{
  "content": "# Classification and supplier‑quality/regulatory requirements for enzyme raw materials used in pharmaceutical manufacturing\n\nExecutive summary\n- Enzyme raw materials used in pharmaceutical manufacturing may be classified as (A) active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) or API starting materials, (B) excipients (including co‑processed excipients or processing aids), or (C) critical reagents/critical raw materials/ancillary reagents. The correct classification is determined by intended function in the drug manufacturing chain (therapeutic activity or incorporation vs functional/processing role), presence and activity in the finished drug product, and the material’s source, potency/activity, purification and associated biological risk (e.g., animal/GMO/microbial origin, adventitious agents, bioburden). Decisions should follow a risk‑based approach documented with objective criteria and examples; when classification is ambiguous, use the decision flow described below. The regulatory and supplier‑quality expectations differ materially by classification and by jurisdiction (US FDA, EMA, China NMPA) and are summarized in this report with specific, actionable criteria and examples for each class together with supplier quality‑agreement (SQA) expectations for CDMOs. [1], [2], [3], [4]\n\nContents\n- Overview: classification principles and objective criteria\n- Examples (therapeutic enzymes vs processing aids)\n- Requirements by classification\n  - APIs / API starting materials (ICH Q7 / FDA / EMA expectations)\n  - Excipients / processing aids (IPEC / excipient GMP / EXCiPACT / ISO)\n  - Critical reagents / starting materials for biologics and ATMPs (FDA/EMA/NMPA expectations)\n- Supplier‑quality expectations common to all classes (documentation, testing, traceability, change control, stability, supply continuity)\n- CDMO supplier‑quality‑agreement (SQA) typical clauses and expectations\n- Decision tool / risk‑based decision criteria and worked examples\n- Evidence gaps\n- References\n\nOverview: classification principles and objective criteria\n- Primary determinant: intended use and functional role. If the enzyme provides the pharmacological effect in the finished drug (is the active substance or a significant structural fragment incorporated into the API), it is an API / API starting material; if it serves formulation/delivery or non‑therapeutic processing functions (lubricant, stabilizer, processing aid) and is not present as an active in the finished drug, it is an excipient/processing aid; if it is used only upstream as a reagent or raw material for manufacture (e.g., nucleases, proteases, enzymes used in fermentation downstream processing) but not present or intended as a drug substance, classify as critical reagent/starting material and manage by raw‑material controls and supplier qualification. This framing aligns with the ICH Q7 definition of API starting material and with excipient GMP guidance that applies GMP at the point justified by intended use in the drug product. [1], [9]\n\n- Presence/activity in the finished product is decisive. Regulatory categorization used in other regulated sectors (e.g., EU food enzyme decision tree) explicitly determines ingredient vs processing aid by whether enzyme activity remains or protein remains in the final product; this concept is applicable in pharma risk assessment (presence, residual activity, denaturation/removal) as an objective criterion. [2]\n\n- Source and biological risk raise the hygiene and viral/adventitious‑agent expectations: enzymes of animal, human, microbial (including GMO) origin or produced by cell culture/fermentation raise additional supplier qualification, adventitious‑agent testing, and documentation requirements compared with synthetic small‑molecule excipients. Guidance for enzyme preparations recommends describing source, isolation, fermentation and purification steps, and reporting total organic solids (TOS) and residual metabolites. [4], [3]\n\n- Potency/activity and CQAs: where enzymatic biological activity influences product quality (either as API or as a critical reagent that affects API CQAs), potency assays and validated activity measures become required release and/or in‑process controls. Potency must be linked to mechanism and validated per applicable potency guidance. [20], [3]\n\nExamples: therapeutic enzymes vs