Issue 48: Pharmaceutical regulatory roundup

BY DR TIM SANDLE  | 1st September 2026

 

Catch up with the latest news from around the pharmaceutical industry with issue 48 of our regulatory review, curated by Dr Tim Sandle and RSSL.

 

Contents

Section 1: Drug development

 

 

Therapeutic equivalence and biosimilars

 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a final guidance entitled ‘Evaluation of Therapeutic Equivalence’. This document explains the FDA’s thinking on therapeutic equivalence evaluations and therapeutic equivalence codes. The FDA’s therapeutic equivalence evaluations are listed for multisource prescription drug products approved under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) in the active section of the ‘Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations’ (commonly known as the Orange Book). The FDA's message is that drug substitution should be based on demonstrated therapeutic equivalence, supported by robust manufacturing controls, rather than simply matching active ingredients.These therapeutic equivalence evaluations have been prepared to serve as public information and advice to state health agencies, prescribers and pharmacists to promote public education in drug product selection and to foster containment of health care costs. 

This guidance finalises the draft guidance of the same title issued in July 2022. To access see: https://www.fda.gov/media/160054/download 

 

 What this means for you:

 

  • The FDA considers products interchangeable only when three criteria are met: Pharmaceutical equivalence, bioequivalence and the expectation of the same clinical effect and safety profile
  • Therefore, when assessing substitutes, procurement changes or formulary decisions, do not assume that products with the same active ingredient are automatically interchangeable unless the FDA has determined therapeutic equivalence.
  • Manufacturing quality remains fundamental to equivalence. The FDA's therapeutic equivalence assessment assumes that the manufacturing methods, facilities and controls are adequate to preserve the product's identity, strength, quality and purity. For QA and GMP professionals, supplier qualification, change control and ongoing oversight remain critical even when a product is approved.<
  • Therapeutic equivalence is evidence-based and supports substitution decisions. The FDA's evaluations, published in the Orange Book, are intended to help healthcare organisations, pharmacists and prescribers make informed decisions regarding substitution while maintaining the expected clinical performance and safety of the prescribed product.

 

 

How RSSL can support you

RSSL delivers data integrityGMP and inspection readiness training alongside consultancy support for CAPA management and regulatory response processes. Our subject matter experts can review your quality systems and ensure your teams maintain the human oversight regulators continue to expect. Discover more RSSL Life Science Training & Consultancy

 

Biosimilars development Q&A

 

In a second document, currently at draft stage, expands on and clarifies the Agency’s recommendations and expectations regarding the development of delivery devices and container closure systems described in Q.I.4 of the guidance for industry entitled ‘Questions and Answers on Biosimilar Development and the BPCI Act’ as well as the guidance entitled ‘Considerations in Demonstrating Interchangeability with a Reference Product’ for biosimilar and interchangeable biosimilar products.
Here, the FDA is signalling that for biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars, the delivery system, container closure system and user interface are integral parts of the comparability assessment and must be shown not to adversely affect safety, performance, usability or interchangeability.

This document is titled ‘Biosimilar and Interchangeable Biosimilar Products: Considerations for Container Closure Systems and Device Constituent Parts’. It can be accessed here: https://www.fda.gov/media/193917/download  

 

 What this means for you:

 

  • For biosimilars, the container closure system and delivery device are part of the regulatory comparison, not just the drug formulation. The FDA expects applicants to assess whether syringes, cartridges, autoinjectors, pens, closures and other presentation components could affect the demonstration of biosimilarity or interchangeability. The presentation must support the conclusion that there are no clinically meaningful differences from the reference product.
  • User interaction and human factors become particularly important when device constituent parts are involved. The FDA recommends comparative analyses to identify design differences between the proposed biosimilar and the reference product and to determine whether those differences could affect critical user tasks. Any changes that may influence how healthcare professionals or patients use the product require careful evaluation and justification.
  • Interchangeability requires an even higher level of confidence that patients can use the product safely and effectively without adverse consequences. Manufacturers should assess design differences, user interfaces and lifecycle changes to ensure they do not introduce new use-related risks or impact the ability to substitute the product for its reference medicine.

