MHRA Guidelines for Quality Manufacturers of Pharmaceutical Formulations: Authoritative Compliance Guide

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) enforces pharmaceutical manufacturing standards across the United Kingdom through a principles-based, risk-managed regulatory framework aligned with international Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP). This guide provides manufacturers, Quality Assurance professionals, and regulatory affairs teams with actionable intelligence on MHRA expectations, inspection focus areas, and practical compliance strategies based on current regulatory guidance and real inspection findings.

Unlike prescriptive checklists, MHRA regulation emphasizes proportionate risk management and science-based decision-making across the product lifecycle. Manufacturers operating under MHRA oversight must demonstrate not merely procedural compliance, but genuine control of manufacturing systems, supported by data integrity and evidence.

---

The Role of MHRA in UK Pharmaceutical Quality Regulation

Regulatory Authority & Scope

The MHRA is the competent authority for pharmaceutical regulation in Great Britain under the Human Medicines Regulations 2012. Post-Brexit, the UK has adopted a modified version of EU GMP (Parts I and II) incorporated into the MHRA Orange Guide, supplemented by country-specific clarifications.​

The MHRA’s regulatory remit includes:

• Manufacturer licensing – Initial assessment and periodic renewal of manufacturing authorisations
• Routine inspections – Risk-based site visits (frequency ranging 6 months to 3 years depending on compliance history and product risk)​
• Investigational inspections – Response to complaints, recalls, or signal intelligence
• Product-related inspections – Assessment of marketing authorisation applications
• Enforcement – Issuance of warning letters, suspension of licenses, prosecution of serious breaches

In 2024/25, MHRA completed 353 GMP inspections across its regulated population, demonstrating consistent enforcement presence.​

Alignment with International Standards

MHRA is a member of the Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme (PIC/S) and applies PIC/S GMP (PE 009) in parallel with the Orange Guide. This dual alignment ensures UK-manufactured products meet globally recognized quality standards, facilitating international market access. However, MHRA maintains the authority to apply more stringent requirements where UK patient safety is at stake.​

---

MHRA Expectations for Quality Management Systems (QMS)

Lifecycle Approach to Quality

The MHRA endorses a pharmaceutical quality system structured around the product lifecycle, incorporating risk management at each stage. This aligns with ICH Q10 and Q9 principles.​

A compliant QMS must demonstrate:

• Design – Quality built into product and process from development
• Implementation – Procedures documented and followed consistently
• Monitoring – Real-time control via critical process parameters (CPPs) and critical quality attributes (CQAs)
• Continuous improvement – Periodic product quality reviews (PPQRs), deviation trending, and CAPA effectiveness verification

The MHRA expects manufacturers to show process knowledge gained through development, validation, and ongoing operation—not merely procedure adherence.

Quality Risk Management (QRM) Integration

Risk-based decision-making must be embedded across the QMS. This includes:

• Supplier assessment – Risk-stratified qualification commensurate with material criticality​
• Change control – Formal impact assessment before implementation
• Deviation management – Root-cause analysis and residual-risk evaluation before batch release
• Inspection frequency – MHRA allocates inspection resources based on product risk, site history, and regulatory signal data

Manufacturers lacking documented QRM frameworks face significant inspection findings, as Chapter 1 (Quality System) accounts for approximately 25% of all MHRA deficiencies.​

---

Personnel, Quality Assurance Independence & Batch Release

Quality Assurance Function & Independence

MHRA expects the Quality Assurance (QA) function to operate with appropriate independence from production and to have direct reporting accountability to senior management or a board-level quality committee.​

QA responsibilities include:

• Self-inspection – Routine audits of manufacturing, documentation, and compliance
• Batch review – Assessment of batch records before release decision
• Deviation oversight – Investigation trigger and CAPA tracking
• Compliance monitoring – Trend analysis of quality metrics (Out-of-Spec results, customer complaints, process deviations)
• Management reporting – Regular Quality Board presentations summarizing compliance status and corrective actions

Key expectation: QA staff should not be engaged in day-to-day production decision-making and should have the authority to raise compliance concerns without fear of reprisal or production pressure.

