throbber
Related Articles
`
`There are no current related articles
`
`Topics Covered in this
`Article
`
`Click a keyword for related
`articles.
`
`6/13/2016
`
`Document
`
`Pharma ·n e lige ce
`
`1tnforma
`
`Pink Sheet
`Phonna irrtdlig;e11c,. I iflforma
`
`FISONS' OPTICROM, IMFERON MAY BE
`OFF U.S. MARKET UNTIL LATE 1992 AS
`THE COMPANY UPGRADES U.K.
`MANUFACTURING PLANT TO MEET
`FDA QUALITY CONTROL CONCERNS
`
`By The Pink Sheet I Email the Author I View Full Issue
`Word Count: 850 I Article# 00530510003 I Posted: December 23 1991 5:00
`AM
`
`Executive Summary
`
`Fisons' Opticrom (cromolyn sodium) eye drops and lmferon injectable iron are
`unlikely to be reintroduced in the U.S. until the second half of 1992 while the
`company deals with quality control problems turned up in a series of recent FDA
`inspections, Fisons reported Dec. 11. Reintroductions of the two products during
`the second half of next year would mean the company would have taken two
`years to resolve regulatory problems with the products. Fisons issued Class I
`and Class II recalls of Opticrom anti-allergic prescription eye drops and a Class
`Ill recall of lmferon in July 1990. Opticrom has been unavailable in the U.S. since
`the recall and lmferon has not been in supply since May 1991. Fisons is hoping to
`bring the two products back to market after an anticipated FDA inspection of the
`company's upgraded U.K.-based manufacturing facility in the first quarter of
`1992. The firm does not expect "full normality" to be restored until the end of the
`year, the company said. FDA has inspected the Fisons plant in Holmes Chapel,
`England three times since February 1990, most recently in November. The first
`inspection revealed "significant drug CGMP [current good manufacturing
`practices] deviations" for three Fisons products sold in the U.S.: Opticrom,
`lmferon and the lntal inhaler, the FDA investigators noted in their report.
`[Emphasis added by FDA.] The FDA investigators listed a total of 30
`"objectionable conditions" observed during the February 1990 inspection.
`Fisons' problems with Opticrom dated back to mid-1989, FDA discovered, when
`the company experienced over 100 positive sterility tests over a three-month
`period. Fisons attributed all but one positive test to lab contamination, FDA said,
`despite positive results from a second testing lab. FDA objected to the absence
`of an adequate investigation into the source of the contaminant and speculated
`that it was most likely "product contamination originating with the water system,"
`which had "several significant discrepancies." Among the 11 objections cited for
`lmferon injection were: the iron dextran active ingredient was not tested for
`purity prior to use in the batch formulation; the "pyrogen-free" water system was
`deficient; empty bulk solution transport vessels were stored outside with open
`covers; filtered lmferon solutions were being stored in beer kegs that were
`
`https://www.pharmamedtechbi .com/publications/the-pink-sheet/53/051/fisons-opticrom-imferon-may-be-off-us-market-until-late-1992-as-the-company-upgrade... 1/3
`
`Pharmacosmos, Exh. 1063, p. 1
`
`

`
`DOCUT1ent
`6'13'2016
`considered "not of pharmaceutical quality"; and the firm did not perform visible
`particulate evaluations on each lot manufactured. lntal inhalers have had aerosol
`leakage problems since early 1987, FDA reported, and Fisons changed the valve
`design without obtaining prior NOA approval. FDA found that the valve change
`was not an improvement, but that the "new valve was reported as cheaper than
`the old valve." The inspectors also criticized Fisons' "deceptive" aerosol leakage
`tests, which eliminated low- weight inhalers from testing even though they may
`have been low weight due to aerosol leakage. In response to the violations cited
`by FDA, Fisons requested a second inspection in May 1991. FDA found that the
`company "had not made substantial corrections to the previously observed GMP
`deviations" for the manufacture of lmferon. The Inspectors also concluded that
`"the firm's reported corrections to eliminate aerosol leakage [for the lntal
`inhaler] have not corrected the defect." Both Opticrom and lmferon, which are
`manufactured exclusively in the U.K., "remain on the import alert list," FDA noted
`in its inspection report. The lntal inhaler was apparently allowed to stay on the
`market In the U.S. due to a decision by FDA based on the "medlcal necessity of
`the product." Fisons subsequently decided to do "a more comprehensive
`overhaul" of the Holmes Chapel facility to meet FDA requirements, the company
`said. The third inspection in November 1991 was limited to the lmferon
`manufacturing process, which will apparently require further improvements
`before receiving FDA approval. Fisons also has submitted a supplemental NOA
`for a new lntal inhaler valve manufactured by Vespec, the firm said. Opticrom has
`not been produced at the Holmes Chapel plant since November 1990 when
`British health authorities revoked the company's license to manufacture and
`release sterile products. The license revocation letter stated: "'The levels of
`quality assurance of sterile products as demonstrated by end product, and in(cid:173)
`process microbiological testing are not of an acceptable standard,"' according to
`the FDA report. The license has not yet been reinstated, the company said.
`Fisons estimates that the withdrawal of Opticrom and lmferon from the U.S.
`market wlll result In "a loss of profit of some (BRmSH POUND)33 mll.," or around
`$ 60 mil. in 1991. Additional costs include an estimated $ 36 mil. as a result of
`"the disruption caused to production activities arising from upgrading at the main
`U.K. plant to supply the U.S. market." The disruption in the supply of Opticrom to
`other markets is costing the firm around$ 27 mil. ((BRITISH POUND)15 mil.), with
`the "total Impact on profits" amounting to approxlmately $117 mll. ((BRITISH
`POUND)65 mil.), Fisons reported. In response to what it described as
`"increasingly stringent standards set by the U.S. FDA," Fisons also has
`appointed a new divisional technical director as well as 71 new managers in the
`area of "technical management and quality control" for the pharmaceutical
`division, the company said.
`
`Already a Subscriber?
`Log in for complete access.
`
`Questions?
`Call Toll-Free (888) 670-8900 or
`+1 (908) 547-2200.
`
`Purchase this Article
`
`$50.00
`
`For $50.00, purchase this 850-word
`article and receive immediate online
`access. 100% Satisfaction
`Guarantee.
`
`View a complete sample article »
`
`htlps:/lwww.pharmamedtechbi.com/publicalionsJlhe.pink-sheet/53/051/lisons-opticrom-imferon-may-be-olf-us-market-unti l-late-1992-as-th&-compeny-upgrade.. . 213
`
`Pharmacosmos, Exh. 1063, p. 2
`
`

`
`6'13'2016
`
`DOCUT1ent
`
`Copyright (c) 2016 lnforma Business lntelllgence, Inc., an lnfonna CofTllany. All rights reserved. No part of this artlcle
`may be reproduced in any form or incorporated into any information retrieval system v.ithout the written pemission of the copyright owner.
`Online/print subscriptions, reprints, and web posting and distribution licenses are available.
`Contact us at (888) 670-8900, +1 (908) 547-2200, or clientservices@pharrnamedtechbi.com.
`
`htlps:/lwww.pharmamedtechbi.com/publicalionsJlhe..pink-sheet/53/051/lisons-opticrom-imferon-may-be-olf-us-market-unti l-late-1992-as-th&-compeny-upgrade.. . 313
`
`Pharmacosmos, Exh. 1063, p. 3

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket