Today we are chatting with Emily Stephens, the founder and CEO of GLOBAL. Emily worked in the medical device and biologics industries for thirteen years before launching GLOBAL in early 2014. After years of 60-hour work weeks for CROs that were notorious for burning out workers, she developed an autoimmune disease that would forever change her vision of the medical writing industry. Life was too short for burnout. She wondered: What would happen if there was a company that treated workers with respect, loyalty, and deeply advocated for their work/life balance? ‍Out of this question GLOBAL was born and the outcome has been spectacular: We attract the best, who then perform at their best, because this is a place where we fiercely take care of each other. 

Thank you for being here, Em! On this episode, we are exploring 2026 – what are we looking forward to, what are we looking out for, and what opportunities exist. Let’s dive in! 

Today we are chatting with Violet Chazovachii. Violet has spent almost a decade in the biomedical technology field. As a graduate researcher at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor, she focused on developing surface coatings to optimize microparticles for vascular targeted drug delivery. After earning her master’s degree, she joined Global’s CER internship program in 2021 and has advanced to the role of Lead Medical Writer, where she continues to contribute to high-impact regulatory submissions. Violet recently earned her RAC (Regulatory Affairs Certification) in Medical Devices  

Thank you for being here Violet! On this episode, we are discussing RAPS convergence 2025. We sent a team to this conference and had a wonderful experience connecting with regulatory affairs peers and learning the latest developments and trends in US and global healthcare regulations. Violet was one of our teammates on the ground and has some great insights from the week. Let’s dive in! 

Today we are chatting with Julie Matison and Scott Michaels. 

Julie Matison holds a Bachelor’s degree in Chemical Engineering and a Master’s degree in Mechanical Engineering, and recently earned the RAC-Drugs certification through RAPS. She has over 21 years of experience in the pharmaceutical industry, with a strong background in manufacturing, validation and quality.  

Scott Michaels earned his Master’s in Pharmaceutical Chemistry from the University of Kansas and his Bachelor’s in Chemistry from McGill University.  He has held a variety of regulatory and CMC product development roles over the past 20 years, working with both small molecules and biologics. 

Thank you both for being here! On this episode, we are discussing CMC strategy around biologics IND submissions. I am sure our audience is looking forward to your insights, so let’s dive in. 

2:15 – Brief background of the In vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR) and the Performance Evaluation Report (PER)

3:15 – Items to tackle prior to beginning to write PER

4:15 – Bethany’s recommendation for starting the PER process

1.  Collect as many source documents as possible (eg design files, technical file, risk documentation etc) early int he process.
2. Collect and review all clinical and analytical data available. Try to identify gaps early.
3. Plan the report – what is your strategy? What claims do you need to support? Which General Safety and Performance Requirements (GSPRs) apply?
4. Write your Performance Evaluation Plan (PEP). Clearly characterize your data sources information and strategy for the PER.

6:30 – Tips for finding clinical data or addressing gaps for challenging IVDs. Bethany answers the question, what do you do if you device is mentioned in several articles, but it isn’t a focus?

9:15 – Do you need to consider your audience when preparing a PER? If yes, how should you do that?

10:30 – What is the best approach for reviewing and summarizing data? Should it be done piecemeal or holistically.

12:00 – Tips for writing associated documents such as the Analytical Performance Report (APR), Scientific Validity Report (SVR), and Clinical Performance Report (CPR).

14:10 – What is required to determine scientific and clinical validity in the case of a companion diagnostic (CDx) or other IVD? Where is this information found? BRCA – Gene which is highly associated with the development of breast cancer

18:00 – When is enough data enough? How do you know you have enough clinical data? What if you don’t have clinical data, what should you do? 

20:45 – Bethany’s tips for preparing to write a PER. Key takeaways:

1. Understand the scope of your document.
2. Ensure you have a well-defined, MDR/IVDR compliant purpose statement.
3. Identify your claims and make sure you have the data to support those claims.
4. Make sure your data, claims, purpose, and scope are all aligned prior to writing.
5. Ensure you have all appropriate tests and documentation pertaining to the IVD under evaluation.

