
Well,it’s back to business after the holiday break… and as promised, here’s my update on what’s happening at Health Canada.
At the recent DIA eSubmissions conference, Health Canada’s Vianney Caron presented an update on eCTD at Health Canada.
The E-Review Program
The purpose of Health Canada’s E-Review program is to support branch business processes throughout the health product life cycle across product lines using an integrated secure electronic environment that facilitates the exchange of information and conforms to international standards.
Health Canada has made a lot of progress in E-Review recently. Important milestones achieved include:
Regulatory Activities in eCTD Format
Metrics were provided on eCTDs received:
Cumulative through September of 2009:
Totals for 2009 (as of September), received from 53 sponsors:
Health Canada is not seeing a significant rise in applications and sequences received, such as has been experienced by the FDA and EMEA – perhaps because they still require at least part of the dossier in paper. As of 2009, 8.7% of regulatory activities are received in eCTD format.
eCTD Validation
Sponsors are improving the quality of their submissions to Health Canada. In 2009, 4.5% of sequences failed validation. This is down considerably from previous years: 8.3% failed in 2008 and 11% failed in 2007.
Top 10 errors and warnings encountered during validation include:
1. Inactive bookmarks -no link destination
2. Inactive hyperlinks -no link destination
3. External links -pointing to the folder or destination that does not exist in the folder structure on the CD/DVD. The folder or destination would only exist in the sponsor’s repository.
4. Incorrect naming of the 3011 form; correct name is hc-sc-3011-en.pdf
5. Unreferenced files in the index.xml or ca.regional.xml
6. Life cycle management of the document: invalid file reference or no previous ID found
7. Subfolders created in ca regional folder
8. Missing top level folder
9. Missing attestation letter; content as per eCTD Guidance, letter needs to be dated and signed
10. Printed content of MD-5 Checksum does not match the one in the index-md5.txt file
Preliminary Experience with eCTD
Health Canada reports that they have buy-in from all stakeholders, but no legal basis to make eCTD mandatory. They continue to experience logistical and process issues. Reviewers perceive that paper & electronic in parallel is difficult and the process is excessively manual. Validation is perceived as an extra step. Other review issues including understanding lifecycle management in the eCTD and dealing with scanned documents and resolution of graphics.
Some upcoming milestones include the retirement of hybrid submissions as of January 2010 (this month). A date is yet to be announced for accepting fully electronic submissions.
Assessment of Hybrid Pilot
Health Canada surveyed reviewers participating in their hybrid pilot with some interesting results:
Next Steps at Health Canada
Health Canada defined their next steps as:
Health Canada closed by saying that they strongly recommend electronic submissions in eCTD format, and support the development of common standards. They will be expanding the existing infrastructure to support as many application types across product line as possible. Questions can be sent to them at ereview@hc-sc.gc.ca.
Health Canada has posted a final version of Guidance for Industry: Preparation of Drug Submissions in Electronic Common Technical Document (eCTD) Format on their web site. This version, dated November 4, 2009, replaces the draft version dated January 25, 2006.
On the whole, the changes are more evolutionary than revolutionary. Throughout the document, the previous terminology of “Annual update forms summarizing the Notices of Change” has been updated to refer to “Forms summarizing the Changes to Marketed Human New Drug Products”. Some of the more significant changes are described below.
Guidance on placement of leaf elements
In the section “3.3.1 Module 1: Administrative Information and Prescribing Information”, considerably more detail is provided for the organization and content of Module 1. New items in this section include:
· Granularity and placement of Appendix I, Life Cycle Management Table
· Construction of summary responses and placement in Module 1, along corresponding original requests
· Placement of the Product Monograph (PM) certification form
· Handling of notes to reviewers
In the section “3.3.2 Modules 2 to 5”, additional information includes placement of PSURs requested during the pre-market review process by TPD and BGTD as well as placement of Case Report Forms.
Changes to Recommended Module 1 File Naming Conventions
Module 1 recommended file naming conventions have changes.
Choice of file naming convention is up to the sponsor… Health Canada suggests that file names begin with the sequence number, followed by “ca,” followed by the module and, if applicable, the section number, and then a phrase describing the contents of the file. All components of the file name can be divided by hyphens.
For more details and examples, see “3.2.6 Leaf File Naming Convention”.
More Help with eCTD Operations
Section 4.3 and its subsections have been enhanced to provide additional guidance on and examples for operation attributes. Some useful advice includes:
· In general, how the operation attributes “append” and “replace” should be used is related to how the content of a document is managed. The operation attribute “replace” should be used when the additional information and the previously submitted information are provided as a consolidated document. The operation attribute “append” should be used when the additional information submitted is used to build upon previously submitted information, without resubmitting it.
· Health Canada does not recommend using the operation attribute to modify a document twice in the same sequence.
