Close

Affordable Medicines Call For The Supply Chain Resilience

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 -

The Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), which happens to be India’s central regulatory body for pharmaceuticals, on April 30, 2024, went on to withdraw the power held by the state governments to issue NOCs for manufacturing banned, unapproved, or even new drugs when it comes to export purposes.

This step comes after the Indian pharma companies started coming under intense scrutiny for exporting adulterated drugs, especially the cough syrups that were sold in Gambia and Uzbekistan, which resulted in the deaths of several children.

There were also scenarios wherein pharma manufacturers went on to recall their products because of manufacturing defects. Although the Indian pharmaceutical sector has gone on to face a lot of backlashes in the last couple of years, the country has continued to consolidate its position as the pharmacy of the world.

If we have a look at the figures, India went on to export drugs as well as pharmaceuticals, costing $28 billion in FY2023–24, which was an increase of 10% from the previous FY, as per the Commerce & Industry ministry.

Indian pharmaceutical exports went on to expand their worldwide footprint across countries such as Comoros, South Sudan, Montenegro, Chad, Brunei, Latvia, Sweden, Haiti, Ethiopia, and Ireland. The top markets for Indian pharma exports happened to be the US, the UK, South Africa, the Netherlands, and Brazil.

The US, which comprised more than 31% of the country’s pharma exports in FY223-24, has been reporting very high levels in terms of drug shortages.

Although there are numerous factors that happen to be affecting shortages, one of the pivotal elements happens to be disturbances in the supply chain. As a matter of fact, in April 2024, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services went ahead and published a white paper pertaining to policy considerations so as to prevent drug shortages as well as mitigate supply chain vulnerabilities throughout the United States.

The white paper goes on to point out some prominent issues such as concentration among the middlemen, a dearth of transparency, and the prices when it comes to generic drugs that happen to be driven to levels that are so low that they go on to create insufficient incentives in terms of redundancy, purchasing, and distribution. As per the white paper, the time has indeed come to restore the balance and also build resilience as far as critical networks are concerned. And this is not just prudent but rather crucial, says MD of Zydus Lifesciences and VP of IPA, Sharvil Patel.

As a matter of fact, an April 30, 2024, evaluation from IIFL Securities went on to report that export-focused Indian generic companies are more likely to take advantage of the situation of drug shortages across the US. Their analysis goes on to suggest that among the Indian generic players, such as the likes of Aurobindo, Sun Pharma, and Gland Pharma, all happen to have the highest exposure to products that are under shortage in the US. But the fact is that the supply chain that goes on to support the exports of Indian pharmaceuticals happens to be met with many disruptions, like long transit times because of geopolitical issues across the Red Sea as well as high airfreight rates because of high demand.

As per one of the senior pharmaceutical officials, both the US and European routes are affected pretty badly. It is well to be noted that the sea freight transit time when it comes to Europe has gone up from 24 to 45 days, which is double. As far as the rates are concerned, they have also gone up in addition to the increase in nautical miles.

Hence, it has indeed become unviable to send products by sea.
In order to keep the inventory intact across their target markets and also ensure that there happens to be no shortage, air freight is indeed the only option left. But the fact of the matter is that even airfreight rates have seen an upsurge, forcing the pharma companies to take a bad hit on their margins, which, by the way, are already shrinking as far as the generic pharma sector is concerned.

The official went on to point out that this crisis has also changed the percentage of pharmaceuticals sent by each mode of transport. If one takes the split out, on the European lane, they used to send 40% through air and 60% via sea, but now all this has changed quite drastically as air comprises 85% of the shipping modes.

One of the founders of a consulting firm says that so as to deal with the supply chain crisis, there are several strategies that are taken up by the pharmaceutical shippers; however, all do accept the fact that it has disrupted the normal flow of the products. Shippers, according to him, who can afford really high airfreight rates are going ahead with that mode so as to meet the demands of the market, while there happen to be others who are dependent on sea and hence have to go through much longer transit times.

As a matter of fact, shippers are kind of trying to prioritize their shipments. Only those that are very urgent pharma shipments are sent as of now. Shippers are now anticipating that the sea and airfreight rates will slash, although there are none who are forecasting that the Red Sea crisis is going to be solved very soon.

The Indian pharmaceutical sector is also gearing up for a future where new types of pharma products and solutions happen to be emerging, which in turn also needs novel kinds of logistic offerings. According to the reports, India is indeed becoming a very bright destination in terms of clinical trials within the pharma sector, which is indeed going to need very exclusive and specialized logistics solutions.

As per Grand View Research, the Indian clinical trial market size happened to be valued at $2 billion in 2022 and is most likely to grow at a CAGR of 8% from 2023 until 2030.

Apparently, in February 2024, FedEx Express unveiled Mumbai’s FedEx Life Science Centre, which, as per the company, is setting a benchmark in the clinical trial supply chain not just in India but across the world.

At the time of the launch, the vice president of FedEx Express, marketing for the Middle East, India Subcontinent, and Africa- MEISA, Nitin Navneet Tatiwala, remarked that this is going to act as a one-stop shop in terms of clinical trial storage as well as the distribution requirements of healthcare customers across India. This new center is in addition to FedEx’s current Life Science Centers, which are based across the USA, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, and the Netherlands, thereby making it an international network of storage as well as distribution depots that go on to support their healthcare along with the pharmaceutical customers.

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 »