FDA IP Labeling Requirements

April 29, 2012

FDA labeling investigational product

Does FDA Require an Expiration Date for IP?

What are FDA’s requirements for labeling investigational drug and biological products (IP)? We are all aware of the required statement in 21 CFR 312.6, “(a) The immediate package of an investigational new drug intended for human use shall bear a label with the statement ‘Caution: New Drug–Limited by Federal (or United States) law to investigational use.’” However, is that the only requirement? What else, if anything, belongs? What labeling is against FDA requirements? Is this a GCP or GMP issue? This question came up recently in a discussion with a colleague. It was their opinion that an expiry date was not required. They had stability records for the IP and could show that the expiration date exceeded the length of the trial. Is this sufficient? I disagreed. I felt that the IP labeling should include a lot/batch number and the expiry date.

What Are YOUR Viewpoints? Please comment below.

FDA regulations for investigational new drugs tell us little about what goes on to an IP label. However, we know that IP must be manufactured under the GMPs. Just what do the GMP regulations say about labels? We can find it in § 211.137, Expiration Dating. It states in 211.137(g):

“(g) New drug products for investigational use are exempt from the requirements of this section, provided that they meet appropriate standards or specifications as demonstrated by stability studies during their use in clinical investigations. Where new drug products for investigational use are to be reconstituted at the time of dispensing, their labeling shall bear expiration information for the reconstituted drug product.”

FDA Drug Labels

Consultant's Don't Enjoy Being Wrong

It is clear that my colleague is correct. FDA does not require expiration dates if the IP meets the standards and/or specifications in stability studies. I don’t like making mistakes, but “the proof is in the pudding.” This is a very specific regulation that is easy for all of us to interpret. I would have appreciated it if FDA had referenced this in the IND regulation, §312. That is where most GCP professionals go to look for FDA’s GCP requirements. However, FDA frequently doesn’t appreciate what I appreciate, so we find the information in §211.

The second point that this regulation makes is very interesting. More and more drug products require very specific instructions on how to administer the drug or IP. A reconstituted test article can have a very short time period for dispensing. This regulation is equally clear that “their labeling shall bear expiration information for the reconstituted drug product.”

This can add up to a lot of information. Expiration information for a reconstituted drug product, storage temperatures and conditions, and adequate directions for dispensing the IP are all essential information for a label. How in the world do you fit it on one small container? For this, you need to understand FDA’s definition of “label.”

In conducting your clinical research program your ultimate goal is to attain a “label.” This is the physician’s insert that informs the clinician, among many other things, “adequate instructions for use.” Vials of parenterals are usually packaged and the packaging contains essential information that is also considered labeling.

FDA investigational product labeling

FDA Labels Must Not be Misleading

In addition, the handy “informational sheets” that some nutritional supplement or “neutraceutical” dealers keep under the counter at their stores and are given out to answer question from consumers also meet FDA’s definition of labeling. So when they hand you an informational brochure saying that “many studies find” that patchouli oil cures arthritis, yes that can be part of the label. Chances are that FDA would probably find it to be false and misleading.

That means you should have plenty of room for this information on the IP labeling. Referencing it on protocol-specific worksheets that the clinical site may, or may not, use for recording source data is not sufficient. The information needs to be part of the labeling or clearly stated in the protocol. It can also be part of pharmacy manual that is referenced in the protocol. The information needs to be readily available and part of the pre-study training that the sponsor documents before enrollment of subjects.

FDA Labeling

European Requirements

Finally, a European employee of the company my colleague works at informed me that it is an EMA requirement to include the expiry date. However, she had heard that in the U.S. there was no requirement, which she found strange. I find it strange as well. It is my viewpoint that in an era of globalized trials, we should aim for the highest standard. And harmonizing label requirements, when possible, will help the company develop a systematic approach to GCP compliance.

My personal opinion is that expiration dating is essential information for “adequate directions for use,” as required by Section 502 of the FD&C Act. I agree with EMA that the expiry date should be part of the label. However, I live in Tacoma, WA, not in Paris, Copenhagen, or Venice. So my personal opinion is just that, my personal opinion.

Carl Anderson, GxP Perspectives

====

Join the GxP Perspectives Linkedin Group Here
Or get an email subscription (on the right sidebar)

====

Please join your industry colleagues in completing the 2012 TMF Reference Model Survey, and use results to inform your TMF best practices.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FPP8DCF

This fifteen minute survey is designed by members of the TMF Reference Model team to provide valuable insight into Trial Master File practices, both paper and electronic, to identify common problem areas, assess changes in practice and reveal opportunities for improvement. All respondents who complete the survey and provide contact information will be provided with the survey results.

Data collection closes June 1st; please join us today.

=====

What is Your viewpoint on IP labeling? Please comment and let us know.

Leave a Comment » | Clinical Trials | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by GxP Perspectives

Quantifying Quality for GxP Compliance

April 8, 2012

quantifying quality GxP

Quantifying Quality

GxP professionals understand the need for quality and quality system and we discuss quality with one another on a daily basis. But how do we measure it? How do we quantify our results? Once again we turn to Len Grunbaum and Emma Barsky, regular contributors to GxP Perspectives, for their insight on how to quantify quality for the development manufacture, and distribution of health products such as drugs, medical devices, and biologics.

Quantifying Quality

In its simplest form, the definition of “quality” is “how good something is.” But what exactly does this mean for the life science industry, whose frame of reference is defined by regulations which are often vague and which provide little or no guidance regarding how they should be implemented?

In light of this, we would like to offer some ideas regarding how to measure – quantify – how good your “quality” is in tangible and practical terms. We contend that such metrics are useful in order for company management to make sound decisions regarding whether and/or where the quality system (i.e., the operational infrastructure that promotes and facilitates “quality”) requires improvement. The following key indicators are not all-inclusive (nor are the items mutually exclusive), but they provide meaningful ways to assess your “quality”:

• Number of successful external and internal audits as a percentage of the total number of external and internal audits: the higher the percentage of successful external audits (e.g., by existing/potential clients, regulators), especially when you have a large number of them, the better your “quality.” Passing one audit with flying colors is great but passing multiple audits with few minor or no observations is way better. It not only sets a trend regarding “legitimate” quality but it also validates the company’s degree of quality from different perspectives. This scenario allows any company to claim that its quality system has withstood scrutiny from a variety of companies and/or regulatory agencies over a long period of time.

While “looking good” to the outsiders is great, “feeling good” about what is under the covers is even better. Therefore, if thorough internal audits do not find any issues that either directly (critical observation) or indirectly (major observation) impact subject/consumer safety and/or data/product integrity, then “quality” is inherent to the operations.

GxP quality quantify

Measurements for Success

You may wonder how a subjective term like “success” is defined in this context. Fair question. A result of “no audit findings” (e.g., no FDA 483s, no audit observations) is the clearest measure of success. A relative handful of “minor/cosmetic” issues is not perfect but is certainly acceptable in this context. To the extent that the number of observations may be “critical” or “major,” as defined above, the audit will certainly be viewed as less successful or even unsuccessful. One should also remember that it is a common thing in the industry to consider a large number of minor observations as a major issue because this scenario gives an impression of a negative trend, the latter of which is not conducive to having quality operations.

