The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is promoting the Quality Overall Summary (QOS) as a powerful tool to promote effective communication between regulators and sponsors of drugs as well as a tool that can substantially impact the efficiency and quality of the regulator’s assessment. The QOS is required for all New Drug Applications (NDAs), Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) and Biologics License Applications (BLAs), thus the QOS has significant potential to impact the regulatory review process for getting marketing approval.
The QOS summarizes all quality-related information in the application. As part of Module 2 of the electronic Common Technical Document (eCTD), the QOS links to the sponsor’s larger body of data in Module 3. The QOS is expected to provide the regulator with sufficient information to understand the contents of Module 3 in a high-level overview. However, FDA suggests that many sponsors are falling short of these expectations and are not fully utilizing this powerful tool as an effective guide for regulators to assess the application.
The QOS provides the sponsor with an opportunity to summarize the key aspects of the new drug or biologics application, explain specific items for the regulators to consider, and extend to post-approval comments. Yet, a poorly written QOS requires regulators to spend significant effort to “understand, summarize, collate, and interpret quality data from module 3 (Figure 1).
Figure 1. There can be a disconnect between applicants and regulators regarding the communication of quality data and its impact on the assessment. Currently, it takes time and/or communications (e.g., information requests) to fully understand the quality of data and its significance in an application.
The FDA’s white paper describes key considerations for creating a high–quality QOS to ensure regulators have a good idea of the potential risk to the patient and the control of this risk in the commercially manufactured product. The 3 key considerations are:
Identifying the main risks to the patient from a product quality perspective.
Understanding how the proposed overall control strategy controls and/or mitigates the identified failure modes of the manufacturing process or products.
Acknowledging potential considerations for the quality assessment of the submission.
These key considerations are designed to help regulators evaluate the potential risks related to quality, and their potential impact on the patients, in a summarized benefit and risk assessment. Indeed, the FDA is encouraging sponsors to explain important aspects of the new drug or biologic such as how the product was formulated, and how the risk might impact the patients. Further clarifications on the 3 key considerations are provided in the FDA’s white paper.
Writing these technical documents to concisely convey information is challenging and you might want to consider these project management and quality control tips when putting you QOS together. These tips might just help improve your QOS, which will reduce the number of information requests from the FDA and thus decrease your NDA / BLA review time.
Biological products warrant special regulatory consideration because of their complex nature and susceptibility to variation during manufacturing. Biologics are not only complex in their physical structure, they are produced from living organisms and thus pose a myriad of potential issues in the manufacturing and isolation processes that all have the potential to induce immunogenicity. Regulations for developing a biological product take these potential risks into consideration
In this second piece evaluating BLA and NDA, we focus on understanding some of the nuances between biologic and drug development. See the first BLA vs NDA blog for a more focused look at regulations.
Manufacturing of Biological Products is Inherently Riskier than Production of Drugs.
The manufacturing processes for biological products are different than processes for pharmaceuticals. Traditional drug products are typically manufactured using pure chemical substances that are sterile, and the end products can be relatively easily analyzed. On the other hand, biological products are made from living organisms and are much more complex in nature — making product analysis very difficult. Indeed, most biological products are defined by the manufacturing processes used for production. The manufacturing process and manufacturing facilities are so crucial to biologics that “purity” is part of the agency’s requirements for licensing.
The FDA strictly controls changes to the manufacturing processes that evolve during the development of the biologic, as well as after licensing. Biologics are much more sensitive to process changes than are drugs – even a small change in the manufacturing process can result in an adverse change in the biological product. This is why biological products are regulated under the PHS Act. Initial manufacturing procedures are detailed in the IND application and then modified as needed throughout the IND phase of clinical evaluation and through the final BLA submission.
Modification to manufacturing may be needed to scale up from pilot to full-scale production or to improve efficiency; this can include any changes in equipment, facilities, handling, or storage and testing of cell substrates that may be required.
Changes to the biologic’s manufacturing process, equipment, facilities, or handling have the potential to affect the products identity, safety, purity, and potency. Therefore, any changes to production must be brought to the attention of the regulatory authorities, and the FDA will use its “comparability” ruler to determine if additional studies are required to support the license application.
