Skip to main content

Quality of Harmonized Drug Substance Dossier for a Marketing Authorization

BayBiotech.NET

Through the ICH process (ICH M4Q), considerable harmonization has been achieved among the three regions (Japan, EU and US) in the technical requirements for the registration of pharmaceuticals for human use. To avoid the need to generate and compile different registration dossiers, the ICH: M4 guideline describes a format for the Common Technical Document that will be acceptable in all three regions.

In a nutshell, CTD is an internationally agreed upon format for the preparation of a presentation for applications to be submitted to the regulatory authorities. However, the CTD does not address the content of submissions. There are many regional requirements, as well as applicants’ preferences, that could affect the contents of dossiers submitted in each region.

According to the ICH guidelines, a document is defined for a paper submission as a set of pages, numbered sequentially and divided from other documents by a tab and a document can be equated to a file for an electronic submission. In an electronic submission, a new file starts at the same point at which in a paper submission, a tab divides the documents.
In deciding whether one or more documents or files are appropriate, it should be considered that once a particular approach has been adopted, the same approach should be used throughout the life of the dossier since it is the intention that replacement documents/files be provided when information is changed.

It is recommended that all the text and tables should be prepared using margins that allow the document to be printed on A4 paper (EU and Japan) and 8.5x11” paper (USA). Times New Roman, 12-point font is recommended for narrative text.

For more details follow the link: ICH M4Q Guideline Common Technical Document for the Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human use, Quality

Comments

Post a Comment

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...
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

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...
1 comment
Read more