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

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

Harmonization by Doing (HBD): Japan & U.S. Collaboration

BayBiotech.NET HBD is an international cooperative effort by Japan and US for regulatory convergence for Medical Devices. The efforts are focused on to develop global clinical trials and address regulatory barriers for timely device approvals. To address the needs for additional evaluation, the HBD initiative is a pilot project launched jointly by FDA and MHLW-PMDA for the premarket review of device cardiovascular technology. Instead of taking a theoretical approach to harmonization, HBD is focused on Proof of concept by utilizing parallel development, application submissions and review of actual medical device projects. HBD Study intends to collect and analyze regulatory submission data from multiple applications in the U.S. and Japan. The purpose of the study is to further understand differences that may exist with format and content, to define best practices and to improve globally harmonized processes. To read more about the HBD program, follow the link: http://www.fda.gov/M...
Post a Comment
Read more

510(k) Summary or Statement

BayBiotech.NET A premarket notification from a manufacturer must include either a summary of the 510(k) safety and effectiveness information of the product upon which the substantial-equivalence determination is based or a statement that this information will be made available by the 510(k) applicant to any person within 30 days of a written request. As per FDA definition, these are the definition of Summary and Statements: Summaries are released by FDA regarding a 510(k) clearance when requested under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act whereas Statements are used to arrange for this FOI request to be fulfilled by the 510(k) applicant. 510(k) Summaries: If a summary is included, it must be submitted with the 510(k) notification as per FDA guidelines. The summary must be complete and correct in order for FDA to complete its review of a 510(k) submission. FDA will accept summaries and amendments until it issues a determination of substantial equivalence. If a summary has be...
Post a Comment
Read more