GLP regulations

Download GLP regulations

Post on 17-Aug-2015




0 download

Embed Size (px)


<ol><li> 1. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York Basel Good Laboratory Practice Regulations Third Edition, Revised and Expanded edited by Sandy Weinberg Muhlenberg College Allentown, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. Copyright 2002 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Copyright 2003 Marcel Dekker, Inc. </li><li> 2. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN: 0-8247-0891-1 This book is printed on acid-free paper. Headquarters Marcel Dekker, Inc. 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 tel: 212-696-9000; fax: 212-685-4540 Eastern Hemisphere Distribution Marcel Dekker AG Hutgasse 4, Postfach 812, CH-4001 Basel, Switzerland tel: 41-61-260-6300; fax: 41-61-260-6333 World Wide Web The publisher offers discounts on this book when ordered in bulk quanti- ties. For more information, write to Special Sales/Professional Marketing at the headquarters address above. Copyright 2003 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Neither this book nor any part may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Current printing (last digit): 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Copyright 2003 Marcel Dekker, Inc. </li><li> 3. Preface The Good Laboratory Practices (GLPs) are extremely effec- tive guidelines intended to provide management with a tool for controlling regulated laboratories and to provide regula- tors with a measurement guide for the evaluation of those controlling efforts. Over the past decade the GLPs have survived the test of field scrutiny and have evolved into a meaningful set of standards for a variety of laboratories worldwide. The effects of evolution on regulation are generally posi- tive. Vague requirements are clarified with example, dispute resolution, and dissemination of interpretation. Differences of opinion are debated, discussed, and synthesized. Guide- lines are issued, investigators are trained, and examples are provided. Working in conjunction with this delineation of regula- tion are the variances created by changes in practice, technol- ogy, and focus. The conjunction of these forces may create its own conflict, but experience and time have a soothing influ- ence even on disagreement; positions and opinions may be at variance, but they are at least clear and specific. Copyright 2003 Marcel Dekker, Inc. </li><li> 4. The GLP regulations have reached this next stage of evolved understanding. The requirements are clear, the guidelines and interpretations are available, and the conflicts are resolved. Even the revolutionary influences of computer- ization in the laboratory have been measured and considered, providing the good automated laboratory practices corollary guidelines. The GLPs have come of age, and provide a clear and consistent framework for the assurance of quality and control in the laboratory. This maturity has led to global GLPs that are, if not identical, at least compatible. In the United States, the same general guidelines apply to laboratories regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Environmental Protec- tion Agency (EPA) labs, and general analytical laboratories. Those same standards are consistent with required proce- dures in the European Community (EC); Switzerland, Japan, Israel, Brazil, and Russia. The Worldwide concern for quality and control had evolved the same general principles of opera- tion and organization. This third edition of Good Laboratory Practice Regula- tions reflects that evolutionary maturity of requirements. With a relative uniformity of interpretation more specific and applied information can be provided, furnishing the reader with both the theoretical overview necessary to an- ticipate new and emerging interpretations and the detail of practical information that can serve as a guide to the cur- rent standards and requirements of good laboratory manage- ment. Chapter 1 provides a historical review of the evolution- ary process, tracing the problems and concerns of regulators and the response of laboratory managers to those issues. The ultimate result, is the series of guidelines published as the GLPs, provided with a context and rationale. Chapter 2 provides a definitive review of the current ver- sion of FDA GLPs, including an analysis and interpretation of the enforcement of the GLPs. This summary is an excellent Copyright 2003 Marcel Dekker, Inc. </li><li> 5. overview for readers not previously familiar with the require- ments. Chapter 3 examines the new FDA regulation, Part 11, and its impact on a GLP laboratory setting. This chapter ar- gues that Part 11 is a de facto extension of the GLPs and represents a historical update of the GLP regulation. Chapters 4 and 5 focus on two important applications of the GLPs. In Chapter 4 the GLPs are applied to an auto- mated laboratory as the (EPA) good automated laboratory practices. Chapter 5 examines the impact and interpretation of the GLPs in a non-GLP analytical laboratory. Stephanie Olexa makes an impressive