Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Specialty Care Business Unit, Pfizer, Inc., Groton, Connecticut, USA.
AAPS PharmSciTech. 2014 Feb;15(1):140-8. doi: 10.1208/s12249-013-0043-1. Epub 2013 Nov 12.
In 2012, the Quality-by-Design and Product Performance Focus Group of AAPS conducted a survey to assess the state of adoption and perception of Quality-by-Design (QbD). Responses from 149 anonymous individuals from industry-including consultants-(88%), academia (7%), and regulatory body (4%), were collected. A majority of respondents (54% to 76%) reported high frequency of utilization of several tools and most QbD elements outlined by International Conference on Harmonization Q8, with design of experiments, risk assessment, and the quality target product profile ranked as the top three. Over two thirds of respondents agreed that the benefits of QbD included both the positive impact it can have on the patient (78%), as well as on internal processes such as knowledge management (85%), decision making (79%), and lean manufacture (71%). However, more than 50% from industry were neutral about or disagreed with QbD leading to a better return on investment. This suggests that, despite the recognized scientific, manufacture, and patient-related benefits, there is not yet a clearly articulated business case for QbD available. There was a difference of opinion between industry and regulatory agency respondents as to whether a QbD-based submission resulted in increased efficiency of review. These contrasting views reinforce the idea that QbD implementation can benefit from further dialog between industry and regulatory authorities. A majority of respondents from academia indicated that QbD has influenced their research. In total, the results indicate the broad adoption of QbD but also suggest we are yet in a journey and that the process of gathering all experience and metrics required for connecting and demonstrating QbD benefits to all stakeholders is still in progress.
2012 年,AAPS 的质量源于设计和产品性能焦点小组进行了一项调查,以评估质量源于设计(QbD)的采用情况和认知。共收集了来自行业(包括顾问,88%)、学术界(7%)和监管机构(4%)的 149 名匿名人员的回复。大多数受访者(54%至 76%)报告说,他们经常使用几种工具和大多数国际协调会议(ICH)Q8 概述的 QbD 要素,其中实验设计、风险评估和质量目标产品概况被列为前三名。超过三分之二的受访者同意 QbD 的好处包括它对患者(78%)的积极影响,以及对内部流程(85%),如知识管理、决策(79%)和精益制造(71%)的积极影响。然而,超过 50%的行业受访者对 QbD 能否带来更好的投资回报持中立或不同意的态度。这表明,尽管人们认识到 QbD 在科学、制造和患者方面的好处,但目前还没有一个明确的商业案例来证明 QbD 的价值。行业和监管机构的受访者对基于 QbD 的提交是否会提高审查效率存在不同意见。这些相互矛盾的观点强化了这样一种观点,即 QbD 的实施可以受益于行业和监管机构之间进一步的对话。大多数学术界的受访者表示,QbD 影响了他们的研究。总的来说,调查结果表明 QbD 得到了广泛的采用,但也表明我们仍处于旅程之中,收集所有经验和指标以将 QbD 利益与所有利益相关者联系起来并加以证明的过程仍在进行中。