Quality risk analysis in a cGMP environment: multiple models for comprehensive failure mode identification during the computer system lifecycle

References

• Quality Risk Management – Q9. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) [Online]. Available at: www.ich.org [last accessed 13 Oct 2012]
   Google Scholar
• Pharmaceutical Development – Q8, International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) [Online]. Available at: www.ich.org [last accessed 13 Oct 2012]
   Google Scholar
• Pharmaceutical Quality System – Q10, International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) [Online]. Available at: www.ich.org [last accessed 13 Oct 2012]
   Google Scholar
• Morenas J. Challenges of implementation of Q9: a regulatory perspective. Presentation to ASEAN Training Event Kuala Lumpur. [Online] 2010. Available at: http://www.ich.org/trainings/ich-trainings/ich-q8q9q10-guidelines.html [last accessed 13 Oct 2012]
   Google Scholar
• Vogt FG, Kord AS. Development of quality-by-design analytical methods. J Pharm Sci 2011;100:797–812
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charoo NA, Ali AA. Quality risk management in pharmaceutical development. Drug Dev Ind Pharm [Online]. July 2012. (doi: 10.3109/03639045.2012.699065). Available at: http://www.informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/03639045.2012.699065 [last accessed 13 Oct 2012]
   Google Scholar
• Maeda J, Suzuki T, Takayama K. Novel method to construct large-scale design space in lubrication process utilizing Bayesian estimation based on a small-scale design-of-experiment and small sets of large-scale manufacturing data. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 2012;38:1451--9
   Google Scholar
• Palttala L, Heinämäki J, Honkanen O, et al. Towards more reliable automated multi-dose dispensing: retrospective follow-up study on medication dose errors and product defects. Drug Dev Ind Pharm [Online]. March 2012. (doi: 10.3109/03639045.2012.670860). Available at: http://www.informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/03639045.2012.670860 [last accessed 13 October 2012]
   Google Scholar
• Lopez F, Di Bartolo C, Piazza T, et al. A quality risk management model approach for cell therapy manufacturing. Risk Anal 2010;30:1–15
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zimmermann HF, Hentschel N. Proposal on how to conduct a biopharmaceutical process failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) as a risk assessment tool. PDA J Pharm Sci Technol 2011;65:506–12
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Eudralex, The rules governing medicinal products in the European Community. Volume 4, EU Guidelines to good manufacturing practice for medicinal products for human and veterinary use [Online]. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/eudralex/vol-4/index_en.htm [last accessed 20 Oct 2012]
   Google Scholar
• O’Brien JA, Marakas GM. Management information systems. 9th ed. Boston: McGraw Hill; 2009
   Google Scholar
• Pharmaceutical Inspection Convention, Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme. Good practices for computerised systems in regulated “GXP” environments [PI 011-3]. Pharmaceutical Inspection Convention, Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme, Geneva; 2007. Available at: http://www.picscheme.org/publication.php?id=8 [last accessed 20 Oct 2012]
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. General principles for software validation; final guidance for industry and FDA staff. Rockville (MD): U.S. Department Of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration; 2002. Available at: www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM085281.htm [last accessed 20 Oct 2012]
   Google Scholar
• International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering. GAMP 5, a risk-based approach to compliant electronic records and signatures. 1st ed. Tampa (FL): International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering; 2005
   Google Scholar
• Garrett C, Apostolakis G. Context in the risk assessment of digital systems. Risk Anal 1999;19:23–32
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoneburner G, Goguen A, Feringa A. Risk management guide for information technology systems. National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication; 2002: 800–30. Available at: http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-30/sp800-30.pdf [last accessed 20 October 2012]
   Google Scholar
• Covello VT, Mumpower J. Risk analysis and risk management: an historical perspective. Risk Anal 1985;5:103–18
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• US Department of Defense. Procedures for performing a failure mode, effects and criticality analysis. MIL-P 1629. Washington (DC): US Department of Defense; 1949
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Defense. Procedures for performing a failure mode, effects and criticality analysis. MIL-STD-1629A/Notice 2. Washington (DC): US Department of Defense; 1980/84
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan S, Garrick BJ. On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Anal 1981;1:11–27
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan S. The general theory of quantitative risk assessment – its role in the regulation of agricultural pests. Proceedings of the APHIS/NAPPO International Workshop on the Identification, Assessment and Management of Risks Due to Exotic Agricultural Pests. North American Plant Protection Organisation Bulletin; 1993;11:123–46; Ottawa
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan S, Haimes YY, Garrick BJ. Fitting hierarchical holographic modeling into the theory of scenario structuring and a resulting refinement of the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Anal 2001;21:807–19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Claycamp G. Perspective on quality risk management of pharmaceutical quality. Drug Inform J 2007;41:353–67
