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)