24:45 – What to do if you find you are missing data or have data gaps during the writing process.

28:45 – What should you do if you don’t fully understand the device you are working on or how to best summarize clinical or analytical data?

30:15 – Summary of topics discussed up to this point and Bethany’s tips for staying organized throughout the PER writing process.

33:45 – Generally, how long does it take to write a PER? What are your tips for pacing?

35:15 – Bethany’s tips for finalizing a PER.

40:00 – What is the value of templates in the PER writing process? 

• Document review and completion
• Software tools for technical writers
• How to better leverage the tools you use each day
• When to involve your teammates
• How to improve the review process

1:30 – Recap of last episode.

2:30 – What is Jenn’s process for finishing a document. 

5:15 – How to make Microsoft Word work for you and speed up your writing process. Jenn discusses tools within word which help improve the writing process, such as:

• Document sections
• Styles tool
• Table properties
• Table anchors
• Page layout (eg landscape and portrait)

9:45 – Other types of software which may help your writing process, such as:

• Excel
• EndNote – Reference Manager
• Perfect It

17:30 – Jenn provides her tips for finalizing documents including how to conduct final editing and revision activities. In summary:

• Step away
• Ask a colleague for help
• Tips for editing and revision.

22:00 – Review as a team effort: tips for leveraging teammates and colleagues. When is it time to hand a document over? When is it appropriate to reach out for feedback?

31:45 – Final thoughts, summary, and wrap-up

• Why you should always follow directions,
• The role and value of templates and rubrics,
• The importance of clarity, proper word choice, and succinctness, and
• How to get unstuck or overcome roadblocks when working on long, complex documents.

We cover a lot of information in this episode. If you miss something, we’ve summarized the key points below.

2:00 – Jennifer’s provides some background on her technical and scientific writing training and experience.  Jamie and Jenn briefly discuss the importance of writing quality and skill in the technical disciplines and options for training.

10:00 – Are there any general misconceptions or mistakes you would like to address right out of the gate?

1. Take time to learn about the purpose of the document and the audience.
2. Understand and follow the directions or instructions assocaited with the document.   

13:25 – Starting the process: how to use templates and instructions to create a strong foundation. Use the template to guide your writing. Make sure you follow the instructions and providing the information the reader is looking for.

19:25 – How to know how much detail to include? When is it time to “go down the rabbit hole?” When is it appropriate to provide a high-level summary? Look for rubrics and previous work.  Don’t hesitate to reach out to the client or the audience.

1. How much do they really need to know?
2. How much do they want to know?
3. How much do they already know?
4. What is the scope of the document?
5. Is the information still relevant to the document?

29:10 – The importance of clarity in technical writing. Tips and tricks for improving clarity.

1. Avoid wordy sentences or flower-y language.
2. Let the source documents dictate the content.
3. Do not draw conclusions you cannot support with evidence.
4. As yourself: “Is this still relevant?” “What does this add to the discussion?” “Is it necessary?”

37:40 – Jennifer’s tips for getting unstuck or moving through challenging sections. Leave yourself landmarks.

41:00 – Overall episode summary.

44:00 – What are we going to cover in part 2?

2:30 – Tips for general approach to writing ANDAs

1. Make sure you understand what the agency is looking for
2. Stay focused, don’t give the FDA more than they need or that they are asking for. The level of detail in your regulatory documentation doesn’t need to match the level of detail in your technical documentation. 
3. Give yourself flexibility.

5:40 – Tips for the ANDA writing process

1. Put effort into the program management aspect
2. Make sure all contributors and stakeholders are aligned
3. Have periodic discussions with the team
4. Get 1:1 time with the team to discuss the project and specific sections

8:00 – Software for Program Management

10:30 – Proportion of applications from US companies and outside or xUS companies. Implications for xUS companies and role of US agents. 