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dyadem Press. Guidelines for failure mode and effects analysis for automotive, aerospace and general manufacturing industries. 1st ed. Ontario: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis; 2003
   Google Scholar
• Arvanitoyannis IS, Varzaka TH. A conjoint study of quantitative and semi-quantitative assessment of failure in a strudel manufacturing plant by means of FMEA and HACCP, cause and effect and Pareto diagram. Int J Food Sci Technol 2007;42:1156–76
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mollah AH. Focus on project management: application of Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) for process risk assessment. BioProcess Int 2005;3:12–20
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Defense. Military handbook electronic reliability design handbook MILHDBK-217-F. Washington (DC): US Department of Defense; 1991
   Google Scholar
• Smith DJ. Reliability, maintainability and risk – practical methods for engineers. 7th ed. Oxford: Elsevier; 2005
   Google Scholar
• Snaith ER. The correlation between the predicted and observed reliabilities of components, equipment and systems. NCSR-R18. Culcheth, Warrington: National Centre of Systems Reliability, UK Atomic Energy Authority; 1981
   Google Scholar
• Modarres M. Risk Analysis in engineering – techniques, tools and trends. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press, Taylor and Francis; 2006
   Google Scholar
• Haimes YY. Hierarchical holographic modelling. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern SMC 1981;11:606–17
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haimes YY, Kaplan S, Lambert JH. Risk filtering, ranking and management framework using HHM. Risk Anal 2002;22:383–97
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haimes YY. Risk management. In: Sage AP, Rouse WB, eds. Handbook of systems engineering. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley; 2004:155–201
   Google Scholar
• Saaty TL. Risk – its priority and probability: the analytic hierarchy process. Risk Anal 1987;7:159–72
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Claycamp G. Risk ranking and filtering and its role in risk management [Online]. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/04/slides/2004-4052S2_02_Claycamp.ppt [last accessed 20 Oct 2012]
   Google Scholar
• US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Reactor safety study: an assessment of accidents in US commercial nuclear power plants [WASH-1400, NUREG-75/014]. Washington (DC): US Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 1975
   Google Scholar
• Trager TA Jr. Case study report on loss of safety system function events [AEODIC504]. Washington (DC): US Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 1985
   Google Scholar
• Hannaman GW, Spurgin AJ. Systematic human action reliability procedure [NP-3583]. Palo Alto (CA): Electric Power Institute; 1984
   Google Scholar
• Swain AD, Guttman HE. Handbook of human reliability analysis with emphasis on nuclear power applications [NUREG/CR-1278]. Washington (DC): US Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 1983
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Pharmaceutical cGMPs for the 21st century – a risk-based approach. Rockville (MD): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug aAdministration; 2004 [Online]. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/Manufacturing/QuestionsandAnswersonCurrentGoodManufacturingPracticescGMPforDrugs/ucm137175.htm [last accessed 20 Oct 2012]
   Google Scholar
• Eudralex, The rules governing medicinal products in the European Community. Volume 4, EU Guidelines to good manufacturing practice for medicinal products for human and veterinary use, annex 11 [Online]. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/health/files/eudralex/vol-4/annex11_01-2011_en.pdf [last accessed 20 Oct 2012]
   Google Scholar
• Hulebak KL, Schlosser W. Hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) history and conceptual overview. Risk Anal 2002;22:547–52
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Electrotechnical Commission. Hazard and operability studies (HAZOP studies) – application guide. 1 ed. [IEC 61882]. Geneva: International Electrotechnical Commission; 2001
   Google Scholar
• International Electrotechnical Commission. Fault tree analysis. 2nd ed. [IEC 61025]. Geneva: International Electrotechnical Commission; 2006
   Google Scholar
• O’Donnell K. Strategies for addressing the problems of subjectivity and uncertainty in quality risk management exercises. J Validation Technol 2010;14:76–84
   Google Scholar
• Tague N. The quality toolbox. 2nd ed. Milwaukee (WI): American Society for Quality; 2004
   Google Scholar
• Sage AP, Rouse WB. Handbook of systems engineering and management. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley; 2004
   Google Scholar
• Lambert JH, Jennings RK, Joshi NN. Integration of risk identification with business process models. Syst Eng 2006;9:187–98
   Google Scholar
• David P, Idasiak V, Kratz F. Reliability study of complex physical systems using SysML. Reliability Eng Syst Safety 2010;95:431–50
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker KD, Catalano P, Hammitt JK, et al. Use of expert judgment in exposure assessment: part 2. Calibration of expert judgments about personal exposure to benzene. J Exposure Anal Environ Epidemiol 2003;13:1–16
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Haimes YY, Lambert J, Li D, et al. Hierarchical holographic modeling for risk identification in complex systems. IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Systems for the 21st Century: Systems, Man and Cybernetics; 1995; Vancouver (BC)
   Google Scholar
• Dillon RL, Paté-Cornell ME. Including technical and security risks in the management of information systems: a programmatic risk management model. Syst Eng 2005; 8:15–28
   Google Scholar