• Number of “directed” (i.e., “for cause”) audits as a percentage of total audits: because directed audits are performed to follow up on actual or perceived regulatory compliance problems, the higher the number of “directed” audits, the more questions will be raised about your “quality.” “Directed” audits could be external (i.e., performed by existing clients or regulatory authorities) or internal (i.e., performed by internal quality staff). The higher the number of problems confirmed, the weaker the quality system. Even if these types of audits indicate in general that there are no actual problems, or a minimal number of problems, a large number of such audits should prompt questions regarding why the perception exists that the degree of “quality” is such that an investigation is required.

quality

Number of Investigations

• Number of investigations/CAPAs: an investigation is a formal and documented process performed to gather information (e.g., root cause, impact) regarding a specific problem encountered (e.g., a customer complaint, a missing controlled document) and which, depending on the outcome of the investigation, may lead to corrective and preventive actions. An “excessive” number (the definition of which is admittedly subjective in nature) of investigations, even if satisfactorily completed and closed, gives an impression that the underlying cause has never been properly identified and/or corrected.

• Number of repeating issues as a percentage of the number of audits performed: repeating issues are symptomatic of a quality system that does not correct or otherwise effectively address problems. While isolated incidents are not necessarily a reflection on the company’s overall quality, incidents that span multiple project teams and/or departments and/or are observed more than once may be indicative of quality-related problems. It is very difficult to convince anyone of the quality of operations when problems that are systemic in nature become evident.

The higher the percentage of audits that contain repeating issues, the more likely that this may be viewed as 1) management indifference, 2) lack of management involvement, 3) inappropriateness of personnel qualifications and/or 4) inability/unwillingness to invest in “quality.”

quantify quality GxP

Lost Business

• Number of business opportunities lost due to unsuccessful external audits as a percentage of the number of external audits: audits are sometimes performed as a basis for determining whether a business relationship should be consummated or continued (e.g., you will be chosen as a vendor/supplier, an existing relationship will be sustained) or expanded (e.g., a company will be awarded additional projects). Some life science companies (e.g. pharma, biotech) have to get clearance from the FDA prior to being able to market their product. Support companies (e.g., CROs, contract manufacturers) may have to undergo due diligence inspections to establish/maintain/enhance a business relationship. The higher the percentage of such opportunities lost (e.g., loss of a potential or existing client, project cancelled/not awarded, FDA did not grant an approval) because of poor audit results, as a percentage of external audits performed, the stronger the indication that your “quality” is dangerously weak. This, in turn, has a financial “bottom line” impact on the company: loss of business opportunities can also be translated into wasted R&D cost and/or lost anticipated revenue, both of which become a major risk to the company’s financial health.

In addition to the items listed above, there is another important quantifiable component to “quality,” which is too often being overlooked or not being considered at all. This component is what we define as “the monetary expenditure associated with ‘quality.’” Namely, we are talking about an operationally quantifiable parameter – cost of establishing and maintaining “quality” operations. Most will argue that “quality” is very expensive no matter what. We firmly believe that it does not have to be that way if the underlying causes, which directly and unnecessarily contribute to the extra cost of doing business, are either eliminated or minimized. Here are a few examples to give you a flavor of what can contribute to increased costs when it comes to meeting the regulatory responsibility of instituting and sustaining “quality”:

• Regulatory compliance decisions that are not defined in writing and/or are not defensible.

• Cumbersome and inflexible procedures that require more resources than necessary to execute them without “procedural deviations.”

• Inefficient procedures that require the same activity to be done more than once in order to be in compliance.

• Ineffective procedures that do not reach the desired objective of being in compliance after the first execution.

• Unclear procedures that result in too many on-going corrections in order to inject “quality” into operations.

• Too many procedures that company staff must follow without any value added.

• Contradictory procedures that lead to generating Notes-To-File, CAPAs, deviations, investigations, etc. because compliance to one procedure results in non-compliance with one or more other procedures.

GxP Quality

The Costs and Benefits of Quality

The above-listed activities not only translate into the need to spend more time and money in an attempt to have operational quality, but a number of these items translate into further quality-related costs to the company. Examples of the latter include, but are not necessarily limited to, taking the time to respond to observations or even worse yet, an FDA-483 or a Warning Letter. We think the point we are trying to make is clear…

Our bottom line is that you can make both your QA and CFO happy by quantifying “quality” in terms that will be understood and appreciated by both. This means that sound decisions can be made regarding whether and/or where to apply precious company time and resources help ensure that your “quality” is as good as it can be without putting the business out of business.

Emma Barsky and Len Grunbaum
Partners of The Practical Solutions Group, LLC
609.683.0756
Practical Solutions

====

In News from FDA: Yet another weight loss danger in Japanese “rapid weight loss” pills. Read the story: foodconsumer.org

====

Join the GxP Perspectives Linkedin Group Here
Or get an email subscription (on the right sidebar)
====

Leave a Comment » | GxP | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by GxP Perspectives

FDA & Politics: In the Interest of Science?

April 3, 2012

FDA and politics

Political Pressure at FDA?

FDA Regulates 25% of the U.S. economy and has long been the target of lobbyists from the food,drug, & tobacco industries.The question is always asked: “Is mixing the public health mission of FDA with politics in the current political climate advancing the interests of the American consumer?” Unfortunately, the answer is almost always no. Last December GxP Perspectives published a Guest Commentary on “when Politics and Science Collide,” by April Mayberry. In the 03 April 2012 New York Times there is an extensive page one article on the differences between the Obama White House and FDA on public health issues.

For most readers of this blog it is a question on the approval of health products; drugs, medical devices, and biologics, that come to mind. Is FDA providing the right balance in regulatory oversight? Is FDA making decisions based on science and not political pressure? The issue came to a head over the Plan B controversy that April Mayberry wrote about in her Guest Commentary. In this week’s FDA Matters, longtime FDA observer Steven Grossman talks about different plans to speed up FDA approvals noting that there are rarely initiatives to make sure that FDA scientists have the time and resources to make the right decisions. Grossman notes that former FDA Commissioner Dr. Andrew Von Eschenbach wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal where he states:

FDA and Politics

Dr. Andrew Von Eschenbach

“What will it take to realize the potential of the new medicine? The United States has the world’s most innovative drug and device companies and research universities, plus the unparalleled National Institutes of Health. What’s missing is a modernized Food and Drug Administration that can rapidly and efficiently bring new discoveries to patients.”

This places the burden, and blame, for new health product approvals squarely on FDA. The New York Times article points out that political pressure has often shaped FDA policy and that there have often been serious consequnces when FDA tries to assert its independence. For example, FDA Commissioner Dr. Jane Henney lost her job for allowing the approval of the controversial drug RU-486. Although then DHHS Secretary Donna Shalala guaranteed Dr. Henney that FDA would have independence to make scientific decisions, she was soon out of a job with the election of George W. Bush.