Sandra is a Director in the CMC Division of Global Regulatory Writing and Consulting. Sandra started her career as a chemist in the FDA. After leaving the FDA, Sandra helped several companies establish and maintain regulatory and quality systems. Throughout her 20 year career in the industry, Sandra supported a wide verity of regulatory pathways, however, one of her principal focuses was on CMC-related submissions and submission strategy, including ANDAs. Sandra She holds a B.S. from the University of Montevallo and PhD in Chemistry from UNC Chapel Hill.

2:05 – ANDA Basics

5:05 – What’s the difference between an NDA and ANDA? Sandra provides additional Background on ANDAs.

9:50 – In the case where two companies are simultaneous developing a drug, can one company file an ANDA soon after the other receives approval on a NDA? 

12:05 – What are petitioned ANDAs?

15:35 –  What does the ANDA approval process involve? What can one expect?

18:55 – Sandra provides several tips for agency communication.

20:15     Tips for 1st time ANDA Submissions

24:15     Communication with the FDA

30:10 – Sandra’s first tips on improving the ANDA preparation and submission process. To be continued in Part 2. 

Key takeaways include: 

1. Sites often look to the CRO or Sponsor for expertise and support. A strong CRO will help the site through selection, accelerating the process.
2. Build your team around the protocol! Therapeutic area experts are needed on both the CRO/Sponsor side and the site side. 
3. Anticipation and foresight are key. An experienced Clinical Research Associate (CRA) or Clinical Research Coordinator (CRC) will deeply review the protocol to identify resourcing gaps and determine how to close those gaps early in the site selection process.  They will also take the initiative to bring on internal experts or support staff early in the process to address action items within their expertise.  
4. Ensure the site has access to the patient population and that the population is willing to support the study.
5. Make sure the site has the infrastructure to set run the study and identify any mismatches or pain points early.
6. Establishing clear lines of communication and setting out roles and responsibilities will make the evaluation process much faster.
7. Yes, checklists are worth it. Both the Site and the Sponsor/CRO will use them as valuable tools and the process will benefit from their use.
8. Contact advocacy groups – they are involved with local, regional, and national communities.
9. Use epidemiological data or incidence data to find areas where the disease is moderately or highly prevalent.

3:00 – How can the site and sponsor work together to accelerate site selection?

5:15 – Julie describes the traits, skills, and characteristics of a “dream team” from CRO or Sponsor perspective and from the site’s perspective.    

8:45 – In the event that a CRO or Sponsor identifies a lack of resources at a particular site, is there an advantage to the CRO or Sponsor supplementing those resources?

10:50 – The importance of strong communication within and between the CRO and site “dream teams.”

14:15 – Tips for maintaining a good working relationship and culture through turnover or staffing changes. 

 16:30 – Best practices for site identification and site selection in the case of rare disease trials and/or common chronic disease trials. 

19:15 – How do you address potential site-related bias or the impact of advanced expertise when considering major center or world-class research institutions? How do you ensure the findings are applicable to all care settings if you are conduct research at elite institutions?  

20:15 – Can or should   sites advocate for altering a protocol or research question to better fit the population or their specific patient population? 

1. Site workload is important. Make sure the site has capacity for your study.
2. Ensure the site has access to the patient population and that the population is willing to support the study.
3. Make sure the site has the infrastructure to set run the study and identify any mismatches or pain points early.
4. Establishing clear lines of communication and identifying roles and responsibilities early will make the evaluation process much faster.
5. Set realistic expectations.
6. Teaching is much more effective than telling. Take the time to help the site or the CRO understand the process or problem.
7. Use checklists!   

3:30 – What is the site selection process and what are sponsors looking for? 

5:50 – How do you put together a site feasibility questionnaire and where do sponsors begin the selection process?

9:30 – What are the most rate-limiting steps of site selection?

