One Year Out, Where Do We Stand on DSCSA Implementation?

This article was originally published as a guest column in Outsourced Pharma.

This month kicks off the final year of a decade-long process to enhance overall security of the U.S. prescription drug supply chain under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA).1 To foster enhanced security, the DSCSA outlines steps to build a fully interoperable, electronic system for tracking and tracing drug products at the package level. In so doing, the law, enacted in 2013, has called upon the FDA and the full spectrum of supply chain trading partners — from manufacturers to repackagers to distributors to dispensers — to align on key implementation requirements by Nov. 27, 2023. The FDA, for its part, has been phasing in pertinent guidance documents to support DSCSA implementation.2  (For a summary of 2021’s guidances, see “Navigating DSCSA Implementation: Key Requirements & 4 New FDA Guidances.”)

Now, ongoing questions of whole industry readiness remain a mixed bag as the law’s November 2023 deadline comes into sight, although some progress has been observed.3 This article looks at this year’s DSCSA implementation efforts, before examining where implementation currently stands and what gaps and challenges remain.

2022 DSCSA Implementation Advances

Despite 2021 efforts, a lack of clarity on trading partner and product tracing standards meant that implementation hesitancy persisted.4 While 2022 brought resolution to some outstanding questions, others remain open.

In February 2022, the agency issued long-awaited licensing standards for wholesale distributors (WDs) and third-party logistics providers (3PLs).5 The following month saw revised draft guidance on verification systems, which granted trading partners more time to respond to requests for verifying suspect or illegitimate products.Then, in July 2022, the FDA issued revised draft guidance on identifying authorized trading partners, as well as revised draft guidance on electronic tracing standards.7

National Licensing Standards for WDs & 3PLs

Early this year, the FDA issued a proposed rule setting forth licensing standards for WDs and 3PLs, as it is mandated to do under the DSCSA.8 Significantly, in guidance describing the impact of the proposed rule on product tracing, the FDA said that section 585(b)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, & Cosmetic Act (FDCA) preempts state licensing laws that establish stricter standards.9 This means that states may only continue licensing WDs and 3PLs if they match federal requirements, promoting industry-wide uniformity and clarifying expectations among trading partners. Prior to the proposed rule, manufacturers across states had to navigate a patchwork of state licensing regulations to ensure their trading partners were appropriately authorized, burdening compliance with a key DSCSA requirement.

Stakeholder comments made in response to the proposed rule were largely supportive of the FDA’s preemption position, since uniformity of national requirements is consistent with DSCSA principles for enhancing supply chain security.10 Concurring with these comments, the Healthcare Distribution Alliance (HDA) also called for uniformity between licensing standards for WDs and 3PLs, explaining that even “minor differences may distract both the regulated and the regulators from whether the difference is meaningful and intended, mandated by differences in the DSCSA, or simply a drafting artifact.”11

Additionally, revised draft guidance issued in July 2022, Identifying Trading Partners Under the DSCSA, addresses previously unclear statuses of trading partners involved in product tracing (i.e., private-label distributors, salvagers, and returns processors and reverse logistics providers), along with confusion around certain drug distribution scenarios.12 The revised draft guidance also clarified the licensure status of 3PLs prior to the effective date of the new licensure regulation. Taken together, the new proposed rule and draft guidance helps clarify who exactly trading partners should be engaging with, particularly among interstate trading partners, in fulfilling another key DSCSA requirement.

Electronic Tracing Standards

In July 2022, the FDA also issued revised draft guidance, DSCSA Standards for the Interoperable Exchange of Information for Tracing of Certain Human, Finished, Prescription Drugs, clarifying expectations for complying with electronic standards for tracing products.13 Most significantly, this draft guidance recommends that trading partners use GS1’s Electronic Product Code Information Services (EPCIS) standard when exchanging and maintaining transaction information and transaction statements. GS1 is a widely recognized nonprofit organization that designs and maintains global standards for business communications.14 While the previous iteration of the draft guidance recommended the use of GS1, it also allowed for the use of other methods and standards. This created confusion as to what the agency considered to be adequately harmonized standards and led many trading partners to refrain from adopting any standard before a final recommendation was made clear.

This newer version of the guidance is consistent with the DSCSA requirement that the FDA make standard recommendations that are consistent with those of widely recognized international organizations.15 An August 2021 report from the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities (ICMRA) endorsed GS1 as an appropriately accepted international standard for data exchange as part of global track and trace systems.16 Additionally, GS1’s EPCIS standard had been most supported by industry and was being used as the basis of the interoperable system built to date.17 Thus, the recent, more direct recommendation from the FDA, to use the GS1 standard alone, aligns with industry calls and ICMRA’s endorsement, and will hopefully activate its more fulsome adoption.

One Year Out: Progress Observed, But Challenges Remain

With one year to go before DSCSA requirements for electronic, package-level traceability and verification are enforced, strong evidence suggests that industry readiness may be coming into focus, at least for some trading partners.18 That is according to a recent HDA report detailing results of its annual Serialization Readiness Survey, in which 48 manufacturers and 29 distributors shared their perspectives on current system capabilities. Although many of the survey participants appear to be in good shape for 2023 compliance, the report also showed signs of a supply chain that still demonstrates “uneven readiness” as a whole. Additionally, the FDA and industry remain apart on data management expectations, a key mechanism for ensuring whole system interoperability.19

Manufacturer Readiness

In a sign of progress, the HDA survey found that 75% of manufacturers plan to send all serialized data with shipments by November 2023, with nearly a quarter of manufacturers aiming to do so sooner (i.e., by the end of 2022). Additionally, over 57% of manufacturers are already aggregating data for all their products, up from 45% last year, and another 6% plan to aggregate by the end of 2022. Aggregation of unique product data at the package level must take place before data can be exchanged with other trading partners, so it’s good news that a majority of manufacturers have already taken this initial step, or soon will. Also encouraging is news that most manufacturers (87%) currently use the latest 1.2 version of the FDA recommended EPCIS standard. Nearly all of the remaining participants indicated they use earlier versions of EPCIS, with most planning to transition to the newer version by 2023. Even further, 84% of manufacturers said they don’t have any concern about their ability to support the distributors’ saleable returns verification requirement.  