enzymes used solely as processing aids\n- Therapeutic enzymes (examples): asparaginase, PEG‑asparaginase, alglucosidase α, dornase α and other approved enzyme biologics — these are drug substances or drug products and are regulated as APIs/biologic products subject to API/biologic GMP and regulatory submission requirements. For such enzymes the manufacturer of the enzyme product must meet API/biologic GMP and provide full CMC, potency, impurity and viral‑safety data. [5]\n\n- Enzymes used as processing aids in manufacturing (examples): enzymes used to catalyze a chemical step in API synthesis, or proteases used to remove host proteins during purification, or food‑industry style processing enzymes used to facilitate formulation steps. Where the enzyme is not a therapeutic ingredient of the finished product and is removed or inactivated, it is typically treated as a processing aid / excipient or as a critical reagent that is a raw material for the manufacturing process — classification depends on residual presence, activity in final drug, and impact on product safety/quality. The EU food enzyme decision tree illustrates the residue/activity test approach that is directly applicable as a decision criterion. [6], [2]\n\nRequirements by classification\n\nAPIs / API starting materials — regulatory and supplier‑quality expectations\n- Applicability: When an enzyme is classified as an API or API starting material in the region of manufacture or use, ICH Q7 expectations apply (manufacture according to API GMP, defined starting materials, supplier evaluation and batch testing strategy). ICH Q7 requires supplier approval based on sufficient evidence (past quality history), full analyses on at least three batches before reducing in‑house testing, periodic full analyses vs supplier CoA, and documented specifications for raw materials that could critically affect API quality. [1], [3]\n\n- Supplier qualification and audits: ICH Q7 and its \"how‑to\" notes require formal supplier evaluation and approval, with full analyses performed initially (three batches) and ongoing monitoring of supplier CoAs and reliability checks. Suppliers of API starting materials should be audited as needed per risk and history; risk‑based selection of critical raw materials must be documented and approved by the quality unit. [3], [1]\n\n- Documentation and release: Batch‑specific Certificates of Analysis (CoAs) and the ability for the purchaser/quality unit to perform or request authentic CoAs are expected; suppliers of APIs/starting materials should support regulatory filings (DMF/Type II filings where appropriate) and provide detailed CMC data. ICH Q7 also requires appropriate packaging/labeling and batch traceability. [1], [22]\n\n- Testing and release testing: Identity, potency (where relevant), purity, impurity profile comparison vs historical/regulatory impurity profile, and microbiological testing where specified (including endotoxin/bioburden when relevant) are expected. Process equipment and cleaning must be qualified to avoid cross‑contamination for high potency materials. [8], [7]\n\n- Implications for regulatory submissions: Changes of suppliers or raw materials with substantial potential to affect product quality may require regulatory notification or submission (e.g., prior approval supplement) depending on the product lifecycle guidance and regulatory rules. [26]\n\nExcipients and processing aids — regulatory and supplier‑quality expectations\n- Point of application of excipient GMP: The IPEC–PQG GMP guide and companion documents require excipient GMP starting at the justified point in the process where the material is intended for use as an excipient in drug products; the manufacturer must define intended uses and demonstrate adequate controls based on risk assessment (HACCP/FMEA/process flow diagrams). [9], [11]\n\n- Quality systems and standards: IPEC guidance references and aligns with ISO 9001 and provides excipient‑specific GMP expectations; EXCiPACT certification is recognized in the excipient community as an auditable scheme (IPEC materials list and EXCiPACT annex referenced by industry bodies). IPEC safety guidance flags animal‑derived excipients for additional viral safety and origin documentation. [11], [10], [17]\n\n- Supplier qualification, documentation and CoAs: Excipient suppliers are expected to quarantine on receipt, provide batch CoAs with agreed specifications and testing methods, and participate in formal supplier quality agreements. For co‑processed excipients each ingredient should be listed and specifications provided. CoA reliability should be periodically verified. [9], [46]\n\n- Testing scope: Excipient specification content may be qualitative (composition profile) for complex excipients and should follow impurity reporting thresholds comparable to ICH impurity principles; microbiological limits, elemental impurities and composition must be controlled as appropriate. [10], [9]\n\nCritical reagents / upstream raw materials (including biologically derived reagents and ATMP‑related raw materials)\n- Regulatory expectations for biologically‑sourced raw materials: For cell‑based, gene‑therapy and similar ATMP products, regulators expect selection and control of raw biological materials (fetal bovine serum, trypsin, digestion enzymes, growth factors) with supplier information, viral safety rationale, and an assessment of supplier variability impact on product quality. EMA ATMP guidance explicitly requires supplier information and impact assessment for materials not part of the finished product. [12]\n\n- FDA expectations and adventitious‑agent controls: FDA guidance requires that raw materials and ancillary reagents be free of adventitious agents and be supported by retained testing records; for biologically sourced enzymes, the production organism, fermentation and purification steps, and residues of metabolites must be described. FDA also treats materials used upstream that can affect product quality as requiring appropriate control and potential reporting for supplier changes. [13], [4], [26]\n\n- Supplier qualification and risk‑based controls: Industry guidance (ISPE) recommends risk‑based supplier qualification for key raw materials, with questionnaires and audit programs scaled to risk and product lifecycle stage. High‑risk biologically‑sourced reagents typically require higher GMP expectations and more frequent audits. [14]\n\nChina NMPA expectations (supplier audit and raw material changes)\n- NMPA guidance on raw‑material changes (medical devices context) requires evaluation of material changes (type, composition, process) with biological evaluation and risk assessment and assigns levels of change requiring specific testing and evidence; Chinese authorities expect registrants/legal agents to assess whether material changes introduce biological hazards or affect product performance. While the NMPA documents referenced are for passive medical devices, they represent the Chinese regulator’s approach to raw material change evaluation and emphasize risk‑based assessment and requirement for biological/chemical impact evidence. [15], [16]\n\nCross‑cutting supplier‑quality expectations (applies to APIs, excipients, critical reagents)\n\nDocumentation, traceability and CoA/DMF/CEP\n- Required documents: Batch‑specific CoAs (identity, quantitative results, methods, acceptance criteria and reviewer signature) are fundamental; DMFs (Type II for drug substances/excipients) are available mechanisms to provide confidential CMC data to regulators; purchasers should verify CoA authenticity and reserve the right to audit. Traceability/chain‑of‑custody records (supplier, lot, receiving data) are required for materials used in regulated manufacture. [21], [22], [23]\n\nTesting and release testing (identity, potency, purity, endotoxin, adventitious agents)\n- Testing expectations scale with classification and risk: identity testing on incoming lots is required by FDA GMP for components; where the enzyme activity (potency) affects product quality, validated potency assays are required and may be part of release or in‑process controls; microbiological controls (TAMC, TYMC), bioburden, endotoxin, and host‑cell impurities (HCP, residual DNA) are required for biologically sourced enzymes when relevant. Industry enzyme suppliers that offer “GMP” enzymes commonly report identity, purity (SEC‑HPLC), concentration, endotoxin, bioburden, DNase/RNase, HCP, DNA and heavy metals; these parameters form a practical checklist for pharm‑grade enzyme controls. [31], [18], [19], [20]\n\nTraceability and chain‑of‑custody\n- Practical expectation: maintain a traceability matrix linking supplier lot to internal batch numbers and finished product lots; chain‑of‑custody processes should be