The eCTD summit

You are currently browsing the archives for the Technical Rejection category.

eCTD on Twitter

  • Malta: Requirements on Electronic submissions for New Applications within National and European procedures #ectd
    http://bit.ly/9m1pQl
    2010/09/08 09:39
  • Check out Reed Tech's LabelDataPlus super search tool for SPL, searching repository of of 27052 drug labels:
    http://bit.ly/cYdc98
    2010/09/07 12:03
  • Highlights of IRISS Interoperability group’s July, August mtgs posted, incl some FDA news
    http://bit.ly/bPEeEN & http://bit.ly/brD5OY #ectd
    2010/08/31 10:07

Visit GlobalSubmit

gs_logo22

The eCTD Company™

Our Visitors

Archive for the ‘Technical Rejection’ Category

Top FDA Processing Issues with eCTD: A Recent Update

posted by Kathie Clark @ 8:15 AM
Wednesday, May 19, 2010

At a  GPhA/FDA Labeling Workshop on April 14, 2010, Virginia Ventura of CDER’s Office of Business Informatics presented CDER Update eCTD & Gateway SubmissionsAlong with lots of other useful information, Ms. Ventura provided an assessment of the current Top Processing Issues with Esubs:

Description

Percent of total

Unable to extract info from PDF form (sponsor did not use fillable form)

52%

Missing form (356h, 1571 or 2252)

13%

Bad Characters (per eCTD Spec) in file or folder names

10%

Duplicate sequence (sponsor sent twice)

10%

“High” validation errors

7%

Media empty or corrupted

4%

Wrong application number in us-regional.xml

2%

Invalid submission type identified (eCTD submitted as non-eCTD or vice versa)

1%

Valid application number with incorrect type (combination is valid but not Sponsor’s application)

1%

 

Certainly, the high percentage of submissions not using fillable forms is startling – Ms. Ventura mentioned that most of these are ANDAs.  She spells out the solution for using 356h fillable forms (including their correct use with annual reports) – consult the presentation for details.  She also stresses that the correct use of fillable forms results in your submission getting to the reviewer much quicker (best case an amazing 10 minutes!).

The amount of High Severity validation errors is also concerning, as the presentation reiterates what the FDA has said before - High Errors = Submission cannot be accepted.  Therefore, up to 7% of these submissions may have been rejected, resulting in time off the PDUFA clock in many cases.

All of this serves as a wake-up call that validation and submission QC are more important than ever.  Be sure to read the presentation for more tips on STFs, QC of us-regional.xml, use of the gateway, and many other quality issues and considerations.

European Agency Roundup

posted by Kathie Clark @ 10:00 AM
Wednesday, February 3, 2010

There has been a lot going on at the various European agencies in the last few months.  This week, we look at some of the announcments and guidance that has been issued across Europe recently.

France: - Caroline AURICHE, Philippe DÜRR and Cécile LEVY from AFSSAPS spoke at EXL Pharma, presenting on Taking the plunge from paper into electronic-only in the EU - the 18-month feed-back experience of «paperlessland» in the French Health Products Safety Agency. AFSSAPS details include:

  • Accepts and encourages electronic-only (paperless) submissions since 1 July 2008
  • Accepts National and MRP/DCP procedures 
  • Accepts e-CTD or EU-NeeS
  •  Exploring a possible shift from EU-NeeS to eCTD
  •  Enforces “Once e-CTD, always e-CTD” - once first submission as eCTD, all regulatory activities accepted
  •  Attempting to shift paper  to electronic : all regulatory activities except IA/IB variations (volumetry factor)
  • EU-NeeS : IA & IB variations never accepted
  • Receives about 1/3 eCTD and about 2/3 EU-NeeS, of which roughly one half are nonconforming at the time of first submission

Germany: The Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM) announced that it will accept pure electronic filings (eCTD or NeeS) from mid-February 2010 (previously a full paper copy was required). Only those documents requiring signature will be required in papert.
The BfArM will soon add a section on “electronic filing” to its homepage (
www.bfarm.de) to consolidate information The BfArM will be making further announcements closer to the date

Austria:  In news passed on from Tim Feldgate of Applied Regulatory Consulting’s blog article Electronic submission available for human use, the AGES PharmMed now accepts, but does not require, purely electronic submissions for human use without additional paper copy, except for those documents that need to be signed: Company letter and application form.  eCTD is the preferred standard, and it is the default Nees is only a temporary solution.