 

 

How RSSL can support you

RSSL can support biosimilar and biologic development with analytical characterisation, comparability, potency and stability testing, alongside specialist technical, GMP and regulatory consultancy
Life Science & Pharmaceuticals |  Training & Consultancy

 

FDA 'FAQs - Developing Potential Cellular and Gene Therapy Products' 

 

The guidance is intended to provide industry with answers to frequently asked questions and commonly faced issues that arise during the development of Cellular and Gene Therapy (CGT) products and is intended to help facilitate the development of safe, effective and high-quality CGT products. The document represents common questions directed to the Agency and spans multiple disciplines, including regulatory review, Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls (CMC), Pharmacology / Toxicology (PT), clinical and clinical pharmacology.

The guidance signals that successful Cell and Gene Therapy development depends on early FDA engagement, strong CMC/manufacturing control and a scientifically justified, risk-based development strategy from Investigational New Drug (IND) through to Biologics License Application (BLA) submission.

The document can be found here: https://www.fda.gov/media/183631/download  

 

 What this means for you:

 

  • Engage with the FDA early and often during development. The FDA encourages sponsors of Cellular and Gene Therapy (CGT) products to use mechanisms such as INTERACT, pre-IND, Type D and pre-BLA meetings to discuss development challenges, CMC expectations, nonclinical studies and clinical trial design before major regulatory submissions. Early interaction can reduce regulatory risk and prevent costly development delays.
  • Manufacturing and CMC readiness are as important as clinical data. Sponsors are expected to understand their product's Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs), establish fit-for-purpose analytical methods, demonstrate process characterisation and validation, assess comparability after manufacturing changes and generate sufficient stability data. The FDA places significant emphasis on product consistency and manufacturing control throughout development.
  • Development decisions should be both science- and risk-based. The FDA expects sponsors to justify donor eligibility approaches, animal model selection, proof-of-concept studies, toxicology programmes, biodistribution assessments, dose selection and clinical trial design using a risk-based framework appropriate to the specific CGT product. The amount and type of data required should be tailored to the product and its intended use.

 

How RSSL can support you

RSSL supports cell and gene therapy development with analytical characterisation, method development, validation and testing. Our experts can also provide GMP and regulatory consultancy to help teams navigate development and submission requirements. 
Life Science & Pharmaceuticals |  Training & Consultancy 

 

Section 2: Immunotherapy

 

 

Active immunotherapy products

 

The FDA has issued a draft guidance titled ‘Potency Assessment of Active Immunotherapy Products’. This guidance document provides recommendations for developing assays to assess potency as a part of a potency assurance strategy for Active Immunotherapy Products (ACTIMPs). Active immunotherapies aim to treat a pre-existing disease or condition by inducing, stimulating or modulating immune effector cells through the introduction of an antigen (or antigens) associated with that disease or condition to the immune system.  

The FDA is signalling that for Active Immunotherapy Products, potency is a critical quality attribute that must be measured using scientifically justified, mechanism-based assays that remain relevant throughout the product lifecycle and support product consistency, comparability and clinical performance.

This guidance does not apply to preventive vaccines for infectious disease indications, bacteriophage products for infectious diseases, live biotherapeutic products, Faecal Microbiota for Transplantation (FMT) products or allergenic products. Considerations related to potential safety concerns associated with ACTIMP product design are outside the scope of this guidance. Sponsors are therefore encouraged to consult with the appropriate product office regarding such matters.

When finalised, this guidance will describe the FDA’s current thinking regarding design, validation and evaluation of potency tests for ACTIMPs. This guidance is intended to supplement the guidance for industry, on Potency Assurance for Cellular and Gene Therapy Products (Ref. 1) with additional advice and considerations specifically for ACTIMPs, including peptide- and-protein based ACTIMPs that are not Cellular or Gene Therapy products (Ref. 2). 

The draft is located here: https://www.fda.gov/media/194324/download  

 

 What this means for you:

 

  • Potency must be scientifically linked to how the product works, not just measured as a routine release test. The FDA expects active immunotherapy manufacturers to develop potency assays that reflect the product's mechanism of action and demonstrate its ability to generate the intended immune response. Potency testing should therefore be part of an overall potency assurance strategy rather than a simple QC exercise.
  • Potency assays should be tied to Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs). Sponsors are expected to identify potency-related CQAs and establish analytical methods that can reliably measure those attributes. This means product characterisation, assay development, validation and lifecycle management should be closely aligned from early development through commercial manufacture.
  • Different product types may require different potency approaches. The FDA recognises that peptide-, protein-, vectored- and cell-based active immunotherapies may not be adequately assessed using a single potency test. Manufacturers should justify their chosen potency strategy and may need multiple complementary assays to demonstrate product consistency, comparability following process changes and ongoing clinical relevance.