auditable and updated as part of supplier oversight. [23]\n\nChange control, supplier change notification and regulatory reporting\n- Change control: Material or supplier changes that might affect product quality should be governed by formal change control; IPEC provides a significant‑change guide classifying changes by regulatory impact, and regulators expect reporting of supplier changes that could substantially affect product quality (for certain products a PAS may be required). Industry guidance segments changes into notifiable vs immediate‑notification categories and requires evaluation of first‑batches after change. [25], [26], [24]\n\nStability, storage and transport\n- Storage and transport conditions must be defined by stability data. Typical guidance for pharmaceuticals references ICH Q1A recommended conditions (commonly 25 °C/60% RH baseline) but biologics/enzymes often require refrigerated or frozen storage (–70 °C/–80 °C for very sensitive biologics) and validated temperature‑controlled transport. Vendor stability data and validated cold‑chain logistics are required where enzyme activity is temperature sensitive. [27], [28], [29]\n\nSupply continuity and sole‑source risk mitigation\n- Risk mitigation: supplier qualification, multi‑sourcing where possible, safety stock, and documented business‑continuity plans are expected. Changes in sole suppliers with potential to affect product quality are likely to be notifiable to regulators depending on risk. Industry supplier‑qualification programs apply risk scoring to prioritize audits and testing. [14], [24]\n\nCDMO supplier‑quality‑agreement (SQA) typical requirements and expectations\n- Typical SQA clauses: agreed specifications and release criteria (CoA contents and revisions), right to audit, change‑notification timelines, supply continuity commitments, traceability/chain‑of‑custody data sharing, stability and storage requirements, agreed testing (identity, potency, purity, endotoxin, bioburden), DMF/technical dossier access, confidentiality/retention of records, and responsibilities for regulatory notifications. SQA templates used by CDMOs commonly follow ISPE and industry expectations, and CoA reliability verification and the right to inspect supplier data/dossiers are commonly included. The role of CoAs and their verification in supplier oversight is a standard part of such agreements. [30], [31]\n\nDecision tool: risk‑based criteria and recommended decision flow\n- Key objective criteria (yes/no checklist):\n  1. Is the enzyme intended to be the therapeutic active substance in the finished drug? If yes → API/biologic (ICH Q7 / biologics GMP). [1], [5]\n  2. Is the enzyme present in the finished product in an active form or as intact protein with potential biological activity or immunogenicity? If yes → treat as ingredient/API or as excipient requiring enhanced controls; if no and removed/inactivated → processing aid / reagent classification possible. (EU decision tree logic applies.) [2]\n  3. Does the enzyme materially affect API CQAs (e.g., stereochemistry, residual impurities) or is it used in a critical upstream step affecting product safety/efficacy? If yes → critical reagent / API starting material controls (supplier qualification, testing, potential regulatory notification). [3], [14]\n  4. Is the enzyme of biological/animal/GMO origin or produced by fermentation? If yes → escalate viral/adventitious‑agent, HCP/DNA testing and supplier documentation expectations. [4], [12]\n  5. Does the enzyme require validated potency assays to assure consistent effect in process or finished product? If yes → include validated potency in release/acceptance criteria. [20]\n\n- Recommended decision flow (textual):\n  - Start with intended use (step 1). If therapeutic → API/biologic GMP and regulatory filing path. If non‑therapeutic, assess residual presence and activity (step 2). If residual active protein remains or is immunogenic → treat with heightened controls akin to excipient of biological origin. If not present/fully removed → treat as processing aid or critical reagent: apply raw‑material controls, supplier qualification and risk‑based testing (identity, potency if process‑critical, purity, bioburden/endotoxin if contact potential). [1], [2], [3], [12]\n\nWorked examples\n- Example A: Asparaginase drug product — therapeutic enzyme, categorized as drug substance/API; full