MFDS IND Deficiencies: What to Check Before Submission
Preparing an IND submission in Korea involves more than confirming that every document is available. Sponsors should also check whether the protocol, investigator’s brochure, and supporting evidence describe the same study and explain its scientific rationale consistently. Resolving discrepancies before submission can make review questions easier to address, although no preparation process can guarantee approval or eliminate requests for additional information.
In this article, IND refers to an application for clinical trial plan approval from Korea’s Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS). This is distinct from an application for marketing authorization. The following recommendations focus on clinical and nonclinical submission readiness; they are not a complete statutory submission checklist or a substitute for reviewing quality documentation.
Book a Free Korea Trial Consultation →
Want the full picture behind these findings? Download our 2026 Clinical Trials CRO Selection Survey Report for the complete data, red flags, and strategic recommendations.
How should sponsors use the September 2026 MFDS guide?
Use the guide to inform a submission review, rather than treating it as a new set of requirements that applies identically to every trial. MFDS revised its guidance on deficiencies in clinical trial plan approval and amendment applications on September 17, 2026. Its revision history identifies the addition of updated questions and answers. The guide is not independently legally binding, and its application depends on the investigational product and study context. MFDS official guidance
The practical opportunity is to revisit the questions a submission team should resolve before filing. An internal review can distinguish relevant considerations from matters that require product-specific judgment, without presenting the update as a new IND approval system.
Start with the rationale behind the study
A useful readiness review begins with a connected explanation of why the proposed study should be conducted in the selected population, at the proposed dose, and according to the planned schedule.
For internal review, bring the study objective, population, dose selection, treatment duration, and principal endpoints into one narrative. Identify where the supporting nonclinical or previous clinical evidence can be found. The purpose is not to create an additional mandatory submission document; it is to test whether the team can explain the reasoning behind the design consistently.
Separate an explanation gap from an evidence gap. An unclear explanation may be resolved through better drafting. Missing scientific support may require further analysis or a development decision, rather than a stronger sentence.
Check the connection between the investigator’s brochure and its sources
Reviewing the Investigator’s Brochure (IB) should involve more than checking its version number. It is useful to verify which reports support important conclusions and whether the IB presents the same understanding of risk as the protocol and underlying evidence.
An internal evidence index can connect each important conclusion to a document title, version, and relevant section. Distinguish preliminary findings from finalized results and assess whether newly available information changes an earlier interpretation.
Clear writing cannot resolve scientific uncertainty on its own. Where evidence has limitations, first determine what those limitations mean for the proposed study and whether specialist input is needed.
Compare documents by topic, not only by file
A topic-based comparison can reveal inconsistencies that are difficult to spot when documents are reviewed separately. Compare key study elements across the protocol, schedules, summaries, appendices, and relevant participant-facing materials.
The review can focus on eligibility criteria, dosing schedules, assessment timing, safety responses, and statistical assumptions. Check whether a change to the main protocol has also been reflected in the visit schedule and related materials.
For each topic, identify the controlling document and the person responsible for final review. This helps manage situations in which different teams revise the same information independently.
For multinational trials, also document the relationship between the global reference version and the Korean submission version. Translation availability alone does not establish consistency. The team should be able to identify the version being submitted and explain the basis for any country-specific differences.
Agree on sponsor and CRO responsibilities before submission
When engaging a Contract Research Organization (CRO), distinguish document collection, scientific review, translation review, and submission support. A broad description such as “IND support” does not explain whether all these activities are included.
During scope and quotation discussions, identify who will provide source reports, draft responses, conduct medical or statistical review, and approve the final package. Sharing document status and unresolved questions is more informative than providing a document count alone.
NexBridge Bio connects pharmaceutical companies planning Korean clinical trials with Korean CROs and supports quotation coordination and project communication around the required services.
A defined division of work gives the team a practical way to identify issues that require sponsor input before the submission date is finalized.
Prepare responses that connect the answer, evidence, and revision
If a request for additional information arrives, organize the work around each question. An internal response tracker can record the original request, proposed response, responsible person, supporting evidence, and the location and version of any revised document. This is a suggested working method, not a prescribed MFDS submission format.
Distinguish missing documentation from unclear wording and questions requiring further scientific assessment. These issues may need different people and different types of work.
Where a response says a document has been revised, verify that the corresponding change appears in the actual submission version. Also review whether the change affects other documents. A response letter and its supporting package should tell the same story.
Manage timing against the actual request and applicable procedure. Avoid assuming that every question can be resolved by editing text or that every response will require the same amount of time.
Submission readiness means being able to trace the reasoning
A complete folder is not the same as a fully reviewed submission. Useful internal readiness criteria include whether the study rationale is explainable, the documents are consistent, and the team can locate the evidence and decision-maker for an outstanding question.
Before committing to a filing date, review unresolved issues and their potential impact. Recording uncertainty and the decision needed to address it is more useful than hiding it behind confident language.
Planning a Clinical Trial in Korea?
Share your development stage, intended timeline, available documentation, and required support. These details can help frame the next discussion about Korean CRO collaboration and quotations.
Book a Free Korea Trial Consultation →
Want the full picture behind these findings? Download our 2026 Clinical Trials CRO Selection Survey Report for the complete data, red flags, and strategic recommendations.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1: Did the September 2026 update introduce a new IND approval system?
The revision history identifies the addition of updated questions and answers. It should not be described as a new IND approval system or a uniform change to the requirements for every trial. MFDS revised guidance
Q2: What should a sponsor check first?
Start with the rationale for the study objective, population, dose, and assessments, alongside consistency across documents. Then identify unfinished evidence and review activities that do not yet have an assigned owner.
Q3: Will using the latest document versions prevent deficiency requests?
Version control alone cannot prevent requests for additional information. Questions about the adequacy of evidence or the justification for a study design may require separate scientific assessment.
Q4: Can a CRO handle the entire deficiency response?
The support provided depends on the agreed scope and division of responsibilities. Even when document collection and response coordination are outsourced, the team should define who supplies source evidence, makes scientific decisions, and approves the response.
Q5: Can this article serve as a complete IND submission checklist?
This article provides a practical approach to preparation and document review. It does not replace the full submission requirements or a review of quality documentation. Confirm the current requirements applicable to the specific study before filing.