· The “append” operation attribute should not be used to link files that are split because they would otherwise exceed the 100 megabyte limit. Instead, proper file management using an adequate level of granularity will ensure that no file exceeds the limit.
· Notes to Reviewers, the Lifecycle Management Table, and Q&A Leaf Elements should always be new (along with letters of attestation).
· Detailed guidance on how to handle the PM leaf element and forms summarizing the Changes to Marketed Human New Drug Product is provided.
· Figures are provided to illustrate life cycle management scenarios for the Product Monograph (PM) and Certified Product Information Document (CPID).
Bookmarking Guidance
Section 4.4, Bookmarks in PDF Files, provides guidance for the first time on bookmarking. This guidance differs in some places from that provided by FDA.
· Documents of ten pages or more should be bookmarked. (FDA says three pages or more.)
· Too many levels of bookmarks are inefficient; in most instances, three levels of bookmarks should be sufficient. (FDA says four levels.)
· Health Canada recognizes that bookmarks are generated automatically from document headings, but nevertheless recommends they be kept concise. (This is a point I have often thought about but never seen discussed – if you are following good authoring practices most bookmarking should be automatic.)
Clarifications
Some other noteworthy clarifications include:
· Periodic Safety Update Reports (PSURs) requested during the pre-market review process by Therapeutic Products Directorate (TPD) and Biologics and Genetic Therapies Directorate (BGTD may be filed in eCTD format. PSURs submitted to the Marketed Health Products Directorate (MHPD) may not be filed in eCTD format.
· SNDS and SANDS are not longer limited to being filed when the original NDS or ANDS was in eCTD format. Apparently, Health Canada will now allow a sponsor to switch to eCTD format for any major submission (like the FDA and EMEA).
· Lot release documentation and Yearly Biologic Product Reports (YBPRs) may not be filed in eCTD format.
· When a sponsor initially files in the paper-based CTD format and subsequently moves to the eCTD format, the sponsor is not expected to refile the previously approved paper-based submissions in electronic format.
· Leaf titles should not include a file format (e.g., “Pristine Product Monograph.MS Word” should not include the .MS Word portion)
· Annotated PMs should only be submitted in PDF and Non-annotated and Pristine PMs should only be submitted in word-processed format.
· PDF versions of documents should be generated from electronic source documents and not from scanned material, except where the source electronic files are not available or where a signature is required.
· Sponsors should only label discs. CD or DVD cases do not need to be labelled since Health Canada will place its own label on the front covers of the cases. Requested label information is slightly updated.
· For all drug submission types (NDS, SNDS, ANDS, SANDS, and NC) when they are first filed, the related-sequence-number sub-element should be empty. (Formerly, guidance said it should not be used.)
· All mention of digital or electronic signatures has been dropped.
Additional Background Material
A significant amount of additional background material has been added, including:
· A figure illustrating an eCTD Structure showing multiple sequences
· An Example Life Cycle Management Table
· A series of tables illustrating valid and invalid scenarios for Life Cycle Management Scenarios for Operation Attributes
Note: The Guidance document is a 59 page document with no bookmarks or hyperlinks. I have thoroughly bookmarked and hyperlinked my copy. If you work for a sponsor organization, send me an email (kathleen.clark@globalsubmit.com) from your company email account and I’ll send you a copy. No CROs, consultants or vendors please – I’m not quite that nice J.
***This just in: our first session is completely full, and we have added a second session on December 8th, 11 am EST (a time more friendly to our European colleagues):
http://www.eventbrite.com/event/474671756
_______________________________________________________________
Don’t have time to keep up-to-date on eCTD regulations and guidance around the world? Wondering when eCTD will become mandatory, (or even accepted), in a given market? Join GlobalSubmit and Cato Research on Thursday, November 5th at 2:00 PM EST for a free educational webinar titled, eCTD Regulations and Status Worldwide.
I’ll be the main presenter, and I’ll review the status of eCTD in the US, Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia and Switzerland. I will also provide you with a convenient list of references and contacts.
At the end of the session’s Q&A, a CATO representative will give a brief overview of the latest happenings in the CRO realm and answer any questions you may have.
Date: November 5, 2009
Time: 2:00 PM EST
Please note: this event is designed for sponsors, and is open only to users registering with a valid email address from a pharmaceutical domain (no gmail, yahoo, etc. accounts).
To Register: Click here or paste this URL into your browser: http://www.eventbrite.com/event/471856335
*** Update: the links below, which had been working fine between when this was posted and today (May 18), appear to be no longer functional. Possibly the AAPS had not meant them for public consumption; however, I have not been contacted by them so I don’t know this for sure. Apologies that the links no longer work but they are out of my control. - K.C. ***
You could contact the AAPS, or see if you can track down the speakers and ask them for the presentations. The following email addresses were included:
Agencies:
Health Canada: ereview@hc-sc.gc.ca
EMEA: eCTD@emea.europa.eu
PMDA: ectd-helpdesk@pmda.go.jp
MPA: karin.grondahl@mpa.se
FDA: gary.gensinger@fda.hhs.gov
The AAPS Workshop on Strategic Management of CMC Dossiers in the eCTD Format: What CMC Professionals Need to Know Now! was held March 9-11, 2009. There were some great presentations, and best of all they are publically available. The agenda contains links to the presentations.