FDA and politics

Dr. Margaret Hamburg has Supported FDA Scientists on Plan B

Current FDA Commissioner, Dr. Margaret Hamburg has not had as supportive a relationship with the current DHHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius. They clashed on the restrictive measures insisted on by Secretary Sebelius for access to Plan B. Other areas of disagreement include labels on sunscreens and over the asthma drug Primatene Mist. In an election year the volatile mix of politics and science is even more apparent. In the New York Times article FDA historian Daniel Carpenter of Harvard University warns:

“In a globalized world , where trust is a huge part of what American manufacturers have to sell, the politicalization of the FDA’s reputation could hurt not only consumer protection but industry profits as well.”

It should be an interesting year for science and politics.

Carl Anderson, GxP Perspectives

Read the New York Times Article

FDA Matters

====

Join the GxP Perspectives Linkedin Group Here
Or get an email subscription (on the right sidebar)
====

Add your comments to the discussion on Politics and Science at FDA

Leave a Comment » | FDA | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by GxP Perspectives

Drug Accountability in Clinical Trials

January 19, 2012

clinical trials study drugs

Drug Accountability in Clinical Trials

Drug Accountability Is the one thing that everyone looks at and everyone ignores in clinical trials. I don’t know how many times I have read in a monitor’s report that “drug accountability not done due to time restraints.” Yet consistently “test article accountability” (as FDA refers to it) is one of the top findings on a Form FDA 483, Inspectional Observations, issued for clinical trials. In this Guest Commentary pharmacist Roberta Wong outlines the basics for clinical trial professionals. She concludes with six issues for clinical trial sites to consider. She is a consultant to biopharmaceutical companies and teaches at the Pharmaceutical BioEngineering Program at the University of Washington.

Guest Commentary by Roberta Wong, PharmD

Drug Accountability in Clinical Trials

It’s not exciting, it’s not cutting edge. It may be the last thing you think about when preparing for an FDA audit. You might scan the records and figure if all the lines are filled in, it must be okay. Or, the auditor might not look at it, so I will trust that the pharmacist did it correctly. After all, aren’t pharmacists one of the most trusted professions? Consider this: if drug accountability is in question, then the whole study could be in jeopardy. Proving that the drug was administered to the patient that resulted in the effects seen from study drug is a key factor in determining the merit of a product candidate. The FDA has listed drug accountability as #3 in a list of top 5 pitfalls.

drug accountability in clinical trials

What FDA Considers

The FDA uses these categories for determining the seriousness of a deficiency. Sometimes, minor sloppiness is due to poor record keeping. This can be corrected with training, and close follow-up to insure consistency amongst staff. Sloppiness, if bad enough, can cause removal of data from study results, impacting the overall quality of the data, and the integrity of the study conduct. Often unintentional, lack of attention to detail, and not understanding the importance of accurate recordkeeping in the drug application can contribute to a clinical trial site’s data being thrown out of a sponsor’s application. Training staff at the study initiation visit and checking the quality of the work during the course of the study is critical for good record keeping to be maintained during the clinical trial. Staff can change, so retraining may be needed as new staff members are added to an ongoing study.

drug accountability in clinical trials

Intent to Deceive?

On the other hand, some inconsistencies in drug accountability can be due to a true intent to deceive. Drug supplies that are listed as destroyed, lost, or dropped, can be traced to individuals diverting supplies for themselves, or with the intent on selling study drug to other individuals. Investigational drugs can also be switched in an attempt to give drug preferentially to certain patients, if there is also a placebo as part of the study. Limiting access to investigational drugs is a key role for the pharmacist in studies conducted at large institutions. At smaller sites, or individual physician’s offices, study drug may be held by research or nursing staff. In these situations, limiting access and providing locked security for study drugs is required by the study sponsor.

So, what happens when a clinical trial site has drug accountability problems? If this occurs during a clinical trial, the Sponsor will stop new drug shipments, and may suspend study enrollment temporarily. Visits to the site by the sponsor will ascertain the cause of the problem, and determine if re-training will prevent future issues. During this investigation, reviewing the records with the study coordinator and the prinicipal investigator are imperative. And of course, documentation of any meetings with site staff summarizing the corrective action is essential. Ongoing audits for the remainder of the trial will demonstrate that the interventions were successful, and the site is now compliant in maintaining accurate drug accountability.

drug accountability in clinical trials

"Shooting the Dice" with Your Clinical Trial?

Drug accountability is more than just counting pills and vials. Site staff must insure that the study subject receives the study drug, and receives the correct dosage. There should be documentation to support drug administration. If the patient self-administers study drug, often diaries and pill vials are collected to validate the administration of study drug. If the drug is administered at a clinic visit, there are often forms to complete to verify the dosage that was given to a study subject.

How can you avoid problems with drug accountability? First, make sure that all involved in the study are consistent with their documentation. Make sure that the records are completed with the drug dose, patient, date, time and individual removing drug from the central inventory. If study drug is administered in the clinic, the worksheet should note the date, and actual time that the drug was given. If drug is not administered, even though a dose was prepared, then a note should record that drug was destroyed. If study drugs require refrigeration, then the accountability records should have a place to note the temperature.

Lastly, issues with accountability need to be addressed quickly and a solution determined. Vigilance in accurate documentation will insure minimal issues. Making sure the patient received the proper dose is one more way to insure that well-run clinical trials produce good quality data.

How do you know if your system is set up to produce good drug accountability? Here are some questions that you can answer about your study.

Questions to consider:

1. Did the patient receive the proper dose? How do you know?

2. Did the Physician calculate the correct dose? Who double checked the calculation? Is it weight-based? Is the dose calculated at study enrollment? Is the dose recalculated based on the patient’s baseline weight or dose the dose change only if the weight changes by 10%?

3. Drug was sent to the clinic to prepare a dose, and the patient was a no show. Should the drug be signed back into the central inventory? (If the drug should be refrigerated, and you are unsure of how the drug was stored, what should you do?)

4. Drug was prepared for a patient who was a no show, but promised to come in the next day. Can you save the prepared dose and administer it the next day?

5. Does your clinical trial allow documentation of these issues in the study records?

6. For study drug accountability, who resolves new issues? Where do you record your answer? How do you train the rest of the staff regarding this issue?

Contact Robbie!

====

Please join us: GxP Perspectives LinkedIn Group

GxP Perspectives on twitter: @GxPPerspectives

5 Comments | Clinical Trials | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by GxP Perspectives

Commentary on Plan B Controversy

December 28, 2011

Plan B Kathleen Sebelius

Kathleen Sebelius Overturns FDA on Plan B

Plan B is an emergency contraceptive, sometimes called “the morning after pill,” that has been approved as safe and effective for its intended use by the Food and Drug Administration. The drug’s safety is pretty much beyond dispute. However, it is access to Plan B that is proving controversial. In question is whether Plan B can be available over-the-counter or on a prescription basis for all women of child-bearing potential. This includes those under 18 years of age. FDA had said yes. In an unprecedented decision, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, overturned a decision by FDA. The decision, in early December, has largely been overlooked by the general public with the onset of the holidays and college football bowl games. However, it has profound implications for millions of Americans and perhaps the way FDA approves drugs in the future. FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg issued a public statement after the decision defending FDA’s scientists who had recommended the OTC approval (see below).