Despite progress, less promising is the 36% of manufacturers that say they won’t begin aggregating data until sometime in 2023, as well as the 2% that are usure when they will be in the position to send serialized data to distributors at all.

Distributor Readiness

Of course, in terms of 2023 interoperability, manufacturers’ ability to send serialized data means little if distributors are unable to receive it. Fortunately, according to the HDA, 62% of distributors reported having current capabilities on this front, with nearly two-thirds of the rest looking to do so by the end of 2022. Interestingly, despite a significant number of manufacturers and distributors anticipating being able to send and receive serialized data by 2023, 46% of distributors said they aren’t receiving any serialized data with transactions, and another 46% said they are receiving serialized data with only 1–5% of transactions.

Additionally, unlike their manufacturer counterparts, more distributors (45%) had concerns with their ability to meet the saleable returns verification requirement, citing challenges such as complete availability of master data, accuracy and completeness of data exchange, and challenges receiving EPCIS files, among others.

Remaining Challenges

Trading Partner Collaboration Challenges

Perhaps more insightful were survey datapoints highlighting the major challenges that manufacturers and distributors still face in terms of meeting their requirements. Per the HDA report, manufacturers cited collaboration with trading partners, governance of the interoperable system, and differences in interpretation of the law as top hurdles for 2023 compliance. Distributors similarly cited collaboration with trading partners as chief among challenges, in addition to technical challenges, establishing standards, and connectivity and related security. Thus, in its final year of implementation, collaboration among trading partners, and with the FDA, continues to be a key rallying cry for all those aiming to achieve 2023 interoperability.

Data System Management Challenges

One discrepancy left unresolved in 2022 has been industry–FDA incongruence on an envisioned traceability data system architecture.20 The FDA recommends that industry adopt a distributed or semi-distributed data system architecture, which allows trading partners to maintain control over their own data in local databases.21 In contrast, a centralized data system manages supply chain-wide traceability data in a central repository or database. While industry and the FDA align on a distributed or semi-distributed management approach, they misalign on the capabilities of such a system.

For example, FDA draft guidance describes its recommended “enhanced system” as one that “should enable trading partners to share relevant data…upon request by an authorized trading partner, the FDA, or other appropriate Federal or State official.” Such a system suggests direct interface of regulatory authorities with individual trading partner systems (i.e., something leaning more toward a semi-distributed structure). Industry has asserted that such a system does not exist, nor can it feasibly be built in time for 2023.22 Additionally, industry has expressed concern about the degree of access the FDA’s system, as articulated, could afford the agency and state authorities.23 Instead, industry views the enhanced system being built as a network of independent trading partner systems and processes, not as a single system or technology (i.e., something leaning more towards a true distributed structure). Under this system, access to traceability data as part of interoperable exchanges is not viewed as direct access, but rather, is intermediated by individual trading partners through request and response functionalities.

This misalignment does not bode well for 2023 interoperability aspirations. Particularly in scenarios when trading partners may manage their data inconsistently from one another, risking technical challenges and interoperability breakdown when they go to exchange requested data. To better harmonize, stakeholders have called for more guidance on the management of traceability data at facilities.24 Better equipping trading partners with information on data management may be a huge part of actualizing interoperability of the whole system. Thus, information from the FDA in this regard will be something to look for down the 2023 stretch. 

Conclusion 

The path to DSCSA implementation has been a long and winding one. While signs of readiness have been observed, it’s also clear that many trading partners are still lagging in bringing together their capabilities in order to meet 2023 interoperability goals. Interoperability means a system that is wholly connected and cohesive — any missing links in the system will not only run counter to the intent of the DSCSA but could also stymie broader efforts to increase supply chain resiliency and to prevent drug shortages in the face of ongoing public health emergencies. Collaboration between and among trading partners and the FDA continues to top challenges faced in DSCSA implementation — both in working out technical issues at the local level, and in deepening stakeholder understanding about roles and responsibilities throughout supply chains. Additionally, greater insight into data management at facilities may help trading partners zero in on how traceability data should be transferred to, or accessed by, other trading partners or regulating authorities as part of the overall enhanced system.

