Learn key differences between audit and inspection in the pharmaceutical industry. Learn with a real-life case study, practical insights, and FAQs to ensure compliance and regulatory readiness
An audit is a structured, independent process that assesses whether activities adhere to internal procedures, standards, or regulations, while an inspection is a formal evaluation by regulatory authorities, such as the FDA or EMA, to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements
In the highly regulated world of pharmaceuticals, maintaining compliance with standards and ensuring product quality is crucial. Both audits and inspections play essential roles in upholding these standards, but they are often misunderstood or used interchangeably. While they may seem similar, audits and inspections differ significantly in their purpose, approach, conducting bodies, and outcomes.
An audit is a systematic, independent, and documented process for evaluating whether activities comply with internal procedures, standards, or regulatory requirements. Audits can be internal (conducted by the organisation itself) or external (conducted by a third party, such as a client or a certifying body).
An inspection is typically a formal evaluation conducted by a regulatory authority, such as the U.S. FDA, EMA, or national health bodies, to determine whether a pharmaceutical company is in compliance with regulatory requirements. Inspections focus more on enforcement and can have legal or licensing implications.
| S.N | Criteria | Audit | Inspection |
| 1 | Purpose | Continuous improvement, compliance verification | Regulatory enforcement, public safety |
| 2 | Conducted By | Internal team or external auditors | Regulatory authorities (e.g., FDA, MHRA) |
| 3 | Frequency | Can be scheduled or a surprise | Can be scheduled or surprise |
| 4 | Scope | Can be narrow or broad, based on audit objectives | Usually broad, focusing on high-risk areas |
| 5 | Outcome | Audit report, observations, recommendations | Inspection report, citations (e.g., Form 483, warning letter) |
| 6 | Approach | Collaborative, consultative | Investigative, authoritativ |
Company: ABCD
Location: India
Product: Generic injectables
Scenario: ABCD was preparing for a regulatory submission in the US and needed to ensure that their facilities met US FDA standards. To do this, they conducted a comprehensive internal audit across their manufacturing site.
Phase 1: Internal Audit
The internal audit, led by the company’s Quality Assurance (QA) team, reviewed:
The audit identified minor non-conformities, such as outdated SOPs and incomplete logbook entries. The findings were documented, and a Corrective and Preventive Action (CAPA) plan was implemented.
Phase 2: FDA Inspection
Three months later, Pharmex underwent an FDA inspection. The inspectors reviewed similar areas but with a stronger focus on data integrity, aseptic practices, and record authenticity.
During the inspection, the FDA found a critical issue: manipulation of environmental data in cleanroom monitoring logs. This led to the issuance of a Form 483 with serious observations.
Outcome:
Lessons Learned:
While audits and inspections both aim to ensure compliance, they differ in approach, authority, and consequences. Audits are tools for internal improvement and preparation, whereas inspections are regulatory actions that assess real-world compliance and can carry significant penalties.
For pharmaceutical companies, understanding and preparing for both is essential. A robust internal audit program serves as the foundation, but organisations must also cultivate a culture of transparency, accountability, and regulatory readiness to succeed in inspections.
Related:
Yes. An audit may not uncover deeper compliance or integrity issues that a regulatory inspection is designed to detect.
Pharmaceutical companies should perform internal audits at least annually, or more frequently based on risk and process changes
Regulatory agencies may issue Form 483s, warning letters, import alerts, or even suspend licenses, depending on the severity of non-compliance.
Absolutely. Third-party audits offer an external perspective and help companies benchmark against industry standards.
Critical areas include data integrity, cleanroom practices, documentation, training, SOP adherence, and change controls.
Further Reading
Subscribe to Stay Informed with the Latest Industry Insights!
Quick Links