API/biologic GMP, potency assays, viral safety, DMF/CMC data required. [5]\n- Example B: Enzyme used to catalyse a chiral resolution step where trace enzyme residuals in API may cause impurities — classify as API starting material/critical raw material; require ICH Q7 controls, supplier qualification, impurity‑profile monitoring and possibly regulatory notification for supplier changes. [3], [1]\n- Example C: Papain used in a non‑pharmaceutical upstream step and removed during purification with no activity or protein in final product — classify as processing aid/critical reagent with standard raw‑material controls, but if animal origin evaluate BSE/TSE/allergen risks per IPEC safety guidance. [6], [10]\n\nJurisdictional differences (US FDA, EMA, China NMPA)\n- Core GMP expectations are harmonized for APIs via ICH Q7 and regulators follow its principles, but national agencies add focus areas: FDA emphasizes reporting requirements (supplier changes that affect product quality), identity testing and retention of testing records for adventitious agents; EMA expects full documentation for excipients listed by common name and for co‑processed excipients to list each ingredient; China NMPA applies a risk‑based evaluation to raw‑material changes and requires biological evaluation when relevant (described in NMPA guidance for passive devices and applied analogously for other regulated products). Practically, regulators expect supplier qualification and robust justification for classification differences; notifications or supplements may be required for substantive supplier/raw‑material changes. Where guidance overlaps or diverges, consult the applicable country/regional guidance for precise reporting thresholds. [7], [8], [15], [26]\n\nEvidence gaps (items not found in the provided sources)\n- No primary source in the provided findings explicitly details EXCiPACT audit content or the EXCiPACT certification process steps and scope for enzymes specifically (EXCiPACT is referenced by IPEC but full EXCiPACT standard text was not provided). [17], [11]\n- No primary regulatory templates for CDMO supplier‑quality agreements or PDA CDMO SQA templates were present in the findings; only high‑level industry expectations (ISPE, Biopharma International) were available. [14], [31]\n- No jurisdiction‑specific NMPA guidance explicitly for pharmaceutical enzyme raw materials (the NMPA documents provided address medical devices raw material changes), so direct NMPA regulatory text for pharmaceutical enzyme suppliers was not available in the evidence set. [15], [16]\n- No USP/EP monograph citations for specific enzymes (e.g., assay methods, activity units) were available in the provided evidence set.\n\nPractical actionable checklist (summary, immediate actions)\n1. Classify the enzyme for each intended use using the decision checklist above and document rationale (intended use, presence/activity in final product, origin, process‑criticality). [2], [3]\n2. If API/API starting material: implement ICH Q7 supplier approval (three‑batch full analysis baseline), request DMF/technical dossier or vendor master file, define specification including impurity profile, potency and microbiology as appropriate. [1], [3]\n3. If excipient/processing aid: require IPEC‑aligned GMP evidence from supplier, CoA with agreed specifications, quarantine at receipt and risk‑based additional testing for biologically derived materials (viral safety, HCP/DNA). [9], [10], [11]\n4. If critical reagent/raw material: perform supplier qualification (questionnaire and audit where risk warrants), require identity testing on receipt, include potency or functional assay if process‑critical, and require viral/adventitious‑agent evidence for biological sources. [14], [18], [19]\n5. For all biologically sourced enzymes: require documentation of source organism/manufacturing process, purification steps, and residuals (TOS/HCP/DNA), and include bioburden/endotoxin limits and stability/storage conditions in SQA. [4], [18]\n6. Include change‑notification timelines, supply continuity plans and right‑to‑audit clauses in SQAs; multi‑source where feasible. [24], [31]\n\nReferences\n[1] https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/Q7%20Guideline.pdf\n[2] https://food.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2016-10/fs_food-improvement-agents_enzymes-guidance-categorisation.pdf\n[3] https://apic.cefic.