Qualified Person (QP) Role & Batch Release

For licensed manufacturers, a named Qualified Person (QP) must certify each batch of finished product before release. The QP:**​

• Reviews all batch records – In-process controls, testing, deviations, and rework decisions
• Confirms GMP compliance – Manufacturing process followed approved procedures; any deviations addressed per Annex 16 criteria
• Validates analytical results – Ensures test methods are validated; out-of-specification (OOS) investigations are thorough
• Certifies specification compliance – Batch meets all registered product specification requirements
• Retains personal accountability – May delegate duties but remains responsible for certification decision

The QP may rely on confirmations from other QPs at intermediate manufacturing stages or at contract testing laboratories, provided a formal quality agreement documents responsibilities and reporting lines.​

Critical distinction for Specials: Unlicensed Specials manufacturers do not require a named QP on their manufacturing licence. Instead, they must employ a named Quality Controller and Production Manager, both acceptable to MHRA. This reflects the lower regulatory burden for small-batch, patient-specific formulations, though GMP quality expectations remain unchanged.​

Training & Competency

MHRA expects documented, ongoing training appropriate to role. For sterile manufacturing, personnel must receive specific training on:

• Aseptic technique and contamination control
• Cleanroom practices and gowning procedures
• Environmental monitoring and microbiological principles
• Product-specific manufacturing instructions

Training records with competency assessment are standard inspection findings.

---

Premises, Equipment & Contamination Control

Facility Design & Maintenance Principles

Manufacturing facilities must be designed to prevent contamination and facilitate effective cleaning and maintenance. MHRA inspectors routinely assess:

• Layout logic – Separation of incompatible processes (e.g., hazardous substances from immunosuppressants)
• Air handling – Pressure cascades, HEPA filtration, and environmental monitoring in classified areas​
• Material flow – One-way progression to minimize cross-contamination risk
• Equipment qualification – Design, installation, operational, and performance qualification (DQ/IQ/OQ/PQ) documented per Annex 15​
• Maintenance protocols – Calibration, preventive maintenance, and spare-parts control

For sterile manufacturing, Annex 1 mandates:

• Entry to clean areas through airlocks (personnel and/or equipment)
• Particle classification per ISO 14644 (Grade A, B, C, D environments for different operations)
• Microbiological monitoring – Periodic cleanroom swabs, surface sampling, and active air monitoring with risk-based acceptance criteria
• Requalification – After changes to equipment, facility configuration, or if monitoring data suggest drift

Equipment-related deficiencies are consistently cited across MHRA inspections, particularly around shared facilities where cross-contamination risks are elevated.​

Critical Contamination Control Areas

MHRA places heightened scrutiny on:

• Compressed air systems – Filters, dryers, and microbial load monitoring for sterile products
• Water systems – Endotoxin and microbial limits for injection water (WFI/PW)
• Cleaning effectiveness – Removal of residues to pre-defined, scientifically justified limits (worst-case scenario approach)
• Raw material receipt – Isolation and testing before warehouse integration

---

Documentation & Data Integrity Expectations

ALCOA+ & Data Governance

Data integrity is the highest regulatory priority for MHRA. Between 2016 and 2023, data integrity failures accounted for nearly 40% of all critical and major GMP deficiencies, primarily involving electronic systems.​

MHRA enforces the ALCOA+ standard:​

Principle	Requirement
Attributable	Each entry identifies the person, date, and time; audit trail logs all modifications
Legible	Handwriting clear; electronic text machine-readable; permanent inks/systems (no pencil)
Contemporaneous	Data recorded in real-time as operations occur, not transcribed later
Original	Raw data retained in original format (digital or physical); certified true copies only where justified
Accurate	Entries reflect actual observations; rework or deviation clearly flagged

Data governance also requires completeness, consistency, and durability throughout the data lifecycle.

