Good Laboratory Practice
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this articleand discuss the issue on the talk page. (October
2009)
In the experimental (non-clinical) research arena, the phrase good laboratory practice or GLP specifically refers to a quality system of management controls for researchlaboratories and organizations to try to ensure the uniformity, consistency, reliability, reproducibility, quality, and integrity of chemical (including pharmaceuticals) non-clinical safety tests; from physio-chemical properties through acute to chronic toxicity tests. GLP was instituted following cases of animal test fraud by pharmaceutical and industrial chemical (mainly pesticide) manufacturers[1]. Industrial BioTest Labs (IBT) was the most notable case, where thousands of safety tests for chemical manufacturers were falsely claimed to have been performed or were so poor that police investigators could not piece together what work had been done...even though IBT superficially delivered the test results their contracts with the manufacturers specified.
[2]
The original GLP regulatory mandate was promulgated in 1978 by US-FDA (though they may have got it from the New Zealand medicines agency) and published in the Federal Register 43 FR 59985-60020. It was followed a few years later by US-EPA, and (as outlined in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Principles of GLP in 1992) the OECD has since help promulgate it to many countries, helping them place it into their national regulations. GLP applies to non-clinical studies conducted for the assessment of the safety or efficacy of chemicals (including pharmaceuticals) to man, animals and the environment. An internationally recognized definition of GLP can be found on the website for the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency-UK which defines GLP as: Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) embodies a set of principles that provides a framework within which laboratory studies are planned, performed, monitored, recorded, reported and archived. These studies are undertaken to generate data by which the hazards and risks to users, consumers and third parties, including the environment, can be assessed for pharmaceuticals (only preclinical studies), agrochemicals, cosmetics, food additives, feed additives and contaminants, novel foods, biocides, detergents etc.... GLP helps assure regulatory authorities that the data submitted are a true reflection of the results obtained during the study and can therefore be relied upon when making risk/safety assessments. GLP, a data quality system, should not be confused with standards for laboratory safety - appropriate gloves, glasses & clothing to handle lab materials safely.
Contents
[hide]
1 GLP and the OECD 2 OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals
3 GLP and the USFDA 4 GLP and the European Union 5 GLP and non-OECD member-countries 6 Criticism of GLP 7 Klimisch score 8 GLP and Automated Systems 9 Notes and references 10 See also 11 External links
[edit]GLP
and the OECD
Following Decision C(97),186/Final of the OECD Council, data generated in the testing of chemicals in one OECD Member Country, in accordance with OECD Test Guidelines and the Principles of GLP are accepted in all other OECD Member Countries. OECD: EMV/MC/CHEM(98)17 part two GLP is a quality system concerned with the organisational processing process and conditions under which non-clinical health and environmental safety studies are planned, performed, monitored, recorded, archived and reported.[3] GLP principles include 1. Organization and Personnel
Management-Responsibilities Sponsor-Responsibilities Study Director-Responsibilities Principal Investigator-Responsibilities Study Personnel-Responsibilities
2. Quality assurance program
Quality Assurance Personnel
3.
Facilities
Test System Facilities Facilities for Test and Reference Items
4. 5. Equipments, reagents and Materials Test systems
Physical/Chemical Biological
6. 7. 8. Test & Reference items Standard operating procedures Performance of Study
Study Plan Conduct of Study
9. Reporting of results
10. Storage of Records and Reports
[edit]OECD
Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals
OECD publishes OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, which are guidelines that usually have to be followed for GLP compliance. They are widely required by agencies doing risk assessments of chemicals.
[edit]GLP
and the USFDA
The United States FDA has rules for GLP in 21CFR58. Preclinical trials on animals in the United States of America use these rules prior to clinical research in humans. Research in the US not conducted under these restrictions or research done outside US not conducted according to the OECD Guidelines (or FDA rules) might be inadmissible in support of a New Drug Application in the US.
[edit]GLP
and the European Union
Since 1987 the European Council had adopted two basic Directives and a Decision relating to the application of the GLP principles. Directive 2004/10/EC has replaced Directive 87/017/EEC as of 11 March 2004; Directive 2004/9/EC has replaced Directive 88/320/EEC as of 11 March 2004.
" Directive 2004/10/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on the harmonisation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of the
principles of good laboratory practice and the verification of their applications for tests on chemical substances." This directive lays down the obligation of the Member States to designate the authorities responsible for GLP inspections in their territory. It also comprises requirements for reporting and for the internal market (i.e., mutual acceptance of data).
" Directive 2004/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on the inspection and verification of good laboratory practice (GLP)".
The Directive requires that the OECD Revised Guides for Compliance Monitoring Procedures for GLP and the OECD Guidance for the Conduct of Test Facility Inspections and Study Audits must be followed during laboratory inspections and study audits.
89/569/EEC Council Decision of 28 July 1989 on the acceptance by the European Economic Community of an OECD decision / recommendation on compliance with principles of good laboratory practice.
There are also 'Product Oriented Directives' referring to GLP obligations:
REACH Regulation) of 18 December 2006 and Directive 2006/121/EC of 18 December 2006 Medicinal products; Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use of 6 November 2001 as amended by Commission Directive 2003/63/EC
Veterinary Medicinal Products; Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products
Cosmetics; Council Directive 93/35/EEC amending for the 6th time directive 76/768/EEC Feedingstuffs; Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition
Foodstuffs; Directive 89/107/EEC Novel Foods and novel food ingredients; Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients
Pesticides; Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market
Biocides; Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market
Detergents; Directive 98/8/EC Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on detergents
EC Ecolabel; Commission Decision 2005/344/EC of 23 March 2005; establishing ecological criteria for the award of the Community eco-label to all-purpose cleaners and cleaners for sanitary facilities
In the meantime the EU has concluded Mutual Acceptance Agreements in the area of GLP with Israel, Japan and Switzerland. By means of the Treaty of the European Economic Area of 13 September 1993, the European Regulations and Directives also apply to Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.
[edit]GLP
and non-OECD member-countries
An inspection in non-member economies by OECD inspectors will not guarantee that data generated in compliance with GLP will be accepted in other member countries than the one to which they are submitting data and which has thus sent inspectors to verify the accuracy of their compliance statement.
[edit]Criticism
of GLP
GLP studies require adequate and permanent documentation of everything involved in an experimental test: staff qualifications, valid study design, standard operating procedures (SOPs), training, performance, formulation and statistical analyses, and the retention of summary/individual data; so that there can be confidence in the study's design, performance and its results, and anyone (as public agencies have access to the GLP records) can subsequently fully reconstruct the study. GLP is by most regulatory authorities worldwide adopted as the lowest common standard for quality assurance. ISO 17025, GMP or GCP criteria are alternatives in some cases. OECD Guideline test methods are recommended by regulatories as studyplan to follow for toxicology studies. These methods are all very standardized/extensively peer reviewed, and are adopted worldwide. Independent of the test guidelines, GLP is recommended by the authorities to assure the correct execution of those study plans. The correct execution of a GLP study is verified by an independent GLP monitoring authority on a regular basis (2-3 yearly). This verification means an in situ inspection of the whole test facility and his connected test sites worldwide. Audits of the studies registered with unrestricted access to all raw data produced during the whole study are a part of the inspection. In this sence it means a much deeper peer review of the study than done for a academic publication. By contrast, academic scientists perform a wider range of basic/exploratory experimental research to: identify unknown potential hazards of chemicals, elucidate the mode/mechanism of action for known toxicants, and explore novel toxic endpoints. Accordingly, their experimental methods vary greatly in the delivery route of the test chemical, the number of test animals and the range of doses.[4] These test methods are far more varied than the GLP test protocol is; and (at least before peer review) academics do not like to share their results or methods with laboratories competing for grant money or to give insight in raw data produced. These factors make it hard for regulatory agencies to use the results of academic researchers in chemical risk assessment.