Comparability Testing
FDA issued two guidance documents to help manufacturers understand the concept of comparability and gracefully jump through the hoops to achieve a license to sell their therapeutic biologics.
For any situation, the FDA encourages sponsors to consult with them prior to implementing changes.
Clinical Development of Biologics Must Include Assessment of Immunogenicity
There are unique clinical considerations for biologics since they are derived from living organisms. Either the biologic itself or impurities from manufacturing could trigger an immune response with potentially disastrous consequences. Therefore, the clinical development of biologics must include the assessment of immunogenicity. This differs from manufacturing and isolation of drug molecules which do not typically pose an immunogenicity threat.
Recommendations to facilitate industry’s development and validation of assays for assessment of the immunogenicity of therapeutic protein products during clinical trials
Applies to assays for the detection of anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) and may also apply to some peptides, oligonucleotides, and combination products on a case-by-case basis
Includes recommendations regarding the development and validation of screening assays, confirmatory assays, titration assays, and neutralization assays
Finalizes the revised draft guidance for industry entitled “Assay Development and Validation for Immunogenicity Testing of Therapeutic Protein Products” issued in April 2016 and includes a revised title
Conclusion
The biggest differences between the approval of therapeutic biological products or drug compounds center around the complex nature of biologics and the many challenges that occur in their manufacturing. Because biologics come from living organisms, immunogenicity is always a concern. The FDA’s regulatory landscape is complicated and always changing. We are happy to help your organization stay abreast of the current regulations and ensure your BLA and NDA applications are on target and on time.
One of the first steps toward obtaining approval to market drug products or biological compounds in the United States is the submission of an Investigational New Drug (IND) application. Your research team is hard at work developing a very promising new drug, and they are naturally anxious to get a product to market. An important part of this process is to have a spot-on IND submission that sails through the FDA’s evaluation program.
The Process
New drug products and biological therapies go through a rigorous review process to prove they are safe and effective. So, what role does the IND submission play in this process? Prior to marketing, a New Drug Application (NDA) or Biological License Application (BLA) must be submitted and approved by the FDA’s respective consumer watchdog organizations, the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) or the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). In order to submit an NDA or BLA application, products must first be tested for safety and efficacy in human clinical trials, which is where INDs come into play. Federal Law prohibits transportation of drugs across state lines without an approved marketing application. Approval of an IND allows the drug or biologic to be legally transported and distributed across state lines for use in the clinical trials that support the NDA and BLA applications.
Once the IND is submitted, the clock starts ticking and the FDA has 30 days to comment. Following a review process, the FDA will either approve the IND indicating the product is “safe to proceed”, thus allowing the product to be used as an investigational drug or biologic, or a “clinical hold” will be placed on the IND application to delay or suspend the proposed clinical investigation. The sponsor is given an opportunity to address the issues cited in the clinical hold and the process then starts over again. Even a technical problem in submitting the IND can trigger a clinical hold and cause a significant delay in getting a product to market.
Let’s look at a number of common problems with IND submissions to help your organization avoid these mistakes and get your product to market on time.
1. Sponsors that do not take full advantage of the two programs offered by FDA to accelerate the approval of innovative medical products put themselves at a disadvantage in the review process.
These programs provide an opportunity to set the stage and build a relationship with the FDA. For small companies, the IND submission process is likely their first interaction with FDA and vice versa. First impressions matter! Be prepared and build a solid reputation that can benefit your company for years to come. Listed below is a little more information about how these programs work.
INTERACT
The INTERACT is the newest FDA initiative (announced June 22, 2018) and is designed to enhance early communication amongst sponsors and the FDA; INTERACT replaces the pre-pre-IND meeting and allows sponsors to obtain feedback from CBER before they are ready for a pre-IND meeting. Thus, sponsors can get some initial advice from the FDA regarding “the chemistry, manufacturing and controls, pharmacology/toxicology, and/or clinical aspects of the development program” that is not binding. FDA suggests that each meeting consists of only one issue that needs to be addressed by the sponsor allowing for a focused consultation.