 

How RSSL can support you

RSSL develops and validates bespoke cell-based bioassays to assess biological activity and potency, with expert support available for assay strategy, validation and regulatory expectations. 
Life Science & Pharmaceuticals |  Training & Consultancy 

 

Section 3: Emerging therapies

 

Microbiome-based medical products

 

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has issued a document titled ‘UK Position Paper on Microbiome-Based Medicinal Products (MBMPs)’. 
MBMPs represent an emerging class of therapeutics with the potential to address areas of significant unmet clinical need. The purpose of this position paper is to encourage the development and licensing of these products in the UK.

For pharmaceutical quality professionals, this paper signals that live biotherapeutic and microbiome products will receive the same level of scrutiny applied to other biologics.

The document can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-position-paper-on-microbiome-based-medicinal-products-mbmps/uk-position-paper-on-microbiome-based-medicinal-products-mbmps  

 

 What this means for you:

 

  • Microbiome therapies are now clearly within the UK medicines regulatory framework. The MHRA has confirmed that MBMPs are regulated under the existing Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and will generally be assessed as biological medicinal products or Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs). This means developers should apply established pharmaceutical quality, safety, efficacy, GMP and pharmacovigilance principles rather than expecting a separate regulatory pathway.
  • Manufacturing control and product characterisation will be major regulatory challenges. With MBMPs often containing live microorganisms, microbial consortia or complex microbial ecosystems, regulators expect robust control of identity, potency, purity, batch-to-batch consistency and manufacturing variability. The position paper highlights product characterisation, manufacturing consistency, microbiological control and Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) risk assessment as critical development areas.
  • Early engagement with MHRA is strongly recommended. The MHRA is actively encouraging developers to engage early through scientific advice and innovation pathways to address classification, quality, clinical development and safety expectations. Given the novelty of these products and the scientific uncertainties surrounding microbiome therapies, early regulatory dialogue is viewed as an important risk-reduction strategy.

 

 

Section 4: Packaging and container closure

 

 

Container Closure Systems for Human Drugs & Biological Products

 

The FDA has issued a draft guidance for industry entitled ‘Container Closure Systems for Human Drugs and Biological Products’. This document provides guiding principles for evaluating the quality of Container Closure Systems (CCSs) used to package drugs and biological products, for human use. This includes CCSs that are also device constituent parts of combination products and CCSs used to package the drug or biological product constituent parts of combination products.

The FDA is reinforcing that CCSs are critical quality elements that must be scientifically qualified, risk assessed, continuously controlled and demonstrated to protect the product throughout manufacture, storage, distribution and use.

View the draft here: https://www.fda.gov/media/194220/download  

 

 What this means for you:

 

  • Container Closure Systems are now expected to be managed using a risk-based approach, not simply as packaging components. The FDA expects manufacturers to evaluate CCSs based on their impact on product safety, protection, performance, manufacturing processes, storage and handling. For sterile products, the container closure system is considered a critical part of assuring product quality throughout its lifecycle.
  • Evidence of container closure suitability must be scientifically justified and product specific. The FDA expects firms to assess and control attributes such as material safety, compatibility, protection of the product, container closure integrity, stability and performance. Test methods and acceptance criteria should be based on the specific product, dosage form, route of administration and packaging configuration rather than applying generic standards.
  • Container closure changes require the same level of quality oversight as other critical manufacturing changes. Manufacturers should have a robust programme for qualification, quality control, stability studies, shipping and handling assessments, bulk container evaluation and post-approval change management. The FDA also highlights the importance of documenting CCS information in regulatory submissions and managing changes through an appropriate lifecycle approach.



How RSSL can support you

RSSL provides container closure integrity, extractables and leachables and packaging assessment to help demonstrate the suitability and performance of packaging systems throughout the product lifecycle. 
Life Science & Pharmaceuticals 

 

Glass Containers for Pharmaceutical Use

 

The Ph. Eur. is updating chapter 3.2.1 ‘Glass Containers for Pharmaceutical Use’.

This chapter establishes the requirements for glass containers used for pharmaceutical products, including vials, bottles, ampoules, syringes and cartridges. It classifies pharmaceutical glass into Type I (borosilicate/neutral glass), Type II (surface-treated soda-lime glass) and Type III (soda-lime glass) according to hydrolytic resistance and provides recommendations on their suitability for different dosage forms.

The revision comes into force during April 2027.