Electronic Systems & GAMP 5 Compliance

Computerized systems must be validated per GAMP 5 (second edition, 2022), which emphasizes risk-based validation aligned with system complexity and patient safety impact.​

Common findings in MHRA inspections include:

• Shared login credentials – Audit trails unable to attribute actions to individuals
• Ability to delete/modify raw data – Analytical equipment with uncontrolled output files
• Inadequate system security – Annex 11 deficiency; no access controls or password policies
• Missing validation documentation – System “lock-down” and configuration settings not documented

Inspector expectation: Hybrid systems (paper + electronic) must clearly document which records constitute the official dataset; all electronic raw data must remain in dynamic form with traceable audit trails.​

Change Control & Deviation Management

Written procedures must define how changes to equipment, processes, methods, or specifications are evaluated before implementation. MHRA expects:​

• Impact assessment – Documented risk analysis of process parameters, equipment performance, and data integrity
• Approval gates – Quality sign-off prior to implementation; no changes during batches without QP awareness
• Validation evidence – If change affects product quality, process revalidation required
• Document updates – All SOPs, batch records, and training materials updated before change goes live

Deviation management addresses unexpected departures from approved procedures. MHRA’s position (Annex 16, Section 3) permits certification of a batch affected by an unexpected deviation if:​

• The deviation is truly unexpected (not a repeated pattern)
• Root cause is thoroughly investigated and corrected
• Risk assessment confirms negligible impact on product quality, safety, and efficacy
• Batches prior to discovery may be certified; further manufacture must comply with approved process

Repeated deviations from the same root cause can no longer be certified under the “unexpected” exemption.

---

Production & Starting Material Controls

Starting Material Qualification & Monitoring

All active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), excipients, and packaging materials must be sourced from qualified suppliers with documented GMP compliance.​

Supplier qualification minimum requirements:

• Pre-screening – Business viability, regulatory compliance records, facility location
• On-site audit – Assessment of supplier’s GMP system; scope commensurate with material criticality
• Quality agreement – Written contract defining GMP responsibilities, testing requirements, change notification
• Continuous monitoring – Performance trending; reaudit frequency based on risk rating (6–36 months per MHRA guidance)

Critical materials (e.g., APIs with narrow process windows, potent excipients) warrant:

• Testing of multiple supplier lots before qualification
• Deeper evaluation of supplier’s change control and internal audit system
• Regular on-site audits (annual or biennial)

MHRA findings commonly cite incomplete supplier qualification, particularly failure to verify suppliers’ GMP compliance via audit or regulatory certificate review.​

Incoming Material Testing & Release

All starting materials must be released by QA before use in production. MHRA expects:

• Sampling protocols – Documented procedures defining lot size, sample quantity, and location
• Specification compliance – Testing against registered specifications; OOS results escalated to CAPA
• Certificate of Analysis (CoA) verification – Comparison of supplier CoA against internal results; discrepancies investigated
• Traceability – Lot numbers linked to usage in batch records; recall capability

For Specials manufacturers, the Falsified Medicines Directive (FMD) does not apply to starting materials. However, GMP documentation requirements for supplier qualification remain identical.​

Process Control & In-Process Testing

Manufacturing processes must incorporate critical process parameters (CPPs) and critical quality attributes (CQAs) identified during development and maintained during lifecycle.

MHRA expects:

• Real-time monitoring – Temperature, pH, pressure logged continuously; automated alerts for out-of-range values
• In-process controls (IPCs) – Testing at defined stages (e.g., sterility, particle count, assay) with pre-approved acceptance criteria
• Deviation documentation – Any deviation from plan (equipment malfunction, material shortage, personnel issue) recorded contemporaneously
• Batch record completeness – All calculations, reconciliations, and deviations signed and dated by responsible personnel

---

Sterile Manufacturing: Annex 1 Expectations

Contamination Risk Management

Sterile product manufacturing requires a dedicated risk management system addressing microbiological, particulate, and endotoxin/pyrogen contamination throughout the product lifecycle.​

MHRA focuses on:

• Personnel qualification – Ongoing training in contamination control, aseptic technique, and gowning; periodic qualification via glove print and contact plate sampling
• Equipment & process design – Isolator systems, automated aseptic filling, blow-fill-seal, or terminal sterilization preferred over traditional open-tray aseptic
• Process monitoring – Environmental monitoring of Grade A/B areas; process simulation studies (“media fills”) to validate aseptic technique
• Material selection – Starting materials (APIs, excipients, water) assessed for bioburden and endotoxin suitability

