The updated documents are:
Updates to the CR/Q&A
These updates are mainly in support of the recent EU Updated M1 v1.3 (see my previous post on this topic). There are about 10 new change requests (see those startng with CR-20080415) and one new Q&A (22, not yet answered).
Updates to the Validation Criteria
Validation criteria changes are minor and are described at the end of this Excel document in a table. I've reproduced them here, with my comments in square brackets:
1. Criterion #37 deleted (see EU CR Q&A Tracking Table CR-20080610) [this was a DPI check that turned out to not be technically feasible with the valdidation tool being used.]
2. Reference of criterion #44 changed from EU Q&A 13 to ICH Q&A 36 (see EU CR Q&A Tracking Table CR-20080610-01 [although this is described as a "change" this is in fact a new criterion, stating "There are no unreferenced files in M1, M2, M3, M4 & M5 folders (including subfolders but excluding ‘util’ subfolders)" and having a priority of A, Serious".]
3. Criterion #18 changed to indicate that a title must exist with a delete operation - (see EU CR Q&A Tracking Table CR-20080610-02) [the critieria was changed from saying a title is not required for a file that has an operator of delete to saying that it is required.]
Updates to the EMEA Practical/Technical Q&A
In addition to the usual minor updates and fixes, I identified the following more significant changes from version 0.3. [By the way, it's not an easy process to compare these documents! PDF comparision results are difficult to use and I had to go through a number of cumbersome steps to convert to Word and compare. It would be nice if EMEA included more detailed info in their change log...]
FILE FORMATS Q2
The answer to Q2 has been enhanced with the bolded information and the example corrected as shown below.
Q2. As the EMEA requires the submission of RTF/Word documents for the Product Information (SPC, Labelling and Package Leaflet) and for some Module 2 documents, in addition to PDF, how should these Word documents be handled?
All Product Information Word/RTF files submitted to the EMEA (outside the eCTD backbone and therefore it not necessary to observe eCTD file naming conventions) should be named using the following convention, including the full application number/procedure application numberonly if this is known at the time of submission:
code
Note the correction here - the previous document had a reference to a “product number”. Strangely, this example is repeated later in the document (see FILE NAMING Q1) but was not corrected there.
SUBMISSION MEDIA Q2
EMEA clarified the answer to Q2 by adding the note appearing in bold text below:
Q2. Must hard media be used for the submission of eCTD i.e. can secure email (Eudralink) be used?
Hard media (e.g. CD, DVD) must be used for the submission of all eCTDs. Eudralink can be used for eCTD in addition to hard media, but not as the sole medium for submission.
Please note that this requirement for hard media applies to EMEA as an agency, and may not be reflected in all National Competent Authorities involved in the Centralised Procedure – individual guidance from NCAs should be sought if necessary.
eCTD and PIM Q2
EMEA clarified when PIM may not need to be submitted within an eCTD:
Q2. If PIM is submitted with an eCTD submission, how should this be done?
It is expected that PIM submissions will be more numerous than eCTD submissions during a typical procedure, since PIM is a two-way exchange mechanism designed to support the management of the product information, the part of the dossier subject to the most change and rapid amendment during any procedure. Therefore, there will be some PIM submissions made without an accompanying eCTD via Eudralink. However, it is expected that, when a major lifecycle eCTD submission is provided as specified
in the response to Q1 under ‘Submission Milestones’ in this document, then the latest PIM submission will be included within the eCTD submission, if applicable, to ensure alignment. (The PIM submission does not have to be included within the eCTD submission at such points, however, and can be submitted as a separate PIM submission even if submitted simultaneously with the eCTD, as is detailed in the PIM specification).
SUBMISSION MILESTONES Q1
EMEA provided clarification about when labeling translations are needed:
Q1. When, in a procedure, at a minimum, does EMEA expect an eCTD submission to be provided?
Updates to key milestones
- Initial submission (Day 0 of procedure)
- Response to business validation issues (if required)
- Response to List of Questions (i.e. Day 121 for a new application)
- Response to List of Outstanding Issues (i.e. Day 181, if required)
- Application as agreed at Opinion (inc. agreed EN product information if changed at CHMP)
- Provision of translations (i.e. Day 215 for a new application)*
- Provision of final agreed
updatedtranslations following linguistic review (it is not also required to send interim working versions of the product information before this point as eCTD) ** - Decision (i.e. final amended documentation if any changes occur during the Standing Committee phase)
** Note also that it is not required that interim working versions of the product information documents exchanged during the linguistic review phase are followed up by an eCTD containing PDFs, or on hard media – only the original and final agreed translations should be submitted in this manner.
CONVERSION OF EXISTING APPLICATIONS TO eCTD Q1
A clarification was added about submission of reformatted documentation:
The submission of reformatted documentation (commonly referred to as a ‘baseline’ submission, although the corresponding eCTD DTD submission type value for such a submission with re-formatted information is ‘reformat’) should preferably occur simultaneously (but separately) with the submission of a variation, line-extension or renewal.