References

  1. Title II of Public Law 113-54, “Drug Supply Chain Security,” (November 2013), available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-113publ54/pdf/PLAW-113publ54.pdf. See also, FDA Webpage, “Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA)”, available at https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-supply-chain-integrity/drug-supply-chain-security-act-dscsa.
  2. FDA DSCSA Guidance & Policies Webpage, available at https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-supply-chain-security-act-dscsa/drug-supply-chain-security-act-law-and-policies.
  3. HDA Research Foundation, “Serialization Readiness Survey: Executive Summary”, (October 2022) available at https://www.hda.org/~/media/pdfs/center/2022-serialization-survey.ashx.
  4. Docket, FDA-2020-D-2024, available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/FDA-2020-D-2024-0005/comment. See also, Regulatory News, “Industry calls for withdrawal of FDA electronic tracing guidance” (September 2021), available at https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2021/9/industry-calls-for-withdrawal-of-fda-electronic-tr.
  5. FDA Announcement, “FDA announces proposed rule: National Standards for the Licensure of Wholesale Drug Distributors and Third-Party Logistics Providers” (February 2022), available at https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-supply-chain-security-act-dscsa/fda-announces-proposed-rule-national-standards-licensure-wholesale-drug-distributors-and-third-party?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery. See also, Docket, FDA-2020-N-1663, available at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FDA-2020-N-1663/document.
  6. FDA Draft Guidance, “Verification Systems Under the DSCSA for Certain Prescription Drugs,” (March 2022), available at https://www.fda.gov/media/117950/download.
  7. See, Regulatory News, “FDA publishes two critical DSCSA draft guidances” (July 2022), available at https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2022/7/fda-publishes-two-critical-dscsa-draft-guidances.
  8. See supra, n.5.
  9. FDA Final Guidance, “Drug Product Tracing: The Effect of Section 585 of the FD&C Act Q&A,” (February 2022), available at https://www.fda.gov/media/89954/download.
  10. Docket (FDA-2020-N-1663), available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/FDA-2020-N-1663-0001.
  11. HDA Comments, Docket (FDA-2020-N-1663-0033), (September 2022), available at https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FDA-2020-N-1663-0089.
  12. FDA Revised Draft Guidance, “Identifying Trading Partners Under the DSCSA,” (July 2022), available at https://www.fda.gov/media/159621/download.
  13. FDA Draft Guidance, “DSCSA Standards for the Interoperable Exchange of Information for Tracing of Certain Human, Finished, Prescription Drugs,” (July 2022), available at https://www.fda.gov/media/90548/download.
  14. GS1 US Webpage, About GS1 US, available at https://www.gs1us.org/who-we-are/about-us.
  15. FD&C Act, Sect. 582(h)(4)(A)(i).
  16. ICMRA Report, “Recommendations on common technical denominators for traceability systems for medicines to allow for interoperability” (August 2021), available at https://www.icmra.info/drupal/sites/default/files/2021-08/recommendations_on_common_technical_denominators_for_T&T_systems_to_allow_for_interoperability_final.pdf.
  17. FDA Event, “Public Meeting on Enhanced Drug Distribution Security at the Package Level Under the DSCSA” (November 2021), available at https://www.fda.gov/drugs/news-events-human-drugs/public-meeting-enhanced-drug-distribution-security-package-level-under-drug-supply-chain-security.
  18. See supra, n.3.
  19. See supra, n.18.
  20. See, Regulatory News, “Industry calls for withdrawal of FDA electronic tracing guidance” (September 2021), available at https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2021/9/industry-calls-for-withdrawal-of-fda-electronic-tr.
  21. FDA Draft Guidance, “Enhanced Drug Distribution Security at the Package Level Under the DSCSA,” (July 2021), available at https://www.fda.gov/media/149704/download.
  22. HDA Comments, Docket, FDA-2020-D-2024, available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/FDA-2020-D-2024-0005/comment. See also, Regulatory News, “Industry calls for withdrawal of FDA electronic tracing guidance” (September 2021), available at https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2021/9/industry-calls-for-withdrawal-of-fda-electronic-tr.
  23. See supra, n.18.
  24. See supra, n.18.

The Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA): Current Implementation Update

Greenleaf Regulatory Landscape Series

In the seventh year of implementation of the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA), trading partners involved in manufacturing, repackaging, distributing, and dispensing pharmaceuticals in the U.S. (industry) continue to grapple with its requirements. The goal of the DSCSA, which was enacted in November 2013 under Title II of the Drug Quality and Security Act,1 is to produce a system that enhances national pharmaceutical supply chain security by implementing a fully interoperable and electronic system for securing and tracing products by November 2023.2 Trading partner authorization, product tracing, verification, and product identification (including serialization) are four key components needed to achieve this goal.3

Since enactment of the DSCSA, two phases of implementation have been imposed. In the first phase, traceability requirements at the lot level were implemented beginning in 2015. In the second phase, interoperability requirements allowing for product tracing at the package level are scheduled to become effective in November 2023. Once in place, the interoperability requirements will involve: the exchange of transaction data by authorized trading partners; the ability of trading partners to verify products at the package level; and the maintenance of product tracing processes such that transaction data going back to the manufacturer can be provided upon request.4

The interoperability requirements, as opposed to the traceability requirements, are not clearly defined by the DSCSA, and yet, are particularly complex due to their electronic interconnectedness across the various industry sectors.5 As such, industry stakeholders have reported slow uptake of requirement testing and implementation thus far, which has been fueled by a lack of consistency, clarity, and awareness among trading partners, as well as added burdens related to the pandemic.6 Specifically, important testing of data systems by some manufacturers has not occurred at rates needed to ensure requirements are in place by 2023. Needed collaboration with trading partners, greater system governance, consistent DSCSA legal interpretation, and missing standards are all additional challenges weighing down implementation efforts.

Figure 1

FDA Efforts to Support Industry Readiness

To help enhance industry’s overall readiness ahead of 2023, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) released four guidance documents in June 2021 aimed at providing clarity and understanding around various DSCSA requirements.7 These guidance documents are summarized in Figure 2 below. The Agency also hosted multiple webinars in 2021 outlining key DSCSA requirements and explaining its new guidance documents and how they fit into the overall 2023 implementation scheme.8

Figure 2 9

Additionally, in February 2022, the FDA issued a proposed rule setting forth licensing standards for wholesale distributors and third-party logistics providers (3PLs), as mandated by the DSCSA.10 A national licensing system for distributors and 3PLs falls under the law’s key requirement that trading partners involved in the exchange of prescription drugs must be authorized such that they are appropriately registered or licensed to receive or transfer products.11 Establishment of national licensing standards eliminates an existing patchwork of state standards and is meant to provide industry-wide uniformity to better ensure all trading partners along supply chains are appropriately qualified to distribute prescription drugs. Diverging from its initial position issued in a 2014 draft guidance, the FDA’s proposed rule preempts state licensing laws that establish stricter standards, meaning that states can only continue licensing distributors and 3PLs if they match federal requirements.12 Once the rule is finalized, wholesale distributors will have two years, and 3PLs will have one year, before requirements take effect. Stakeholders have until June 2022 to comment on the proposed rule.13

Remaining Implementation Challenges: A Need for Further Clarity and Alignment

Despite new guidance and key implementation updates provided by the Agency, industry has continued to call for stronger alignment and the provision of more information around interoperability requirements. At a November 2021 public meeting,14 industry stakeholders called for the finalization of draft guidance on standards for secure, interoperable exchanges of product data and the endorsement of the global GS-1 standard for creating and sharing transaction data, or Electronic Product Code Information Services (EPCIS).15 The FDA has given assurance that finalized guidance is forthcoming.16 The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the DSCSA, mandates17 that the FDA recommend data exchange standards that comply with those of widely recognized international organizations in order to facilitate the adoption of secure, interoperable, electronic data exchange along pharmaceutical distribution supply chains.18 Draft guidance released in November 2014 recommended the use of EPCIS, but also mentioned other methods and standards that could be used as well.19 The lack of a finalized standard recommendation has made many in industry reticent to begin implementing and testing data exchange systems, which are essential for ensuring systems are ready to go live in November 2023