14:30 – What happens if a site does not have the facilities or expertise you need to complete the study? Is it the sponsor’s responsibility or the site’s responsibility to secure that functionality or expertise?  

16:25 – Recommendations for what to look for in a clinical site.  How do sites evaluate studies they are bringing in?

19:00 – Why it is important to evaluate the community around the site during site selection and do sites search for studies?

20:00 – How do sites facilitate site selection and qualification?

22:00 – A protocol-based workload estimation tool.

24:30 – How do sponsors evaluate how busy sites are? Is it realistic for sponsors to try to evaluate sites workloads during site selection? 

28:10 – Julie provides recommendations on how the sponsor or CRO can help with site selection from the site’s perspective.  

32:30 – Tips for staying organized and productive during site selection, evaluation, and study startup. 

35:00 – How can the sponsor motivate sites to move things forward?   

Abbreviations:

CRO = Clinical Research Organization

IRB = Institutional Review Board

CRC = Clinical Research Coordinator

CRA = Clinical Research Associate

Arun and Kristina, two members of the very first cohort of Global CER Interns take us through their experience in the program and provide some insight on how they feel now that they are done. In the first part of the discussion, they address why they wanted to get into medical writing and what brought them to Global. Then Arun, Kristina, and Jamie discuss what it was like during the first few weeks and months of the internship, what they learned at each phase, which parts were challenging, and how they feel now after they have completed it. We also discuss what it takes to be successful through the program and Arun and Kristina give their tips for those applying to and entering the program. A more detailed list of the topics covered and when they were covered can be found below. If you would like to learn more or apply for the internship, visit us a www.globalrwc.com and navigate to the careers page.    

Arun holds a PhD in Bioengineering from Rice University. There he studied cell-cell communication during neural development. He moved onto a post-doctoral fellowship at the University of Pennsylvania where he studied neuroimaging and systems neuroscience. .Kristina started her post-graduate education in dental school at Rutgers. Her passion for science took over and after a year she found herself in the PhD program studying mechanisms of apoptosis or cell death. She continued her basic science training at  the University of Florida where she studied the protective effects of vitamin D on the lungs.

2:30 – How Arun and Kristina got into Medical Writing

6:10  – What was the first week of the program like

9:30 – Was it challenging to work remotely

11:00 – How did you feel during the first few months of the internship? 

13:00 – Do you feel as though you use the skills you learned in the internship

15:30 –  Kristina and Arun’s thoughts on how they were evaluated and challenges within the program.   

17:40  – What were the following months like? When were you writing your own CERs?

18:50 – Is writing a CER like writing an academic paper?   

21:10 – How do you feel about the progression and environment. Was the internship challenging?  

22:30 –  Do you recommend the internship? If so, who should apply?

26:30 – What are the characteristics or skills of the ideal CER candidate.

28:45 – What tips would you give Internship candidates?

29:45  – Now that you’ve completed the internship how do you feel about your future? Do you feel as though you have the necessary experience?

31:30 – Favorite Fridays.

2:25 – Why did Global start a blog?

4:30 – Details on blog post themes, length, and frequency

7:40 – Clinical Aspects of the GRWC Blog

12:10 – What can readers expect to get out of the blog

19:30 – Blog topics we are all excited about

Brandi Quinlin holds a master’s degree in regulatory affairs and brings years of experience in pharmaceutical development, generic development, pharmaceutical testing, and regulatory compliance. Rebecca Lynch is one of Global’s resident generic drug experts. She has a background in analytical method development and 25 years of experience in the generic pharmaceutical industry.

1:30 – What is a drug product?

4:30 – Active vs. inactive ingredients, what is the difference?

5:30 – What are key differences between immediate release and extended release and drug formulations?

12:00 – How do manufacturers select a compound/drug testing strategy?

17:40 – How do generic manufactures select a formulation and form factor?

23:30 – Are generics exact copies?

26:30 – Do generics need to go through clinical trials?

31:00 – What is the process for bringing a generic to market and what is required from a regulatory perspective?

37:30 – How does the FDA evaluate the formulations of generics?

45:40 – Favorite Friday Nights

Linda Peterson is the VP of Clinical Development at Global. For over a decade, Linda has been leading clinical trials, directing clinical departments, and working with all involved in clinical trials. Sarah Schaul is a Clinical Trial Manager at Global. Sarah started her research career at the bench and transitioned into clinical research several years ago. She has worked on the site side and the sponsor side and now leads clinical studies for Global. Kari Gibney’s primary appointment is at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus as a Clinical Research Coordinator. For the last 5 years Kari has been a core piece of the clinical research team in the School of Medicine and the Department of Oncology at the University.

2:00     What Is A Clinical Research Organization (CRO)

3:30     Do CROs Speed Up Research?

7:50     Stories of Less-Than-Ideal CRO-Sponsor Interactions

11:20   A Great CRO From the CRC’s Perspective 

14:10   The Importance of Communication

19:50   Examples Poor Communication and The Importance of Communication

25:30   Tips for Maximizing the Interaction with A CRO

34:10   Flexibility and Communication vs Micromanagement – Tips for Making a Change

40:20   Final Thoughts on Managing the Relationship with a CRO and Favorite Fridays

Have you considered the impacts of the Medical Device Regulation (MDR) on your current risk documentation and management strategies? You may be wondering, what devices can be grouped together? Should you group your devices at all? How will these changes impact your Clinical Evaluation Report? In this episode of Chasing Compliance, Marysa Mezzetti, a Manager on the Medical Device team, and Jamie discuss how risk management and documentation practices must be considered for each device individually, implications of device lifetime, life cycle, and safety and performance objectives, and changes in the risk documentation language. While there is no clearly defined path forward for manufacturers, this episode provides some guiding principles that will help develop a sound MDR remediation strategy. Marysa ends their conversation with some tips and best practices regarding MDR-related changes to risk documentation. As always, Jamie wraps things up with Favorite  Friday.  

Key sections: 

• Basic overview of risk documentation, QMS, and MDD – 2:10 
• Who is responsible for writing risk documents – 6:45 
• Initial discussion of MDR – 8:05 

• New risk documentation considerations for device families - 12:20 
• MDR, Article 10, ISO 14971, and the Notified Body - 17:30 
• Changes in language in risk documentation and emphasis on overall risk compared to overall benefit - 22:30 
• Impact of risk documentation changes on clinical evaluation and Clinical Evaluation Report strategy – 27:20 
• How the CER writer can help the risk process - 29:00 

• Marysa’s tips and best practices for achieving and maintaining compliance - 31:15 

Abbreviations 

CER = Clinical Evaluation Report 

dFMEA = design failure modes and effects analysis 

FMEA = failure modes and effects analysis  

MDD = Medical Device Directive 

MDR = Medical Device Regulation  

PMS = Post Market Surveillance 

QMS = Quality Management System 

Sarra and Jamie cover:

• The consequences of suboptimal systematic literature searches [6:03]
• How search terms are used and methodology for creating robust search terms in the context of the literature review [8:05]
• Why manual searches don’t work in a regulatory environment [10:42]
• How poorly constructed search terms influence search results  [13:30]
• Common errors in search term construction [16:57]
• The value of not quires and the risk of misuse [18:50]
• MeSH terms – what they are and how to use them [25:20]
• How to develop search terms and where to get help [29:19]
• Techniques for combining search terms  [36:12]
• Using adjacencies to search for phrases [39:15]
• How to structure inclusion and exclusion criteria [43:32]
• Challenges of and best practices for rigorous and unbiased literature screening [46:47]  
• Use of the “other” exclusion criteria [51:10]
• Common errors in search screening, including overuse of the find tool [53:29]
• Sarra’s last two tips for screening [58:20]