Close

Moving Pharma Forward – In pursuit of predictability

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 -

ITC Maratha – Mumbai, India – 13th September 2019 – In its pursuit of predictability, Envirotainer, the global market leader in secure cold chain solutions for air transport of pharmaceuticals organized Moving Pharma Forward at Mumbai on 13th September 2019.

As rightly said by Shubhamoy Saha, Strategic Account Manager, Envirotainer- Hyderabad, India, “We have created an event for Forwarders, Airlines and of the course the Pharma manufacturers in which the industry experts and international specialists from Envirotainer come together on a single platform and talk on topics that are related to the understanding of regulatory framework and SOP’s when it comes to providing cold chain solutions to clients.

And by the way, through this event, we are not publicizing our brand, but want our partners and associates to go back home with some learning and implement it when dealing with something as critical as supply chain.” He further goes on to add, “This is one of kind event which is focused on giving experience and driving knowledge and not a mere sales and promotional exercise.”

Held at the opulent ITC Maratha Hotel in Mumbai, a heavy downpour could not stop the guests from attending it. Being one of the most awaited events in the pharmaceutical industry, its significance can be gauged from the fact that the attendees were not only from Mumbai but also from Ahmedabad, Hyderabad as well as Bengaluru. As confirmed by Saha, Moving Pharma Forward has been taking place for the last 7 years and is conducted globally. “Currently, it is being organized in the APAC region. So after Mumbai, it will be held in Shanghai, Seoul and will culminate in Tokyo”, he said. In addition to the Pharma Manufacturers, Freight Forwarders and Airlines Personnel, Ground Handlers who would be physically handling the containers were also a part of it.

“India is the third-largest producer of pharmaceuticals in the world with high-value biosimilars and oncology drugs being manufactured here and exported globally. Being the global leader in Pharma cold chain which we are, it has opened gateways for us”, Saha added. On being asked where does one see the Indian market as compared to the Chinese market from the company’s perspective, Saha is of an opinion that China is more into API’s and India is slowly moving towards high-value biosimilars and biological products. Also, according to him in terms of the destination, India has better access to the US market which gives it leverage.

In the course of the event, Shubhamoy Saha also gave a brief on how Envirotainer could be the right product during the initial clinical trial phase, growth phase and the maturity phase in a drug’s lifecycle. Adrian Gomes, Saha’s Mumbai counterpart was quick to let us know that this year’s event was going to be special in more ways than one since they had arranged a guest tour to the Envirotainer station at the Mumbai airport. “The idea is to give our friends from Airlines, Pharma companies, and Forwarders the physical know-how of the station. Besides, they also get to have a look at our newest RAP e2 and RKN e1 containers” confirmed Gomes. Well now we know why this year’s ‘Moving Pharma Forward’ was conducted in the vicinity of the airport, don’t we?

Mattias Isaksson, Head of Marketing and Communications who was also present at the event had a virtual reality headset placed for guests coming in. One could see the enthusiasm with which he was making the attendees experience how it would feel inside of a container through AI.

Envirotainer comes with a strong belief of imparting education to its customers as well as associates and at this event things were no different as workshops were conducted by Iris Sioson, Cold Chain Solution Manager- APAC, Stephen Maietta, Head of Market Development and Edward NG, Senior Service Network Manager, APAC. Guests could get to know how Envirotainer was supporting the technical and overall functioning of the cold chain. As expected, there were quite many doubts that got clarified during the session.

As rightly put by Adrian, one could sense the excitement the guests had when they were taken to the Mumbai station to witness the e-technology Envirotainer containers. It is well to be noted that the RAP e2 container being the flagship product of the company happens to be the most advanced temperature-controlled air cargo containers and the station tour made everyone aware of how its robust construction is capable of handling extreme temperature variations. A superior insulation performance teamed with an established and proven electrical heating and cooling technology makes this container a standout vis-à-vis other available options. Apart from the RAP e2 container, one could also see the RKN e1 container which is a small size unit load device (ULD) with flexible set temperature to match shipment requirements. It is a one pallet size container that meets the requirements of the Pharma industry for smaller shipments. Envirotainer’s Mumbai station as it is called is huge, can store up to 200 containers and hence is well equipped to meet up with the demands of the customers.

Post the workshop and the station visit; it was now time for the industry experts to take over the dais. The first in the chain of the speakers was Sunil Kumar Menon, General Manager, USV who through his in-depth experience in supply chain evaluated the current scenario in Pharma cold chain and highlighted specific responsibilities of different stakeholders. By now it became quite clear to the audience that the event had much more to offer than what they had anticipated. The next speaker, an industry veteran, Alan Fernandez, Director Export and Import Sanofi India Ltd. presented on how can one ensure productivity and save cost through Mumbai gateway. Can Pharma fly business class from Mumbai airport was the starting point of his session which essentially covered how sensitive cargo can be handled with care and attention. The speaker list also included Iris Sioson from Envirotainer who spoke at length on the visibility of the temperature control industry.

As aptly shared in an impressive showreel of the company, getting medicines from where they are made and into the hands of the patients, there are hazards to be overcome. In order to make these expensive medicines reach their right destination, Envirotainer with years of experience and with the help of airlines and forwarders ensures predictable delivery of sensitive medicines.

This event, without a shred of doubt, can fall in the bracket of being called a standout because Envirotainer in a subtle yet profound way was able to put forth its truly global presence with the world’s largest active container fleet and more than 30 years of industry expertise in a nutshell. So be it developing, manufacturing and leasing of innovative container solutions for pharmaceutical products, it was quite evident who could offer impeccable quality and reliability.

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 »