RPS Industry Perspective Hans Beinke DITTA Board member, DITTA RPS WG Vice-Chair, Siemens Healthcare (with technical assistance from Karin Sailor, Medtronic & Linda Tremblay, Johnson & Johnson) DITTA IMDRF RPS & SaMD Workshop Tokyo, 23 Mar. 2015 OUTLINE • • • • • • • • Potential TOC Benefits TOC Implementation Suggestions TOC Concerns Potential RPS Benefits RPS Concerns and Requirements Importance of the Business Case Future of RPS My Current View/Level of Comfort ‒ Note: Varied uses of RPS 2 POTENTIAL TOC BENEFITS • A consistent harmonized TOC structure aids in submission planning and compilation when a product is being submitted to multiple markets. ‒ TOC guidance provides easy to access information about content requirements in each region. ‒ Numbering and section titles provide a common terminology across regions. 3 TOC IMPLEMENTATION SUGGESTIONS • Full Global Adoption: ‒ The TOC must be broadly adopted / accepted by many countries. ‒ Adoption by IMDRF regulators is a good start. ‒ It would be helpful if IMDRF can partner with other regulators to help drive broader adoption. • Ongoing Governance: ‒ The TOC cannot be viewed as a static document. ‒ A process is needed to discuss proposed changes and continually work towards convergence of required content. 4 TOC CONCERNS – FOLDERS & NOMENCLATURE • Folder structure and nomenclature in current Health Canada pilot pose challenges: ‒ Total file path names near maximum accepted by MS Windows. ‒ Sponsor can only store the structured copy at root directory level and without context. ‒ ICH compliant publishing tools used by sponsors can’t support current nomenclature (e.g. caps, special characters “.” “&” “,” “spaces”) and length of individual folder names. Precludes carry through of TOC and inter-document linking. • RECOMMENDATION: Industry and regulators should collaborate to find an alternative structure that can meet everyone’s needs. 5 TOC CONCERNS – DOCUMENT GRANULARITY • The TOC requires that documents be authored at a much greater level of granularity: ‒ Additional work for many companies. ‒ Difficult to justify without demonstrable benefits. 2.4-Device Description Main Submission App A: Test Report 2.4.1- Comprehensive Device Description & Principles of Operation 2.4.2- Description of Device Packaging App B: IFU 2.4.3- History of Development App C: Clinical Report 2.4.4- Reference& Comparison to Similar &or previous generations of the device POTENTIAL RPS BENEFITS • A common electronic file format is valuable to industry: ‒ Common electronic file format across IMDRF regulators choosing to adopt RPS. ‒ May enable common electronic file format usage between pharmaceuticals and devices (i.e. sponsors supporting both drugs & devices, or combination products). • RPS offers additional e-file functionality : ‒ Enables lifecycle view of files under an Application (i.e. original filing, responses to additional information, amendments, etc.). ‒ 2-Way communication would allow consistent and potentially real time tracking of submission status. 7 RPS CONCERNS & REQUIREMENTS • The standard is technically complex: ‒ Significant resources to implement and maintain; for both industry and regulators. • Before implementing RPS, an analysis of available electronic submission formats vs business objectives should be performed: ‒ Is RPS really the best solution? • If a decision is made to move forward with RPS the cost and technological barrier for stakeholders that do not support drugs product e-CTDs would require resolution (i.e. simple & nominal cost RPS publishing software). 8 IMPORTANCE OF THE BUSINESS CASE • Objective evaluation of criteria/objectives versus various technical options: ‒ Regulators Perspective ‒ Industry Perspective • As important to Regulators as Industry. 9 IMPORTANCE OF THE BUSINESS CASE • Points to Consider: ‒ The medical device and drug worlds are very different: o Vast range of medical device technology and OEMs o Size of submission o Jurisdictional variance in device risk classification for the same product o Field updates and product enhancement o Pace of change and scope of product lines impacted ‒ One solution (especially if complex/costly) will not work for all regulators or companies. ‒ Multiple solutions will likely result in selection of the least most simple/least costly option regardless of company or regulator size. ‒ Multiple solutions might undermine the objectives of RPS. ‒ Cost and Complexity could hinder adoption beyond the current IMDRF members. 10 IMPORTANCE OF THE BUSINESS CASE • Defining Technical Options: ‒ Small subgroup of Regulators & Industry o Current view of RPS (HL7/XML) o Variations of the current RPS view o “Smart Forms” 11 FUTURE OF RPS? • Structure for Convergence? ‒ Submission Structure ‒ Submission Content ‒ Regulation? • Think 10-20 years ahead 12 MY CURRENT VIEW/COMFORT LEVEL • Business case approach is very positive • Devil is in the details • Current Comfort with TOC – 75% • Current Comfort with RPS – 25% 13 QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION 14 THANK YOU www.globalditta.org
© Copyright 2024