Pre-IND Meeting
The Pre-IND Consultation Program is highly encouraged by FDA as part of their commitment to help accelerate the approval of innovative medical products.
Here are some of the benefits that can be obtained from a Pre-IND meeting:
Verification that the appropriate animal model is being used to determine product safety
Determine if the toxicology data is sufficient to justify a First-in-Man study
Discuss any data concerns or potential roadblocks
Develop a relationship with the agency team that will be reviewing the submission
Going into the INTERACT and pre-IND meetings prepared and with total transparency will help you get the most out of these meetings, and ultimately will circle back to strengthen point #3 of making sure your plan is ready to drive your product forward. Plus, these are a great opportunity to build a strong relationship with the FDA.
2. Having a poorly written document that frustrates and confuses the reviewers will not help your cause.
One of the biggest reasons’ sponsors receive a clinical hold independent of poor study design is that the IND document lacks organization and clarity.
It is the sponsor’s job to make sure that the IND is well-written and easy to understand. Like me, I’m sure you have read a plethora of manuscripts and documents that leave you wondering what the take-home message is or spent way too much time interpreting findings. All aspects of the IND should be presented in a cohesive manner in an format that is easy to read; also remember, it is much easier to look at the data when you have a big picture concept and know the project’s key message upfront.
In the 2018 fiscal year, the FDA received 675 original INDs and took a total of 1,224 actions against IND submissions. That’s a lot of information to process! Make sure your submission is clear and to the point.
The easier it is for the reviewer to find the pertinent information, the more likely they are to provide a review that is in line with your expectations. Keep these points in mind when generating the IND application.
Create a document that is easy to review.
Include the supporting data and protocols.
Provide rationales for each conclusion.
Do not ignore the comments from the INTERACT and Pre-IND meetings!
Involving regulatory experts, either in-house or contracted from a respected CRO like Criterion Edge, early in the IND application phase may save both time and money.
3. Using nonclinical data or manufacturing information that does not adequately support the clinical protocol ultimately hurts the IND application.
It is critical to ensure that the nonclinical data supports the clinical design and that both provide adequate justification of the desired labeling claims, including basic exposure data. This requires detailed planning among your various teams and a strong knowledge base of the IND regulations.
Most importantly, specify how patient safety will be assured during the study. Include sufficient information to both assure the proper quality, purity, and strength of the drug or biologic, and to assess the adequacy and consistency of production.
4. Leaving out data pertinent for evaluating the procedures makes it difficult to determine the quality of the proposed studies.
Take extra care to make sure there is evidence that supports the robustness of the assay to be used for evaluating the clinical trials. Also, include representative output data such as chromatograms and procedural details in the form of standard operating procedures (SOPs). This can be a big undertaking, especially with complex biological products.
5. Including massive amounts of data and assuming it is self-explanatory slows down the review process.
While this seems to be the opposite of mistake number 4, not having the information presented concisely is a major flaw with many submissions. Being brief and guiding the document with clearly presented points helps the reviewer know what is relevant for the product under consideration.
6. Not clearly stating the potential risk of the drug or biologic in the submission raises red flags.
Potential issues of concern need to be presented in a forthcoming and transparent manner during and after the regulatory review. Failure to do so will impact the sponsor’s credibility. It is the sponsor’s responsibility to provide the FDA with the information in a manner the helps them understand what the safety issues are and how they will be mitigated.
7. Sponsors should note that Study Data Standards are required for commercial INDs as of December 17, 2017, for both nonclinical and clinical studies.
This is a specific requirement to comply with the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC). FDA states this very clearly; “FDA will not accept an electronic submission that does not have study data in compliance with the required standards specified in the FDA Data Standards Catalog.”
8.Making inadvertent submission mistakes in the IND submission isthe most common reason for technical rejection of an eCTD filing.
A surprising number of IND applications are rejected for technical issues. Double check the application to make sure that the correct eCTD format is being followed and that all the pre-clinical data and documents are included. It is also worth a second look to ensure the IND submission is sent to the correct center.
9. Underestimating the time required to develop an IND application and complete the submission is easy to do.
It can take 12 to 14 months to complete the IND application package, and this does not include the time commitment for the INTERACT and pre-IND meetings. Do not wait until the last minute to begin the process!
