ICH Quality Guidelines 2017
DOI: 10.1002/9781118971147.ch12
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

ICH Q5C Stability Testing of Biotechnological/Biological Products

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…When developing analysis protocols, it is crucial to take the drug substance degradation products into account (Davies et al, 2017). For this purpose, the developed analytical assay is validated in compliance with the ICH Q2 (R1) guideline (International Conference on Harmonization, 2017).…”
Section: Calibration and Validationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When developing analysis protocols, it is crucial to take the drug substance degradation products into account (Davies et al, 2017). For this purpose, the developed analytical assay is validated in compliance with the ICH Q2 (R1) guideline (International Conference on Harmonization, 2017).…”
Section: Calibration and Validationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is a global requirement for meningococcal conjugate vaccines to meet ICH Guidelines Q5C, which outlines the stability requirements for the drug substances and drug product to establish shelf life [ 23 ]. Three consistency Phase 3 clinical trial NmCV-5 batches were fully evaluated by SIIPL, with independent confirmatory testing of key quality attributes being performed by the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC), U.K. Official lot release was performed by the Central Drug Laboratory, India’s National Control Laboratory.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although biosimilars have reached the EU and US markets, the uptake and acceptance of biosimilars in clinical practice varies within the European countries and is still low in the US. This variance has been attributed to, among others, budget and reimbursement factors and a lack of understanding, acceptance, or trust in the science behind the biosimilar approval that heavily relies on the comparability of QAs [65,66]. Previous research on the comparability of QAs by Halim et al focused on comparing filgrastim and epoetin products and found that certain QAs for products (copies) from less regulated markets differed significantly from the reference products and biosimilars available on the EU market.…”
Section: Comparability Exercisementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Biopharmaceuticals, whether reference products or biosimilars, must have consistent and comparable QAs throughout their life cycle to ensure that patients can use safe and effective treatments. Previous research and PhD theses on biosimilars have focused on requirements for developing regulatory guidelines for biosimilar approval [108], analysis of a selection of QAs to compare the reference product and biosimilars of filgrastim and epoetin obtained from the EU market with copies from emerging markets [109], market access to biosimilars [65], barriers to sustainable biosimilar competition and uptake in clinical practice [66], scientific, legal, and regulatory hurdles for biosimilar development, and interchangeability of biosimilars [110].…”
Section: Knowledge Gap and The Rationale Behind This Phd Thesismentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation