Skip to main content

Requirements for Batch Production Records

BayBiotech.NET
Batch Production Record is an example of a GMP document and is designed to standardize the process and provides with lot-specific information.
GMP Requirements for Batch Records are defined under following FDA regulations:
 Master Batch Record 21 CFR 211.188
 21 CFR 211.194—Laboratory Records
 21 CFR 211.194—Review by the Quality Control Unit
A batch production record must be established every time a batch is manufactured and must include the following:
Requirements for Laboratory Operations

•Establish and follow written procedures for laboratory operations
•Use adequate laboratory facilities
•Requirements for Laboratory control processes
•Methods for testing and examination
Requirements for Manufacturing Operations
•Establish and follow written procedures for manufacturing operations
•Ensure product specifications are consistent
•Adequate sanitation principles
•Prevent contamination
•Appropriate disposition of rejected or unsuitable dietary supplements
•Requirements for repackaging and relabeling
•Packaged and labeled supplements rejected for distribution
•Record Keeping
•Establish and follow written procedures for holding and distributing operations
•Requirements to hold components, supplements, packaging and labels
•Requirements for in-process materials
•Requirements for reserve samples
•Distribution requirements to protect against contamination and deterioration

The content produced here are part of the QA/Regulatory training taken from Kriger Research Center.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Harmonization by Doing (HBD): Japan & U.S. Collaboration

BayBiotech.NET HBD is an international cooperative effort by Japan and US for regulatory convergence for Medical Devices. The efforts are focused on to develop global clinical trials and address regulatory barriers for timely device approvals. To address the needs for additional evaluation, the HBD initiative is a pilot project launched jointly by FDA and MHLW-PMDA for the premarket review of device cardiovascular technology. Instead of taking a theoretical approach to harmonization, HBD is focused on Proof of concept by utilizing parallel development, application submissions and review of actual medical device projects. HBD Study intends to collect and analyze regulatory submission data from multiple applications in the U.S. and Japan. The purpose of the study is to further understand differences that may exist with format and content, to define best practices and to improve globally harmonized processes. To read more about the HBD program, follow the link: http://www.fda.gov/M...
Post a Comment
Read more

Amendments for High Risk Device Type Regulatory Pathway

BayBiotech.NET Government Accounting Office (“GAO”) has issued a long-awaited report evaluating the use of the 510(k) process by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA” or the “Agency”) in the January of 2009. Report mainly focused on Preamendment class III devices. Although most high-risk class III medical devices are subject to the demanding premarket approval (“PMA”) process, preamendment class III devices may be cleared through the 510(k) pathway until FDA issues regulations requiring a PMA. Under the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990, FDA was required either to reclassify preamendment class III devices into class I or II, or (2) issue regulations requiring PMA approval for the devices, GAO noted that 20 preamendment class III device types have not yet been addressed by the Agency. GAO has urged FDA to take required steps to address the remaining class III devices that continue to be eligible for 510(k) review. As a result of the report, FDA has committed to address al...
Post a Comment
Read more

Risk Based Clinical Monitoring

BayBiotech.NET FDA's recommendation of Risk Based Monitoring of Clinical Trials , as published in their Draft Guidance in August 2011. For the first time, FDA provided guidance on monitoring of clinical investigations in 1988 which was recently withdrawn, stated that the “most effective way” to monitor an investigation was to “maintain personal contact between the monitor and the investigator throughout the clinical investigation.” At the time the guidance was issued, sponsors had only limited ways to effect meaningful communication with investigators other than through on-site visits.   This guidance recommends an assessment by the sponsor for the need of 100% on-site monitoring. Such an assessment may be based on the complexity of the study protocol and not be generally applicable to all trial types. It explains the importance of remote monitoring facilitated by the use of electronic data capture system (EDC) and also emphasizes the need of the identifying crit...
1 comment
Read more