As of May 5th, 2018, Commercial INDs and the Master Files must be submitted using the Electronic Common Technical Document (eCTD) standard format. Ensuring that all files contain the proper information and are in the proper format will require some technical expertise.
In summary, the IND application is a complex document. A poorly developed IND will result in delays moving forward with clinical trials and will ultimately slow getting products into the marketplace. If you are inexperienced in this area of regulatory compliance, outside experts that are fully up to speed with the newest regulations and procedures can help you breeze through the IND submission process.
The unique characteristics and manufacturing processes of therapeutic
biological products and drug compounds lays the framework for the differences
in regulatory requirements for getting into the marketplace. While, biologics and drugs are both used for the same purposes — to
treat, prevent, and cure diseases — biological products are much more complex
in nature. By comparison, common drug compounds are relatively simple.
What exactly is a biological product?
Biological products are comprised of large and
complex protein structures that are primarily derived from living material,
including human, animal, and microorganisms. Proteins are often
post-transcriptional modified, including glycosylation, oxidation, deamidation,
and this has a profound effect on protein properties. As seen in the figure below, this contrast
with conventional drug compounds, such as aspirin, that have a smaller
molecular weight and are chemically synthesized. Peptides can fall into either regulatory
category and are comprised of amino acids just like a protein, but peptides are
smaller.
The vast
differences in complexity and size are depicted in this figure.
Defining biological products and drug compounds is the
first step to understanding the common and unique regulatory requirements for
each. FDA’s definition is the only one that matters for the purpose of
obtaining marketing approval in the United States, and the definition for
biologics is in a transition period.
Hang in there while we get to the
precise definitions as we transverse the regulatory pathways described in the
next section.
Acronym
Full Name
BLA
Biologic License Application
BPCI
Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009
CBER
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research
CDER
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
FD&C Act
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
NDA
New Drug Application
PHS Act
Public Health Service Act
The FDA Has Separate Agencies with Oversight
for Biologics and Drugs.
CBER and CDER
To deal with products of dramatically different composition
and manufacturing protocols, the FDA created two independent specialized
centers with premarket review and oversight responsibilities: The Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) and The Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research (CDER).
FDA defines which center a product is funneled into based
on its definitions. While there has been some overlap in regulatory oversight
for biologics and drugs under the current regulations, new guidelines will take
precedence next year.
FD&C Act and PHS Act
Therapeutic biological products are a subset of drugs and
thus regulated by the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) just like
common drugs. In addition, biological products are regulated by the Public
Health Service Act (PHS Act) due to their complex manufacturing processes.
Current center responsibilities are listed
below flowed by the newest changes.
Drug Compounds
CDER traditionally is the only center with regulatory
oversight of drug products.
Biological Products
Up until March 22nd of 2020, both CBER and CDER
have regulatory responsibility for therapeutic biological products under the
FD&C Act and PHS Act. CDER currently regulates the following categories of therapeutic biological
products.
Monoclonal antibodies for in vivo use
Most proteins intended for therapeutic use,
including cytokines (e.g., interferons), enzymes (e.g., thrombolytics), and
other novel proteins, except for those that are specifically assigned to CBER
(e.g., vaccines and blood products). This category includes therapeutic
proteins derived from plants, animals, humans, or microorganisms, and
recombinant versions of these products. Exceptions to this rule are coagulation
factors (both recombinant and human-plasma derived).
Immunomodulators (non-vaccine and
non-allergenic products intended to treat disease by inhibiting or
down-regulating a pre-existing, pathological immune response).
Immunomodulators
(non-vaccine and non-allergenic products intended to treat disease by
inhibiting or down-regulating a pre-existing, pathological immune response).
Growth factors,
cytokines, and monoclonal antibodies intended to mobilize, stimulate, decrease,
or otherwise alter the production of hematopoietic cells in vivo.
New Definition of Biological Product
The definition of biologics changed with the newest amendments
to the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI
Act).
The BPCI Act was enacted on March 23rd, 2010, and 2020 marks the end
of the 10-year transition period to allow sponsors time to make a seamless
transition between the CDER and CBER regulatory agencies.
