FDA Workshop On AI In Drug Development: The Key Takeaways

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...

Identifying Sex Specific Outcomes Through Real-World Data Analysis

The pharmaceutical sector is increasingly turning to large-scale datasets...
- Advertisement -

A full-day training called Artificial Intelligence in Drug and Biological Product Development was held on August 6, 2024, by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI). There were four panels at the workshop, and people from the FDA, academia, lobbying groups, and the business world spoke. The panelists talked about different issues related to using AI for drug development, but almost all of them wanted the government to be more involved in making rules about these kinds of uses of AI clearer. They also wanted the government to provide more resources for the good development of AI, especially through public-private partnership opportunities. Panelists also stressed how important it is for the public to learn more about how AI can be used to create new drugs. This would help build trust in AI and lead to more innovation in the future.

Morgan Hanger, Executive Director at CTTI, gave the opening comments. He set the tone for the class by talking about how AI has changed every part of drug research in the last few years. She said that AI could be used in many ways during the development process, but the meeting would be mostly about clinical development and look at how AI could be used to improve study designs and other parts of the drug development process.

After the welcome comments, the main talk was given by Patrizia Cavazzoni, M.D., who is the Director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Her speech again focused on the many ways AI is used in the drug creation process. She said that the FDA has gotten more than 300 applications for drug clearance that use AI. It put out a report in March 2024 called Artificial Intelligence and Medical Products that explained how the government planned to promote the safe and effective use of AI. But Dr. Cavazzoni said that the industry hasn’t had the clarity it needs around AI. He said that the FDA is writing risk-based guidance on the use of AI for drug development to give the industry more predictability and certainty, with the hope that more clarity will lead to more innovation.

Session 1: Using Expertise from Various Fields to Improve Model Design

The first group of the meeting talked about how important it is to have experts from different fields when making AI models that are used in drug research. The speakers stressed how important it is to get experts from different fields to work together on AI models and find out all of AI’s possible uses in drug creation. One of the speakers said that AI can be used to encourage teamwork between different fields because it can explain and show scientific ideas in different ways to a wide range of people, filling in gaps in knowledge and leading to better understanding.

The speakers also talked about ways to improve AI tools used in drug research. The judges all agreed that it is important to show off AI use case wins in this area, no matter how small, to show off the technology’s promise for drug development, teach stakeholders about different use cases, and build trust around AI. All of the panelists also stressed that everyone involved—developers, users, and people in general—should support the use and integration of AI instead of being against it because of unknown risks. This is because wider use and development will lead to more useful applications of AI and trust in it across the population.

Session 2: Making the data we need from the data we already have

The next group talked about the different kinds of data used in drug development and how AI can help drug makers with common problems they have with data. The speakers stressed the importance of having research-ready data sets. Many of them said that they don’t think most researchers and coders have enough data sets right now because data isn’t always available for a wide range of people and situations. The judges did, however, point out that public-private precompetitive partnerships could be a good way to make data that researchers and developers who want to use AI in drug creation can easily access.

The speakers also talked about the problem of bias in AI data and models. The speakers agreed that AI models may reinforce biases that are already present in data, especially when it comes to health care data. They also talked about the need for uniform controls to keep an eye on and evaluate bias throughout the entire lifecycle of AI models used for drug development. They also said they hoped AI could be used to find biases in data sets more quickly and accurately and to make results that get rid of some biases.

In the end, everyone in the group agreed that the data we have now are not enough to support the wide and safe use of AI in the drug creation process. They also agreed that data needs to be more open and easy to access. The panelists also asked the FDA to make guidelines on data transparency to help guide industry efforts. They also suggested that the federal government look into more ways to develop products (like conditional approval) to speed up the collection of real-world performance data. They also suggested that the government look into funding or partnership programs that aim to increase data availability and transparency, as well as improving AI model development and safety.

Session 3: Performance, Explainability, and Transparency of the Model

In the third part of the training, there was a group of people who have used AI in the process of developing drugs. One thing that these speakers talked about was how explainable and interpretable AI models are. This means that they asked if people can figure out how AI models, which are often seen as “black boxes,” make decisions and why they make those decisions. The speakers said that making AI models easier to understand and explain is very important for the future of using AI to create new drugs. Regulators need to know how AI models work in order to control them and trust the results that AI-driven drug research can bring. On the other hand, the industry needs to know how AI models work in order to trust them and put money into them.

The group also talked about what officials could do to encourage the development of drugs using AI models. The people on the panel thought that the FDA could bring attention to certain uses of AI as a way to boost trust in AI and the trustworthiness of drug makers who use AI in their work. As in previous sessions, the people who attended this one suggested that the FDA make rules more clear about how AI can be used in drug development. They also suggested that the FDA think about creating a clear regulatory framework for AI use in drug development to deal with certain unknowns and uncertainties that might stop people from investing and coming up with new ideas in this area. Lastly, one of the panelists asked the FDA to make it easier for companies working on drug research to use AI in their work by offering grants, prizes, and other forms of funding.

Sessions 4 and 5: Finding Gaps, Dealing with Problems, and Planning the Way Forward

In the last session, the panelists talked about many of the same themes and ideas that the earlier speakers had talked about. They called for officials to be clearer and give more rules. They also called for the government to work with AI developers and offer incentives to them. But this group went even further and said that global officials should focus on making sure that words, best practices, and standards related to AI are aligned and harmonized. They also pointed out a number of problems that make it harder for AI to be widely used in medicine research, such as

  • Keep up with new AI laws and rules in the US and around the world.
  • To build and manage AI-based systems, cross-functional teams are being put together.
  • The fact that there aren’t any broad rules or instructions for making, testing, and using AI-based systems.
  • The lack of data on what worked and what didn’t in order to guide AI research and build trust.

The FDA hosts asked the speakers to talk about their ideas for public-private partnerships to help AI development, which was an issue that came up a lot. One speaker said that the current state of AI is like the beginning and growth of the Internet. They suggested that the federal government should spend a lot of money to set rules and guidelines for the creation, use, and access to AI systems and data. Other speakers on the group stressed the importance of global stakeholders and regulators working together to come to an agreement on AI terms and standards, such as data standards, so that they are consistent and easy for people all over the world to access. An overwhelming majority of people agreed that a lot more people and government agencies need to get involved and work together to solve current problems and plan the way forward for using AI in drug research.

Finally, Jacqueline Corrigan-Curay, the Principal Deputy Center Director of CDER, spoke at the end of the workshop. She agreed with many of the things that Director Cavazzoni said in the opening speech about the possibilities of AI.

The public meeting showed that the FDA and the judges are all dedicated to using AI to its fullest potential to improve drug research and safety, as well as to make things better for patients. A strong theme that kept coming up, though, was that the FDA and the federal government need to do something to help set a stable legal framework and development path for the use of AI in the drug development process. This could mean providing resources, partnerships, clear guidance, or standards that can be put into action.

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...

Identifying Sex Specific Outcomes Through Real-World Data Analysis

The pharmaceutical sector is increasingly turning to large-scale datasets...

Strengthening Clinical Evidence Through Female Cohort Representation

The pharmaceutical industry is undergoing a fundamental shift in...

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 »