Skip to main content

Globalization of Clinical Trials

BayBiotech.NET
When ICH was conceived in 1999, it was for a good cause understanding that it will have harmonization on guidelines for conduct of a clinical trial worldwide as it brought together European Union, United States and Japanese experts together to draw a set of standards that would streamline the clinical research globally. Out of thirty-eight topics (Guidelines) originally identified, only the ICH E6 document relates to the standards of Good Clinical Practice. Since, the EU Directive were set in place for conducting a clinical trial in UK and European member states it is not only ICH E6 but also EU GCP Directive 2001/20 and 2005/28 that is required to be followed which gives a higher standard than ICH E6 alone. Apart from these directives, member states of the European States have their local laws that are also incorporated into the GCP conducts.
This further complicates the conduct of clinical trials and acceptance of global data because if a member state selects a site outside EU members, whether it is in Japan, Australia, Canada or United States will have to follow all the above mentioned directives to be in compliance. Similarly, if a drug is developed and clinical trials are conducted in United States or any other country following FDA GCP guidelines will have problems getting marketing clearance within EU member states as the trial may have only followed FDA GCP but not EU directives.
Seems with globalization of the clinical trials and drug discovery efforts, a revision of harmonization is due and till then a clear expert understanding of local regulations of the countries where trial sites are selected will be helpful. Note that the country of choice for clinical trials must be followed closely for their local regulations as amendments are incorporated all the times and in order to get a higher success rate with the trial data acceptance a close follow-up on local GCP regulations will be helpful.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Good Machine Learning Practices

BayBiotech.NET A joint effort by FDA,  United Kingdom’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and Health Canada have developed guiding principles to help promote utilization of medical devices that are safe and effective and utilize artiificial intelligence and machine learning. To find out more details check out the link here!
Post a Comment
Read more

Group C (Treatment IND) Drugs

BayBiotech.NET Since 1976, National Cancer Institute (NCI) in agreement with FDA has established the Group C classification system to allow access to certain drugs for the cancer patients specifically falling under a category that adequate alternative therapy or if the available alternative therapy has significant toxic effects. Each Group C drug protocol specifies patient eligibility and drug use information. Group C drugs are provided only to properly trained physicians who have registered themselves with NCI using a special form to assure that their patient qualifies under guidelines - or protocols - for the drug. Physicians using drugs under Group C have no reporting requirements to the NCI other than the obligation to report adverse drug reactions. Group C drugs are provided free of charge, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services provides coverage for care associated with Group C therapy. Making Group C drugs available to the critically ill patients not only provi...
Post a Comment
Read more

Amendments for High Risk Device Type Regulatory Pathway

BayBiotech.NET Government Accounting Office (“GAO”) has issued a long-awaited report evaluating the use of the 510(k) process by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA” or the “Agency”) in the January of 2009. Report mainly focused on Preamendment class III devices. Although most high-risk class III medical devices are subject to the demanding premarket approval (“PMA”) process, preamendment class III devices may be cleared through the 510(k) pathway until FDA issues regulations requiring a PMA. Under the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990, FDA was required either to reclassify preamendment class III devices into class I or II, or (2) issue regulations requiring PMA approval for the devices, GAO noted that 20 preamendment class III device types have not yet been addressed by the Agency. GAO has urged FDA to take required steps to address the remaining class III devices that continue to be eligible for 510(k) review. As a result of the report, FDA has committed to address al...
Post a Comment
Read more