Close

How ‘First-Time Right’ Formulations Can Help Address the Challenge of Affordable Medicines

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 -

For years, global healthcare systems have been facing the triple threat of rising incidences of long-term conditions (LTC), aging populations and dwindling resources. At the same time, we have seen worldwide calls for affordable medicines – from the Jan Aushadi initiative in India1 to the EU pharmaceutical strategy2.

Now, the global cost of living crisis threatens to further exacerbate the health inequalities exposed during COVID-19. The UN Development Programme has warned current global economic factors are forcing 71 million people in the world’s poorest countries into extreme poverty3.

So how can we develop and distribute safe, innovative medicines faster and cheaper than ever before while still operating within a sustainable business model? The answer lies in making ‘first-time right’ decisions – working with the right people, using the right tools and the right knowledge – to drive efficiency, lower costs and make medicines more affordable for everyone that needs them.

Choosing the right tools for the job

For decades, pharmaceutical manufacturing remained largely unchanged. This stagnation came with a costly price tag. An estimated £50bn4 a year is lost to ineffective manufacturing procedures.

However, new techniques with the capacity to streamline processes are emerging.

For example, continuous manufacturing (CM) can reduce production time from months to days and cut costs by 40-50% compared to batch processing5. Other key benefits include the ability to more effectively scale production, higher yields and a reduced industrial footprint.

Another innovation which could accelerate drug development pathways is 3D printing.

Traditional tablet-production facilities have become increasingly inefficient as we move from the blockbuster era to personalised medicine. 3D printing of tablets is not only more suitable for the production of personalised tablets, it is also a more cost-effective way to fabricate clinical trial or rare disease product volumes.

Both CM and 3D printing can drive efficiency, resulting in more affordable medicines. However, to reap those benefits they must be embedded into routine workflows.

To do that, we must collaborate globally, sharing knowledge and successful practices.

At DFE Pharma, we have built an evidence base on optimum performance of excipients in these innovative, efficiency-driven techniques. This has been made possible by working in collaboration with partners worldwide.

Using and sharing the right knowledge

‘First-time right’ formulations are crucial for the production of affordable medicines. They accelerate routes to market by lowering the number of development cycles. The resulting reduced formulation and overall costs can then be passed on as savings to patients and healthcare systems.

For those developers entrenched in the first-to-market race, ‘first-time right’ formulations allow investigational products to be quickly and safely scaled up.

To help developers leverage formulations expertise, DFE Pharma recently launched its Closer to the Formulator (C2F), Center of Excellence in India’s Genome Valley.

C2F aims to help pharmaceutical companies shorten the time from concept to finished commercial product through expertise in all phases of pharmaceutical development. It offers interactive advice on excipient selection, formulation and process optimization, as well as extensive regulatory support and documentation.

For example, CM success depends on eradicating variability. Through prior evaluation of the behaviour of products and sharing insights into how the varying intrinsic properties of different grades of lactose have differing effects on performance, we can make a significant impact on the overall formulation success and commercial bottom line6.

Different excipient grades also affect the powder parameters central to the 3D printing process. A thorough understanding of how to use excipients in a 3D setting can help avoid costly trial-and-error practices at the formulation stage7.

Our researchers tested 20 lactose-based excipient grades and explored their effects on criteria including hardness, friability and disintegration. This allowed them to match differing grades of lactose to desired tablet characteristics, aiding cost-effective and efficient decisions for the sector as a whole8.

‘First-time right’ formulations allow companies to significantly reduce the number of formulation iterations and lower costs. This shortens the time from concept to commercial product and allows more product launches. These time and efficiency savings then lead to more affordable medicines for patients.

‘First-time right’

The current economic crisis is not the first medicines affordability challenge to face the pharmaceutical industry and it will not be the last. To meet the current challenge, we must embrace the opportunities on offer quickly and effectively. This relies on us using, and sharing, the right tools and the right knowledge at the right time.

By embracing the potential of new technologies and sharing expertise, the industry as a whole can begin to meet international calls to reduce development costs while still increasing productivity and maintaining quality. ‘First-time right’ formulations allow us to make the most of emerging processes, increase productivity and, crucially, ensure a sustainable source of affordable medicines.

References

1 http://janaushadhi.gov.in/
2 https://ec.europa.eu/health/medicinal-products/pharmaceutical-strategy-europe_en
3 https://www.reuters.com/world/cost-of-living-crisis-driving-breathtaking-surge-extreme-poverty-undp-2022-
07-07/
4 https://source.wustl.edu/2006/10/pharmaceutical-industry-wastes-50-billion-a-year-due-to-inefficient-
manufacturing/
5 https://xtalks.com/Continuous-And-Batch-Manufacturing-Pharmaceuticals/
6 van Haandel M., (DFE Pharma), Understanding and Accounting for Excipient Variability in Continuous Tablet
Manufacturing (CM). Available at: https://dfepharma.com/media/aixhqdb4/dfe_cm-1.pdf
7 Heuvel-Jansen K., Wiebinga C. J. (DFE Pharma). Bringing a whole new dimension to lactose. Available at
https://dfepharma.com/-/media/Project/DFE/Corporate/Bringing-a-whole-new-dimension-to-lactose.pdf
8 Heuvel-Jansen K., Wiebinga C. J. (DFE Pharma). Bringing a whole new dimension to lactose. Available at
https://dfepharma.com/-/media/Project/DFE/Corporate/Bringing-a-whole-new-dimension-to-lactose.pdf

Author: Ulrich Deutschmann

Author Img

Chief Commercial Officer at DFE Pharma

 

 

DFE Pharma

 

Author
Author Image


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 »