The BPCI Act amends section 351(i) of the PHS Act modifying the definition of a biological product to include a “protein (except any chemically synthesized polypeptide).
Here is the FDA’s definition of these keywords in section
351(1) of the PHS Act:
Biological Product – “…a virus, therapeutic serum, toxin, antitoxin, vaccine, blood, blood component or derivative, allergenic product, protein (except any chemically synthesized polypeptide), or analogous product, or arsphenamine or derivative of arsphenamine (or any other trivalent organic arsenic compound), applicable to the prevention, treatment, or cure of a disease or condition of human beings.”
Protein –
“any alpha amino acid polymer with a specific defined sequence that is greater
than 40 amino acids in size…:”
Chemically Synthesized
Polypeptide – “…the term chemically synthesized
polypeptide would mean any alpha amino acid polymer that: (1) is made
entirely by chemical synthesis and (2) is greater than 40 amino acids but less
than 100 amino acids in size.”
Peptide – “…a
polymer composed of 40 or fewer amino acids…”
BLA and NDA Applications for Marketing Approval
As we will discuss in an upcoming post, both biologics and drugs must first go through a rigorous process to determine their safety and efficacy in humans before they can be sold in interstate commerce. This involves basic research and subsequent supporting clinical trials in humans. Approval of the relevant Biological Licensing Application (BLA) or New Drug Application (NDA) is the last major hurdle to getting a biologic or drug approved for marketing in the United States.
The BLA / NDA is the formal process by which a sponsor applies to FDA asking for permission to approve a new biologic or pharmaceutical for sale and marketing in the United States (21 CFR 601.2). The application tells the products full story of development and supports its use for a specific disease condition. The IND application precedes the BLA / NDA application, and the IND is actually part of the BLA / NDA as it is the living document that is kept up to date throughout the clinical evaluation process.
A key consideration is that an NDA needs to show that the
drug is “safe and effective,” while the BLA is required to ensure the licensed
biological product’s “safety, purity, and potency.”
The FDA ultimately makes the decision to either “approve” or “not to approve” the product based on the product’s safety and efficacy in the population for its intended use as outlined in the application. Thus, having a highly organized and well written BLA / NDA is critical for getting a product to market. Many sponsors utilize a CRO to facilitate faster market approval.
Be aware that starting March 23rd,
2020, the BPCI Act requires that approval of all “biological products” needs to
be submitted and approved through a BLA. After this date, even
pending or tentatively approved 505(b)2 applications will not be approved by the
FDA, at least according to the current guidance document.
Therefore, the FDA recommends sponsors that are unable to
complete the NDA by the transition deadline, to start down the BLA pathway now.
Failure to receive final approval by the 2020 deadline for applications in
progress will likely have a significant impact on proposed protein products.
Here is FDA’s preliminary list of
approved biological products that will be deemed BLAs on March 23, 2020.
Hidden Traps That Derail PER Preparedness: Lessons Learned from the MDR-Compliant CER Writing Experience [Free Webinar]
In this practical presentation, Criterion Edge uncovers what we have learned from our experience in writing MDR-compliant CERs, and how urgently applicable some of these key learnings are in preparing a robust Performance Evaluation Report (PER).
Hidden Traps That Can Derail Your CER: Answer These Critical Questions Before You Start Writing [Free Webinar]
As we all know, the MDR has significantly increased both the quality and quantity of inputs needed to complete a CER, needing more up-front planning than the reports have in the past. Based on our experiences with clients both large and small, our President, Laurie Mitchell, shares some of the biggest issues we have discovered when starting an MDR CER project. Laurie also reveals some of the most successful strategies in addressing these issues, up-front and early.
A Practical Guide: Conducting Systematic Literature Reviews in Support of IVDR Readiness [Free Webinar]
In this practical presentation, Criterion Edge breaks down the steps of the SLR process and takes a wholistic approach to conducting an IVDR-compliant SLR. Using case studies, the presentation illustrates the effective use of SLR-derived data to develop the Scientific Validity Report (SVR) and the Clinical Performance Report (CPR).