Belgium: Federal Agency for Medicines and Health Products advises on automatic emails sent after eSubs uploaded in their system and passed or failed compliance requirements

Belgium: New version of the Belgian agency’s NeeS checker tool: see the agency’s e-Submissions page (you must navigate to the Human Use tab and then the eSubmissions link) (translated from the Dutch) for the file checker and associated documents.

Spain:  AEMPS has issued a new version of their NeeS guidance   ENVÍO POR PARTE DE LOS LABORATORIOS DE INFORMACIÓN EN FORMATO ELECTRÓNICO A LA AEMPS on December 22nd (in Spanish only.

UK: in The Medicines (Products for Human Use) (Amendments to Fees for Variations) Regulations 2009 ,  eCTD fees were set at a lower level than other submission types.

UK: E-SUBMISSIONS - Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for Vet Meds in the UK has been updated to clarify that the root folder of a Vet Meds eSubmission is part of the submission, and that following the naming conventions for files and folders (with regards to forbidden characters) is important – your submission may be rejected even for use of upper case.

Turkey: Turkish eSubs guidance (in Turkish) has been issued. per Andrew Marr “This is essentially NeeS but with specific file and folder naming in Turkish, with CTD section numbers too. I believe that the final guidance will allow Modules 4 and 5 to use the English folder and filenames.”

Cyprus: the Ministry of Health has issued GUIDANCE FOR PROVIDING REGULATORY INFORMATION IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT SUBMISSIONS.  They will accept electronic submissions within the National Procedure, the Mutual Recognition Procedure and the Decentralised Procedure in eCTD or NeeS format. However, the Cover Letter and the Application Form must be submitted in paper with an original signature.  The guidance provides information on disk and file formats, packaging and labeling, electronic signature, validation, etc.  “The Pharmaceutical Services, Ministry of Health have a strong preference for the submission of electronic regulatory information and sees clear benefits for both regulators and industry.”

Greece: the National Organization for Medicines has posted  Instructions for Filing Electronically (translated from the Greek by Google).  Human products still require M1-M3 in paper but discourage paper for modules 4 and 5.  Vet meds and labeling requirements are also discussed.

Norway: Statens legemiddelverk announced acceptance of / strong recommendation for electronic submissions 1 Jan 2010  (translated from Norwegian by Google). 

Sweden: in updates to their Electronic submissions page, MPA prefers “as far as possible be able to work solely with electronic submissions for all medical products.” From the 1st January 2010 the MPA will also accept electronic submissions in NeeS or VNtA formats for veterinary medical products within all procedures.

Bulgaria: the Bulgarian authority has issued an announcement that from 01.01.2010 all types of procedures must be in electronic format -eCTD or NeeS - for all procedure types in Bulgaria (translated by Google). They specify which documents are still required in paper in addition.  There is also a Guide for electronic submission of documents eCTD and Nees (this was issued last March).  For a more detailed discussion of Bulgaria and eSubmissions, see ForeignExchange Translations blog entry  Bulgaria catches up with e-Submissions.

Poland: the Polish agency has announced the acceptance of electronic submissions from 1 January 2010 (Nees, eCTD), with the proviso that certain specified documents must be submitted in paper form, regardless of their submission in electronic form.

P.S. I had previously announced all of this news on Twitter, albeit in abbreviated form.  Be sure to follow me on Twitter for timely updates - go to www.twitter.com/kathie_clark to follow me.

Warning: Some HAs not accepting PDFs other than 1.4

posted by Kathie Clark @ 2:19 AM
Thursday, June 4, 2009

Recently, some sponsors have been reporting the rejection of eCTD sequences or NeeS containing PDFs of any version other than 1.4.

The Swedish agency Medical Products Agency (MPA) states on their website on the page Electronic submissions to the MPAThe MPA will check eCTDs against the A criteria listed in the “EU eCTD Validation Criteria” v.2.0 (see link to the right), and also check for the B criteria that the eCTD has PDF files in format PDF 1.4 only (very important for archiving).”  Some sponsors have reported that MPA is actually rejecting eSubmissions containing PDFs other than version 1.4, even though (as noted) this is only a “B” error in Europe (see Error 37 in EU eCTD Validation Criteria V2.1).  The definition of “B” Priority is “accept but may request corrections (fix with a subsequent sequence)”.

