Close

Amicus Therapeutics Receives Marketing Authorization for Galafold for Fabry Disease in Argentina

Note* - All images used are for editorial and illustrative purposes only and may not originate from the original news provider or associated company.

Related stories

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...

State of API & Peptide CDMO Capacity

Pharmaceutical companies planning peptide or complex small-molecule launches are...

What Goes Into Synthetic Urine? The Chemistry Behind Replicating a Biological Fluid

Synthetic urine sounds simple until you look closely at...
- Advertisement -

Amicus Therapeutics announced that the Agency of Medicines, Food and Medical Devices (ANMAT) in Argentina has granted approval for the first-in-class, oral small molecule pharmacological chaperone Galafold® (migalastat), as a monotherapy for the treatment of people aged 16 years and older with a confirmed diagnosis of Fabry disease (alpha-galactosidase A deficiency) and who have an amenable mutation. Galafold® is the first and only oral precision medicine for Fabry disease approved in Argentina.

Amicus is working with a local partner, Pint Pharma, to complete the requirements to launch Galafold® in the coming months. Argentina represents the first approval for Galafold® in Latin America. Additional submissions for marketing authorizations are under review or planned in this important region.

“The approval of Galafold® in Argentina marks a significant step for our oral precision medicine for Fabry disease in Latin America,” stated John F. Crowley, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Amicus Therapeutics. “With more than 400 people known to be living with Fabry disease in Argentina, we look forward to collaborating with Pint Pharma, to bring our patient-dedicated approach to the country. As many thousands more are estimated to be living with Fabry in Latin America as a whole, Amicus and our partners are committed to supporting people affected by the disease throughout the region, and we believe a significant portion may have amenable mutations that could benefit from treatment with Galafold®.”

David Munoz, Chief Executive Officer of Pint Pharma, stated, “The approval of Galafold® represents a major milestone for patients living with Fabry disease in Argentina and the region. We are honored to partner with Amicus and are committed to bringing a patient focused vision by supporting early and efficient access to innovative treatments.”

The Argentinian label for Galafold® includes over 350 GLA mutations that have been identified and determined to be amenable based on the Galafold Amenability Assay. It is estimated that between 35% and 50% of people diagnosed with Fabry disease may have an amenable GLA mutation.

Hernan Amartino, MD, Head of the Child Neurology Department at Hospital Universitario Austral, Buenos Aires, Argentina and Investigator in a migalastat clinical study, stated, “The approval and pending availability of Galafold® is great news for many Fabry patients in Argentina. Galafold® is the only approved oral therapy for Fabry disease with a mechanism of action designed to enable alpha-GAL A enzyme activity for patients with an amenable mutation. Galafold® has demonstrated meaningful results in previously untreated and treatment-experienced Fabry patients who have amenable mutations, and at one capsule every other day, at the same time of day, it is exciting for these patients to have a new choice of treatment.”

Florencia Braga Menendez, Director of Patient Affairs of Fundación Investigar, an organization committed to access to healthcare in Argentina, added, “We welcome the approval of Galafold® as the first oral precision medicine and first new treatment option in more than a decade, for people living with Fabry disease who have an amenable mutation in Argentina. We are grateful to those who invest in researching and bringing hope to families that await treatment for so many rare diseases. Even the promise of a new treatment is powerful – it makes us feel less invisible. Today is a big day for Fabry patients and for the advancement of precision medicine in Argentina.”

In addition to Argentina, Galafold® is approved in Australia, Canada, the European Union, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Switzerland and the U.S.

About Galafold® and Amenable Mutations
Fabry disease is a rare genetic disease and potentially life-threatening condition caused by the accumulation of disease substrate (globotriaosylceramide, GL-3) in the lysosome due to a dysfunctional or deficient enzyme. In patients with an amenable mutation, Galafold® (migalastat) works by stabilizing the body’s own dysfunctional enzyme, so it can enter the lysosome. Once inside the lysosome, Galafold® detaches from the enzyme, allowing it to break down substrate. An amenable mutation is one that results in an enzyme that can be stabilized by Galafold®. Amenability is determined based on a proprietary in vitro assay (Galafold Amenability Assay).

Healthcare providers in Argentina may access the website www.galafoldamenabilitytable.com/ar to identify which mutations are categorized as “amenable” or “not amenable” to Galafold®. Amicus, through its partner Pint Pharma, expects to submit additional updates to the website as additional GLA mutations are identified and tested in the Galafold Amenability Assay.