The following Guest Commentary by April Mayberry discusses this decision. In it she gives her opinion on the Plan B decision. GxP Perspectives, as always, welcomes your own viewpoints and opinions.

When Politics & Science Collide

Plan B

Plan B Emergency Contraception

As a clinical research professional working in women’s reproductive health and contraceptive development, I was disturbed by Dr. Sebelius’ decision to override the FDA’s decision to allow OTC access to Plan B for girls under 17. First my reaction was concern about the impact this will have on women and contraceptive development. Second was to wonder why Dr. Sebelius, an Obama appointee with a strong reputation for supporting reproductive rights, would make such a decision.

In her statement posted on the HHS website, Sebelius said that Teva didn’t provide sufficient evidence that Plan B could be used safely in very young adolescent girls, or that they could understand the labeling. She said if Teva could produce data to the contrary they could refile. If Sebelius’ decision was intended to protect girls, it doesn’t seem logical.

• An adolescent girl has a much higher chance of serious complications from an unintended pregnancy or an abortion than from Plan B.

• Other potentially dangerous OTCs used, and even abused, by young women have no such restrictions. This includes diet pills, cold medicines, aspirin, ibuprofen and acetaminophen, all of which are associated with serious and/or fatal AEs.

• In my experience, controversial products not indicated to treat immediately life-threatening conditions must meet a particularly high approval standard. In a public statement appearing on the FDA website, FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said:

“The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) completed its review of the Plan B One-Step application and laid out its scientific determination. CDER carefully considered whether younger females were able to understand how to use Plan B One-Step. Based on the information submitted to the agency, CDER determined that the product was safe and effective in adolescent females, that adolescent females understood the product was not for routine use, and that the product would not protect them against sexually transmitted diseases. Additionally, the data supported a finding that adolescent females could use Plan B One-Step properly without the intervention of a healthcare provider.” In the same statement Dr. Hamburg contended that:

Dr. Margaret Hamburg, FDA Commissioner

Dr. Margaret Hamburg, FDA Commissioner

“The review process used by CDER to analyze the data applied a risk/benefit assessment consistent with its standard drug review process. Our decision-making reflects a body of scientific findings, input from external scientific advisory committees, and data contained in the application that included studies designed specifically to address the regulatory standards for nonprescription drugs. CDER experts, including obstetrician/gynecologists and pediatricians, reviewed the totality of the data and agreed that it met the regulatory standard for a nonprescription drug and that Plan B One-Step should be approved for all females of child-bearing potential.”

So if FDA used the standard review process why isn’t it enough? Most agree this decision was not based on science. One can only speculate why Sebelius, an Obama appointee, with a strong record regarding women’s reproductive rights, would do this. Possible reasons that come to mind are:

There has been pressure from the religious right on the government against Plan B and contraceptives in general. Plan B is of particular contention, because some mistakenly believe that it terminates pregnancy. Reportedly while governor of Kansas, Sebelius at times modified policy under pressure when it was seen as a political advantage
(also reportedly in these instances the decisions didn’t pose a risk of clinical or other harm to women. In light of reports that she is a subject of backlash by the church.) and of a lawsuit by Belmont Abbey College over the mandate requiring them to provide contraceptive coverage in their health plan, it’s feasible OTC access to Plan B for girls under 18 was sacrificed in lieu of mandates Sebelius considers more crucial, such as requiring health-care plans to provide contraceptive coverage. (Sources: RealityCheck.org, National Catholic Register, and Washington Times)

Plan B access

Should Teenagers Have Access to Plan B?

Regardless of the actual motives behind this move, it has a real potential for negative ramifications. Requiring a young girl to consult an HCP (most having limited office hours) poses potentially insurmountable obstacles to accessing Plan B in the time it’s most effective, possibly resulting in an unintended pregnancy. She must have access to an HCP, know how to navigate the system, have transportation and maybe money. For a young woman who is in a dysfunctional situation or is victim of sexual abuse, these barriers could compound their duress and risk, especially if a pregnancy resulted.

Women over 17 are also affected. Having to present an ID to a pharmacist can cause distress for some. Additionally many pharmacies have limited hours, and in some states some pharmacists may refuse to provide Plan B under the “conscious clause”, all causing delays in accessing it within the optimal treatment window. This is of particular concern for poor women in some rural or inner city communities with few pharmacies and for women with no ID.

Sebelius’ decision may also stifle contraceptive development. According the New York Times this is the first time that the HHS has blocked approval of a product by the FDA. This sets a precedent, allowing approval of contraceptives or other controversial medical products to be blocked without scientifically valid reasons. This is very problematic, because it allows those with political motives to take our national policies and the scientific process hostage to fulfill their own agenda, simply by applying enough political pressure.

April Mayberry, RAC, CCRA, CCRP, CFPHW *

* Certified Family Planning Health Worker

Dr. Hamburg’s Statement on Plan B

Secretary Sebelius’ Statement on Plan B

Pharmacist “Conscious Clause”

NT Times article on Sebelius curtailing availability of Plan B

National Catholic Register Article on Sebelius

====

January GCP Training Opportunities:

ExL Pharma has announced that FDA’s Dr. Leslie Ball will give the Keynote Address at the 2nd annual Developing CAPAs in the GCP Environment conference held 19-20 January in Arlington, VA.

GxP Perspectives is a media sponsor.

At the same time and the same place the Trial Master File Summit is taking place with some excellent speakers. Find out more:
TMF Summit Information

====

GxP Perspectives LinkedIn Group

====

Please comment with your views and opinions!

Leave a Comment » | FDA commentaries | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by GxP Perspectives

A Better FDA? Why Not?

December 11, 2011

FDA

A Better FDA?

Is FDA necessary? Most people I know would say yes. We need a strong, independent, effective FDA. Does FDA need improvements? Again, most people I know can point to numerous issues that FDA could handle better. Today, in the Business Section of the New York Times, there is an article on why we need government and the benefits of better government. Yes, the article by Robert H. Frank is about the Tompkins County New York Department of Moter Vehicles, but he outlines some basic principles for better government. Like better use of technology to make government more efficient. FDA is making similar efforts regarding technology. That’s great and I encourage the development. Here are three other areas that I think that FDA can improve:

1. Consistent training for field investigators (CSOs or Consumer Safety Officers). Many times people tell me of an FDA inspection in Salt Lake City that is entirely different from another inspection I have heard of in Tampa, FL. Different CSOs have completely different approaches and conduct the same type of inspection by looking at completely different documents. There are many excellent, experienced CSOs but when different clinical sites or sponsors hear differing viewpoints from CSOs, that isn’t good for compliance or best practices.