Facility Classification & Requalification

Clean rooms must be classified to ISO 14644 standards and requalified after:

• Equipment changes or facility modifications
• Any deviation suggesting environmental control loss
• At defined intervals per manufacturer’s risk-based protocol

Classification studies should differentiate “at-rest” (rooms unoccupied, non-operational) and “in-operation” (equipment running, personnel present) states. MHRA inspectors commonly request classification reports and environmental monitoring data spanning 12+ months to assess consistency.

Batch Release Considerations for Sterile Products

For sterile products, the QP’s batch release decision must encompass:

• Sterilization validation – Proof that the sterilization process (autoclave, gas, filtration) achieved target log reduction with margin
• Sterility testing results – 14-day incubation in appropriate media; MHRA expects results before product release or reliance on in-process bioburden control (parameterized release)
• Depyrogenation validation – For products requiring endotoxin limits (e.g., parenteral solutions)
• Container closure integrity (CCI) – Helium leak testing or equivalent for vials; visual inspection for obvious defects

---

Complaints, Recalls & MHRA Reporting Obligations

Complaint Handling System

MHRA requires manufacturers to implement a documented complaint-handling procedure that includes:

• Receipt & logging – Date, complainant details, product batch/lot number, nature of complaint
• Initial assessment – Determination of complaint validity; preliminary risk evaluation
• Investigation – Root cause analysis; correlation with other complaints; trend analysis
• Quality impact – Assessment of whether product defect exists; recall necessity evaluation
• Documentation – Investigation reports retained for minimum 3 years post-product expiry

Complaint data must be aggregated and reviewed periodically (quarterly or annually) to identify trends. Repeated complaints on the same issue (e.g., discoloration, container defects) warrant CAPA and possible recall.

Recall Procedures

If a defect or contamination risk is identified, manufacturers must initiate a recall strategy in coordination with MHRA and the Defective Medicines Report Centre (DMRC).​

Recall classification:

• Class I – Serious health risk or death possible
• Class II – Health risk but not likely to cause death or serious harm
• Class III – Unlikely to cause health risk but violates regulations (e.g., labeling error)

Manufacturers must:

• Issue safety alerts to healthcare professionals and wholesalers
• Establish recall procedures in advance (recall plan pre-approved by QA)
• Track recall effectiveness – Verification that recalled products are retrieved from supply chain
• Notify MHRA of recall outcome (batches recovered, remaining stock location)

Adverse Event & Pharmacovigilance Reporting

For licensed medicines: Serious suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) must be reported to MHRA via the ICSR (Individual Case Safety Report) system. Timelines:​

• Serious public health threat: 2 calendar days
• Death or unanticipated serious deterioration: 10 calendar days
• All other serious ADRs: 30 calendar days

For unlicensed Specials: ADR reporting is mandatory and must be made electronically within 15 calendar days. Reports should indicate “unlicensed product” in the electronic submission. Healthcare professionals and patients may report via the Yellow Card scheme; manufacturers remain accountable for report tracking.​

---

MHRA Inspection Philosophy & Common Deficiencies

Risk-Based Inspection Approach

MHRA operates a risk-based inspection program with frequency and depth determined by:

• Product type – Sterile injectables, biologicals, and high-potency APIs receive higher-frequency inspections (6–12 months)
• Compliance history – Sites with recurring deficiencies face increased frequency; compliant sites inspected at 2–3 year intervals
• Regulatory signals – Customer complaints, recalls, or adverse event trends trigger for-cause inspections
• Market data – MHRA tracks signal intelligence (Yellow Card data, pharmacy reports) and allocates inspection resources accordingly

For companies placed in the Inspection at Greater (IAG) frequency tier due to serious findings, MHRA offers a Compliance Monitor (CM) pilot process where the company self-remediates under external monitoring, reducing on-site inspection burden while accelerating improvement.​

Most Frequently Cited Deficiencies

Research into MHRA inspection findings from 2018–2023 reveals consistent patterns:​

1. Data Integrity Failures (40% of critical/major findings)

• Shared login credentials preventing audit trail attribution
• Ability to delete/rename analytical raw data files
• Electronic batch records without adequate system validation
• Missing change history or configuration documentation
• Hybrid systems without clear definition of official dataset

Inspector approach: Request electronic system demonstrations; review audit trail of 5–10 recent batch records; assess user access controls.

2. Inadequate CAPA Systems

• Slow closure timelines – Open CAPA items not addressed within defined timeframes
• Ineffective verification – Root cause identified but corrective action not verified to actually solve the problem
• Trending failure – Recurring deviations on same topic indicate weak CAPA effectiveness

Inspector approach: Request sample of 5 closed CAPAs; follow the logic chain (deviation → investigation → root cause → action → verification → effectiveness check).

3. Validation Deficiencies

• Insufficient process validation – Only 1–2 batches instead of 3 consecutive; inadequate process knowledge documentation
• Computerized system validation gaps – GAMP 5 approach not followed; test cases not documented; system security not locked
• Equipment qualification incomplete – IQ/OQ/PQ reports missing; installation changes not captured; requalification after maintenance not done

Inspector approach: Review validation master plan; request DQ/IQ/OQ/PQ reports for representative equipment; verify change impact on validation status.

4. Incomplete Supplier Qualification

• No on-site audit evidence for critical suppliers
• Quality agreements missing; responsibilities undefined
• Supplier regulatory status not verified (e.g., no FDA inspection report, no MHRA certificate)
• Reaudit frequency not risk-based; suppliers not requalified

Inspector approach: Request supplier files for top 10 materials; verify audit completion; assess audit depth/quality.

5. Document Control Breaches

• Obsolete SOPs in use; personnel following outdated procedures
• Uncontrolled paper copies on manufacturing floor
• Training records not maintained; competency assessments missing
• SOP revision history not documented; approval signatures absent

Inspector approach: Observe floor practices; request SOP copies from equipment; verify training attendance records match assigned roles.

6. Chapter 1 Quality System Issues (about 25% of all deficiencies)

• No documented pharmaceutical quality system or inadequate scope
• Risk management not applied to supplier, change control, or deviation decisions
• Self-inspection findings not documented or followed up
• Management review agendas not demonstrating quality focus; no quality KPIs

Inspector approach: Request quality manual; review management meeting minutes; assess whether quality performance is visibly tracked and reported.

Risk Assessment During Inspection

MHRA inspectors use a risk-stratified deficiency classification:

Severity	Definition	Timeline for CAPA Response
Critical	Immediate threat to product safety/efficacy; serious non-compliance with GMP/regulations	Immediate (before further production)
Major	Significant non-compliance affecting product quality or regulatory requirement	20 working days
Other (Minor)	Non-conformance that can be addressed through routine management review	Integrated into management review cycle

Following inspection, MHRA issues a written report detailing all observations with evidence citations. The manufacturer must submit a formal CAPA response addressing root causes, corrective actions, responsible individuals, and completion dates.

---

READY TO MASTER MHRA COMPLIANCE?
GET YOUR INSPECTION READINESS TOOLKIT

Contact for tailor made guidance for your upcoming MHRA inspection. Our team of expert is ready to help you;

Frequently Asked Questions

---

Regulatory Disclaimer

This guide is based on current MHRA guidance (Orange Guide 2022 edition), EU GMP Parts I & II, PIC/S GMP PE 009-13, and published inspection findings. However, regulatory requirements may change, and individual circumstances may warrant specialized compliance strategies.

This article is not a substitute for consulting the official MHRA Orange Guide, relevant Annexes (Annex 1, 11, 15, 16), or engaging qualified regulatory affairs professionals. Manufacturers are responsible for maintaining compliance with current legislation and MHRA expectations.

For specific questions or interpretation of MHRA expectations, contact the MHRA’s Licensing Division or engage a regulatory consultant with recent inspection experience.