Additionally, in Fall 2021, a number of industry stakeholders submitted comments expressing concern for perceived inconsistencies between the track and trace system put forth in new draft guidance and the plain language of the DSCSA, as well as a lack of other important information about requirements for 2023 compliance.20 The new draft guidance, “Enhanced Drug Distribution Security at the Package Level Under the DSCSA,” sets out the Agency’s decision as to whether data security system structures should be centralized or distributed, backing a distributed/semi-distributed model based on the idea that this approach allows trading partners to maintain control over their own data.21 Industry and other stakeholders disagree, however, as to whether this is the right approach for achieving interoperability. An August 2021 report from the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities (ICMRA) promoted a centralized model as the “most efficient and simple” design for storing and reporting traceability data from multiple entities (although, the report also noted that “it is perfectly possible […] to design a system with distributed databases where each originator stores their own data”).22 In comments submitted to the new draft guidance docket, the Healthcare Distribution Alliance (HDA) stated that it did not believe a distributed or semi-distributed model is feasible, noting that what currently exists is “an ecosystem … of thousands of privately owned and maintained systems that are all different” (emphasis added).23

Other comments submitted to the docket reiterated HDA’s concerns with the new draft guidance, and also addressed concerns related to the sharing of proprietary information between trading partners and government authorities/other trading partners.24 In calling for the withdrawal of the draft guidance, and noting discussed challenges and concerns, HDA and other stakeholders expressed uncertainty as to industry’s ability to meet implementation requirements of the proposed electronic system in time for the 2023 deadline.25 Despite this looming deadline, the FDA has maintained that its planned electronic, interoperable track and trace system will go live in November 2023.26

Conclusion

The FDA has stressed that a system for enhancing drug distribution security will need to be robust, yet flexible.27 The Agency has also said it will leverage a range of coordinated mechanisms, such as: standardized data; standardized data exchanges; data analyses; investigations of suspect and illegitimate products; and other compliance guidance documents and enforcement tools.28 The complexity involved in achieving full implementation of the DSCSA is apparent and has been exacerbated in recent years by the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, greater industry understanding about requirements through additional guidance and communication from the FDA will be an important part of breaking down remaining challenges to full DSCSA implementation in 2023.


  1. H.R. 3204, Sec. 201, “Drug Supply Chain Security,” (November 2013), available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-113publ54/pdf/PLAW-113publ54.pdf. See also, FDA Webpage, “Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA)”, available at https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-supply-chain-integrity/drug-supply-chain-security-act-dscsa.
  2. CDER SBIA Virtual Compliance Conference, Connie Jung, RhP, PhD, “Enhancing Drug Distribution Security under DSCSA” (January 2021), available at https://www.fda.gov/drugs/news-events-human-drugs/cder-compliance-conference-01142021-01142021.
  3. Id.
  4. Partnership for DSCSA Governance, “DSCSA 2023 Requirements,” available at https://dscsagovernance.org/.
  5. Id.
  6. RAPS Focus, “Panelists: Sluggish pace of DSCSA testing is worrisome” (May 2021), available at https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2021/5/supply-chain-members-concerned-over-sluggish-testi?utm_source=MagnetMail&utm_medium=Email%20&utm_campaign=RF%20Today%20%7C%204%20May%202021.
  7. FDA In Brief, “FDA provides new guidance to further enhance the security of prescription drugs in the U.S. supply chain” (June 2021), available at https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-brief-fda-provides-new-guidance-further-enhance-security-prescription-drugs-us-supply-chain?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery.
  8. See, CDER SBIA Virtual Compliance Conference, Connie Jung, RhP, PhD, “Enhancing Drug Distribution Security under DSCSA” (January 2021), available at https://www.fda.gov/drugs/news-events-human-drugs/cder-compliance-conference-01142021-01142021; and CDER SBIA Webinar, Connie Jung, RhP, PhD, “Enhanced Drug Distribution Security in 2023 Under the DSCSA,” (October 2021), available at https://www.fda.gov/drugs/news-events-human-drugs/enhanced-drug-distribution-security-2023-under-dscsa-10052021-10052021.
  9. See, FDA Draft Guidance, “Enhanced Drug Distribution Security at the Package Level Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act,” (June 2021), available at https://www.fda.gov/media/149704/download; FDA Final Guidance, “Drug Supply Chain Security Act Implementation: Identification of Suspect Product and Notification” (June 2021), available at https://www.fda.gov/media/88790/download; FDA Revised Draft Guidance, “Definitions of Suspect Product and Illegitimate Product for Verification Obligations Under the DSCSA” (June 2021), available at https://www.fda.gov/media/111468/download; and FDA Final Guidance, “Product Identifiers Under the DSCSA Questions and Answers” (June 2021), available at https://www.fda.gov/media/116304/download.
  10. FDA Announcement, “FDA announces proposed rule: National Standards for the Licensure of Wholesale Drug Distributors and Third-Party Logistics Providers” (February 2022), available at https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-supply-chain-security-act-dscsa/fda-announces-proposed-rule-national-standards-licensure-wholesale-drug-distributors-and-third-party?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery.
  11. See, supra n.8.
  12. Docket, FDA-2020-N-1663, available at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FDA-2020-N-1663/document.
  13. Id.
  14. FDA Event, “Public Meeting on Enhanced Drug Distribution Security at the Package Level Under the DSCSA,” (November 2021), available at https://www.fda.gov/drugs/news-events-human-drugs/public-meeting-enhanced-drug-distribution-security-package-level-under-drug-supply-chain-security#event-materials.
  15. RAPS Focus, “FDA urged to endorse EPCIS to spur manufacturers’ uptake of DSCSA” (November 2021), available at https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2021/11/fda-urged-to-endorse-epcis-to-spur-manufacturers-u.
  16. FDA Draft Guidance, “Enhanced Drug Distribution Security at the Package Level Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act,” (June 2021), available at https://www.fda.gov/media/149704/download at p.6.
  17. FD&C Act, Sect. 582(h)(4)(A).
  18. See, supra n.16.
  19. Id.
  20. Docket, FDA-2020-D-2024, available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/FDA-2020-D-2024-0005/comment. See also, RAPS Focus, “Industry calls for withdrawal of FDA electronic tracing guidance” (September 2021), available at https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2021/9/industry-calls-for-withdrawal-of-fda-electronic-tr.
  21. FDA Draft Guidance, “Enhanced Drug Distribution Security at the Package Level Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act,” (June 2021), available at https://www.fda.gov/media/149704/download.
  22. ICMRA Report, “Recommendations on common technical denominators for traceability systems for medicines to allow for interoperability” (August 2021), available at https://www.icmra.info/drupal/sites/default/files/2021-08/recommendations_on_common_technical_denominators_for_T&T_systems_to_allow_for_interoperability_final.pdf.
  23. See, supra n.20.
  24. Id.
  25. Id.
  26. RAPS Focus, “FDA official: Agency will not extend 2023 DSCSA interoperability deadline” (August 2021), available at https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2021/8/fda-stands-firm-on-november-2023-interoperability.
  27. See, supra n.2.
  28. Id.

