• All internet links provided above were again accessed on 18 December 2016.

From Roadblocks to Roadmap 2017, with a 2020 Vision

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (14)

Similar to From Roadblocks to Roadmap 2017, with a 2020 Vision (20)

More from Ajaz Hussain (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

From Roadblocks to Roadmap 2017, with a 2020 Vision