The French authority Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Produits de Santé has also been reported to be refusing submissions containing PDFs other than 1.4, but I could not find anything on their web site to support this except a mention in NOTICE TO APPLICANTS FOR MARKETING AUTHORISATIONS FOR MEDICINAL PRODUCTS FOR HUMAN USE  as follows: “The file format for text documents must be PDF 1.4″.

ICH’s guidance on this (in the eCTD 3.2.2 specs) is “All ICH Regional Health Authorities are able to read and have agreed to accept PDF files saved as PDF version 1.4… Please consult regional guidance to submit other versions of PDF.”  FDA of course has a whole document on this topic, Portable Document Format Specifications (note the new location on their re-organized web site).  I have heard FDA say in the past that their issue with PDF formats is also archiving, as their reviewers have long since moved past Adobe versions that can only handle version 1.4.

If you are submitting to regional authorities in Europe, you may wish to check with those authorities and also to run your submission through the Belgian Registration file validation.    Also keep in mind that one of your biggest issues could be literature references, which may be supplied to you in PDF format.  If it’s not possible to “save down” to V1.4, worst case you might have to scan to V1.4.

FDA to begin rejecting eCTDs for significant technical issues

posted by Kathie Clark @ 2:29 AM
Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Due to the increased adoption of the eCTD and number of submissions received by the U.S. FDA, submission quality is receiving increased focus and attention at the U.S. FDA. In recent conversations with FDA officials, they have expressed a commitment to increase their diligence and oversight with respect to submission quality and have signaled their intention to begin rejecting eCTD sequences having significant technical issues. Although no specific date has been established for this step, expect an announcement of intent early in 2009, with enforcement beginning some months later.

What are Significant Technical Issues?

Significant technical issues are those defined in eCTD validation criteria However, expect these criteria to be updated and re-issued based on several factors:

Enhancement of FDA’s Validation Software. FDA recently updated their validation software (GlobalSubmit VALIDATE Version 5). The updated software detects additional errors not documented in the current validation criteria. These error checks were added based on feedback from FDA IT staff and reviewers. The new software went live in CBER and CDER in late November.

Analysis of Error Trends. The new software also allows the FDA to fulfill a PDUFA mandate to report back to sponsors on eCTD errors. Specifically, PDUFA IV Information Technology Plan, DRAFT, December 2007, requires reports on “Total number of standards-based electronic submissions that fail to comply with FDA electronic submission standards, along with a distribution of these submission failures across categories of failure or problem type”. After studying the distribution of eCTD submission errors, FDA may choose to re-classify the severity of some of the errors.

Issues and Inefficiencies Caused by Problematic eCTDs. FDA also experienced problems with invalid data (especially application and sequence numbers) in the course of moving to VALIDATE 5 and integrating with other databases and systems at FDA. This caused a significant amount of manual processing to address the problems and resulted in delays in the upgrade and integration process. As the number of eCTD sequences received by the FDA is growing exponentially, they cannot continue to accept sequences that need to be manually corrected before they can be loaded and made available to reviewers.

Groundwork Already Established

This action should not come as a major surprise to sponsors. FDA has been laying the groundwork for this step for some time. FDA validation criteria defines the impact of a high severity error as “The error is a serious technical error which prevents the processing of the submission and will require resubmission. The submission is considered not received by FDA.”

In the guidance document “Guidance for Industry: Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format — Receipt Date”, they say:

The FDA will consider a technically deficient application not received until the technical deficiencies are resolved and the application is resubmitted. Examples:
Defect in media, lack of electronically readable application form, re-use of sequence number, missing index.xml and/or us-regional.xml, virus
High priority errors identified in validation criteria

Sanctions are also discussed in Section IIH of “Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format - Human Pharmaceutical Product Applications and Related Submissions Using the eCTD Specifications”.

Impact and Recommendations

FDA anticipates that the step may result in the rejection a few percent of all sequences, based on the quality of submissions currently being received. It is not their intent to issue Refuse to File for a rejection, but it will prevent the PDUFA clock from starting, resulting in a significant cost impact to sponsors. Delays also increase the chance of a complete response- which stops or extends the PDUFA clock.

I strongly recommend that all organizations who produce eCTDs establish quality processes and procedures to ensure the quality of submissions. Tools that support eCTD review and validation are essential to ensure the overall quality and integrity of the submission to avoid costly errors and the potential rejection of the submission sequences. However, even the best tool must be used in combination with a thorough, repeatable, documented process in order to yield consistently excellent results.

The eCTD summit is proudly powered by WordPress