DIA ERS SIAC IND CMC eCTD Submissions Part II – IND to NDA

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Patients’ Perspective on HTA and Off-label use David Head MBA Chief Executive RP Fighting Blindness 25th Annual EuroMeeting 4-6 March 2013 RAI, Amsterdam.
Advertisements

Data Monitoring Models and Adaptive Designs: Some Regulatory Experiences Sue-Jane Wang, Ph.D. Associate Director for Adaptive Design and Pharmacogenomics,
SMALL BUSINESS PLAN GUIDE
Slide 1 of 19D.K. Mubangizi, Dar Es Salaam Sept Training Workshop for Evaluators from National Medicines Regulatory Authorities in East African Community.
COMPARABILITY PROTOCOLS ACPS March 12-13, 2003 Stephen K. Moore, Ph.D. Chemistry Team Leader CDER/Office of New Drug Chemistry Co-Chair, Comparability.
Lynda Paleshnuik | January |1 | Assessment Workshop Copenhagen – January 2011 QIS/QOS: The new PQP quality templates.
Assessing Quality-by-Design A CMC Review Perspective
Training Workshop on Pharmaceutical Development with a Focus on Paediatric Medicines / October |1 | Regulatory Requirement on Dossier of Medicinal.
Module 1, Part 1: Introduction and The VMP Slide 1 of 22 © WHO – EDM Validation Supplementary Training Modules on Good Manufacturing Practices.
Justina A. Molzon, MS Pharm, JD
Nonclinical Studies Subcommittee Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science CMC Issues for Screening INDs Eric B. Sheinin, Ph.D. Acting Deputy Director.
Industry Perspective on Challenges for Product Developers - Drugs Christine Allison, M.S., RAC Associate Regulatory Consultant, Global Regulatory Affairs.
Barry Cherney, Ph.D., Deputy Director DTP/OBP/CDER/ FDA Perspectives on Comparability of Biotechnology Derived Protein Products.
Serious Accident Investigation REPORTS. Lesson 12 Objectives Use a template to correctly fill out a 24-Hour Preliminary Report and list all the steps.
DMF Procedures and Communication between API, FP Manufacturers and Regulatory Authorities Jean-Louis ROBERT National Health Laboratory L – 1011 LUXEMBOURG.
FDA’s Biosimilars Guidance -- Legal and Regulatory Considerations James S. Cohen, Esq. McDermott Will & Emery DIA Webinar April 10, 2012.
Disclaimer The views and opinions expressed in the following PowerPoint slides are those of the individual presenter and should not be attributed to Drug.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Medicines Regulatory Affairs
How to audit the role of the vendor in the conduct of outsourced studies Kristel Van de Voorde Director Global Quality Regulatory Compliance Bristol-Myers.
Presenter Name Title Organization Twitter Handle Insert your logo here, then delete text.
HELM AG Module 3 Christa Clasen Ankara, 6./7. April 2006.
Ivowen Ltd1 Ivowen Limited Preparation and Submission of a Traditional Herbal Medicinal Product Application.
Click to add Presentation Title Arial 32, 5 line max title space line 3, title space line 4, title space line 5 Presenter Title Organization Insert your.
1 Optimal Strategies for Preparing Integrated and Clinical Summaries for a New Drug Application: Making it Work Under Any Circumstance Lisa A. Pierchala,
CTD Dossier Preparation K. Srikantha Reddy Sr
Technical Communication A Practical Approach Chapter 4: Organizing Information William Sanborn Pfeiffer Kaye Adkins.
Bayesian approach to equivalence study of medical device 1 1.
Sherri de Coronado Enterprise Vocabulary Services NCI Center for Bioinformatics and Information Technology March 11, 2009 A Terminology.
Operating with Scientific Content DIA Dialogue on Structured Content Management Dec 2, 2010 Melanie Clare, GSK Ruedi Blattmann, LSCP Michael Brennan, J&J.
CM&C Inspections The Pre-Approval Inspection (PAI) in the US 27 May 2010.
DMF Procedures and Communication between API, FFP Manufacturers and Regulatory Authorities Jean-Louis ROBERT National Health Laboratory L – 1011 LUXEMBOURG.
Making Comments Count for High-Impact Regulations and Guidelines in the US Virginia (Ginny) Beakes-Read Executive Director, Global Regulatory Policy and.
Strategic Analyses and Interpretation: Regulatory Intelligence for Decision Making Amy N. Grant Director, Regulatory Strategy & Science ViroPharma Incorporated.
David G. Donne, Ph.D. and Thomas J. DiFeo, Ph.D.
Good Laboratory Practices and Inspection Readiness Paul Swidersky President/Sr. Consultant Quality Associates, Inc.
In the name of God. Common Technical Document On Biotech.
Meredith Brown-Tuttle, RAC Director APT Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Regulatory Intelligence for the Emerging Markets Lisa Rysso-DeMaggio President, RAQUELIAN Consulting DIA Regulatory Intelligence Working Group, 10 Sep.
Process-based Metadata From a DIA Presentation: eTMF – Migrating from Paper Trial Master Files to Electronic Eldin Rammell, Managing Director, Rammell.
Experiences from building a lessons- learned database for regulatory interactions Åsa Rembratt Sr Reg Intelligence Manager Novo Nordisk A/S 26th Annual.
Group Sequential Tests for Delayed Responses Christopher Jennison Department of Mathematical Sciences University of Bath Lisa Hampson Department of Mathematics.
Making Comments Count for High-Impact Regulations and Guidelines in Canada, EU, Japan, and US Chairperson: Amy N. Grant Director, Regulatory Strategy &
Gabor Fari Life Sciences Solution Strategist Microsoft Corporation
Session Title Date ǀ Time
- A “Portable” Implementation
Mutagenic Impurities: Guidances Update w/ CMC Perspectives
Presenter Title Organization
Track 11 Symposium 27 June :30 – 3:00 PM
Perspective on GCP Warning Letters
Molly Butler Auditor II Quality Associates, Inc.
CTD Content Management
Interactive Session: Presentation of Scenarios and Q&A
Community-Based and Cluster-Randomized Studies –‘Pragmatic’ Approaches for Life Cycle Evidence? Florian Eichmann, PhD Principal Scientific Affairs and.
Instructions Dear author(s),
FirstPoint and FirstDoc Application of the DIA EDM Reference Model
Presenter Name Title Organization.
Handling ongoing variations concerning same document
1 Topic Title First slide 2 line 3 line 4 line
1 Topic Title First slide 2 line 3 line 4 line
PMI® Leadership Institute Meeting 2018―EMEA
PMI® EMEA Congress 2018 Session Title Session Date | Time
Instructions Dear author(s),
Presenter Name Title Organization.
Disclaimer The views and opinions expressed in the following PowerPoint slides are those of the individual presenter and should not be attributed to Drug.
1 Session Title 2 line 3 line 4 line
Session Title Date ǀ Time
1 Session Title 2 line 3 line 4 line
1 Topic Title First slide 2 line 3 line 4 line
1 Topic Title First slide 2 line 3 line 4 line
Instructions One Column Designed Dear author(s),
Presentation transcript:

DIA ERS SIAC IND CMC eCTD Submissions Part II – IND to NDA IND = Investigational New Drug Application CMC = Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls Michelle Herrera Foster, Ph.D. CTD Quality Consulting

Disclaimer The views and opinions expressed in the following PowerPoint slides are those of the individual presenter and should not be attributed to Drug Information Association, Inc. (“DIA”), its directors, officers, employees, volunteers, members, chapters, councils, Special Interest Area Communities or affiliates, or any organization with which the presenter is employed or affiliated.   These PowerPoint slides are the intellectual property of the individual presenter and are protected under the copyright laws of the United States of America and other countries. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Drug Information Association, DIA and DIA logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of Drug Information Association Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. Change to: In addition to DIA’s continued presence in North America, Europe, and Japan, DIA also serves the following regions: India (remove italics from Mumbai, India, October 16-18, 2006) Middle East (7th Annual Middle East Regulatory Conference, Dubai, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, November 14-16, 2006) China Remove Central and Eastern Europe since it’s referenced at the top. Latin America

Topics: IND CMC eCTD Intro to IND Module 3 Considerations for IND eCTDs Mapping to Source Documents Examples of IND Granularity eCTD Templates and Submission-Ready Documents Conclusions

The CTD – Quality Sections Module 3 – ICHM4Q 3.1 Table of Contents 3.2 Body of Data 3.2.S DRUG SUBSTANCE (Name, Manufacturer) 3.2.P DRUG PRODUCT (Name, Dosage Form) 3.2.A Appendices – N/A for IND 3.2.A.1 Facilities and Equipment (Biotech) 3.2.A.2 Adventitious Agents Safety Evaluation 3.2.A.3 Novel Excipients (see 3.2.S format) 3.2.R Regional Information – N/A for IND 3.3 Literature References

Building the NDA from the IND Module 2 Summaries Mfg Description, mfg development Process Validation Methods Validation Container Closure Stability Facilities/Equipment Complete details Keep end goal in mind IND (Phase 1) Recommended* Detailed flow chart, mfg development summary Only viral safety Critical parameters Brief description Support study duration Not required Focus on safety * Not required except Canada, eCTD

Considerations for IND eCTDs Multiple contributors, contract manufacturing organizations (CMOs), partners Authors need submission training Guidelines are often not clear; regional differences Content expands from phase 1 to 3 Placebo and Comparator require 3.2.P section Map source documents to eCTD Choose granularity for optimal life cycle management Use eCTD Templates Plan Submission-Ready Documents

CMC Source Reports Sources of information and data to produce eCTD submission documents: Development reports: characterization reports, formulation development, etc GMP Documents: specifications, procedures, validation reports, stability reports, etc. Databases: Batch analysis, stability, etc. Data sheets (LIMS): Chromatograms, spectra, etc. Documents from CMOs, suppliers, testing labs Recommendation: Map these documents to eCTD sections early on

IND Granularity Granularity depends on the product and life cycle decisions, e.g. two different processes Granularity beyond the ICHM4 granularity annex can be used, such as sub-sections or attached reports; these are separate documents More complex products, such as biotech, typically benefit from greater granularity

Granularity - Drug Substance Control of Materials Analytical Procedures Green: 1 or multiple documents; see ICH M4 Granularity Annex

LCM Decisions – Replace Analytical Procedures If submit 3.2.S.4.2 as a single file: When one procedure (e.g. improved HPLC) changes, the entire section must be replaced If submit 3.2.S.4.2 as multiple files (one for each procedure): When one procedure changes, just that file gets replaced Highly recommend submitting procedures and method validation reports (3.2.S.4.3) as individual documents

Additional Granularity – example: Biotech Cell Line Development 3.2.S.2.3 Control of Materials: List of Raw Materials (reference 3.2.A.2 for adventitious agents safety evaluation of animal-derived materials) – granularity for COAs of noncompendials Cell Line Development Cell Banking (reference 3.2.A.2 for virus testing of cell banks)

CTD/eCTD Templates Fixed style guide for standardization and granularity Define content and format for each section, enabling gap analysis IND  NDA content Address CTD, ICH, agency guidance Address regional considerations Address agency agreements Customized for each product – annotations May be expanded into example reports for new authors

Submission-Ready Documents Build the marketing application from Ph 1 to NDA and post-marketing The modular approach to writing submissions Each section/attachment is a technical report, or a section within the report Meet eCTD granularity rules; eCTD-ready More efficient use of resources, expedites submissions, less cost and stress to the organization

Examples of Module 3 Reports Characterization (3.2.S.3.1) Formulation Development (3.2.P.2.1) Manufacturing Development (3.2.S.2.6, 3.2.P.2.3) Method Validation (3.2.S.4.3, 3.2.P.5.3) Justification of Specifications (3.2.S.4.5, 3.2.P.5.6) Process Validation (3.2.P.3.5) Stability Reports (3.2.S.7, 3.2.P.8) Stress Studies (3.2.S.3.2, 3.2.S.7) Container-Closure Evaluation (3.2.P.7)

Levels of Submission-Ready Reports Key results, conclusions For QOS Summary Summary of methods Module 3 Body of Report Discussion Figures, graphs Raw data GMP Info Appendices May not be submitted, on file Protocols

Conclusions CMC submissions have unique considerations: Multiple authors, CMOs, partners Granularity and Life Cycle Management (LCM) Regional differences Summaries of source documents Authors need submission training Transition to eCTD for LCM benefits Start early to plan and author; consider submission-ready report formats from IND to NDA Do a piece at a time for peace in time

Contact Information Michelle Herrera Foster, Ph.D. CTD Quality Consulting Michelle@ctdquality.com 978-356-0872