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/ICH-Q7-How-To-Do-version15_final-version.pdf\n[4] https://fda.gov/media/79379/download\n[5] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8431097/\n[6] https://slideshare.net/slideshow/industrial-and-therapeutic-applications-of-enzymes/281601280\n[7] https://fda.gov/files/drugs/published/Q7-Good-Manufacturing-Practice-Guidance-for-Active-Pharmaceutical-Ingredients-Guidance-for-Industry.pdf\n[8] https://ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/ich-q-7-good-manufacturing-practice-active-pharmaceutical-ingredients-step-5_en.pdf\n[9] https://gmp-navigator.com/files/guidemgr/IPEC-pqg-gmp-guide-final-1671189079-%20v5.pdf\n[10] https://ipec-federation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/2021-IPEC-Safety-Guide-F.pdf\n[11] https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2016-11/111_b_international_pharmaceutical_excipients_council_en_0.pdf\n[12] https://ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-quality-non-clinical-clinical-requirements-investigational-advanced-therapy-medicinal-products-clinical-trials_en.pdf\n[13] https://fda.gov/media/78428/download\n[14] https://ispe.org/pharmaceutical-engineering/march-april-2022/supplier-qualification-program-key-raw-materials\n[15] https://pharmatomarket.com/nmpa-of-china-releases-evaluation-guideline-for-raw-material-changes-in-passive-medical-devices/\n[16] https://cisema.com/en/nmpa-provides-evaluation-guidance-on-material-changes-for-passive-medical-devices/\n[17] https://ipecamericas.org/what-ipec-americas/about\n[18] https://kactusbio.com/pages/gmp?srsltid=AfmBOopJcZ9ydRu7lSFE_mjBJkCj0CDqjSAxPHsScDczVOQufPOr-zEN\n[19] https://sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/technical-documents/technical-article/pharmaceutical-and-biopharmaceutical-manufacturing/sampling/risk-mitigation-through-bioburden-control-closed-sampling?srsltid=AfmBOooED20TGTxOcnnVvyfFYVQMuPk_LCoxSPNOUX_mmbspf4H7-wm_\n[20] https://fda.gov/files/vaccines,%20blood%20%26%20biologics/published/Final-Guidance-for-Industry--Potency-Tests-for-Cellular-and-Gene-Therapy-Products.pdf\n[21] https://assyro.com/blog/certificate-of-analysis-guide\n[22] https://freyrsolutions.com/blog/overview-on-dmfcep-need-of-regulatory-submission\n[23] https://inboundlogistics.com/articles/the-race-is-on-chain-of-custody-in-the-pharmaceutical-supply-chain/\n[24] https://ispe.org/pharmaceutical-engineering/september-october-2022/regulatory-landscape-raw-materials-cmc\n[25] https://gmp-compliance.org/files/guidemgr/ipec-significant-change-guide-f-1684943592%20v5.pdf\n[26] https://fda.gov/media/109615/download\n[27] https://gmpinsiders.com/stability-storage-conditions/\n[28] https://eurofins.com/biopharma-services/product-testing/services/biopharma-product-testing-services/quality-control/stability-studies-storage/specific-conditions/\n[29] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3225534/\n[30] https://celegence.com/raw-material-compliance-pharmaceuticals/\n[31] https://biopharminternational.com/view/the-role-of-coas-in-supplier-oversight",
  "sources": [
    {
      "url": "https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/Q7%20Guideline.pdf",
      "title": "[PDF] Q7 Guideline.pdf - ICH",
      "favicon": "https://database.ich.org/themes/custom/penceo_admin/images/favicon.ico"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://apic.cefic.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/ICH-Q7-How-To-Do-version15_final-version.pdf",
      "title": "[PDF] ICH-Q7-How-To-Do-version15_final-version.pdf - APIC (CEFIC)",
      "favicon": "https://apic.cefic.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/cropped-favico-32x32.png"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/ich-q-7-good-manufacturing-practice-active-pharmaceutical-ingredients-step-5_en.pdf",
      "title": "[PDF] Q 7 Good Manufacturing Practice for Active Pharmaceutical ...",
      "favicon": "https://www.ema.europa.eu/themes/custom/ema_theme/favicon.ico"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://www.fda.gov/media/79379/download",
      "title": "[PDF] Guidance for industry: enzyme preparations - FDA",
      "favicon": "https://www.fda.gov/favicon.ico"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://www.fda.gov/files/drugs/published/Q7-Good-Manufacturing-Practice-Guidance-for-Active-Pharmaceutical-Ingredients-Guidance-for-Industry.pdf",