Important Argentine Safety Information
Treatment with Galafold® should be initiated and supervised by specialists experienced in the diagnosis and treatment of Fabry disease. Galafold® is not indicated for use in patients with a non-amenable mutation.

  • The efficacy and the safety of concomitant use with enzyme replacement therapy has not been established. Galafold® is not recommended for use in patients with Fabry disease who have severe renal impairment. The safety and efficacy of Galafold® in low birth weight infants, neonates, nursing infants, infants and children have not yet been established.
  • Migalastat exposure is affected by food, therefore it should not be taken within 2 hours before and after food.
  • Patients should be observed carefully, and caution should be taken in the administration in the elderly population.
  • If you are pregnant, think you may be pregnant, or are planning to have a baby, do not take this medicine until you have checked with your doctor, pharmacist, or nurse, and consider the treatment only in case that the benefit from migalastat is judged to exceed the risk during pregnancy. Nursing mothers should be instructed not to breast-feed if they are taking migalastat or to discontinue migalastat if they do breast-feed
  • Contraindications to Galafold® include hypersensitivity to the active substance or to any of the excipients listed in the PRESCRIBING INFORMATION.
  • Patients should be monitored based on their course including renal and cardiac function and clinical laboratory test during migalastat treatment. In case no effect is observed in the migalastat treatment, changing treatment should be considered.
  • OVERDOSE: Headache and dizziness were the most common adverse reactions reported at doses of migalastat of up to 1250 mg and 2000 mg, respectively, administrated in healthy subjects in the overseas clinical studies.
  • The most common adverse reaction reported was headache, which was experienced by approximately 10% of patients who received Galafold®. For a complete list of adverse reactions, please review the Argentinian Galafold® package insert.
  • Call your doctor for medical advice about side effects.

For further important safety information for Galafold®, including dosage and administration, precautions, drug interactions and adverse drug reactions, please see the Argentina package insert for Galafold®.

About Fabry Disease
Fabry disease is an inherited lysosomal disorder caused by deficiency of an enzyme called alpha-galactosidase A (alpha-Gal A), which results from mutations in the GLA gene. The primary biological function of alpha-Gal A is to degrade specific lipids in lysosomes, including globotriaosylceramide (referred to here as GL-3 and also known as Gb3). Lipids that can be degraded by the action of alpha-Gal A are called “substrates” of the enzyme. Reduced or absent levels of alpha-Gal A activity lead to the accumulation of GL-3 in the affected tissues, including heart, kidneys, and skin. Accumulation of GL-3 and progressive deterioration of organ function is believed to lead to the morbidity and mortality of Fabry disease. The symptoms can be severe, differ from person to person, and begin at an early age.

About Amicus Therapeutics
Amicus Therapeutics  is a global, patient-dedicated biotechnology company focused on discovering, developing and delivering novel high-quality medicines for people living with rare metabolic diseases. With extraordinary patient focus, Amicus Therapeutics is committed to advancing and expanding a robust pipeline of cutting-edge, first- or best-in-class medicines for rare metabolic diseases. For more information please visit the company’s website at www.amicusrx.com, and follow on Twitter and LinkedIn.

About Pint Pharma
Pint Pharma International SA is a company registered under Swiss laws, having its registered office at Route de Chenaux 9, 1091 Bourg-en-Levaux, Switzerland, and is devoted to the development, registration, and commercialization of specialty based treatments. Pint Pharma benefits from leaders with extensive experience in the pharmaceutical sector and who are based strategically throughout Latin America and Europe. Pint Pharma has a long track record of developing strong relationships with global pharmaceutical and healthcare companies. Pint Pharma strives to be the first Pan-Latin American provider of innovative and high value-added treatments within Rare Diseases, Specialty Care, and Oncology.

Never miss a pharmaceutical headline

The pharmaceutical industry moves fast – stay on top of it with our must - read briefings.

  • The top pharma and life sciences stories, straight to your inbox
  • The biggest news, features, interviews, and analysis
  • Dedicated coverage of the key developments driving the global pharmaceutical sector

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access the Media Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Latest stories

Related stories

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...

State of API & Peptide CDMO Capacity

Pharmaceutical companies planning peptide or complex small-molecule launches are...

What Goes Into Synthetic Urine? The Chemistry Behind Replicating a Biological Fluid

Synthetic urine sounds simple until you look closely at...

Danaher Prepares to Introduce Advanced AI-Powered Laboratory

In a significant step for pharmaceutical research, Danaher has...

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access theMedia Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Translate »