News Focus
News Focus
Post# of 257259
Next 10
Followers 49
Posts 5519
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 07/19/2006

Re: iwfal post# 113145

Tuesday, 01/25/2011 6:21:36 PM

Tuesday, January 25, 2011 6:21:36 PM

Post# of 257259
re immunogenicity



MNTA and TEVA - I think the general consensus on the board was that impurities (and associated consequences like immunologenicity) were likely to be one of the hang-ups in the Teva ANDA. And per the list provided by HPT that would fall under Major Deficiency:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Responses to the following examples of deficiencies would result in a major amendment. This should not be considered an all-inclusive listing.

1. Manufacture of a new batch of drug product (with supporting information) for any reason; for example:

• Composition change or reformulation

• Change in the source of a drug substance

• Change in manufacturing site

• Need for a new bioequivalence study (21 CFR 320.21)

• New in vitro study for a specific product (e.g., metered dose inhalers)

• Change in major manufacturing process

• New strength of the product

• Unacceptable impurities or impurity levels (21 CFR 314.94(a)(9))

• Unacceptable excipients found during the review (21 CFR 314.94(a)(9))
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



i'm not so sure i agree clark. if you recall amphastar stated in their lawsuit they got their level of impurity down to very low level but still faced immunogenicity hurdle. i stated on this board that i think teva likely did too, but that the more significant immunogenicity hurdle was that related to the innate immunogenicity of the product itself (e.g. Abs to PD4)

Trade Smarter with Thousands

Leverage decades of market experience shared openly.

Join Now