      "title": "[PDF] Q7 Good Manufacturing Practice Guidance for Active ... - FDA",
      "favicon": "https://www.fda.gov/favicon.ico"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://www.fda.gov/media/109615/download",
      "title": "[PDF] Certain Biological Products; Guidance for Industry - FDA",
      "favicon": "https://www.fda.gov/favicon.ico"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://food.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2016-10/fs_food-improvement-agents_enzymes-guidance-categorisation.pdf",
      "title": "[PDF] GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON CRITERIA FOR CATEGORISATION ...",
      "favicon": "https://food.ec.europa.eu/themes/contrib/oe_theme/images/favicons/ec/favicon.png"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-quality-non-clinical-clinical-requirements-investigational-advanced-therapy-medicinal-products-clinical-trials_en.pdf",
      "title": "Guideline on quality, non-clinical and clinical requirements for ...",
      "favicon": "https://www.ema.europa.eu/themes/custom/ema_theme/favicon.ico"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://www.gmp-compliance.org/files/guidemgr/ipec-significant-change-guide-f-1684943592%20v5.pdf",
      "title": "[PDF] IPEC Significant Change Guide for Pharmaceutical Excipients",
      "favicon": "https://www.gmp-compliance.org/files/custom/images/apple-touch-icon.png"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://ipec-federation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/2021-IPEC-Safety-Guide-F.pdf",
      "title": "[PDF] IPEC Safety Guide for Pharmaceutical Excipients",
      "favicon": "https://ipec-federation.org/favicon.ico"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://ipecamericas.org/what-ipec-americas/about",
      "title": "About IPEC-Americas - International Pharmaceutical Excipients Council of the Americas",
      "favicon": "https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/IPECAMERICAS/ada9a257-a70a-4e76-942a-fafbac1ffe84/UploadedImages/favicon.jpg"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2016-11/111_b_international_pharmaceutical_excipients_council_en_0.pdf",
      "title": "[PDF] Joint IPEC/PQG GMP Guide for Pharmaceutical Excipients",
      "favicon": "https://health.ec.europa.eu/themes/contrib/oe_theme/images/favicons/ec/favicon.png"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/industrial-and-therapeutic-applications-of-enzymes/281601280",
      "title": "Industrial and Therapeutic Applications of Enzymes | PPTX",
      "favicon": "https://public.slidesharecdn.com/_next/static/media/favicon-apple-touch.67878cb6.png"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8431097/",
      "title": "Enzyme Therapy: Current Challenges and Future Perspectives - PMC",
      "favicon": "https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/pd-medc-pmc-cloudpmc-viewer/production/8a2a0396/var/data/static/img/favicons/apple-touch-icon.png"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/technical-documents/technical-article/pharmaceutical-and-biopharmaceutical-manufacturing/sampling/risk-mitigation-through-bioburden-control-closed-sampling?srsltid=AfmBOooED20TGTxOcnnVvyfFYVQMuPk_LCoxSPNOUX_mmbspf4H7-wm_",
      "title": "Risk Mitigation Through Bioburden Control: Closed Sampling",
      "favicon": "https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/static/favicon.svg"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://www.fda.gov/files/vaccines,%20blood%20%26%20biologics/published/Final-Guidance-for-Industry--Potency-Tests-for-Cellular-and-Gene-Therapy-Products.pdf",
      "title": "[PDF] Potency Tests for Cellular and Gene Therapy Products",
      "favicon": "https://www.fda.gov/favicon.ico"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://www.celegence.com/raw-material-compliance-pharmaceuticals/",
      "title": "Raw Material Compliance in Pharmaceuticals Guide",
      "favicon": "https://www.celegence.com/wp-content/themes/celegencedynamic/assets/favicon.png"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://www.gmp-navigator.com/files/guidemgr/IPEC-pqg-gmp-guide-final-1671189079-%20v5.pdf",
      "title": "[PDF] IPEC Guideline - GMP Navigator",