2. Changing requirements by review divisions. FDA will tell a sponsor to conduct a study with certain endpoints in order to prove safety and efficacy for their investigational product. Then, as the sponsor is preparing for their application, the rules change. This can cost a sponsor years of frustration and millions of dollars. Yes, safety concerns need to be addressed, but sponsors need to know the rules in advance, and have a reasonable expectation of those rules staying in place.

3. Effective mechanisms for corrective actions. FDA has a Warning Letter close out process. However, it is not evenly applied by different Centers and for different program areas. Regulated industry should have a clear path to performing corrective actions that are meaningful.

So those are my thoughts. I would love to hear yours. Please leave a comment.

====

One additional point: My wife, Cathy J. Tashiro, just had her book come out in paperback. No, it has nothing to do with GxPs or clinical trials, she is a sociologist. Her book is:

Standing on Both Feet: Stories of Older Mixed Race Americans

====

Read the NY Times article on effective government

1 Comment | FDA commentaries | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by GxP Perspectives

An Ethical Question on Medical Oncology Research

October 25, 2011

oncology question

An Ethical Question on Clinical Trials

GxP Perspectives receives some excellent questions and comments about best practices. Here a regular reader asks a very pertinent question on Oncology Research. I don’t have the answer but I am hoping that the GxP Perspectives Community has some people that can help answer this for George. I hope so because I can learn a few things as well. Please comment if you have ideas for George and others to pursue.

An Ethical Question on Medical Oncology Research:

I am not sure the best place to post this question: I work in Medical Oncology Research and I have been noticing what I feel to be a distubing trend in manditory tumor tissue submission. In the past, studies required tissue samples if they were needed to determine eligibility or randomization to a treatment arm (Essentially something that was a potential benefit to the patient or needed to deterimne if study endpoints were met). Those studies usually gave patients the option to allow the sponsor to keep archived tissue for “future testing” that had no benefit to the patient or current study. Recently, some sponsors have been requiring this “archived tissue” as part of the inclusion / exclusion criteria – “If you don’t give us the tissue, you can’t go on our study.” Do you know if anyone is discussing this issue or is concerned how this may impact patient rights?

====

Three Comments. The first is from Abby: If the intended use of the archival tissue sample is to send to a central reader to show that the subject indeed has the pathological diagnosis intended for the study, I believe this is a legitimate and important request by the researchers. In the case of a more nebulous use (e.g. “general exploratory pharmacodynamic studies” or “future use”), I do think it is good if the Sponsor can try to provide more specifics, such as “future use in cancer research” or something even better.

It has been my experience that the Informed Consent wording related to these samples must be very clear, and address the short-term and long-term storage of the samples, as well as information on how the subject may revoke that consent and have the samples returned. Clinical sites often request return of the archival samples on behalf of the subject, and sponsors often return the samples–especially if the subject is moving onto another study that also likely requires tissue. Interesting question–and I look forward to hearing other responses!

And the second is from Kevin: As far as the patient’s rights, they aren’t affected at all. As you state, it is clearly in the Inclusion criteria that if you want to participate, the Sponsor requires this sample. This should be included in the consent form as well. The patient, at this point, has the right say “no” to the study.

Sponsors routinely collect these samples as a way to further their research and hopefully capitalize on a novel therapy. I guess you can look at this in one of two ways: 1) Big Pharma is trying to make a dollar (…obviously, which is how/why they exist in the first place) or 2) since they have the ability to take the research beyond the confines of the current protocol, they may just find a cure or improved therapy, which in turn, benefits the patient.

It would be unethical only if the Sponsor took the sample and archived it without the patient’s consent.

My suggestion would to be to discuss your feelings with the Sponsor or to start with, perhaps your IRB.

And Eleanor: There is currently a significant shift in the approach to cancer treatment. In many cancers, there is not a universal response to treatment but some sub-populations respond much more effectively to treatment than the general population. In many cases this response to treatment relates to expression of certain genes by the tumour that do not occur in all patients with the disease. If it is possible to identify the gene and which patients express that gene then treatment is much more effective both in terms of success and in terms of cost.

This may be one of the reasons that sponsors are moving towards mandatory collection of samples. If they identify that a particular sub-population has responded more effectively they can go back and examine stored samples to try and identify the reasons that the sub-population responded more effectively. Thus, there may be the possibility of developing diagnostic tools to identify the sub-population and only treat that population. If there are only limited samples available then it may not be possible to do so. Just a thought…..

====
Please leave a comment on this question. Thanks!
========

There are THREE Weeks left to comment on the Draft FDA Guidance Document on Risk-based Monitoring
Guidance for Industry: Oversight of Clinical Investigations — A Risk-Based Approach to Monitoring
====

How to comment to FDA: Here is a two-slide powerpoint presentation on how to comment on the draft guidance document courtesy of CDRH BIMO. Thanks!

Location of Monitoring guidance FR

====
clinical trials FDA monitoring guidanceThere have been some great comments on the GxP Perspectives LinkedIn group on the Draft FDA Risk-Based Monitoring guidance document and on protocol deviations. There is also a new logo for your viewing pleasure. I invite everyone to join the GxP Perspectives LinkedIn Group and join the discussion.

GxP Perspectives LinkedIn Group

GxP Perspectives on twitter: @GxPPerspectives

Follow GxPPerspectives on Twitter

4 Comments | Research Ethics | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by GxP Perspectives

PI Training & Qualifications: FDA Draft Guidance

October 9, 2011

FDA guidance on risk-based monitoring

PI Training & Qualifications

One of the issues raised by the new FDA Draft Guidance on Risk-Based Monitoring is the training and qualifications of clinical investigators, usually referred to as the PI. Veteran GCP training specialist David Montgomery questions whether the draft guidance document is consistent with the previous final guidance document on Supervisory Responsibilities of the Investigator (2009). David raises some interesting points as he enlivens the discussion on the draft guidance. Since this is a significant change in how FDA is giving its current recommendations on monitoring, it deserves a certain amount of scrutiny. And David is certainly up to the task, with a Latin lesson thrown in for good measure!

Guest Commentary by David Montgomery

Facile Descensus Averno

This latest proposed guidance from the FDA is a constructive move forwards but like the ancient Greeks seeking guidance at the Oracle at Delphi there will inevitably be points for interpretation.

PI training and experience

The Oracle at Delphi

Somewhere between sponsors perception of what the FDA is saying and the guidance they actually provide lies a vast expanse of mythology which can, on occasion, be attributed inappropriately the badge of best practice — itself a context specific judgement in an increasingly global enterprise. It is axiomatic that the FDA is taking a stance by providing its current thinking and therefore challenging sponsors to apply some critical thinking to their own processes and procedures. Sponsors need to be confident that they the necessary structure in place to enable their staff to fulfil their tasks in accordance with regulatory guidance. Moreover, and at of least equal importance, sponsors need their quality systems to achieve the goals set out in ICH GCP in terms of safeguarding trial subjects and ensuring that credible data are generated.

