Skip to main content

Validation of eCTD Tools

BayBiotech.NET
Electronic Common Technical Document (eCTD) is an ICH standard adopted by FDA as a member of ICH, together with other member regions, Europe & Japan to facilitate electronic submissions to the agency. Harmonization of guidelines has been done to achieve global consistency in order to facilitate globalization of the drug discovery efforts. As of 2008, eCTD standard is the only acceptable format for new electronic submissions to the agency with an exceptions for submissions that are already under review. As the agency is working to standardize the eCTD process, it is encouraging the Industry to begin working on establishing a system for eCTD submissions. It is advisable to either use an in-house developed or commercially purchased e-CTD tool. In order to validate your eCTD tool, it will be important to pay attention to the following major issues identified by the agency regarding the eCTD submissions:

1. Lack of 356h, 1571, or 2252 forms in a submission.

2. Lack of .pdf Fillable Forms in a submission.

3. Usually more than one form in a submission is identified.

4. Mismatched, incorrect or missing application numbers.

6. Most of the eCTD submitted as eNDA.

7. More than one sequence included in one gateway submission.

8. One submission applied to more than one application.

9. Single file submission – Usually a single PDF file.

A validation plan to check for the abovementioned issues will help reduce the review time of a submission at the agency and will not cause a delay or return of your submission.

If you would like to read more on the eCTD submission, follow the link:
Electronic Regulatory Submission and Review (ERSR)

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