      "favicon": "https://www.gmp-navigator.com/files/custom/images/apple-touch-icon.png"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://www.pharmatomarket.com/nmpa-of-china-releases-evaluation-guideline-for-raw-material-changes-in-passive-medical-devices/",
      "title": "NMPA of China Releases Evaluation Guideline for Raw Material Changes in Passive Medical Devices - Pharma To MarketPharma To Market",
      "favicon": "https://www.pharmatomarket.com/wp-content/uploads/cropped-logo-for-google-180x180.jpg"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://cisema.com/en/nmpa-provides-evaluation-guidance-on-material-changes-for-passive-medical-devices/",
      "title": "NMPA Guidelines for Raw Material Changes in Passive Medical Devices",
      "favicon": "https://cisema.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/cropped-Cisema-Favicon-180x180.png"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://ispe.org/pharmaceutical-engineering/march-april-2022/supplier-qualification-program-key-raw-materials",
      "title": "Supplier Qualification Program for Key Raw Materials | Pharmaceutical Engineering",
      "favicon": "https://ispe.org/themes/custom/ispe/favicons/apple-touch-icon.png"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://assyro.com/blog/certificate-of-analysis-guide",
      "title": "Certificate of Analysis: Pharmaceutical COA Requirements...",
      "favicon": "https://assyro.com/favicon.ico?favicon.d595f738.ico"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://www.freyrsolutions.com/blog/overview-on-dmfcep-need-of-regulatory-submission",
      "title": "Understanding DMF and CEP Regulatory Submission Needs",
      "favicon": "https://www.freyrsolutions.com/sites/default/files/favicon.ico"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://www.biopharminternational.com/view/the-role-of-coas-in-supplier-oversight",
      "title": "The Role of CoAs in Supplier Oversight | BioPharm International",
      "favicon": "https://www.biopharminternational.com/favicon.ico"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://www.fda.gov/media/78428/download",
      "title": "[PDF] Guidance for Industry- Characterization and Qualification of Cell ...",
      "favicon": "https://www.fda.gov/favicon.ico"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://kactusbio.com/pages/gmp?srsltid=AfmBOopJcZ9ydRu7lSFE_mjBJkCj0CDqjSAxPHsScDczVOQufPOr-zEN",
      "title": "GMP Enzymes for mRNA Synthesis and Gene Editing",
      "favicon": "https://kactusbio.com/cdn/shop/files/Favicon1_32x32.png?v=1723663418"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://www.inboundlogistics.com/articles/the-race-is-on-chain-of-custody-in-the-pharmaceutical-supply-chain/",
      "title": "The Race is On: Chain of Custody in the Pharmaceutical Supply Chain - Inbound Logistics",
      "favicon": "https://www.inboundlogistics.com/wp-content/uploads/cropped-favicon-180x180.png"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://ispe.org/pharmaceutical-engineering/september-october-2022/regulatory-landscape-raw-materials-cmc",
      "title": "Regulatory Landscape for Raw Materials: CMC Considerations - ISPE",
      "favicon": "https://ispe.org/themes/custom/ispe/favicons/apple-touch-icon.png"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://gmpinsiders.com/stability-storage-conditions/",
      "title": "Stability Storage Conditions In Pharma Industry | GMP Insiders",
      "favicon": "https://gmpinsiders.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/cropped-GMP-Insiders-180x180.png"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://www.eurofins.com/biopharma-services/product-testing/services/biopharma-product-testing-services/quality-control/stability-studies-storage/specific-conditions/",
      "title": "Specific Conditions for Stability Studies and Storage - Eurofins Scientific",
      "favicon": "https://www.eurofins.com/favicon.ico"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3225534/",
      "title": "Stability Studies Needed to Define the Handling and Transport Conditions of Sensitive Pharmaceutical or Biotechnological Products - PMC",
      "favicon": "https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/pd-medc-pmc-cloudpmc-viewer/production/8a2a0396/var/data/static/img/favicons/apple-touch-icon.png"
    }
  ],
  "status": "completed",
  "created_at": "2026-04-15T03:27:06.534903+00:00",
  "response_time": 258.43,
  "request_id": "f7422bcd-8500-4d0f-a767-c7e6145a2c88"
}