The problem is, the regulatory agencies universal requirement that toxicity studies be performed according to OECD/GLP protocols automatically excludes the toxicity results of the independent researchers. The latter's methods, though variable, do test more realistic doses than the OECD protocols use. Thus if they find toxicity at lower doses, that important risk is not included in the risk assessment, due to the GLP requirement. Tens of thousands of published findings of toxicity from chronic toxicity have been excluded from risk assessment, a large fraction of which find toxicity at lower dose than OECD tests. Not all these independent results are high quality, but many are; and critically, they are financially disinterested. Reviews of toxicity studies have confirmed that this false negative error (a finding of no risk when there is) is common: dozens of reviews have confirmed it for Guideline tests of pharmaceuticals; while for chemicals at least four reviews have found it.[5] In one of those, the toxicity studies funded by the manufacturers of a high volume & well-studied chemical never found low-dose toxicity, but over 90% of its many government-funded studies did.[6] The specific factors that lead to such false negative error by OECD/GLP studies have been analyzed.[7]
[edit]Klimisch
score
The Klimisch score system tries to rank the reliability of toxicity studies for use by risk assessors (regulatory agencies). It was published in 1997, by BASF (a chemical company) authors. [8] Studies performed according to GLP are assigned the top rank of 1 (reliable without restriction) and are preferred by agencies. When no GLP study is available for a particular endpoint, a study with a rank of 2 is usually accepted by an agency. Lower ranks typically require a new study to be performed. Klimisch scoring is very widely used in chemical risk assessments. Critics say it is a self-interested bias on objectivity, that a quality system from the regulated party gives their own GLP-complying studies the top rank.
[edit]GLP
and Automated Systems
In many instances, the optimal recommended 'no-argument' means of implementing GLP is to develop an automated approach to both Sample Preparation and Sample Measurement. If this can include an overarching 'chain of custody' sample history and data flow, combined with adequate SOP's for calibration & linearization of measuring tools, GLP compliance is virtually assured. Implementing GLP on an automated system, as an intellectual and labour-intensive task, requires a GxP company to make a great amount of effort. To ease the burden of this management, Webster et al. have provided a tutorial for users to quickly embark on and do the job properly.[9] Certain Manufacturers & Vendors of Laboratory Instrumentation and/or Laboratory Automation are wellversed in assisting with the application of GLP (and 21CFR11) to their commercial offerings.
>>>>>
Quality audit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2007)
Software Testing portal
Quality audit is the process of systematic examination of a quality system carried out by an internal or external quality auditor or an audit team. It is an important part of organization's quality management system and is a key element in the ISO quality system standard, ISO 9001.
Quality audits are typically performed at predefined time intervals and ensure that the institution has clearly defined internal system monitoring procedures linked to effective action. This can help determine if the organization complies with the defined quality system processes and can involve procedural or results-based assessment criteria.
With the upgrade of the ISO9000 series of standards from the 1994 to 2008 series, the focus of the audits has shifted from purely procedural adherence towards measurement of the actual effectiveness of the Quality Management System (QMS) and the results that have been achieved through the implementation of a QMS.
Audits are an essential management tool to be used for verifying objective evidence of processes, to assess how successfully processes have been implemented, for judging the effectiveness of achieving any defined target levels, to provide evidence concerning reduction and elimination of problem areas. For the benefit of the organisation, quality auditing should not only report non-conformances and corrective actions, but also highlight areas of good practice. In this way other departments may share information and amend their working practices as a result, also contributing to continual improvement.
Quality audits can be an integral part of compliance or regulatory requirements. One example is the US Food and Drug Administration, which requires quality auditing to be performed as part of its Quality System Regulation (QSR) for medical devices (Title 21 of the US Code of Federal Regulations part 820[1]).