How to Assess Your CER for MDR Readiness, Part 2 [Free Webinar]
In this second installment of our 2-part webinar series, Criterion Edge shares practical presentation to help you assess your CER through the critical lens of a writer and identify possible gaps for mitigation before prior to submission to regulatory authorities.
Systematic Literature Review: How to Empower Data-Driven Decision Making [Free Webinar]
In this webinar, we share the process of systematic literature review, and discuss the tools and best practices for creating a methodologically-sound systematic literature review.
Experience and Scalability
Watch this video to learn how Criterion Edge is different from the rest.
5 Key Questions to Help Manage Your Budget
This infographic goes through 5 key questions to go through in order to control your budget.
Examining the Implications of the MDR on Data Management
Leading industry experts come together to discuss how the MDR affects data management within their respective units.
MedDev 2.7/1 Guideline: Equivalence and Risk/Benefit Profile
This report clarifies the modifications to the equivalence guidelines in MEDDEV 2.7/1 and Quality Management Systems (QMS) ISO 13485 standard to help develop strategies.
MedDev 2.7/1 Guideline: Qualifications of Evaluators and Scientific Validity
This gap analysis addresses key revisions to evaluator qualifications and scientific validity in the Clinical Evaluation (CE) MEDDEV guideline rev.4.
MedDev 2.7/1 Guideline: More Clinical Evaluations?
The changes to 2.7/1 rev. 4 suggest the need to submit more frequent CERs to regulatory authorities, however, strategies will be discussed for managing the increased requirements.
Data Mining: New Initiatives on Health Care Data that Manufacturers Should be Watching
Every time a healthcare provider makes a notation in the medical chart, a significant and valuable piece of data has been created. This paper discusses the implications of this.
10 Strategies to Build Efficiencies in your Regulatory Writing Process
This piece discusses 10 key strategies to building an efficient regulatory writing process.
State of the Art: Best Practices and Literature Review Using DistillerSR
In this paper, we discuss a prominent clarification on the MEDDEV 2.7.1 rev 4, establishing the “state of the art” section.
Q&A Follow-Up: How to Assess Your CER for MDR Readiness, Part 1 [Free Webinar]
The overwhelming turnout at the ‘How to Assess Your CER for MDR Readiness, Part 1’ prompted us to host a live Q+A session where President Laurie Mitchell exclusively answers all your questions.
Systematic Literature Review To Help Meet MDR Requirements [Free Webinar]
President Laurie Mitchell returns to continue sharing more about the importance of the systematic literature review.
Systematic Literature Review: How to Empower Data-Driven Decision Making [Free Webinar]
In this webinar, we share the process of systematic literature review, and discuss the tools and best practices for creating a methodologically-sound systematic literature review.
State of the Art Literature Review for EU MDR Compliance: How To Get It Right [Free Webinar]
Establishing and defining state of the art for a medical device is no longer an isolated task – it supports the entire Clinical Evaluation Report (CER). Multiple sections of the MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 4 compliant CER need to be supported by state of the art data, including safety and performance, risk management, and equivalence.
How to Assess Your CER for MDR Readiness, Part 1 [Free Webinar]
In this first installment of a 2-part webinar series, Criterion Edge will present strategies for assessing key components of your CER (or CER template) for possible misalignment with significant and applicable MDR requirements.
Intro to Adverse Event Reviews [Free Webinar]
In this webinar, President Laurie Mitchell discusses why safety reviews are essential in the entire life cycle of product development.
Advantages to Technologies Supporting Endpoint Adjudication [Free Webinar]
Kyoko Hattori from Criterion Edge returns to discuss best practices for managing the adjudication process in-house, and Brian Kelly from AG Mednet will share how the “JUDI” platform can simplify the management of adjudication.
Endpoint Adjudication by the Clinical Endpoints Committee (CEC) [Free Webinar]
In this webinar, learn about CECs, familiarization with regulatory guidance, decision factors leading to use of a CEC, and much more.
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
3rd Party Cookies
This website uses Google Tag Manager and Pardot's tracking features to collect information such as the number of visitors to the site, and the most popular pages.
Keeping this cookie enabled helps us to improve our website.
Please enable Strictly Necessary Cookies first so that we can save your preferences!