---

Key References & Further Reading

• MHRA Orange Guide (2022 edition): Rules and Guidance for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Distributors
• EU GMP Part I (Chapter 1–11) & Part II (Annexes 1–21): Incorporated into UK GMP framework
• Annex 1: Manufacture of Sterile Medicinal Products (PIC/S revision, 2022)
• Annex 11: Computerised Systems (GAMP 5-aligned)
• Annex 15: Qualification and Validation
• Annex 16: Certification by a Qualified Person and Batch Release
• ICH Q9: Quality Risk Management
• ICH Q10: Pharmaceutical Quality System
• MHRA Inspectorate Blog: Real-world guidance on deviation handling, compliance monitoring, and inspection conduct
• MHRA GMP Data Integrity Guidance (2018): ALCOA+ principles and electronic system expectations

---

Reference:

1. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). (2022). Rules and Guidance for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Distributors (The Orange Guide). UK Government Publishing Service.
2. MHRA. (2024). Grading of inspection findings: Good manufacturing practice and good distribution practice. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/guidance/good-manufacturing-practice-and-good-distribution-practice
3. MHRA. (2021). Guidance for ‘specials’ manufacturers. UK Government Publications. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-for-specials-manufacturers/guidance-for-specials-manufacturers
4. MHRA. (2021). The supply of unlicensed medicinal products (“specials”): Guidance on the interpretation of section 104 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012. GN1 Guidance Note.
5. MHRA. (2018). GXP Data Integrity Guidance and Definitions. MHRA Inspectorate. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5aa2b9ede5274a3e391e37f3/MHRA_GxP_data_integrity_guide_March_edited_Final.pdf
6. MHRA. (2016). Data Integrity Definitions and Guidance for Industry. MHRA Publications. (Withdrawn; superseded by 2018 guidance)
7. MHRA Inspectorate. (2016). Handling of Unexpected Deviations. MHRA Inspectorate Blog. Retrieved from https://mhrainspectorate.blog.gov.uk/2016/06/17/handling-of-unexpected-deviations/
8. MHRA Inspectorate. (2022). Compliance Monitor Process (Part 1): An Introduction. MHRA Inspectorate Blog. Retrieved from https://mhrainspectorate.blog.gov.uk/2022/03/11/compliance-monitor-process-part-1-an-introduction/
9. MHRA. (2016). GDP Inspection Deficiency Data 2016. MHRA Statistical Analysis. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a81e1c440f0b62302699ab8/GDP_2016_Deficiency_data.pdf
10. MHRA. (2024). GMP in the UK: 2025 Guide. Regulatory Affairs Guidance.
11. European Commission. (2022). Annex 1: Manufacture of Sterile Medicinal Products. EU Guidelines to Good Manufacturing Practice (PIC/S Revision). Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-08/20220825_gmp-an1_en_0.pdf
12. European Commission. (2015). Annex 15: Qualification and Validation. EU Guidelines to Good Manufacturing Practice. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/document/download/7c6c5b3c-4902-46ea-b7ab-7608682fb68d_en?filename=2015-10_annex15.pdf
13. European Commission. (2015). Annex 15: Qualification and Validation (Alternative source). Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2016-11/2015-10_annex15_0.pdf
14. European Commission. (2022). Certification by a Qualified Person and Batch Release (Annex 16). EU Guidelines to Good Manufacturing Practice. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/document/download/0d97da0d-ea5d-4920-a0d0-5dd1e99070ac_en?filename=gmpbr_200001_en.pdf
15. WHO. (2015). Annex 2: WHO Guidelines on Quality Risk Management. Technical Report Series 981. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/medicines/norms-and-standards/guidelines/production/trs981-annex2-who-quality-risk-management.pdf
16. PIC/S. (2023). PE 009-13 PIC/S Guide to Good Manufacturing Practice for Medicinal Products. Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme.
17. ISPE. (2022). GAMP 5: A Risk-Based Approach to Compliant GxP Computerized Systems (2nd Edition). International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering.