Certain phrases from the latest guidance stand out and all those involved in the planning, conduct and monitoring of clinical trials of drugs, biologics or devices would do well to take note of these, whilst at the same time recognising that they are not cast in stone.

(all numbered lines are from FDA draft guidance document)Lines 62 – 64 “Quality is a systems property that must be built into an enterprise and cannot be achieved by oversight or monitoring alone.”

Comment: See text from lines 207 – 209

Lines: 97 – 99 “For major efficacy trials, companies typically conduct on-site monitoring visits at approximately four- to eight-week intervals, at least partly because of the perception that the frequent on-site monitoring visit model, with 100% verification of all data, is FDA’s preferred way for sponsors to meet their monitoring obligations”

Comment: we are talking efficacy trials

Lines: 188 – 189 “This draft guidance strongly encourages sponsors to tailor monitoring plans to the needs of the trial”

Comment: One size does not fit all

Lines 207 – 209 “A poorly designed or ambiguous protocol or case report form (CRF) may introduce systemic errors that can render a clinical investigation unreliable despite rigorous monitoring.”

Comment: Attempting to remedy a bad protocol with copious doses of guidance is an exercise in futility and the tale of Sisyphus springs to mind.

Lines 209 – 210 “Study-specific training of investigators, other site staff, and monitors also contributes significantly to study quality (see sections IV.D.4. and VI.A). “

Comment: (209 – 210) What is meant by training?

464 – 469 “Training should include principles of clinical investigations, critical protocol-specific requirements, the study monitoring plan, applicable standard operating procedures, and appropriate monitoring techniques.”

Comment: Protocols have objectives and endpoints – in the interests of quality will training adopt the same model?

Lines 531 -532 “On-site visits should include sufficient time for mentoring, feedback, and additional training, if needed, during the conduct of the study.”

Comment: Feedback is always valuable but how are monitors qualified for study specific mentoring roles or is ICH GCP 2.8 to be ignored?

PI training and experience

"I must take issue with FDA on their use of the term training."

I must take issue with the FDA on their use of the term training. It blurs the responsibilities of what was stated in its own guidance from 2009 for Investigator Responsibilities and what was intended in ICH GCP, particularly in relation to multicentre trials.

The term training is already over used in clinical research, particularly when what is often intended is instruction or guidance. Furthermore, the use of the word mentoring is certainly a bridge too far. This is not what Homer had in mind – in what way are sponsor’s monitors qualified to fulfil these roles or are we going to waive the requirements of ICH GCP 2.8 for those undertaking a role which “contributes significantly to study quality.”

The 2009 FDA Guidance on Investigator Responsibilities takes the trouble to define what they consider necessary in terms of adequate training and puts the onus on the investigator to ensure that there is adequate training for all [their] staff participating in the conduct of the study.”

Compare this to ICH GCP 5.23.4 which states that “All investigators are given instructions on following the protocol, on complying with the uniform set of standards for the assessment of clinical and laboratory findings, and on completing the CRFs.” Interestingly, the purpose of an initiation as it is “To document the trial procedures were reviewed with the investigator and investigators trial staff.”

PI training and FDA risk-based guidance

Providing Instructions or Providing Training?

Providing instructions is rather different to providing training — a point well made Dr Robert Mager, world-renowned expert on training who said, “If telling was the same as training we’d all be so smart that we can hardly stand ourselves.” All those with an over weaning dependence on the use of the weapons of mass instruction, such as PowerPoint, would do well to read his works. But in the context of the training described by the FDA, particularly as it is directed towards clinicians, it is also helpful to consider an article in the British Medical Journal some years ago in relation to the teaching of doctors.

“There has always been an assumption that if a person simply knows a lot about their subject, they will be able to teach it.” Few persons responsible for providing effective teaching and/or training would disagree with this point of view. However, if it is truly the intent of the FDA that sponsors provide training then the latter would be wise to read that BMJ article in more detail, since it goes on to state that “understanding the learning process will help clinical teachers to be more effective.”

The real question is what the FDA expects sponsors to provide: a review of study specific procedures and documents coupled with feedback during monitoring visits, as stated in ICH GCP or training complete with intended learning outcomes and evaluations?
If you employ an architect and a builder to renovate your house you will ask them to provide plans and a schedule of work which comply with building regulations and other applicable regulatory requirements. Reviewing and agreeing their plans prior to implementation coupled with checking on their progress of their work would be the actions of the prudent — yet I wonder how many builders or architects would consider this training?

Fa·ci·lis de·scen·sus A·ver·no    [fah-ki-lis des-ken-soos ah-wer-noh; Eng. fas-uh-lis di-sen-suhs uh-vur-noh] Show IPA
Latin .
(the) descent to hell is easy; it is easy to take the downward path. Vergil, Aeneid, 6:126.

(From Dictionary.com)

====
Guidance for Industry: Oversight of Clinical Investigations — A Risk-Based Approach to Monitoring
====

How to comment to FDA: Here is a two-slide powerpoint presentation on how to comment on the draft guidance document courtesy of CDRH BIMO. Thanks!

Location of Monitoring guidance FR

====
Next week: Guest Commentary by Len Grunbaum and Emma Barsky on:
“One Way to Avoid a Warning Letter … Maybe“
====

clinical trials FDA monitoring guidanceThere have been some great comments on the GxP Perspectives LinkedIn group on the Draft FDA Risk-Based Monitoring guidance document and on protocol deviations. There is also a new logo for your viewing pleasure. I invite everyone to join the GxP Perspectives LinkedIn Group and join the discussion.

GxP Perspectives LinkedIn Group

GxP Perspectives on twitter: @GxPPerspectives

Follow GxPPerspectives on Twitter
====
On The Blogroll: Rebar Interactive has an excellent blog for clinical sites. If nothing else you MUST check out their post on:
“Patient Recruitment: Think That You Might Be Wrong,”
if for nothing else than the photo. A great blog post by Rahlyn.
====.
Please comment on the new draft guidance on Risk-Based Monitoring.

3 Comments | Commentaries by Guest Writers | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by GxP Perspectives

FDA Guidance on Risk-Based Monitoring, Part II

September 17, 2011

FDA risk based monitoring

New FDA Draft Guidance Document

FDA’s new draft Guidance for Industry: Oversight of Clinical Investigations — A
Risk-Based Approach to Monitoring (August 2011) is the subject of a great deal of discussion among clinical trial professionals. On the GCP LinkedIn group some have written about their concerns that “centralized monitoring” would severely limit a sponsor’s involvement with clinical sites. Others have pointed out that the emphasis on developing a monitoring plan should ensure that appropriate resources are tageted to where they are needed.

Two weeks ago GxP Perspectives published a Guest Commentary by Lorraine Ellis on the new draft guidance. This Guest Commentary by Judith Lynn, continues the discussion about the new draft guidance. She looks at FDA Warning Letters in developing her review and analysis.

