The eCTD summit

You are currently browsing the The eCTD summit blog archives for February, 2010.

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 February, 2010

FDA Computational Science Center and Data Standards

posted by Kathie Clark @ 2:07 AM
Saturday, February 20, 2010

This week’s blog posting is from Laura Wright, who attended the 23rd Annual DIA EDM conference in National Harbor, MD, February 16 through 19.  In Laura’s role as Account Manager at GlobalSubmit, she talks to many people in regulatory, clinical and IT roles in the biopharmaceutical industry.  Hearing some of their interests and concerns led Laura to attend a session entitled “Regulatory Update: Future Directions”.  Here, she offers her impressions. 

Data standards – whew!!  Nothing quite as exciting as data standards.  Have you ever seen a group of people arguing about SDTM (Study Data Tabulation Model)?  It can get pretty heated.  If you think that is a joke, then you haven’t seen it.

I am not interested in joining that debate today.  I just got back from DIA’s Annual US EDM conference and I would rather share some insights from the new Computational Science Center and the Office of Planning and Analysis at CDER.  Turns out that some people at the FDA see the lack of truly standardized data streaming into their servers as a real problem and they are proposing real solutions.  Chuck Cooper and Marni Hall spoke at a regulatory session on Thursday that highlighted new directions at CDER and CBER.  The data problem was summed up for the audience and it sounded something like this:

The reviewers are spending too much of their review time trying to manipulate incoming data so that they are able to analyze it.  And they are spending more time manipulating than analyzing.  Because of different data standards, the overall quality, consistency and transparency of the review suffers.  And your NDA approval takes longer.  Certainly not a new issue, but a problem nonetheless.

In many cases the data is consistent within the sponsor organization.  SDTM has been around for more than 6 years and most sponsors really do want to make the reviewer’s life as easy as possible.  But what does “standardized” mean to a therapeutic area that doesn’t have universal data sets available to them?  What about all of the well-meaning statisticians who are submitting “SDTM-like” data?  The FDA is accepting 5,000 eCTD submissions a month.  If everyone is doing their own thing, that is a LOT of data to manipulate before actually reviewing it.

Not only is your drug approval taking longer (I know that you are still stuck on that) but the agency’s ability to retrieve important information about trials that have been conducted in the past is completely arrested.  Picturing those handcuffs?  They can’t retrieve legacy study information today to easily compare it to new data.  There are no audit trails showing how the reviewer came up with the analysis they used last year or five years ago.  That means more time is spent on finding answers that the reviewers should be able to have access to in order to help them make sense of the data in front of them today.  This cycle seemed kind of hopeless.

Until Chuck and Marni told us about what their offices are doing to support reviewers.  Between converting the legacy trial data from prior submitted Phase II studies to diving into that age-old debate to create new specs surrounding data standardization, the new Computational Science Center will be a busy place.  You can help, too – your input is very valuable, whether you are a physician, statistician, a regulatory ops manager or a software vendor.  There are forums and specialized conferences for you to weigh in. After all, who doesn’t want transparency, consistency and quality? 

eCTD 2010 Conference and Talking to the Speakers

posted by Kathie Clark @ 8:34 PM
Friday, February 12, 2010

I have often noticed that people attending conferences would like a chance to talk to the speakers that they have found to be interesting.  Of course, you can ask questions at the end of the session, but often what you would really like to do is to pick someone’s brain – talk to them about your ideas and challenges.  That’s why you often see the speakers mobbed during the cocktail hour!

eCTD 2010, being held March 10th in my hometown of beautiful Philadelphia, PA, has implemented a practical strategy for extending this benefit to their conference attendees.  The conference will feature three Interactive Break-Out Discussion Groups:

  • Is Your Organization Moving toward Collaborative Authoring and Content Management? Hosted by Don Palmer, Associate Director, Regulatory Systems, Regulatory Affairs, MedImmune 
  • In Search of Submission Efficiencies:  Is Your Organization Using Tools/Processes To Handle The Growing Workload of eCTDs?  Hosted by S. Albert Edwards, Director, Regulatory Affairs Operations-US, Takeda
  • Preparing for Future FDA, EU and ROW Initiatives for eCTD: What is ahead and what does it mean to you? Hosted by Meredith Sewell, Associate Director, Global Regulatory Affairs Publishing, Allergan, Inc.

During these breakouts, you’ll be able to have a more extended discussion with the speakers.  These folks are great speakers and industry experts – I can personally vouch for that! I’ll be at eCTD 2010 and urge you to consider attending as well.  If you’ll be there, think about asking your colleagues what questions they wish they could ask Don, Meredith and Albert.  It will make for interesting conversation.

After the conference, I’ll be posting highlights on The eCTD Summit.

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.

The eCTD summit is proudly powered by WordPress