 

 What this means for you:

 

  • Container compatibility is now a stronger regulatory expectation. Manufacturers should assess the risk of glass delamination and extractables on a product-specific basis rather than relying solely on glass type classification.
  • Glass supplier qualification becomes more important. Accelerated degradation testing and understanding differences between glass sources can help reduce the risk of flakes, particles and stability failures.
  • QC laboratories may need enhanced technical controls. Hydrolytic resistance testing now includes more detailed autoclave qualification requirements and an optional flame-spectrometric approach for specialised applications.

 

 

How RSSL can support you

RSSL supports pharmaceutical packaging assessment through material characterisation, pharmacopeial testing, extractables and leachables and container closure integrity testing. 
Primary Packaging Testing

 

Section 5: Antimicrobials

 

Antimicrobial resistance risk assessment

 

Prior to approving an antimicrobial new animal drug application, the FDA must determine that the drug is safe and effective for its intended use in the animal (section 512(d)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act [‘the FD&C Act’]). The Agency must also determine that the antimicrobial drug intended for use in food-producing animals is safe in regard to human health (21 CFR 514.1(b)(8); sections 512(d)(1)(B) and 512(d)(2)(A) of the FD&C Act). 

The FDA considers an antimicrobial new animal drug to be ‘safe’ if it concludes that there is reasonable certainty of no harm to human health from the proposed use of the drug in food-producing animals. This document provides guidance for industry to evaluate potential microbiological effects of antimicrobial new animal drugs on bacteria of human health concern as part of the new animal drug application process.

The document outlines a risk assessment approach to evaluate the microbial food safety risks posed by antimicrobial new animal drugs. Within the context of risk assessment, many possible mechanisms to address the development of antimicrobial resistance resulting from the use of antimicrobial new animal drugs in food-producing animals are available to the sponsor. Alternative processes that may be more appropriate to a sponsor’s drug and its intended conditions of use may be used to characterise the microbial food safety of that drug.

With this document, the FDA is reinforcing that approval of antimicrobial products for food-producing animals requires a robust assessment of antimicrobial-resistance risks to human health, supported by high-quality scientific data and a structured risk-based evaluation process.

The document can be accessed here: https://www.fda.gov/media/69949/download 

 

 What this means for you:

 

  • The FDA expects antimicrobial resistance risk to be assessed before approval of antimicrobial medicines for food-producing animals. The focus is not only animal safety and efficacy, but also the potential impact on the future effectiveness of antimicrobial therapies used in people.
  • A formal, science-based risk assessment is expected, considering release, exposure and consequence. The FDA recommends evaluating: (a) the likelihood that resistant bacteria develop in treated animals, (b) the likelihood that humans are exposed through food products, and (c) the potential clinical consequences if resistance compromises treatment options. These elements are then integrated into an overall risk estimation.
  • Risk management decisions should be driven by data quality and the medical importance of the antimicrobial. The FDA expects sponsors to support submissions with robust study data, relevant literature, susceptibility testing results, resistance information and an assessment of the antimicrobial's importance to human medicine. Drugs that are critically important to human health may require greater scrutiny and stronger risk mitigation strategies.

 

Section 6: Medical devices

 

Human factors and usability engineering

 

In a new guidance document, the FDA has made recommendations to assist industry in following appropriate human factors and usability engineering processes to maximise the likelihood that new medical devices will be safe and effective for the intended users, uses and use environments. The recommendations in this guidance document are intended to support manufacturers in improving the design of devices to minimise potential use errors and resulting harm. The FDA believes that these recommendations will enable manufacturers to assess and reduce risks associated with medical device use.

With the guidance, the FDA is reinforcing that device safety depends not only on technical performance but also on how real users interact with the device, making human factors engineering, usability testing and use-related risk management essential elements of device development and regulatory submissions.

Read the document here: https://www.fda.gov/media/80481/download  

 

 What this means for you:

 

  • Human error should be treated as a design risk, not simply a training issue. The FDA expects manufacturers to apply human factors and usability engineering during device development to identify and reduce use-related hazards before a product reaches the user. The goal is to design devices so that foreseeable use errors are eliminated or their impact is minimised.
  • Risk assessments must focus on critical tasks and real-world use conditions. Manufacturers should evaluate who will use the device, where it will be used and how users interact with controls, displays, labels, instructions, packaging, alarms and software. Particular attention should be given to ‘critical tasks’ where an incorrect action or omission could result in serious harm.
  • Human factors validation testing is an FDA expectation for higher-risk devices. The FDA recommends simulated-use testing with representative users to demonstrate that the final device design can be used safely and effectively. Testing should be used to identify use errors, assess the effectiveness of risk controls and evaluate any residual risks that remain after design improvements.