case that the GLPs are relevant guidelines even where they are not regulatory requirements. Chapter 6 provides specific standards and general guide- lines for the validation of Laboratory Information Manage- ment Systems (LIMS) and other computerized laboratory sys- tems. The chapter includes specific interpretations of the validation requirements in the post-Part 11 environment. A review of standards without an examination of the in- terpretation and enforcement of those standards would be of little value. In Chapter 7 therefore, the FDAs GLP inspec- tion program is dissected and analyzed, revealing the philos- ophy and approach of the regulators to GLP field interpreta- tion. In each previous edition the eighth and final chapter has been dedicated to the art of prediction, providing an extrapo- lation of GLP trends and applications into the near-term fu- ture. These predictions have provided gratifyingly accurate recommendations for anticipating new regulatory and practi- cal changes. In this third edition, Chapter 8 looks at the next step in laboratory automation: robotic control of samples and analysis, the field laboratory, new laboratory applications in DNA and other genetic testing, and emerging new govern- ment perspectives on regulation and enforcement. These eight chapters provide a detailed review of the GLP requirements, an examination of the application of Copyright 2003 Marcel Dekker, Inc. </li><li> 6. those requirements, an interpretation of the effects of GLPs on an automated laboratory and the effects of that automa- tion on the GLP guidelines, and a look at future trends in laboratories and their regulation. Sandy Weinberg Copyright 2003 Marcel Dekker, Inc. </li><li> 7. Contents Preface Contributors 1. Historical Perspective Jean M. Taylor and Gary C. Stein 2. FDA/GLP Regulations Wendell A. Peterson 3. Applying 21 CFR Part 11 to the Laboratory Environment Sandy Weinberg 4. The Good Automated Laboratory Practices Gerald J. Whartenby, Paul L. Robinson, and Sandy Weinberg 5. Implementing GLPs in a Non-GLP Analytical Laboratory Stephanie A. Olexa Copyright 2003 Marcel Dekker, Inc. </li><li> 8. 6. Computer Systems Validation Sandy Weinberg 7. The FDAs GLP Inspection Program George W. James 8. The Future Sandy Weinberg Bibliography Copyright 2003 Marcel Dekker, Inc. </li><li> 9. Contributors George W. James U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland, U.S.A. Stephanie A. Olexa Benchmark Analytics, Center Valley, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. Wendell A. Peterson Parke-Davis Pharmaceutical Re- search Division of Warner-Lambert Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A. Paul L. Robinson Muhlenberg College, Allentown, Penn- sylvania, U.S.A. Gary C. Stein Weinberg, Spelton &amp; Sax, Inc., Boothwyn, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. Jean M. Taylor* U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland, U.S.A. Copyright 2003 Marcel Dekker, Inc. </li><li> 10. Sandy Weinberg Muhlenberg College, Allentown, Penn- sylvania, U.S.A. Gerald J. Whartenby Muhlenberg College, Allentown, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. Copyright 2003 Marcel Dekker, Inc. </li><li> 11. Bibliography Allinson C. Information systems audit trails in legal proceedings as evidence. Computers Sec 20.5: 409421, 2001. Alter S. Decision Support Systems: Current Practice and Continu- ing Challenges. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1980. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Audit Approaches for a Computerized Inventory System. New York: AICPA, 1980. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Audit Consid- erations in Electronic Fund Transfer Systems. New York: AICPA, 1979. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Guidelines to Assess Computerized General Ledger and Financial Reporting Systems for Use in CPA Firms. New York: AICPA, 1979. Andersen A. A Guide for Studying and Evaluating Internal Con- trols. Chicago: Arthur Andersen, 1978. Anderson CA. Approach to data processing auditing. In: The Inter- preter. Durham, NC: Insurance Accounting and Statistical As- sociation, April 1975, pp. 2326. Arthus LJ. Measuring Programmer Productivity and Software Quality. New York: Wiley, 1985. Copyright 2003 Marcel Dekker, Inc. </li><li> 12. Aron J. The Program Development Process, Part II: The Program- ming Team. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1983. Automated Laboratory Standards: Current Automated Laboratory Data Management Practices, Final. June 1990. Automated Laboratory Standards: Evaluation of the Standards and Procedures Used in Automated Clinical Laboratories, Draft. May 1990. Automated Laboratory Standards: Evaluation of the Use of Auto- mated Financial System Procedures, Final. June 1990. Automated Laboratory Standards: Good Laboratory Practices for EPA Programs, Draft. June 1990. Automated Laboratory Standards: Survey of Current Automated Technology, Final. June 1990. Bar-Hava N. Training EDP auditors. Info Mgt (4):3042, 1981. Basden A, Clar EM. Data integrity in a general practice computer system (CLINICS). Internat J Biomed Comput 11:511519, 1980. Bennett JL, ed. Building Decision Support Systems. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1983. Bigger staff, TJ, Perlins AJ, eds. Software Reusability. vol. 2, Appli- cations and Experience. New York: ACM Press/Addison- Wesley, 1989. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Electronic Fund Transfers. Regulation E (12 CFR Part 205). effective March 30, 1979 (as amended effective May 10, 1980.) Boehm BW. Software Engineering Economics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1982. Bonczek RH, Holsapple CW, Whinston AB. Foundations of Decision Support Systems. New York: Academic, 1981. Brooks F. The Mythical Man-Month. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley, 1975. Bronstein RJ. The concept of a validation plan. Drug Info J 20: 3742, 1986. Brown EH. Procedures and their documentation for a LIMS in a regulated environment. In: RD McDowall, ed. Laboratory In- formation Management Systems. Wilmslow, UK: Sigma, 1987, pp. 346358. BURMARC. Pocket sized meters. Soap, Perf, Cosmet 71.5: 59, 1998. Callahan JJ. Needed: Professional Management in Data Processing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1983. Copyright 2003 Marcel Dekker, Inc. </li><li> 13. Caputo CA. Managing the EDP audit function. COM-SAC 8(1): A-1A-8, Jan. 1981. Card DN, Glass RL. Measuring Software Design Quality. Engle- wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1990. Casti JL. Paradigms Lost. New York: William Morrow, 1989. Charlette, RN. Software Engineering Risk Analysis and Manage- ment. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1989. Cheney PH. Educating the computer audit specialist. EDP Aud 9 15, fall 1980. Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988. P.L. 100- 578. Oct. 31, 1988. College of American Pathologists. Standards for Laboratory Accred- itation. Skokie, IL: Commission on Laboratory Accreditation, 1988. Connor JE, DeVos BH. Guide to Accounting ControlsEstablish- ing, Evaluating and Monitoring Control Systems. Boston: Warren, Gorham &amp; Lamont, 1980. Cooke JE, Drury, DH. Management Planning and Control of Infor- mation Systems. Hamilton, Ontario: Society of Management Accountants of Canada, April 1980. CRS releases enhanced POLARATM software for the drug develop- ment. Can Corp News Jan. 29, 2001. Data Acquisition Telecommunications Local Area Networks. 1983 Data Book. Sunnyvale, CA: Advanced Micro Devices, 1983. DataMirror LiveAuditTM for FDA-regulated organizations supports leading ERP solutions. Can Corp News June 5, 2001. DataMirror unveils data integration solution for FDA-regulated or- ganizations. Can Corp News May 29, 2001. Datapro Research. Datapro Reports on Information Security. Del- ran, NJ: McGraw-Hill, 1989. Davis SM. Future Perfect. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1987. Department of Transportation. Procedures for transportation work- place drug testing programs: Final rule. Fed Reg 54 (230): 4985449884, Dec. 1, 1989. Dessy RE. The Electronic Laboratory. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society, 1985. DeMarco T. Controlling Software Projects. New York: Yourdon, 1982. DeMarco T, Lister T. Software State-of-the-Art: Selected Papers. New York: Dorset, 1991. Copyright 2003 Marcel Dekker, Inc. </li><li> 14. Dice B. operations manager, telephone interview, Hyattsville, MD, April 25, 1990. U.S. Department of Defense. Defense System Software Develop- ment. DOD-STD-2167A. Feb. 29, 1988. Drug Information Association. Computerized Data Systems for Nonclinical Safety Assessment: Current Concepts and Quality Assurance. Maple Glen, PA: Drug Information Allocation, 1980. Dunn R. Software Defect Removal. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984. Dunn R, Ullman R. Quality Assurance for Computer Software. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1982. EDP Auditors Foundation. Control Objectives1980. Streamwood, IL: EDP Auditors Foundation, 1980. Figarole PL. Computer software validation techniques. DIA Confer- ence on Computer Validation, Jan. 2123, 1985. First state drug safety evaluation lab established. Xinhua News Ag Aug. 28, 2000. Forsyth A. An approach to audit an on-line system. COM-SAC 7 (1) A-1A-4, Jan. 1980. Freedman D, Weinberg G. Handbook of Walkthroughs, Inspections and Technical Reviews. Boston: Little, Brown, 1982. Gallegos F, Bieber D. What every auditor should know about com- puter information systems. Available as accession number 130454 from the General Accounting Office (GOA) and re- printed from p. 111 in EDP. Auditing. New York: Auerbach, 1986. Gardner E. Computer dilemma: Clinical access vs. confidentiality. Mod Healthcare. 3242, Nov. 3, 1989. Gardner E. Secure passwords and audit trails. sidebar. Mod Healthcare 33, Nov. 3, 1989. Gardner E. System assigns passwords, beeps at security breaches. sidebar. Mod Healthcare 34, Nov. 3, 1989. Gardner E. System opens access to physicians, restricts it to others. sidebar. Mod Healthcare 38, Nov. 3, 1989. Gardner E. Borrowed passwords borrow trouble. sidebar. Mod Healthcare 42, No...</li></ol>