Guest Commentary: A Risk-Based Approach To Monitoring

I reviewed the Recent Draft Guidance From FDA- A Risk-Based Approach To Monitoring with several information points in mind:

• Warning letters from FDA, including the JNJ /ICON letter of 8/10/09
• My own experiences reviewing Clinical Study Reports, conducting TMF review and mock audits
• FDA Compliance Program Guidance Manual 7348.811, Clinical Investigators

I try to view the instruction as meant to be helpful rather than another obstacle to overcome. I found that much of the draft guidance centers on managing your study, having a sampling plan, and ensuring quality. FDA mentions that both good protocol and CRF design is critically important, as well as having a monitoring plan that takes into account the specific study, and sponsors prior experience with the investigational product.

Onsite monitoring:

FDA risk based monitoring guidance

Seriously Ill or Vulnerable Populations

I am not convinced that onsite monitoring will go away. The sponsor obligation is to ensure the protection of human subjects, that sites conduct trials appropriately, and the data is auditable and accurate. Note the point in the draft guidance under section IV/ C, Factors to consider when developing a monitoring plan: that “a population that is seriously ill and/or vulnerable may require more intensive on-site monitoring to be sure appropriate protection is being provided”. This point speaks volumes as to the value FDA places in onsite monitoring.

Early phase monitoring:

The guidance states “For a product that has either a significant safety concern or for which there is no prior experience in humans, may require more intensive monitoring to ensure appropriate investigator oversight.” It is interesting that FDA specifically encourages sponsors to be onsite in earlier phase studies, when the Agency does not typically send their own investigators- remember, they investigate either for cause or pre-approval.

In my experience with both bioavailability and first in man studies, the value of being on-site to observe unexpected safety and protocol issues, and make immediate decisions regarding study conduct, has been critical. Examples:

• safety issues a healthy subject (recent army recruit) collapsed at a blood draw (was excluded); a site had urine/blood test machine not work and had to test offsite, affecting dosing times/schedules
• dose issues, a nasal sprayer malfunctioned for an intranasal product; patches expected to be study for 12-24 hours fell off almost immediately

Electronic Data

risk based monitoring FDA guidance

Electronic Case Report Forms

Using electronic CRFs is a great boon to the industry. It gives almost instant access to data that used to take months to enter, review, check for consistency and plausibility.

Data Checks that used to come only at the end of a study are available throughout: such as missing forms; out of window visits; other inconsistencies. Immediate data availability can be used to track study progress, investigator compliance (with visits, data entry, inclusion/exclusion), and detect possible troublesome data fields/labels for a single site or throughout a protocol. However, only the data entered is available for central review (remote).

Use data to identify anomalies:

FDA risk based monitoring guidance

Questions Raised During Data Review

During an audit for a sponsor preparing for an FDA inspection, I focused on 2 critical efficacy evaluations (a 20 minute physician evaluation and MRI scan, done at select study visits). I requested data management to calculate the number of procedures performed on the same day at a specific site. I found it very interesting when data management responded:

• 22 physician evaluations were performed on a single day (by the same physician)
• 15 MRI scans were performed on one day.

None of the monitoring visit reports mentioned this kind of scheduling, the requirements for calibrating MRI machines, or whether there was more than 1 machine at a site.

It may be worthwhile to spend more time during the study reviewing available study data. You may need to create customized reports to follow the metrics on your study. Consider the value of team review rather than individual review, in order to understand what your data may be indicating.

FDA warning letters often include observations that may be found during onsite monitoring:

fda

FDA Warning Letters

• Problems with original signatures on informed consent documents. Informed consent documents are not usually submitted to sponsors/monitors, but are reviewed during onsite visits.
• Non-serious adverse events were present in source documents that were not reported to the sponsor. Without onsite review, the sponsor cannot know what is missing.
• Inadequate records, including remarks regarding inappropriate delegation (unqualified person performing procedure or not signed/dated by investigator). Many sites around the world have paper records, and without onsite review, the sponsor cannot be aware of inadequacies.
• Inadequate accountability of the test article.

Monitoring plan considerations:

You may decide to reduce the number of onsite visits. Do this wisely. Ideally the monitoring plan is another tool that helps confirm the validity of your study data. Have your monitors perform activities onsite that cannot be performed remotely.
Source data: Often, only limited source data is available remotely for centralized review.

Finally, remember what the FDA is instructing their inspectors to do, and develop your plan in anticipation. The FDA inspection manual requires inspectors to:

• review logs of onsite monitoring visits
• describe the investigators source documents for legibility and completeness
• review the informed consent process.

Ideally the sponsor will not be surprised what is found when a Regulatory agency goes to the study site.

Judith Lynn, Pharmaceutical Consultant, September 2011

Read the Draft Guidance Document

====

How to comment to FDA: Here is a two-slide powerpoint presentation on how to comment on the draft guidance document courtesy of CDRH BIMO. Thanks!

Location of Monitoring guidance FR

The Federal Register Docket Number is FDA-2011-D-0597

====

Pacific Regional Chapter SQA Fall Training 10-11 November at Allergan in Irvine, CA. The training will feature a debate which should be an interesting development in training workshops: Debi Garvin, MS, RQAP-GLP and Paula Parsons: Debate: The role of CAPA in a GLP environment.

PRCSQA Fall Training

====

Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development: Article on Protocol Amendments: One Third can be avoided.

====

Training Opportunity:

training GxP

Audits & Risk Management

GxP Audit & Risk Management Congress: 20-21 October 2011, Philadelphia, PA. This conference combines both GMP and GCP tracks to maximize the opportunity for cross training, shared best practices, and networking. Two members of the GxP Perspectives LinkedIn group, Janice Wilson and Adi Lampmann, are among the faculty. The conference is sponsored by ExL Pharma and GxP Perspectives is a media partner.

GxP Audit & Risk Management Brochure

====

You can help out GxP Perspectives! Please let your colleagues and friends know about GxP Perspectives and the discussion on risk-based monitoring. I also encourage you to get an email subscription (on the sidebar to your right) or join the GxP Perspectives LinkedIn Group (below).

====

FDA vs. Dr. Oz: Should you be drinking apple juice? Television personality Dr. Oz says that there are dangerous levels of arsenic in apple juice. The FDA disagrees. They point out that the tests Dr. Oz conducts are for total arsenic, inorganic and organic, and only inorganic arsenic represents a danger to public health. Read the FDA press release for a detailed explanation.

====

On The Blogroll: PharmTech Talk discusses the Top Ten FDA 483 Observations for drug GMP inspections. Angie Drakulich reports that Numero Uno concerns Quality Control Units (QCUs).

My Perspective by Kathryn Davis, Clinical Development. In this new blog on WordPress Kathryn Davis discusses relevant issues including social media, GCP, and recruiting minorities in clinical trials.

The Dark Daily Laboratory and Pathology News

====

FDA Clinical Investigator Course,
7-9 November 2011, Silver Springs, MD

====

clinical trials FDA monitoring guidanceThere have been some great comments on the GxP Perspectives LinkedIn group on the Draft FDA Risk-Based Monitoring guidance document and on protocol deviations. There is also a new logo for your viewing pleasure. I invite everyone to join the GxP Perspectives LinkedIn Group and join the discussion.

