Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40087229›Full record

ArticleThe AAPS journal2025

The Role of Enhanced Analytical Procedure Development in Facilitating Post-Approval Changes Via Established Conditions.

Douglas Kirkpatrick, Nirzari Gupta, Ramesh Gopalaswamy, Rohit Kolhatkar, Morgan Hudson-Davis, David Keire

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The AAPS journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Douglas KirkpatrickUnited States Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Office of Pharmaceutical Quality, 645 S Newstead Ave, St. Louis, 63110, Missouri, USA. dkirkpa3@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-2264-5737
Nirzari GuptaUnited States Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Office of Pharmaceutical Quality, 645 S Newstead Ave, St. Louis, 63110, Missouri, USA.
Ramesh GopalaswamyOffice of Pharmaceutical Quality Assessment II, CDER, U.S. FDA, White Oak, Maryland, USA.
Rohit KolhatkarOffice of Pharmaceutical Quality Assessment I, CDER, U.S. FDA, White Oak, Maryland, USA.
Morgan Hudson-DavisUnited States Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Office of Pharmaceutical Quality, 645 S Newstead Ave, St. Louis, 63110, Missouri, USA.
David KeireUnited States Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Office of Pharmaceutical Quality, 645 S Newstead Ave, St. Louis, 63110, Missouri, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Enabling greater flexibility for lifecycle management of analytical procedures is one of the primary features of the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) Q12 Lifecycle Management guideline. Rather than rely on a comparatively slower and burdensome post-approval change supplement process, ICH Q12 created a new pathway to facilitate changes to chemistry, manufacturing, and controls. The new framework utilized key concepts such as established conditions (ECs), post-approval change management protocols, and the product lifecycle management document to allow modifications to analytical procedures based upon pre-approved conditions. Shortly after the publication of ICH Q12, the ICH Q14 Analytical Procedure Development guideline provided further guidance on how knowledge gained during analytical procedure development could be incorporated with the ICH Q12 framework to support scientifically sound and risk-based post-approval changes. However, to date, the full potential of ICH Q12 and Q14 remains unrealized, likely due to uncertainty over how analytical procedure development data can be effectively utilized to gain regulatory flexibility for post-approval changes. In this case study, an example of determining, proposing, and justifying analytical procedure ECs, reporting categories, and identification of elements not considered ECs is presented. In addition, how such information could be presented in a regulatory submission is described. Importantly, this case study serves as an example of the application of ICH Q12 and Q14 principles for analytical procedures, but it is not intended to serve as official guidance nor to define the full scope of information required in a regulatory submission.

Indexed as

Drug ApprovalGuidelines as TopicProduct Surveillance, PostmarketingHumansPharmaceutical PreparationsPharmaceutical Preparationsanalytical target profileenhanced approachEstablished Conditions (ECs)International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH)risk assessment

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.