Skip to content
2000
image of Global and Indian Regulatory Frameworks for Pharmaceutical Excipients, APIs, and Formulations: Challenges and Harmonization Strategies

Abstract

Pharmaceutical excipients play a critical role in drug formulation, ensuring stability, bioavailability, manufacturability, and patient safety. While India has made progress in aligning with international excipient regulations, significant regulatory gaps persist, including inconsistent enforcement, lack of mandatory GMP compliance, and inadequate impurity testing standards. These challenges create quality inconsistencies and potential safety risks, particularly for high-risk excipients. Indian excipient manufacturers face difficulties meeting international regulatory expectations, such as FDA, EMA, and PMDA requirements, due to differences in documentation, quality control, and risk assessment standards. Case studies highlight successful compliance strategies, including supplier qualification, in-house impurity testing, and risk-based categorization. To strengthen excipient regulation, mandatory GMP certification, a risk-based excipient categorization system, and alignment with IPEC-PQG, WHO, and ICH Q7 guidelines are recommended. Additionally, CDSCO must enhance oversight through advanced impurity testing and improved traceability requirements. Ensuring regulatory harmonization with global standards will enhance India’s competitiveness in the excipient supply chain, facilitate international market access, and improve overall drug safety and efficacy. This review underscores the urgent need for structured regulatory reforms to streamline compliance, ensure excipient quality, and strengthen India’s position in the global pharmaceutical industry.

© 2025 Bentham Science Publishers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/raddf/10.2174/0126673878362406250607104550
2025-06-16
2025-09-28

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/raddf/10.2174/0126673878362406250607104550
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Konwar M. Maurya M.R. Nishandar T.B. Thatte U.M. Gogtay N.J. An evaluation of drug lag for new drugs approved by the Indian regulator relative to the United States, European Union, and Japanese regulatory agencies. Perspect. Clin. Res. 2021 12 3 159 164 10.4103/picr.PICR_99_19 34386381
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Shah H. Jain A. Laghate G. Prabhudesai D. Pharmaceutical excipients. In: Remington. Academic Press 2021 633 643 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑820007‑0.00032‑5
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Biswal S. Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and interpretation of definitions. Res J Pharm Life Sci 2020 1 1 1 9
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Vennu V. India’s Clinical Trial Regulations: History, Recent Changes, Knowledge and Impact. In: India’s New Drugs and Clinical Trial Rules: Perception and Perspectives of Indian Researchers. BP International 2021 24 9
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Aronson J.K. When I use a word... Medicines regulation—the British Pharmacopoeia. BMJ 2023 383 2643 10.1136/bmj.p2643 37949455
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Shoji N. Tanese K. Sasaki A. Pharmaceuticals and Medical Device Agency approval summary: Amenamevir for the treatment of herpes zoster. J. Dermatol. 2020 47 7 683 688 10.1111/1346‑8138.15393 32424854
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Sharma S. Sharma K. Verma P. Rahi S. Rana A. Comparative analysis of new drugs and clinical trial rules 2019 and its impact on approval process of oncology drugs. IJDRA 2022 10 2 112 130 10.22270/ijdra.v10i2.543
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Hu F. Chen A.A. Horng H. Image harmonization: A review of statistical and deep learning methods for removing batch effects and evaluation metrics for effective harmonization. Neuroimage 2023 274 120125 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2023.120125 37084926
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bangar S.P. Esua O.J. Nickhil C. Whiteside W.S. Microcrystalline cellulose for active food packaging applications: A review. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2023 36 101048 10.1016/j.fpsl.2023.101048
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hou X. Zhang L. Zhou Z. Calcium phosphate-based biomaterials for bone repair. J. Funct. Biomater. 2022 13 4 187 10.3390/jfb13040187 36278657
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Shrestha M. Shi H. Strohmeier M. Medek A. Investigation of solid dosage form components interaction using orthogonal techniques—Discovery of new forms of sodium stearyl fumarate. J. Pharm. Sci. 2021 110 4 1592 1600 10.1016/j.xphs.2020.12.040 33465337
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Shaikh A.I. Acharya C.R. Shah A.M. An analysis of drug approvals in India over past 5 years. Int. J. Basic Clin. Pharmacol. 2024 13 6 872 876 10.18203/2319‑2003.ijbcp20243037
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Keller J.D. Sodium carboxymethylcellulose (CMC). In: Food Hydrocolloids. CRC Press 2020 43 109 10.1201/9780429290459‑4
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Ye S. Yang M. Wu J. Recent advances in sulfonylation reactions using potassium/sodium metabisulfite. Chem. Commun. 2020 56 30 4145 4155 10.1039/D0CC01775B 32242574
    [Google Scholar]
  15. del Pozo S. Gómez-Martínez S. Díaz L.E. Nova E. Urrialde R. Marcos A. Potential effects of sucralose and saccharin on gut microbiota: A review. Nutrients 2022 14 8 1682 10.3390/nu14081682 35458244
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Khayat M.T. Ibrahim T.S. Khayyat A.N. Sodium citrate alleviates virulence in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Microorganisms 2022 10 5 1046 10.3390/microorganisms10051046 35630488
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Ibrahim M. Ramadan E. Elsadek N.E. Polyethylene glycol (PEG): The nature, immunogenicity, and role in the hypersensitivity of PEGylated products. J. Control. Release 2022 351 215 230 10.1016/j.jconrel.2022.09.031 36165835
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Rahman M.S. Hasan M.S. Nitai A.S. Recent developments of carboxymethyl cellulose. Polymers 2021 13 8 1345 10.3390/polym13081345 33924089
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Kumar D. Rahi S. Rana A. Comparative study of updated Clinical Trial Regulations in India with respect to Australia, Europe, Japan and US. IJDRA 2021 9 1 48 61 10.22270/ijdra.v9i1.455
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Kim D.H. Lee S.E. Pyo Y.C. Tran P. Park J.S. Solubility enhancement and application of cyclodextrins in local drug delivery. J. Pharm. Investig. 2020 50 1 17 27 10.1007/s40005‑019‑00434‑2
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Jhuria A. Nagpal D. Verma R. Mittal V. Budhwar V. Kaushik D. Navigating the evolving landscape: A review of clinical trial regulations in India. JGM 2024 21 1 22 30 10.1177/17411343241277439
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Bhalla I.S. Ravindranath A.G. Vaswani R. Saberwal G. Data from the Indian drug regulator and from clinical trials registry-India does not always match. Front. Med. 2024 11 1346208 10.3389/fmed.2024.1346208 38435394
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Mehrotra N. Manchikanti P. Post-trial access to investigational drugs in India: Addressing challenges in the regulatory framework. Med. Law Rev. 2023 32 1 20 41 10.1093/medlaw/fwad028 37616571
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Rajpurohit P. Suva M. Rajpurohit H. Singh Y. Pharmacovigilance in generic Indian pharmaceutical industries - Need of the moment. JPDR 2021 10.5281/zenodo.4884888
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Sarma N. Upton R. Rose U. Pharmacopeial standards for the quality control of botanical dietary supplements in the United States. J. Diet. Suppl. 2023 20 3 485 504 10.1080/19390211.2021.1990171 34699287
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Comparison of regulatory approval process for vaccines development and manufacturing in India & USA. UPI-JPMHS 2021
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Pawar K.N. Gore R.T. Palekar S.R. A review on approval process and regulation of medical devices as per US FDA and CDSCO. IIJDRA 2023 11 1 61 70 10.22270/ijdra.v11i1.586
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Amaresh K. Salimath G. Ganachari M.S. Devarinti R.S. Kumar U. A comparison of regulatory approval of clinical trial protocol with different countries. Int. J. Clin. Trials 2021 8 3 260 10.18203/2349‑3259.ijct20212849
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Bretaudeau L. Tremblais K. Aubrit F. Meichenin M. Arnaud I. Good manufacturing practice (GMP) compliance for phage therapy medicinal products. Front. Microbiol. 2020 11 1161 10.3389/fmicb.2020.01161 32582101
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Flynn R. Plueschke K. Quinten C. Marketing authorization applications made to the European Medicines Agency in 2018–2019: What was the contribution of real‐world evidence? Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2022 111 1 90 97 10.1002/cpt.2461 34689339
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Cheng C. Messerschmidt L. Bravo I. A general primer for data harmonization. Sci. Data 2024 11 1 152 10.1038/s41597‑024‑02956‑3 38297013
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Shetty N.S. Salvi R.A. Thatte U.M. Gogtay N.J. Has mandatory prospective registration of all studies brought about a change? A 1-year audit of studies registered in the Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI) before and after April 1, 2018. Perspect. Clin. Res. 2021 12 2 72 75 10.4103/picr.PICR_89_20 34012902
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Patel V.J. Patel D.M. A comprehensive review on registration requirements for Drug Approval in India, South Africa and US. IJDRA 2021 9 1 62 71 10.22270/ijdra.v9i1.456
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Mehrotra N. Manchikanti P. Regulatory challenges in post-trial access to investigational drugs in India. Med. Law Rev. 2023 37616571
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Arfè A. Narang C. DuBois S. Reaman G. Bourgeois F. Clinical development of new drugs for adults and children with cancer: Longitudinal study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2022
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Hakariya H. Moriarty F. Ozaki A. Mulinari S. Saito H. Tanimoto T. Continued cancer drug approvals in Japan and Europe after market withdrawal in the United States: A comparative study of accelerated approvals. Clin. Transl. Sci. 2024 17 7 e13879 10.1111/cts.13879 38987923
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Peng C. Jiang H. The influence of host country’s environmental regulation on enterprises’ risk preference of multinational investment. Front. Environ. Sci. 2021 9 667633 10.3389/fenvs.2021.667633
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Van Loo R. Regulatory Monitors. Columbia Law Rev. 2019 119 2 369 444
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Moreton C. Excipients to the year 2025-and beyond. Int J Pharm Excip 2019 10 2 29 40
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Chen K. Wang X. Niu B. Chen Y.J. The impact of tariffs and price premiums of locally manufactured products on global manufacturers’ sourcing strategies. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2022 31 9 3474 3490 10.1111/poms.13774
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Kinderman D. The challenges of upward regulatory harmonization: The case of sustainability reporting in the European Union. Regul. Gov. 2020 14 4 674 697 10.1111/rego.12240
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/raddf/10.2174/0126673878362406250607104550
Loading
Global and Indian Regulatory Frameworks for Pharmaceutical Excipients, APIs, and Formulations: Challenges and Harmonization Strategies
Bentham Science Publishers ; https://doi.org/10.2174/0126673878362406250607104550
/content/journals/raddf/10.2174/0126673878362406250607104550
/content/journals/raddf/10.2174/0126673878362406250607104550
Loading

Data & Media loading...


  • Article Type:     Review Article
Keywords: EMA ; CDSCO ; Pharmaceutical excipients ; drug manufacturing ; regulatory guidelines ; import regulations ; active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) ; drugs and cosmetics act

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test