 

 

How RSSL can support you

RSSL can support medical device development with specialist technical testing and expertise, alongside training and consultancy to help teams address regulatory, quality and risk-management requirements.

Medical Devices |  Training & Consultancy 

 

 

Section 7: Supply chain 

 

Medicine Shortage Prevention Plans

 

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has issued a document titled ‘Guidance and template for industry on implementing: Shortage Prevention Plans’. 

The document indicates the relevant type and detail of information for shortage prevention plans, according to the different level of risk, including descriptions of the relevant shortage management measures. The degree of effort, formalisation and documentation for each Shortage Prevention Plan (SPP) - and consequent proposal of shortage mitigating measures - should be proportionate to the identified level of risk for each medicine.

This guidance effectively extends pharmaceutical quality risk management principles beyond product quality and into supply continuity. Inspectors are increasingly likely to examine whether supply chain vulnerabilities have been identified, formally assessed and mitigated using a documented, risk-based approach

The document can be accessed here: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/regulatory-procedural-guideline/guidance-template-industry-implementing-shortage-prevention-plans-spp_en.pdf  

 

 What this means for you:

 

  • Medicine shortages must now be managed proactively, not reactively. The EMA expects Marketing Authorisation Holders (MAHs) to maintain a documented, up-to-date SPP that systematically identifies supply chain risks, assesses potential patient impact and defines mitigation measures before a shortage occurs. The emphasis is on prevention, resilience and early risk identification rather than responding after supply has already been disrupted.
  • Companies need detailed visibility of their entire supply chain. The guidance requires firms to understand and document Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) suppliers, finished product manufacturers, key material suppliers, manufacturing locations, production capacities, supply chain vulnerabilities, historical shortages and alternative production options. Single-source suppliers, geographically concentrated manufacturing, long lead times and previous supply failures are specifically highlighted as factors requiring risk assessment and mitigation.
  • Regulators will expect evidence that shortage risks are actively controlled. For higher-risk products, particularly critical medicines, companies should be able to demonstrate practical controls such as safety stock strategies, alternative manufacturing sites, contingency arrangements, distribution prioritisation plans and governance oversight. Importantly, SPPs must be available for submission to regulators within two days when requested, meaning the plans need to be inspection-ready and actively maintained.

 

 

How RSSL can support you

RSSL can support supply resilience through analytical testing, stability studies and technical support, while our consultants can help strengthen quality systems, supplier oversight and risk-based approaches to supply continuity.
GMP & CMC Laboratory Testing |  Training & Consultancy 

 

 

Section 8: Quality control  

Solubility

 

The US Pharmacopeia (USP) will no longer publish and maintain the description and solubility information for drug substances. This information is typically included as a part of the FDA-approved labels of the products, in the ‘Description’ section of the drug label information.

 

How RSSL can support you

RSSL provides pharmacopeial and analytical testing to support pharmaceutical quality control and evolving compendial requirements. 
Pharmacopeial Testing Services

 

Diphtheria antitoxin potency testing

 

The USP has updated the following chapter: 〈162〉 ‘Diphtheria Antitoxin Potency Testing for Human Immune Globulins’.

USP <162> describes an in vitro cell-based assay for determining the potency of diphtheria antitoxin in plasma-derived human immune globulin products. The method measures the ability of antitoxin antibodies to neutralise the cytotoxic effects of diphtheria toxin on cultured Vero cells. Diphtheria toxin inhibits protein synthesis and causes cell death - however, when neutralised by antitoxin, cell viability is maintained. Cell survival is quantified using an MTT assay, where metabolically active cells convert MTT into a coloured formazan product measured spectrophotometrically at 540 nm. Potency is determined by comparison with a suitable diphtheria antitoxin reference standard and calculation of relative activity using dilution-based analysis. 

In a second document, currently at draft stage, expands on and clarifies the Agency’s recommendations and expectations regarding the development of delivery devices and container closure systems described in Q.I.4 of the guidance for industry entitled ‘Questions and Answers on Biosimilar Development and the BPCI Act’ as well as the guidance entitled ‘Considerations in Demonstrating Interchangeability with a Reference Product’ for biosimilar and interchangeable biosimilar products.
Here, the FDA is signalling that for biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars, the delivery system, container closure system and user interface are integral parts of the comparability assessment and must be shown not to adversely affect safety, performance, usability or interchangeability.

This document is titled ‘Biosimilar and Interchangeable Biosimilar Products: Considerations for Container Closure Systems and Device Constituent Parts’. It can be accessed here: https://www.fda.gov/media/193917/download  

 

 What this means for you:

 

  • Cell-based potency testing remains the USP-preferred approach for diphtheria antitoxin determination in human immune globulins.
  • Chemically defined media may be used as an alternative to foetal bovine serum where appropriately qualified.
  • Greater emphasis is placed on clearly defined statistical treatment of potency results using geometric mean cutoff dilutions.
  • System suitability and replicate acceptance criteria have been clarified to improve assay consistency and comparability

 

 

How RSSL can support you

RSSL supports biological potency testing and assay development for biopharmaceutical products. 
Biopharmaceuticals.

Biological assays

 

The USP is revising chapter: 〈1030〉 ‘An Introduction to the Biological Assay Chapters -Overview and Glossary’.

USP <1030> provides an overview of biological assays and their role in measuring potency and bioactivity of biologics, vaccines and advanced therapies. It introduces a lifecycle approach encompassing assay development, validation, analysis and ongoing performance verification, while defining key statistical, design and bioassay terminology used throughout the USP bioassay chapter series.

 

 What this means for you:

 

  • No new test methods are introduced.
  • The chapter provides updated expectations for the development, validation and lifecycle management of biological potency assays.
  • It is primarily relevant to organisations developing or validating cell-based, immunological, vaccine, gene therapy or other biological potency assays.

 

 

How RSSL can support you

RSSL supports biological assay development, validation and lifecycle testing, including bespoke potency and functional assays. 
Biopharmaceuticals.

Evaporative liquid-scattering detection

 

The European Pharmacopeia (Ph. Eur.) is introducing a new chapter: 2.2.62. ‘Evaporative Light-Scattering Detection’.

Evaporative Light-Scattering detection (ELS detection) is a recognition mode used in liquid chromatography (2.2.29). It allows the detection of substances regardless of whether they contain a chromophore in their structure, provided that they are less volatile than the mobile phase and thermally stable under the analytical conditions employed.

The update appears to modernise and expand the chapter rather than introduce a fundamentally new technique.

The chapter comes into effect in April 2027.

 

 What this means for you:

 

  • ELS detection enables the recognition of compounds that lack UV absorbance. This expands analytical capability for substances such as lipids, sugars, surfactants and other non-chromophoric molecules that may be difficult to quantify using traditional UV detectors.
  • Method performance is highly dependent on detector settings. Gas flow, drift tube temperature and mobile phase composition significantly influence sensitivity, repeatability and quantitation, so these parameters require careful optimisation during method development, transfer and validation.
  • Volatile mobile phases are essential. Non-volatile buffers, mineral acids, phosphate salts and many ion-pairing reagents are unsuitable because they increase background noise and interfere with detection. Methods may need reformulation to ensure ELS detection compatibility.

 

 

How RSSL can support you

RSSL's analytical scientists can support method development, optimisation, transfer and validation using a broad range of chromatographic techniques. 
GMP & CMC laboratory testing.

Atomic emission and absorption spectrometry

 

The Ph. Eur. is updating the chapter 2.2.23. ‘Atomic absorption spectrometry’. 

This chapter describes Atomic Absorption Spectrometry (AAS), an elemental analysis technique used to quantify metals and other elements by measuring the absorption of element-specific radiation by free atoms in the gas phase. The chapter covers the scientific principles of AAS and the three main atomisation approaches: flame atomisation, electrothermal atomisation (graphite furnace) and cold vapour/hydride generation techniques for elements such as mercury and hydride-forming elements.

The chapter now provides detailed coverage of flame AAS, graphite furnace (electrothermal) AAS, cold vapour mercury analysis and hydride generation techniques within a single harmonised chapter.

The revised chapter is due to be implemented in April 2027.

 

 What this means for you:

 

  • AAS methods now require a more formal validation package. Laboratories using AAS for assay or elemental impurity testing should expect to demonstrate accuracy, precision, specificity and calibration performance against defined pharmacopoeial acceptance criteria.
  • Greater emphasis is placed on sample preparation and matrix effects. Digestion procedures, contamination controls and matrix interference management are now recognised as critical to obtaining reliable results.
  • Elemental impurity testing expectations have been strengthened. The revised chapter aligns more closely with modern elemental analysis principles and supports use of AAS within risk-based elemental impurity control programmes.

 

 

2.2.22. ‘Atomic emission spectrometry’ is also under revision. 

This chapter describes Atomic Emission Spectrometry (AES) - an analytical technique used to identify and quantify elements by measuring the light emitted by excited atoms and ions in a flame. The chapter focuses on flame-based AES, while ICP-AES (ICP-OES) is covered separately in Ph. Eur. 2.2.57. AES is particularly suitable for determining alkali and alkaline earth metals such as sodium, potassium, calcium, lithium, barium and caesium, typically at milligram-per-litre concentrations.

 

 

 What this means for you:

 

  • AES methods will now require a more formal validation package, particularly when used for GMP release testing or elemental impurity determinations.
  • Greater emphasis is placed on matrix effects and sample preparation, meaning laboratories must justify digestion procedures, calibration strategies and interference controls.
  • The chapter now aligns much more closely with modern elemental analysis expectations, supporting risk-based elemental impurity programmes and contemporary analytical validation principles.

 

 

How RSSL can support you

RSSL provides elemental and impurity testing using specialist analytical techniques to support pharmaceutical quality control and regulatory requirements. 
Pharmacopeial Testing Services.

Microbiological testing for non-sterile materials

 

The European Pharmacopeia also has chapter 5.1.4. ‘Microbiological Quality of Non-Sterile Pharmaceutical Preparations and Substances for Pharmaceutical Use’ in revision, along with the test method chapters 2.6.12 and 2.6.13.

 

 The proposed changes are:

 

  • Table 5.1.4.-1: acceptance criteria for the microbiological quality of cutaneous patches and medicated plasters have been added.
  • General chapters 2.6.12 and 2.6.13 have also been revised to include provisions for addressing the microbiological quality of cutaneous patches and medicated plasters and are published in the same issue of Pharmeuropa.
  • After discussion within the Pharmacopoeial Discussion Group, these new requirements for cutaneous patches and medicated plasters will only be applied in the Ph. Eur. as local requirements.

 

 

How RSSL can support you

RSSL provides GMP microbiology testing for pharmaceutical raw materials and products, alongside method verification. 
Microbiological analysis.

Bacteriophage potency determination

 

The Ph. Eur. is introducing a new chapter 2.7.38 ‘Bacteriophage potency determination’.

This general chapter describes an assay for the determination of potency as a quality attribute of a replicative bacteriophage (phage)-containing preparation, i.e. a seed lot, in-process sample, active substance or final product according to general chapter 5.31. ‘Phage therapy medicinal products’. The provisions of this chapter do not exclude the use of other approaches for potency determination acceptable to the competent authority.

The chapter comes into effect in April 2027.

 

 What this means for you:

 

  • Phage potency must be measured using infectious titre, not simply particle count. The chapter reinforces that potency is based on Plaque-Forming Units (PFU) and therefore reflects the phage's actual ability to infect, replicate and lyse bacteria, rather than total phage particles or genome copies. This makes plaque assays the preferred method for release, stability and comparability testing.
  • Assay conditions must be tightly controlled and standardised. The choice of bacterial strain, growth phase, media, agar concentration, incubation conditions and analyst technique can significantly affect the measured titre. Results can only be meaningfully compared over time or between laboratories when the same validated conditions are used.
  • Multi-phage products require additional assay development and validation. For phage cocktails, manufacturers are expected to establish selective bacterial strains or other justified approaches that enable determination of the potency of individual phages. The chapter also emphasises validation of specificity, precision, robustness and system suitability to ensure reliable potency measurements.

 

 

How RSSL can support you

RSSL can support emerging biopharmaceutical products with analytical method development, validation and microbiological testing tailored to product requirements. 
Biopharmaceuticals.

Alternative microbiological methods

 

As we reported last month, the European Pharmacopoeia Commission has issued a new revised general chapter on alternative microbiological methods, supporting advancement of the field by modernising quality standards. The revised chapter 5.1.6. ‘Alternative Methods for Control of Microbiological Quality’ was published in Issue 13.2 of the Ph. Eur. 
Since the earlier announcement, further details have emerged.

The Commission has updated the description of technologies to include modern approaches, removing outdated quality control methods. It means the framework offers a clearer definition of the responsibilities of suppliers and those using the chapter.

This change aligns with an earlier publication from the Eur. Ph. In January, it published a new general chapter on quality of data 5.38. The framework aids stakeholders with digitalisation during pharmaceutical quality decision-making.