Several countries have adopted quality audits in their higher education system (New Zealand, Australia, Sweden, Finland, Norway and USA) [2] Initiated in the UK, the process of quality audit in the education system
focused primarily on procedural issues rather than on the results or the efficiency of a quality system implementation.
Audits can also be used for safety purposes. Evans & Parker (2008) describe auditing as one of the most powerful safety monitoring techniques and 'an effective way to avoid complacency and highlight slowly deteriorating conditions', especially when the auditing focuses not just on compliance but effectiveness. [3]
The processes and tasks that a quality audit involves can be managed using a wide variety of software and self-assessment tools. Some of these relate specifically to quality in terms of fitness for purpose and conformance to standards, while others relate to Quality costs or, more accurately, to the Cost of poor quality. In analyzing quality costs, a cost of quality audit can be applied across any organization rather than just to conventional production or assembly processes[4]
>>>>
QUALITY CONTROL AUDIT
1. OBJECTIVES Allow the processor to have an independent evaluation of the operations performed by the quality department of a processing company. 2. SCOPE Depends of the customers needs. 3. RESPONSIBILITY Responsibility for following the correct procedures belongs to the quality auditor. 4. PROCEDURE During audit process, the auditor will inspect quality control activities independently, observing the performed controls in each one of the procedures steps, confirming that the quality staff will accomplish their task in order to meet customers specifications. Quality control audit of a company consists in verifying the following described main items: Operational functioning verification of a companys quality control department; Observation of regular activities;
Generated historical records overhaul; Found observations report; Verification of the existence of proper facilities for quality control activities (laboratory); Endowments confirmation of proper material in laboratory; Confirmation of bibliography and instructions required to perform quality control operations; Confirmation of proper quality control room conditions; Confirmation of the analysis performed in laboratory; Presence of competent staff to perform quality control operations; Interview with operational quality staff; Determination of the applied quality criteria; Verification of technical knowledge; Evaluation through quality control departments; Presence of proper material (equipment, etc.) in order to perform quality control operations; Inspection of the used equipment and material; Confirmation of the applied maintenance programs; Verification of maintenance records from measure and test equipment; Verification of manuals, procedures and records existence which can demonstrate proper following of quality control operations; Overhaul of manuals, procedures and designed formats; Confirmation that the mentioned above are able to meet their purpose; Confirmation that the mentioned above have the required information; Verification of the performed controls fitness (frequency, execution, control points, creation of records by measure); Verification in person of the procedures followings; Verification of the performed controls with stipulated frequency and according requirements; Inspection of the in process generated records during investigation process; Observation of the process activities. Following of the activities in: Inspections of facilities; Inspection of equipment and material; Inspection of raw material and supplies; Reception; Classification and preparation; Process; Treatment and conservation; Packing and label; Distribution; Verification of the final product and confirmation of results with quality records; Analysis of the finished product in current and previous dates of the process; Confirmation of the results according buyer/customers specifications; Overhaul of complaints records; Applied study of complaints system control; Analysis of the taken actions in case of complaints presentations; Other items; Other points in which the customer requires an independent evaluation related with the quality
control activities. 5. RECORDS After the investigation process it will be given a full report with all the founds generated during audit and, in case solicited by the customer, with applicable recommendations.
>>>> Five Preliminary Steps And Seven Principles of HACCP
TABLE 1
Step Description Preliminary step one Assemble the HACCP team. Preliminary step two Describe the product. Preliminary step three Identify intended use of the product. Preliminary step four Construct a flow diagram. Preliminary step five Conduct an on-site verification of the flow diagram. Principle one Conduct a hazard analysis. Principle two Determine critical control points (CCPs). Principle three Establish critical limits for CCPs. Principle four Establish a monitoring system for CCPs. Principle five Establish corrective actions. Principle six Establish verification procedures. Principle seven Establish documentation and recordkeeping.