Navigating DSCSA Implementation: Key Requirements and 4 New FDA Guidances

This article was originally published as a guest column in Outsourced Pharma.

In its seventh year of implementation, trading partners involved in manufacturing, distributing, and dispensing prescription drugs in the U.S. (Industry) continue to grapple with requirements of the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA), working to set up a fully interoperable electronic system for securing and tracing products across Industry sectors by November 2023. The goal of the DSCSA is to produce a system that enhances national pharmaceutical supply chain security; achieving this goal has required two phases of implementation. In the first phase, traceability requirements at the lot level were implemented beginning in 2015. In the second phase, interoperability requirements allowing for product tracing at the package level are scheduled to become effective in November 2023.

Interoperability requirements involve the exchange of transaction data by authorized trading partners, the ability of trading partners to verify products at the package level, and the maintenance of product tracing processes such that transaction data going back to the manufacturer can be provided upon request.[1] These requirements, as opposed to the traceability requirements, are not clearly defined by the DSCSA and yet are particularly complex due to their electronic interconnectedness across the various Industry sectors.[2] This lack of clarity around the requirements has created concern regarding how Industry can even begin to prepare to meet the requirements in time to meet the 2023 deadline.[3]

On June 3, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) released four key guidance documents aimed at helping Industry sectors understand certain requirements and assist trading partners in becoming DSCSA compliant; these included:[4]

  • A final guidance on product identifiers;
  • A final guidance on identification and notification of suspect products;
  • A revised draft guidance on verification obligations for suspect and illegitimate products; and
  • A new draft guidance on the distribution security system attributes necessary for enabling secure product tracing at the package level.

This article first provides an overview of the four key implementation components of the DSCSA and the corresponding FDA guidance to assist trading partners in becoming compliant. The article next takes a deeper look at the four new FDA guidances released on June 3, 2021, as well as the significance of new information provided in each. Lastly, the article discusses Industry challenges and what more is needed before full DSCSA implementation can be achieved.

Key DSCSA Requirements and Corresponding FDA Guidance  

DSCSA has four key requirements: (1) trading partner authorization; (2) product tracing; (3) verification; and (4) product identification (including serialization).[5] Under Section 582 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), these requirements apply to pharmaceutical manufacturers, repackagers, wholesale distributors, third-party logistic providers (3PLs), and dispensers (i.e., pharmacies). Each requirement is briefly reviewed below.[6] 

Trading Partner Authorization

Any trading partner involved in the transfer of prescription drugs “where a change of ownership occurs” must be authorized such that they are appropriately registered or licensed to receive or transfer products.[7] For manufacturers and repackagers, entities must be validly registered with the FDA; this can be confirmed through FDA’s drug establishment current registration site (DECRS) database.

For wholesale distributors and 3PLs, entities must have a valid state or federal licensure; at the state level, this can be confirmed by checking state databases or FDA’s wholesale distributor and 3PL database for self-reported information and respective state licensure.[8] Under the DSCSA, the FDA is required to issue new federal wholesale distributor and 3PL licensure standards in order to eliminate the current patchwork of state standards and enhance supply chain-wide uniformity. While the FDA has acknowledged the importance of these standards in supporting implementation and enhancing supply chain security, it has also acknowledged that it is still working on developing this policy.[9]

An August 2017 FDA guidance lays out the various entity requirements related to trading partner authorization and is intended to help Industry and state governments understand what activities require licensure and annual reporting and provide specific clarifications as to requirements for each trading partner.[10]

Product Tracing

Product tracing requirements involve receiving and providing product tracing data, including transaction history (TH), transaction information (TI), and the transaction statement (TS).[11] Product tracing data must be provided with each transaction (i.e., at the sale of prescription drugs) and only prescription drugs accompanied by the required product tracing data should be accepted or received by trading partners. In the event of a product recall or request to investigate a suspect or illegitimate product, trading partners must respond with product tracing data and, thus, are required to store this information for at least six years. Additionally, products can only be returned to the trading partners from which they were initially received.[12]

Currently, these requirements apply at the lot level, and TI, TS, and TH can be provided in either paper or electronic formats. However, by November 2023, product tracing requirements must apply at the package level and be provided only in electronic format.[13]

There are two FDA guidances related to product tracing standards. A November 2014 guidance establishes standards for interoperable information exchange and provides examples of data exchange methods.[14] A March 2018 guidance also provides information on standardizing TI, TS, and TH, as well as various documentation practices regarding when various product tracing information should be provided.[15]

Verification

Verification requirements under the DSCSA set forth practices for properly handling suspect and illegitimate products.[16] DSCSA requirements with respect to suspect products include investigation and quarantine to determine if they are illegitimate. Investigations of suspect products should include validating relevant transaction information and verifying the lot number and product identifier once a product has been serialized. Once determined to be illegitimate, trading partners must notify the FDA and relevant trading partners (the DSCSA requires notification occur within 24 hours) to ensure products do not reach patients. Additionally, information pertaining to investigations and dispositions of suspect and/or illegitimate products must be kept on record for at least six years.[17]

As will be discussed further below, the FDA recently updated two guidances focused on the identification of suspect products, steps for executing notification, and clarifying suspect and illegitimate product definitions for purposes of establishing trading partners’ verification obligations.[18]

Additionally, an October 2018 guidance provides further information for developing a robust verification system and addresses verification of saleable returns to the package level for product identifiers.[19] 

Product Identifier

Product identifier information includes a National Drug Code (NDC), unique serial number, lot number, and expiration date and must be made available in both human- and machine-readable formats.[20] Manufacturers have been required to encode the smallest saleable units of their products with this information since November 2018. Some drugs are excluded from these requirements or are grandfathered out of the requirements due to preexisting presence in the supply chain. Moreover, waivers, exceptions, or exemptions may also be granted by the Agency, depending on the individual product.[21]

Final FDA guidance on product identifier requirements was also among recently released DSCSA guidances and is discussed more fully below.[22]

Key Updates From Newly Released DSCSA Guidances

The four recently released DSCSA guidances provide further clarity and information in response to public comment and calls from Industry. A description of what’s new to each guidance, along with a brief overview of each, is provided below.

New Draft Guidance: Enhanced Drug Distribution Security at the Package Level Under the DSCSA

Most notably, this new draft guidance sets out the Agency’s decision as to whether data security system architectures should be centralized or distributed, weighing expressed Industry preferences and practices in its support of distributed and semi-distributed models so that trading partners can maintain control over data validation and management. [23]

Overall, the guidance provides information regarding enhanced drug distribution system attributes, product tracing, and verification needed for enabling secure product tracing at the package level. Missing from this guidance, however, are standards for secure, interoperable data exchanges, which the document notes will be addressed in forthcoming guidance.

Final Guidance: Drug Supply Chain Security Act Implementation: Identification of Suspect Product and Notification

New to this final guidance is the Agency’s interpretation of “immediate trading partner” under Section 582, which requires trading partners to notify FDA and certain immediate trading partners that a product in their possession was determined to be illegitimate.[24] While unspecified in its previous iteration, the final guidance explains that immediate trading partners, in this context, are those that the notifier has “reason to believe may have received the illegitimate product.” The guidance also replaces “suspicious” with “questionable” when describing scenarios that could increase the risk of a suspect product entering the supply chain, ensuring that trading partners understand the full context under which suspect products may be found. 

Additionally, the new version of the guidance clarifies that, when investigating a suspect product, trading partners should confer with manufacturers and consider whether the product has been subject to a public alert for quality issues. Lastly, the guidance points out that while notification of a suspect product is not generally required, it is required when a high-risk factor is present.[25] Each of these meant to increase the likelihood that suspect products are identified along distribution supply chains and are investigated for their legitimacy.

Overall, this final guidance provides several examples of heightened risk for suspect products entering the supply chain for the purpose of enhancing identification. The guidance also notes the process for notifying FDA about a product determined to be illegitimate using Form FDA 3911.

Revised Draft Guidance: Definitions of Suspect Product and Illegitimate Product for Verification Obligations Under the DSCSA

New to this revised draft guidance is the FDA’s understanding of what a “stolen” product is, which it says is “any product in its entirety (i.e., the prescription drug and its packaging) that has been taken or removed without permission of the owners of the product.”[26] The revised draft guidance also revises the definition of a product that is “unfit for distribution,” aligning it with language set out in the DSCSA such that it is now interpreted to mean a product that is “reasonably likely to result in serious adverse health consequences or death” based on “a reason to believe or credible evidence.”[27]

Additionally, the new version of the guidance notes scenarios that are unlikely to result in “diverted” products, carving out from the previously stated definition cases in which a product is obtained through a surveillance activity or by a patient outside the U.S. pharmaceutical distribution supply chain, through an FDA regulatory action to address a drug shortage, or where an emergency use authorization is in place. Lastly, the guidance expands the definition of the term “fraudulent transaction” such that it now includes situations where information has been “knowingly” falsified.[28]

Overall, this revised draft guidance defines key terms for determining suspect and illegitimate products for the purpose of assisting trading partners in complying with their verification obligations under the DSCSA.

Final Guidance: Product Identifiers Under the DSCSA Questions and Answers  

New to the final guidance on product identifiers are updates for Industry’s awareness in terms of technical data. [29] Key changes include an explanation of the importance of the NDC to patient safety and a clarification on how to adequately affix multiple bar codes on the label to avoid scanning errors. The new version of the guidance also recommends changes to the expiration data format, such as use of a hyphen or forward slash between day, month, and year, as opposed to a space.[30]

Overall, this guidance provides recommendations for standardizing human- and machine-readable formats of product identifiers and examples of when the product identifier and other information should be included on product packaging.

Industry Implementation Concerns

Industry stakeholders have reported slow uptake in rolling out new data systems that align with the 2023 requirements.[31] As mentioned above, product tracing data (i.e., TI, TS, and TH) exchanged between trading partners and tracked along pharmaceutical supply chains are aimed at achieving the DSCSA’s fully interoperable and electronic traceability function. Manufacturer testing of such data systems is an important step in overcoming technical challenges and ensuring compliant traceability systems will be fully interoperable by November 2023. Notably, a recent Healthcare Distribution Alliance (HDA) panel expressed concern that proactive testing of data systems by some manufacturers is not occurring at needed rates.[32] HDA panelists described this lack of testing as a potential major hurdle to achieving full implementation of applicable requirements on time, explaining that smaller manufacturers are at a higher risk of falling behind on necessary testing.

A November 2020 HDA survey on serialization readiness additionally found that collaboration with trading partners, system governance, variation in DSCSA legal interpretation, and standards are all additional challenges burdening implementation of an interoperable system.[33] The survey explained that understanding of DSCSA requirements across Industry is generally inconsistent and, thus, establishing stronger alignment and understanding across the various sectors will be important to enhancing overall readiness.

That being said, the newly released draft guidance Enhanced Drug Distribution Security at the Package Level Under the DSCSA covers some of the Agency’s expectations for enhanced (interoperable) drug distribution security systems needed for enabling secure product tracing at the package level. However, as discussed above, the FDA still leaves standards for secure, interoperable data exchanges for forthcoming guidance, so Industry will have to wait even longer for the clarification it needs in order to timely implement all of DSCSA’s requirements.[34]

Conclusion

The FDA has stressed that a system for enhancing drug distribution security will need to be robust, yet flexible, and that FDA will leverage a range of coordinated mechanisms, such as standardized data and data exchange, analyses, interoperability, investigations of suspect and illegitimate products, and other compliance guidance documents and enforcement tools.[35] The complexity involved in achieving full implementation of the DSCSA is certain and has been exacerbated in the past year by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, greater understanding around requirements across Industry sectors through additional guidance and communication from FDA will be an important part of breaking down remaining implementation hurdles moving forward. 


[1] Partnership for DSCSA Governance, “DSCSA 2023 Requirements,” available at https://dscsagovernance.org/.

[2] Id.

[3] RAPS Focus, “Panelists: Sluggish pace of DSCSA testing is worrisome” (May 2021), available at https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2021/5/supply-chain-members-concerned-over-sluggish-testi?utm_source=MagnetMail&utm_medium=Email%20&utm_campaign=RF%20Today%20%7C%204%20May%202021.

[4] FDA In Brief, “FDA provides new guidance to further enhance the security of prescription drugs in the U.S. supply chain” (June 2021), available at https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-brief-fda-provides-new-guidance-further-enhance-security-prescription-drugs-us-supply-chain?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery.

[5] CDER SBIA Virtual Compliance Conference, Connie Jung, RhP, PhD, “Enhancing Drug Distribution Security under DSCSA” (January 2021), available at https://www.fda.gov/drugs/news-events-human-drugs/cder-compliance-conference-01142021-01142021.

[6] Additional information can be found in Dr. Jung’s January 2021 webinar presentation at the CDER SBIA Compliance Conference. See, supra note 5.

[7] See, supra note 5.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] FDA Procedural Guidance, “Identifying Trading Partners Under the DSCSA” (August 2017), available at https://www.fda.gov/media/106961/download.

[11] See, supra note 5.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] FDA Draft Guidance, “DSCSA Standards for the Interoperable Exchange of Information for Tracing of Certain Human, Finished, Prescription Drugs: How to Exchange Product Tracing Information” (November 2014), available at https://www.fda.gov/media/90548/download.

[15] FDA Draft Guidance, “Standardization of Data and Documentation Practices for Product Tracing” (March 2018), available at https://www.fda.gov/media/111451/download.

[16] See, supra note 5.

[17] Id.

[18] See, supra note 4.

[19] FDA Draft Guidance, “Verification Systems Under the DSCSA for Certain Prescription Drugs” (October 2018), available at https://www.fda.gov/media/117950/download.

[20] See, supra note 5.

[21] Id.

[22] See, supra note 4.

[23] FDA Draft Guidance, “Enhanced Drug Distribution Security at the Package Level Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act,” (June 2021), available at https://www.fda.gov/media/149704/download.

[24] FDA Final Guidance, “Drug Supply Chain Security Act Implementation: Identification of Suspect Product and Notification” (June 2021), available at https://www.fda.gov/media/88790/download.

[25] Id.

[26] FDA Revised Draft Guidance, “Definitions of Suspect Product and Illegitimate Product for Verification Obligations Under the DSCSA” (June 2021), available at https://www.fda.gov/media/111468/download.

[27] Id. at p.5.

[28] Id.

[29] FDA Final Guidance, “Product Identifiers Under the DSCSA Questions and Answers” (June 2021), available at https://www.fda.gov/media/116304/download.

[30] Id.

[31] HDA 2021 Traceability Webinar Series, “Foundational Elements of 2023: Master Data and Data Exchange” (April 2021).

[32] Id.

[33] HDA Executive Summary, “Serialization Readiness Survey” (November 2020), available at https://pink.pharmaintelligence.informa.com/-/media/supporting-documents/pink-sheet/2020/10/2020-serialization-survey-(1).pdf.

[34] FDA Draft Guidance, “Enhanced Drug Distribution Security at the Package Level Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act,” (June 2021), available at https://www.fda.gov/media/149704/download.

[35] See, supra note 5.

Advanced Manufacturing Technologies

Greenleaf Regulatory Landscape Series

For nearly two decades, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has supported the development of innovative manufacturing technologies that modernize quality management systems and provide greater quality assurance across medical product supply chains. Evidence of the FDA’s commitment to the development and implementation of this technology appeared most recently in January 2021 with the creation of a new collaboration between the FDA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), aiming to increase U.S. supply chain resilience and advanced domestic manufacturing by adopting innovative technologies, such as continuous manufacturing processes, as well as artificial intelligence and machine learning. The purpose of this effort is to mitigate risks of supply chain disruptions leading to product shortages, a concern that has grown more problematic under an increasingly globalized approach to medical product production.

Since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) in Spring 2020, similar efforts to support uptake of advanced manufacturing technologies have been met with a greater sense of urgency across other parts of the federal government as well. Consistent with these efforts, actions to on-shore and increase domestic manufacturing capacity and modernize medical product manufacturing have been bolstered by pandemic-related legislation and executive orders alike.

Federal Initiatives Related to Medical Product Supply Chains During COVID-19

Even though acute awareness of the potential benefits of advanced manufacturing resurfaced during the pandemic, the origins of the FDA’s pursuit of modern quality systems through advanced manufacturing began in August 2002 with the launch of its “Pharmaceutical Current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMPs) for the 21st Century” initiative. This initiative evaluated the Agency’s pharmaceutical regulatory programs and released a final report in September 2004, introducing a new risk-based quality assessment system that would replace the chemistry, manufacturing, and controls (CMC) review process, encouraging implementation of process analytical technologies, and framing innovative technologies as essential components of a modern quality system. Later that same year, the FDA issued final guidance for industry, “Process Analytical Technology (PAT) and a Framework for Innovative Pharmaceutical Development, Manufacturing, and Quality Assurance,” establishing a regulatory framework intended to support more innovation and quality modernization in pharmaceutical production.

Part of the Agency’s intention in its initial push for adopting advanced manufacturing technologies stemmed from concerns about quality management deficits associated with conventional batch manufacturing processes. The decades-old batch manufacturing model consists of frequent testing, storage, and shipping across regions, making it time-sensitive and more prone to product contamination. In addition, the batch manufacturing model was linked to reactive and wasteful discarding of final drug products due to quality issues. Instead, the FDA envisioned transitioning to a risk-based, quality management framework involving a more controlled and efficient pharmaceutical production regime.

Benefits of a Continuous Manufacturing System Versus
a Batch Manufacturing System

Pursuant to this vision, the FDA supported implementation of advanced manufacturing technologies, such as continuous manufacturing, by establishing platforms for engagement between the Agency and companies interested in producing products using innovative technologies. These platforms involve CDER’s Emerging Technology Program (ETP), CBER’s Advanced Technology Teams (CATT), and CDRH’s Case for Quality initiative. Additional final guidance on “Advancement of Emerging Technology Applications for Pharmaceutical Innovation and Modernization” continued to support companies seeking to adopt advanced manufacturing technologies. Under this regime, nine drug products manufactured with advanced technologies, one of which uses biomanufacturing processes, have been approved by the FDA – three of these products were approved in 2020 according to CDER’s Office of Pharmaceutical Quality (OPQ) Annual Report.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) held a workshop in June 2020 on barriers that hinder pharmaceutical manufacturing innovation, finding that external, regulatory challenges “loom large.” At this workshop, CDER-OPQ Director Mike Kopcha, Ph.D., distilled what he saw as regulatory barriers to the adoption of advanced manufacturing, including the need to fit new technologies into existing regulatory frameworks and the need for global regulatory harmonization. That is, because the current regulatory framework is “based in offline testing of batch processes, regulatory requirements do not currently translate well into new manufacturing technologies that allow for varied batch sizes, inline analytics, and higher-fidelity methods for detecting batch-to-batch variation.”

While the FDA has done much in the way of encouraging industry implementation of innovative and emerging technologies, barriers to achieving more substantial implementation persist. Earlier this year, NASEM released a report highlighting gaps where future guidance and clarity would be helpful in mounting identified regulatory barriers. These include:

  • Consideration of more fluid and targeted guidance that is shorter and published promptly to allow for industry comment.
  • Greater focus on underlying technology, as opposed to individual product approvals.
  • Creation of new mechanisms and pilot programs for incorporation of industry input and collaboration.
  • Expanded scope of the ETP to create greater opportunities for interested companies to engage.

With that said, the FDA is working to finalize its February 2019 draft guidance on “Quality Considerations for Continuous Manufacturing,” in which it has the opportunity to respond to gaps identified by NASEM, as well as others. With Acting Commissioner Janet Woodcock, M.D., at the helm, the FDA’s commitment towards advanced manufacturing technologies is likely to remain a top priority – Dr. Woodcock has long championed the increased adoption of advanced manufacturing technologies throughout her FDA career. Even if a permanent nominee other than Dr. Woodcock were to take her place as FDA Commissioner, advanced manufacturing is still seen as a key element to modern, risk-based quality systems and part of secure and efficient supply chains. Therefore, the FDA’s support of the adoption of advanced manufacturing will continue. Additionally, as previously noted, efforts to strengthen medical product supply chains by focusing on advanced technologies and re-focusing on U.S.-based manufacturing has enjoyed recent bipartisan support, in large part due to lessons learned from the pandemic. Thus, although industry adoption has been slow, advanced manufacturing technologies are expanding in scope and will likely become more of a norm in a post-COVID-19 world.


Resources

  • FDA & NIST MOU, “Accelerating the Adoption of Advanced Manufacturing Technologies to Strengthen Our Public Health Infrastructure” (January 2021)
  • Trump Executive Order, “Buy American for ‘Essential Drugs’ and Medical Supplies” (August 2020)
  • Biden Presidential Campaign, “Rebuild U.S. Supply Chains and Ensure the U.S. Does Not Face Future Shortages of Critical Equipment” (June 2020)
  • Biden Executive Order, “Sustainable Public Health Supply Chain” (January 2021)
  • Biden Executive Order, “America’s Supply Chains,” (February 2021)
  • FDA Initiative, “3D Printing in FDA’s Rapid Response to COVID-19” (November 2020)
  • FDA PREPP Initiative, “FDA’s COVID-19 Pandemic Recovery and Preparedness Plan (PREPP) Initiative: Summary Report” (January 2021)
  • FDA In Brief, “FDA Provides Update on COVID-19 Pandemic Recovery and Preparedness Plan Initiative” (April 2021)
  • FDA Initiative – Final Report, “Pharmaceutical CGMPs for the 21st Century: A Risk-Based Approach” (September 2004)
  • FDA Final Guidance, “PAT – A Framework for Innovative Pharmaceutical Development, Manufacturing, and Quality Assurance” (October 2004)
  • FDA Final Guidance, “Advancement of Emerging Technology Applications for Pharmaceutical Innovation and Modernization” (September 2017)
  • FDA Draft Guidance, “Quality Considerations for Continuous Manufacturing” (February 2019)
  • NASEM Workshop – Proceedings in Brief, “Barriers to Innovations in Pharmaceutical Manufacturing” (September 2020)
  • NASEM Report, “Innovations in Pharmaceutical Manufacturing on the Horizon: Technical Challenges, Regulatory Issues, and Recommendations” (2021)
4 records