All the presentations were good but some of the highlights for me appear below. There’s great information on Japan and Health Canada that has been rather hard to locate recently, and lots of discussion about some of the more puzzling and problematic aspects of eCTD as they relate to CMC in particular – so you know there will be discussions about metadata, granularity, and the tradeoffs in structuring M2 and M3.
Evdokia Korakianiti of EMEA presented eCTD: EMEA Experiences containing FAQs received by the EMEA, concerning CMC metadata, CEPs, ASMF – plus some great key messages for industry.
The presentation eCTD in Japan by Harve Martins has lots of good info on eCTD in Japan that has not been readily available – such as details and examples on lifecycle (handled in an accumulative approach in Japan), Module 1 TOC, cover letter and form information, module 5 unique requirements, validation details, submission instructions, etc. I’ve reproduced the update on the number of sequences received in Japan (keep in mind that a reference application is something like Health Canada’s co-submission – in effect a review aid for a paper submission.) 
Health Canada’s Vianney Caron presented e-Submissions at Health Canada which reviewed HC’s history and future direction with eCTD, challenges and issues with CMC documents, especially the QOS. Health Canada also presented statistics on the number of eCTDs they have been receiving (they now get about 7% of their regulatory activities in eCTD format).
Regulatory Activities in eCTD format (NDS, SNDS, ANDS, SANDS, NC)
About 8.2% of submissions are currently failing validation, well down from the 31% experienced in early days. Following the lead of FDA and EMEA, they have provided their top 10 list of validation errors:
1. Inactive bookmarks -no link destination
2. Inactive hyperlinks -no link destination
3. External links -pointing to the folder or destination that does not exist in the folder structure on the CD/DVD. The folder or destination would only exist in the sponsor's repository.
4. Incorrect naming of the 3011 form (correct name is hc-sc-3011-en.pdf)
5. Unreferenced files in the index.xml or ca.regional.xml
6. Life cycle management of the document: invalid file reference or no previous ID found
7. Subfolders created in ca regional folder
8. Missing top level folder
9. Missing attestation letter; content as per eCTD Guidance, letter needs to be dated and signed
10.Printed content of MD-5 Checksum does not match the one in the index-md5.txt file
Health Canada strongly recommends electronic submissions in eCTD format, and they plan to expand the existing architecture to support as many application types across product line as possible. Some of their next steps in support of eCTD include:
The eCTD Industry Forums –Europe presentation by Phyllis Thomas of AstraZeneca UK summarizes discussions by the CMC eCTD informal industry group and EFPIA eCTD-Q topic team. It has lots of discussion about metadata and repeating section issues, including illustrative examples. It also discusses issues and areas that lack clarity that have been passed on as Q&A and in turn referred to the harmonization taskforce (some of them not yet resolved).
ICH & Regional Guidance and Terminology by Hans van Bruggen provides a comprehensive summary of eCTD status in many regions (including individual EU countries). Again, this is information that is hard to find and nearly impossible to find in one place.
In Points to Consider for Case Studies in Lifecycle-Biologics, Colleen Godshall of Merck addresses some of the issues that have always caused me to hold CMC people in awe: however do they perform impact analysis of change and manage the approvals and notifications requirements that are so different in every region? Concrete examples are provided, such as “Adding a New Air Handler to a Class 100 Area used to manufacture multiple vaccines”. Ms. Godshall also talks about managing 3.2.A.1 for both US applications, which allow cross-applikcation linking, and International Marketing Authorizations, which do not.
A presentation by Pamela Cafiero of Boehringer Ingelheim, Simultaneous eCTD Applications in US and EU: Similarities/Differences and the Reasons Behind them, gives detail on a subject I’ve been asked about many times – what are the real differences in content between US and EU Module 3? She also gives recommendations about document identification (header/footer), Referencing between CMC documents, referencing and linking within Module 3 (her minimalist approach resulted in about two dozen links between Module 3 documents and was the same in US and EU), and recommendations and examples of CMC metadata, leaf titles and the relationships between them.
Phyllis Thomas of AstraZeneca UK also spoke about USING MODULE 3 (FOR INDs). She focused on encouraging the use of granularity in IND M3 (even though it is not required) and some special considerations for INDs such as Placebos, Comparators, and Introductory CMC text.
An RPS2 Working Group meeting was held in Vancouver the week of September 15.
The working group discussed a number of business scenarios including: