The Electronic Common Technical Document (eCTD): An International Pro/Con Analysis of the Pharmaceutical Product Electronic Submission Process

Andreas Suchanek, H. Ostermann
{"title":"The Electronic Common Technical Document (eCTD): An International Pro/Con Analysis of the Pharmaceutical Product Electronic Submission Process","authors":"Andreas Suchanek, H. Ostermann","doi":"10.1177/0092861511427871","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The International Conference on Harmonisation’s electronic Common Technical Document (eCTD) endeavors to significantly change the pharmaceutical submission process. After decades of using paper, the goal is the electronic transfer of drug applications and their review across submission formats, procedures, and regions. However, it is still unclear whether implementing eCTD really brings more advantages than disadvantages and, if so, for what kind of companies. After an expert interview was conducted in 2009, this research study was formed as an international survey officially supported by the European Medicines Agency in 2010. Overall, 963 responses were received, and 397 were used for the subsequent study analysis. Although a three-fourths majority of those with eCTD experience reported disadvantages in implementing eCTD, an overwhelming majority of the same group reported advantages that outweighed the disadvantages, some of them significantly. More than three-quarters of individuals with eCTD experience were able to shorten their total time to approval, and more than 90% of this group was able to demonstrate cost savings relative to paper submissions, regardless of their company kind, size, or number of submissions.","PeriodicalId":391574,"journal":{"name":"Drug information journal : DIJ / Drug Information Association","volume":"64 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug information journal : DIJ / Drug Information Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0092861511427871","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

The International Conference on Harmonisation’s electronic Common Technical Document (eCTD) endeavors to significantly change the pharmaceutical submission process. After decades of using paper, the goal is the electronic transfer of drug applications and their review across submission formats, procedures, and regions. However, it is still unclear whether implementing eCTD really brings more advantages than disadvantages and, if so, for what kind of companies. After an expert interview was conducted in 2009, this research study was formed as an international survey officially supported by the European Medicines Agency in 2010. Overall, 963 responses were received, and 397 were used for the subsequent study analysis. Although a three-fourths majority of those with eCTD experience reported disadvantages in implementing eCTD, an overwhelming majority of the same group reported advantages that outweighed the disadvantages, some of them significantly. More than three-quarters of individuals with eCTD experience were able to shorten their total time to approval, and more than 90% of this group was able to demonstrate cost savings relative to paper submissions, regardless of their company kind, size, or number of submissions.
电子通用技术文件(eCTD):药品电子提交过程的国际赞成/反对分析
国际协调会议的电子通用技术文件(eCTD)努力显著改变药品提交过程。在使用纸质文件几十年后,目标是药物申请的电子转移及其跨提交格式、程序和地区的审查。然而,目前尚不清楚实施eCTD是否真的利大于弊,如果是的话,对什么样的公司有利。本研究在2009年进行专家访谈后,于2010年成为欧洲药品管理局正式支持的一项国际调查。总共收到963份回复,其中397份用于后续研究分析。尽管有eCTD经验的人中有四分之三的人报告了实施eCTD的缺点,但同一组中绝大多数人报告的优点大于缺点,其中一些明显。超过四分之三有eCTD经验的人能够缩短他们的总审批时间,超过90%的人能够证明与提交文件相关的成本节约,无论他们的公司类型、规模或提交数量如何。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信