Different sources of Prescribing Information [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Siddheshwar Shinde – India, 2018-03-23 06:23 (1830 d 17:29 ago) – Posting: # 18586
Views: 2,120

❝ Oh, there are actually much more than 2, if you also look outside of the USA...

My RLD is from US so I'm referring FDA approved PI.

❝ When you prepare the information form for the subjects: I would suggest you to also look at the information approved in India, not just in the USA, Europe or wherever... Use the most complete list to inform the subjects.

yes sure.

❝ You may actually combine information from several official sources to prepare your information form and make it as complete and comprehensive as possible. Keep all documents used as source in the TMF.

There is need to refer correct source for warning and precautions, adverse reactions, interactions etc.

❝ To determine whether SAEs are expected or not (and therefore could be a SUSAR requiring expedited reporting), if you are the sponsor or if the sponsor delegated this task to you: only approved information should be used, not information submitted but not yet approved. But if you run your trial in India, wouldn't the CDSCO expect you to use the information they have approved, rather than the FDA's ?

Agreed. If I'm submitting the case study in specific regulatory other than CDSCO, then I've to refer official approved source wrt RLD.

Edit: Full quote removed. Please delete everything from the text of the original poster which is not necessary in understanding your answer; see also this post #5[Helmut]

Complete thread:

UA Flag
 Admin contact
22,554 posts in 4,724 threads, 1,606 registered users;
13 visitors (0 registered, 13 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time: 00:53 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Learning of many things
does not teach intelligence.    Heraclitus of Ephesus

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