GxP Perspectives LinkedIn Group

GxP Perspectives on twitter: @GxPPerspectives

Follow GxPPerspectives on Twitter
.
Please comment on the new draft guidance on Risk-Based Monitoring.

Leave a Comment » | Guidance Documents | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by GxP Perspectives

FDA Releases Draft Guidance for Monitoring Clinical Trials

September 4, 2011

FDA releases draft guidance document for monitoring clinical trials

FDA Draft Guidance Offers New Methods of Monitoring Clinical Trials

At long last, FDA has released a new draft guidance document for monitoring clinical trials. The previous FDA guidance document, Guideline for Monitoring Clinical Investigations (1988/1998) was withdrawn earlier this year. The new draft guidance document, FDA Guidance for Industry- Oversight of Clinical Investigations– A Risk-Based Approach (August 2011), discusses the changes in the way clinical trials are conducted and new methods of monitoring clinical trials. There is a 90-day comment period where members of industry, professional organizations, and the public can submit written commments to the agency for review and consideration.

In this Guest Commentary veteran monitoring specialist Lorraine Ellis gives her perspective on the new draft guidance for monitoring clinical trials.

Guest Commentary by Lorraine D. Ellis, MS, MBA

When I started monitoring, the Investigators completed CRFs from the source documents and there were few Clinical Research Coordinators (CRCs). Usually an office nurse or staff member would complete the forms when they had “free” time. Three decades later, sites, studies, and monitoring have changed significantly. Investigator sites must have significant study infrastructure (SOPs and facilities, etc) and trained/experienced staff to complete the complex trials of the 21st century. So it is significant that the 1988 Guidance document has been retired and the new guidance on monitoring describes FDA’s view on applying 21st century technology and methods to monitoring.

There are several key advances in this guidance. The guidance describes the term “centralized monitoring” for the many practices of using technology to review data off-site. This term and other FDA comments describe using “off-site” monitoring as one of the acceptable methods of monitoring data quality and study conduct. This guidance will intensify the discussions of “why do we need monitoring every 4 to 6 weeks with 100% source document verification” and “what is the best monitoring procedure for this study”. Also, FDA outlines more detailed monitoring plans as the risk based approach requires that monitoring approaches should be tailored to the trial.

clinical trial monitoring fda guidance document

Poorly Designed Protocols, CRFs, or Trial Instructions

FDA suggests a multi-factor approach to ensure data integrity, compliance and patient protection since there are many trial factors that can affect these trial elements besides monitoring. For example, poorly designed protocols, CRFs, or trial instructions could cause fatal trial errors despite extensive monitoring. Inadequate, incomplete or poor training of all involved in the trial, Investigators, staff, monitors etc., could also decrease study quality. The guidance encourages using various methods of study conduct review to assess these study elements as well as data quality.

The second half of the guidance provides information on monitoring plans and their expected content. Currently monitoring plan content and quality vary among Sponsors so this detailed section should increase monitoring plan quality and detail as it describes methods appropriate to the study. Since this guidance promotes custom monitoring plans based on variables of the study such as scope and complexity, these sections will assist Sponsors in designing and implementing those monitoring practices appropriate to the study.

FDA clinical trials guidance

"Greater Reliance on Centralized Monitoring"

One sentence will probably be surprising to some veteran monitors and Sponsors. “FDA encourages greater reliance on centralized monitoring practices than has been the case historically, with correspondingly less emphasis on on-site monitoring”. Many Sponsors that have instituted EDC and other technologies for data collection/review, have not decreased on-site monitoring time they continue to rely on the “gold standard” of visits every 4 to 6 weeks and 100% SDV. FDA does advise that at least one on-site monitoring visit should be done to ensure processes and procedures are in place at the site to ensure data quality. FDA continues that to use centralized monitoring properly, Sponsors need to develop methods and standard operating procedures so that site records, data entry, and data reporting follow well-defined procedures.

FDA guidance on clinical trials monitoring

Risk-Based Approach

FDA recommends that the monitoring plan is developed based on a risk assessment of the study complexity, study endpoints, disease complexity, geography, Investigator experience, EDC capabilities, Investigational product safety, study stage and quantity of data. After risk assessment, the Sponsor prepares a tailored monitoring plan for each study that will address that risk and outlines the multi-faceted approach to the trial. The plan, that includes monitoring procedures, monitoring responsibilities, and trial requirements, should be in sufficient detail so monitors and others involved can carry out their respective tasks correctly.

The plan should also include: monitoring methods, communication of monitoring findings, resolution of issues, training topics, training evaluation, and monitoring plan amendments.
It will be interesting to read the comments sent to FDA in the next 90 days. Some Sponsors will say “it’s about time” monitoring will be optimizing 21st century technology. Others may struggle with the changing of the “gold standard” of monitoring. In any case, this guidance may be the catalyst the industry needs to optimize monitoring methods and effectiveness.

FDA Guidance for Industry: Oversight of Clinical Investigations– A Risk-Based Approach

Visit Lorraine’s Website

====

How to comment: Here is a two-slide powerpoint presentation on how to comment on the draft guidance document courtesy of CDRH BIMO. Thanks!

Location of Monitoring guidance FR

The Federal Register Docket Number is FDA-2011-D-0597

====

You can help out GxP Perspectives! Please let your colleagues and friends know about GxP Perspectives and the discussion on risk-based monitoring. I also encourage you to get an email subscription (on the sidebar to your right) or join the LinkedIn group (below).

Please take a short 3-question survey to help GxP Perspectives improve! Survey begins 22 SEP 2011

====
On the Blogroll: Chromosome which features an excellent post on, “The Site’s Side,” by Jae Chung, founder of goBalto, Inc., located in San Francisco. The post discusses some of the problems clinical sites face with monitors.

On The Blogroll: On Biostatistics and Clinical Trials- Finally a blog on biostatistics that I can almost read:) It is written by Dr. Deng, 邓春勤 A Medical Doctor turned into Biostatistician in Clinical Trial and Drug Development Industry
====
clinical trials FDA monitoring guidanceThere have been some great comments on the GxP Perspectives LinkedIn group on the draft guidance document. There is also a new logo for your viewing pleasure. I invite everyone to join the GxP Perspectives LinkedIn Group and join the discussion.

GxP Perspectives LinkedIn Group

====
The FDA, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) is announcing an industry workshop entitled ‘‘CDER Small Business Assistance – Clinical Trials and Electronic Submissions.” This two day event will be held in two California locations consecutively. The first workshop will be held in Los Angeles, CA, on September 26-27, 2011, followed by a second in San Francisco, CA, on September 28-29, 2011.
====
This just in: Request for Comments- Exculpatory Language Used in Informed Consent, a joint FDA and OHRP draft guidance document (September 2011)
====
GxP Perspectives has returned to twitter: @GxPPerspectives

Follow GxPPerspectives on Twitter
.

4 Comments | Commentaries by Guest Writers | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by GxP Perspectives

« Previous Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 601 other followers