Skip to main content

Pre-market Quality/Regulatory Strategies in Drug/Device Development

BayBiotech.NET
A well planned regulatory strategy in the initial phase of product development is an essential component to safely and effectively launch the FDA regulated product in the market. However, preparing an effective strategy leading to commercialization of the product depends on many factors and one of the most important factor is to determine the class and subcategory of the product to be developed.

For example if you plan to develop a drug, then must subcategorize it as over-the-counter, new drug, generic drug etc. Once the class and subcategory is identified, then local, state, federal and international guidelines must be reviewed thoroughly for understanding the regulatory needs for the particular class and subcategory of the product. Next step followed will be to prepare a risk/ benefit analysis and targeted pre-clinical experiments to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the product as well as developing different protocols for procurement, experimental procedures and identifying resources for the quality supplies.

It is the responsibility of the Quality Assurance and Regulatory personnel to ensure that all the protocols and procedures in the development stages are prepared as per GLP and GMP guidelines. It is also the responsibility of the QA/RA personnel to keep the higher management informed about the compliance issues and ensure to work with them to rectify the problem areas for a smooth future marketing of the product.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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...

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...

Risk Based Clinical Monitoring

BayBiotech.NET FDA's recommendation of Risk Based Monitoring of Clinical Trials , as published in their Draft Guidance in August 2011. For the first time, FDA provided guidance on monitoring of clinical investigations in 1988 which was recently withdrawn, stated that the “most effective way” to monitor an investigation was to “maintain personal contact between the monitor and the investigator throughout the clinical investigation.” At the time the guidance was issued, sponsors had only limited ways to effect meaningful communication with investigators other than through on-site visits.   This guidance recommends an assessment by the sponsor for the need of 100% on-site monitoring. Such an assessment may be based on the complexity of the study protocol and not be generally applicable to all trial types. It explains the importance of remote monitoring facilitated by the use of electronic data capture system (EDC) and also emphasizes the need of the identifying crit...