As demand increases for alternative microbiological methods, especially for those that can provide rapid, simultaneous viable quantitation and microbial identification, among other technologies, AI offers potential to accelerate the field. Yet upfront cost, as well as the limited pool of qualified operators, are among the main factors limiting its widespread use.
Moreover, in the current revised chapter, multiple validation strategies, based on a risk assessment, have been added to enhance its implementation. For example, leveraging relevant existing data and enabling multiple implementation activities to be assessed simultaneously.

This revised general chapter comes into force on 1 April 2027.

 

Section 9: Manufacturing 

 

 

Excipient performance

 

The USP is issuing a new chapter: <1059> ‘Excipient Performance’. 

The purpose of this chapter is to explain how excipients may be used in formulations and how they relate to compendial specifications, Performance-Related Properties (PRPs), Critical Material Attributes (CMAs), Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs) of the drug product, and Quality by Design (QbD) principles that aid in their selection and control. 

Excipients are used in virtually all drug products and are essential for drug product manufacturing and performance. To ensure drug products are with consistent quality, the excipients must be appropriately specified. Excipients used in drug products are typically manufactured and supplied in compliance with compendial standards. 

However, the impact of excipient properties on the quality and performance of a drug product may be unique for each formulation and process and could depend on properties of excipients that are not evaluated in USP or NF monographs and which may vary from supplier to supplier and batch to batch.

The chapter comes into force on 1 December 2026. Access to this chapter requires a subscription.

 

 What this means for you:

 

  • Meeting the USP/NF monograph is not always enough. An excipient may comply with its pharmacopeial specification, yet still possess properties (e.g., particle size, viscosity, peroxide content, microbial quality, moisture content) that significantly affect product quality and process performance. These additional properties may need to be identified and controlled.
  • Focus on excipient Critical Material Attributes (CMAs). Product development and lifecycle management should identify which excipient characteristics have a direct impact on Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs) of the finished product. Once identified, these CMAs should be defined, justified and controlled through specifications and supplier agreements.
  • Supplier-to-supplier and batch-to-batch variability must be understood. Excipients are not interchangeable simply because they meet the same monograph. Differences in manufacturing processes, grades and material attributes can affect robustness, stability, manufacturability and product performance. Risk assessment and ongoing supplier oversight are essential.
  • Excipient control is part of Quality by Design (QbD). Excipient selection, qualification and monitoring should be based on scientific understanding of how excipients contribute to product performance throughout the product lifecycle. Specifications should be justified by patient and product needs, not solely by compendial requirements.



How RSSL can support you

RSSL provides raw material and analytical testing to assess excipient quality and variability, with expert consultancy available to support risk-based material and supplier qualification strategies. 
GMP & CMC Laboratory Testing  |  Training & Consultancy 

Botanicals

 

The USP is updating chapter 〈561〉 ‘Articles of Botanical Origin’. The chapter is open for comments.

USP <561> provides guidance for the sampling, testing and quality assessment of botanical materials used in medicines and supplements. It describes procedures for representative sampling, foreign matter assessment, ash values, extractives, starch, volatile oils, water content, aflatoxins, pesticide residues and elemental impurities. A significant update is the addition of a new Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) section, introducing limits for benzo[a]pyrene and PAH4 contaminants and a validated GC-MS method for their determination. The chapter aims to ensure the identity, purity, safety and quality of botanical materials throughout their lifecycle.

 

 What this means for you:

 

The chapter has undergone a major rewrite.

  • Botanical raw materials may now require assessment for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) contamination, particularly where drying, smoking, roasting or environmental exposure could introduce these compounds. 
  • Supplier qualification programmes may need to consider PAH control strategies and testing data in addition to existing controls for pesticides, aflatoxins and elemental impurities. 
  • Laboratories testing botanicals may need access to GC-MS capability or suitably qualified contract testing arrangements if PAH testing becomes part of a specification.

 

 

How RSSL can support you

RSSL provides specialist analytical testing for pharmaceutical materials and contaminants using a range of analytical techniques.
GMP & CMC laboratory testing.

 

Dive Deeper with our GMP Regulatory Updates Webinar

 

While this Regulatory Round-up gives you a broad snapshot of changes across the pharmaceutical landscape, our quarterly Key GMP Regulatory Updates webinar offers the chance to go deeper on what matters most for your quality systems.

 

Need to contact us? Get help or ask us a question