18. Scilife Regulatory. (2025). GAMP 5 for GxP Compliant Computerized Systems. Retrieved from https://www.scilife.io/blog/gamp5-for-gxp-compliant-computerized-systems
19. Simplerqms. (2025). Supplier Qualification: Definition, Process, and Guidelines. Retrieved from https://simplerqms.com/supplier-qualification/
20. GMP Compliance. (2021). The GMP Requirements for Supplier Qualification. Retrieved from https://www.gmp-compliance.org/gmp-news/the-gmp-requirements-for-supplier-qualification
21. Biopharma International. (2022). Qualification of Raw Materials for Biopharmaceutical Use. Retrieved from https://www.biopharminternational.com/view/qualification-raw-materials-biopharmaceutical-use
22. Scilife Regulatory. (2025). MHRA Inspection Preparation Guide: What to Expect and How to Prepare. Retrieved from https://www.scilife.io/blog/mhra-inspection-preparation-guide
23. Pharma GMP. (2024). An Overview of MHRA GMP Requirements for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers. Retrieved from https://www.pharmagmp.in/an-overview-of-mhra-gmp-requirements-for-pharmaceutical-manufacturers/
24. Pharma GMP. (2024). Understanding UK MHRA GMP Inspection Model. Retrieved from https://www.pharmagmp.in/understanding-uk-mhra-gmp-inspection-model/
25. Pharma Regulatory. (2025). Linking Deviation Trends to Regulatory Inspection Risk. Retrieved from https://www.pharmaregulatory.in/linking-deviation-trends-to-regulatory-inspection-risk/
26. Pharmaceutical Online. (2019). Top MHRA GMP Inspection Deficiencies by Annex/Chapter in 2019. Retrieved from https://www.pharmaceuticalonline.com/doc/top-most-cited-mhra-gmp-inspection-deficiencies-by-annex-chapter-in-0001
27. Pharmaceutical Press. (2024). The MHRA Orange Guide (2022 Edition Overview). Retrieved from https://www.pharmaceuticalpress.com/products/the-mhra-orange-guide/
28. Makrocare. (2023). MHRA Adverse Incident Reporting: Criteria & Procedures. Retrieved from https://www.makrocare.com/blog/adverse-event-reporting-in-uk-samd/
29. PubMed Central / NCBI. (2010). Medical Device Vigilance Systems: India, US, UK, and Australia. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis. Retrieved from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3417867/
30. RPC Legal. (2017). Medical Device Concerns and MHRA Compliance. Retrieved from https://www.rpclegal.com/thinking/medical-and-life-sciences/medical-device-concerns-and-mhra-compliance/
31. Qualityze. (2025). QMS Guidelines for Pharmaceutical Industry. Retrieved from https://www.qualityze.com/blogs/qms-guidelines-pharmaceutical-industry
32. Russell Regulatory Consultants. (2025). The Importance of Quality Management Systems for UK Medical Devices. Retrieved from https://www.russellregulatoryconsultants.com/2025/06/05/the-importance-of-quality-management-systems-for-uk-medical-devices/
33. Pharmaguideline. (2018). MHRA Guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.pharmaguideline.com/2010/10/mhra.html
34. Pharma GMP. (2024). Understanding Annex 15: Qualification and Validation. Retrieved from https://www.pharmagmp.in/understanding-annex-15-qualification-and-validation/
35. Project Manager Template. (2025). Pharmaceutical Change Control: Quality and Compliance. Retrieved from https://www.projectmanagertemplate.com/post/pharmaceutical-change-control-quality-and-compliance
36. Pharma Regulatory. (2025). Role of Qualified Person (QP) in ATMP Batch Certification. Retrieved from https://www.pharmaregulatory.in/role-of-qualified-person-qp-in-atmp-batch-certification/
37. NHS Specialised Pharmacy Service. (2022). Labelling & Packaging of Unlicensed Medicines (Specials). Retrieved from https://www.sps.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Guidance-Pharmacy-Specials-FINAL-for-publication.pdf
38. GERPAC. (2015). MHRA Guidance for Specials Manufacturers. European Pharmacy Cooperation. Retrieved from https://www.gerpac.net/platform/pluginfile.php/441/mod_resource/content/1/Guidance_for__specials__manufacturers%20-%20Jan%2015%202015.pdf