EMA… [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2013-12-09 13:45 (4214 d 06:42 ago) – Posting: # 12025
Views: 25,163

Hi Kumar,

❝ […] EMA should also include the provision of submitting complete protocol for review and comment before study initiation in sequential design to avoid such situations.


Don’t be too optimistic. All the deficiency letters in my presentations came from studies which were performed in the EU. Hence, the protocols were approved by regulatory authorities where the CROs are located. In the “worst case MRP” you might have to face 31 different opinions (28 member states + Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway).

[image] [image] [image] [image] [image] [image] [image] [image] [image] [image] [image] [image] [image] [image] [image] [image] [image] [image] [image] [image] [image] [image] [image] [image] [image] [image] [image] [image] [image] [image] [image]

Only if you opt for the centralised procedure you could submit the protocol to EMA for approval.

[image]

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,673 registered users;
45 visitors (0 registered, 45 guests [including 10 identified bots]).
Forum time: 21:27 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Reach for the stars,
even if you have to stand on a cactus.    Susan Longacre

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5