From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
Thank you Richard! ------------------------------ MARIA GUDIEL Brea CA United States ------------------------------

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
The short answer is "yes" provided that the development cell bank was the source for the GMP bank and is comparable in terms of performance. However, the devil is in details and you need to evaluate "comparability" carefully between the development bank and the GMP bank with respect to the characterization data you plan to use for, e.g., to support GMP bank for production, etc. Two ICH guidance documents are useful to look at, Q7 Table 1 and Q5D. The US FDA generally follows ICH guidance but EMA [More]

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
Dear Lee & Spyros, Many thanks for your invaluable advice - really appreciate your time in considering and providing deep insight. Kind regards, Roy Jamieson (BPharm Hons) Regulatory CMC Consultant

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
Hi Beverly, To find out details on EUAs go to the FDA website central for EUAs at  https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/emergency-situations-medical-devices/emergency-use-authorizations#coronavirus2019.    They are pumping out lots of them pretty quickly.  Each type of EUA has different requirements and FDA is flexible depending on the EUA you are looking for.  Timelines are not specific I just asked that question of one of my connections at the FDA today.  They are giving priority to more technically [More]

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
I have not seen anything, but during the interactive EUA process FDA were very clear that we need to continue with 510[k] preparation and offered supportive and constructive comments of where additional information would be needed. Although the EUA team are very busy, they see it as mutually beneficial, well actually in everybody's interests, to help us to a cleared status as soon as possible and the level of interactive engagement has been great. I am not convinced any general guidance would have [More]

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
This message was posted by a user wishing to remain anonymous Dear RAPS members, I am preparing a submission for a device that has no special controls and we have identified the following standards to name a few. 62304-  ANSI AAMI IEC   62304:2006/A1:2016 62366-1:2015-  Medical Devices - Part 1: Application Of Usability Engineering To Medical Devices 14971- Medical Devices - Applications Of Risk Management To Medical Devices I am trying to see what approach will be good. Should I prepare a DOC or [More]

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
I disagree with Richard. I just had a conversation with the COVID-19 hotline (11:45 am, May 7) and asked about this issue after having read an update from the FDA that said UDIs for EUA devices are waived and GMPs are under limited enforcement. The person I spoke with said the update is correct and that UDIs are waived for EUA devices.  Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.  Bob Bard ------------------------------ Robert Bard JD, RAC [Managing Director] South Lyon MI United States - [More]

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
This message was posted by a user wishing to remain anonymous I'd recommend a statement that you are using these standards as general use. A Declaration of Conformity allows you to submit less testing information, but FDA still may request it. In the case of the standards you mentioned, FDA will require that information (e.g. software documentation, risk management, etc). So I would not bother with the DoC as you still have to submit all that material. Here was a nice thread discussing the topic [More]

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
Bob, I stand corrected; if you confirmed with FDA that is good.  From what I was reading and seeing (I must have missed that update) there was nothing addressing UDI or no UDI.for EUA products.  (Personally I am a bit surprised at this since the whole concept of UDI is traceability and they waive this for emergency use products - when there is an issue this is where UDI becomes so important.  Shrugs.) ------------------------------ Richard Vincins RAC Vice President Global Regulatory Affairs --- [More]

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
Hello Richard, Yesterday, I received a follow up from the Hotline (CDRH-EUA-Templates ) to my query. I was reminded that the waiver to good manufacturing practice and labeling requirements were included in the individual authorization letter. The person responding to my question concerning the UDI requirement provided the following: UDI is not specifically noted; however we are not enforcing UDI during the emergency. The specific authorization letter I was reviewing was for [More]

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
Hello Anonymous  You will be generating software documents (which is data of a sort), in accordance  with  ANSI-AAMI IEC 62304, and there is output from ISO 14971 which goes into the submission.   I just think DoCs are wasteful busy time and would do as few as possible. Regarding IEC 62366-1, maybe if you want mention it and do a DoC, but if the device  usability  study is not required in a submission don't  put it in there unless asked.  Just my opinion. Biocompatibility if used, is generating test [More]

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
Thank you!!! Good to know that everyone is having a wonderful interactive experience. --------------------------------- Beverly Whitaker Beaufort SC United States ---------------------------------

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
Hello, I agree with Ginger, when you look at standards there will most likely be an output of documents from following those standards, i.e. risk management file, usability report, all the software documentation.  These would be included in the different sections of the 510(k) so you can claim them as recognised standards you are following.  I have mentioned in previous posts, we take a simple approach for the declaration of conformity to standards that is a small table describing what we are complying, [More]

Is data integrity music to your ears?  Ours, too!

ALCOA, GAMP, Part 11, GIGO, we cover it all.
(Sung to the tune of Simon and Garfunkel's "The Sound of Silence.")

By Laurie Meehan

“I can’t get the IWRS to assign a kit number.”

“My ECG reports take forever to come back from the Core Lab.”

“The eCRF won’t let me create a new subject.”

“This stupid machine is blinking an error code again.”

Sound familiar?  Sprinkle in some colorful adjectives and it probably does -- these problems are common enough at clinical research sites.  Equipment and systems have become increasingly technical and specialized, and study site staff has had to contend with more technology than ever before.  And because of the proliferation of niche vendors who provide the new tech, sites have had to deal with more vendors than ever before, too.  



And how are problems like these typically resolved?  Someone at the study site works his/her way through a list of maybe 20 or more vendor contact numbers, places a call, navigates a series of menu options, and hopefully gets directed to someone who can help.  And that assumes the site calls the right company; with tightly integrated systems, it’s not always obvious in which vendor’s system the problem lies.  This is frustrating for sites.  It takes time.  It costs money (since “vendor wrangling” is seldom sufficiently covered in the budget).  And it keeps study staff from doing what study staff does best – run the study, work with the study volunteers, and keep them safe.

So what’s the solution? 

Hint: It’s Not Training
Calm down.  Of course, adequate training on equipment and systems is important. But training doesn’t solve every problem.  Training doesn’t keep equipment from malfunctioning.  Training doesn’t ensure vendors deliver what and when they’ve promised.  Training can’t anticipate every situation nor address an unusual site circumstance.  And training doesn’t turn people into infallible little machines; we make mistakes.  And so, in all these cases, we’re back to site personnel interacting with perhaps scores of vendors, by phone or email, all over the world.

The Solution: a Single Point of Contact
Q: How do you help sites interact with dozens of vendors?
A:  You don’t.  You do it for them.  Establish a single point of contact within the Sponsor* organization for a site to call when vendor issues arise. 

Why is this a good idea when the expertise to resolve the issue lies with the vendor?  Why is this a good idea when the introduction of a middleman may result in some inefficiencies?

Excellent questions.  Here are our responses. 

• Better Vendor Oversight.  When sites filter their vendor issues through the Sponsor, the Sponsor can more easily track vendor performance.  Are there vendors that provide low-quality solutions, are repeatedly late, or difficult to deal with?  At best, these vendors are wasting time and money, and aren’t good for business (let alone site relations).  At worst, these vendors are jeopardizing subject safety or study data integrity, and require immediate Sponsor intervention.

• Better Site Oversight.  When sites filter their vendor issues through the Sponsor, the Sponsor can more easily track site performance.  Are there sites that routinely use equipment and computer systems incorrectly?  (Yes, now’s the time for that training.)  Are there high-performing sites that are able to work independently?  This information has always been important, but in an RBM paradigm, it’s essential.  Adaptive monitoring plans rely on on-going site performance measurements so Sponsors can adjust resources accordingly.  A reduction in monitoring visits means less opportunity to assess a site’s comfort level with study technology.  The corollary of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is “if you don’t know it’s broke, you can’t fix it.”

• Ability to Identify Pervasive Problems. After the third or fourth site reports the same problem, it’s clear that this is not an isolated occurrence.  Knowing that, the Sponsor can work with the vendor to resolve the problem before other sites experience the same troubles.

• Better Functioning Sites.  We have a saying: “The Site Comes First."™  In our experience, all things being equal, Sponsors that put their sites first -- make things as easy as possible for the study coordinators -- get the best results.  They also build the good relationships that keep the best sites coming back to work on future studies.

• Better Functioning Vendors.  The efficiencies for the vendor here are clear.  Who wouldn’t rather interact with a single point of contact than field individual calls from multiple study sites?  Plus, with far fewer players, miscommunicating both problem descriptions and problem solutions is less likely to occur.  The Sponsor contact and the vendor contacts will eventually settle into common terminology and build a history regarding past issues and resolutions.

What Do You Think?
We know that not everyone espouses this idea, and we recognize there are probably other effective processes out there.  Sponsors, how do you help your sites deal with multiple vendors?  Sites, do you have experiences and/or suggestions you can share?  (Be kind, anonymize!)  Leave a comment here, visit our website, or send us an email.




____________________
*When we use the term “Sponsors” in this post, we’re including CROs that take on Vendor Management responsibilities on behalf of Sponsors.

Impossible to write a love song about FDA warehousing regulations, you say?
Challenge accepted.

(Sung to the tune of Billy Joel's "She's Always A Woman.")

Protocol trumps practice. This principle seems clear enough, but complying with it is not always as straight-forward as it sounds. Years of practicing medicine has reinforced the way a physician responds to medical situations. But do these responses run counter to the investigational plan? Can a site’s commitment to standard of care affect its ability to meet enrollment targets?


There’s a lot to consider.



What’s Your Standard of Care?
When deciding whether or not to conduct a particular study, a PI needs to verify that the protocol is aligned with practice norms. For example, an early phase trial might exclude a medication that is part of a practice’s routine therapy. Is the study placebo-controlled? Does it feature a specific comparator drug? Will it include a washout period? Any of these elements could present enrollment challenges or preclude a site from accepting a study at all. Responsible sites want to make thoughtful decisions about study suitability; they want to provide realistic enrollment estimates. Sponsors want this too, and can help sites do both these things by providing them a sufficient level of detail about protocol procedures as early as possible.


The Road to Deviations is Often Paved with Good Intentions
Therapeutic misconception – a well-documented phenomenon in clinical research – occurs when a study participant “fails to appreciate the distinction between the imperatives of clinical research and of ordinary treatment.”* Study participants are not alone in this. Researchers blur the distinction themselves when they conduct procedures that are consistent with clinical care but deviate from the protocol. This may be particularly true for PIs who recruit participants from their own practices. An endocrinologist might ordinarily reduce dosage for a particularly diminutive patient. A pulmonologist would often skip a scheduled chest x-ray she felt wasn’t needed to avoid exposing her patient to unnecessary radiation. An orthopedic surgeon may decide his patient needs more recovery time than usual before attempting her first walk. In a clinical care setting, these decisions are sound, made in an individual patient’s best interest. In a clinical trial, if they differ from the investigational plan and haven’t been approved by the Sponsor, they’re protocol deviations.**

It May be Par for the Course, But It's Still an AE
Specialists who have experience treating particular conditions are also familiar with the complications that ordinarily accompany them. A nephrologist, for instance, knows that a patient with end-stage renal disease frequently experiences bloat from a buildup of fluid between dialysis sessions. Though useful for a doctor treating patients, this knowledge can actually work against a doctor running a trial. How? A PI may fail to report a stomach ache as an AE because it’s so typical, so expected. “Bloat is common for renal patients. If I recorded every GI incident, I’d be recording AEs all day.” At its surface, this PI’s argument sounds reasonable, but what if the study drug itself is contributing to the participant’s discomfort? In order to assess the drug’s gastrointestinal effect, the PI must document the frequency and severity of all GI events.

Lab values that are either above or below normal range are also prime candidates for AE underreporting. “Of course the participant’s liver enzyme is high – we’re testing a cholesterol drug.”

The Importance of Study Oversight
Any GCP course worth its registration fee will discuss the distinction between standard of care and the study protocol. In practice, the distinction is not always as obvious as training sessions might suggest. This is where well-trained CRAs come in. As site monitors, CRAs are in a position to catch deviations that result from lapses into standard of care. Reading through progress notes, a monitor can ensure that any untoward medical event has been reported as an Adverse Event. They can verify that procedures conducted by the PI and site staff are compliant with the protocol. Then, by reviewing which types of data must be collected and emphasizing the importance of following certain protocol procedures, monitors can take the opportunity to re-educate study personnel and help them avoid these common pitfalls.

_______________________________________________________________________
* Lidz CW, Appelbaum PS (2002) The therapeutic misconception: problems and solutions. Med Care 40: V55-V63.

**Andrew Snyder of the HealthEast Care System wrote a thoughtful piece describing the compatibilities that do exist between clinical care and clinical research. His arguments provide a useful counterpoint to the issues we’re raising here. https://firstclinical.com/journal/2017/1707_Research_vs_Care.pdf

A version of this article originally appeared in InSite, the Journal of the Society for Clinical Research Sites.

True or False:

(1) eSource in clinical trials means eliminating the possibility for transcription errors.

(2) Data collected in Electronic Data Capture (EDC) systems is eSource.

Strictly speaking, both statements are false. If that surprises you, it’s probably because many casual uses of the term “eSource” actually differ from the formal definition laid out by FDA. If the participants in any discussion share the same interpretation of “eSource”, or if it’s clear from context how “eSource” is being used, then no harm, no foul. (Contemporary translation: “Meh.”) BUT…and you know where we’re going with this…when a term can be interpreted in multiple ways, there’s always a possibility for miscommunication and cross talk.



FDA Guidance on eSource in Clinical Investigations
FDA defines eSource as *any* data initially recorded in electronic format. That’s a broad definition, one that includes:
     a) equipment-generated data, such as digital imaging and labs
     b) electronic Patient Reported Outcome (ePRO) transmissions
     c) data streams from mobile health devices, such as Apple ResearchKit
     d) data entered directly into an EDC, known as Direct-Data-Entry (DDE) solutions
     e) data entered into an Electronic Health Record (EHR) or electronic Medical Record (EMR) system


Discussion of Direct-Data-Entry (DDE)
DDE systems allow research staff members to use portable devices to enter study data directly into an EDC system. DDEs have been garnering a lot of industry attention of late, and a number of companies offer solutions that offer a DDE data flow. As independent 3rd party auditors, we don’t want to play favorites by mentioning specific systems as examples, but if your company sells or uses a DDE system that you want to highlight, feel free to add a comment below to give it a shout out.

Discussion of EMR/EDC Integration
Not long after finalizing its e-Source guidance, FDA hosted a webinar that encouraged companies to explore direct EMR/EDC integration. While a few industry players have taken up the effort, movement has been slow. One difficulty: generally EMRs are built with healthcare in mind, not clinical research. Secondly, with so many EMR and EDC vendors, ensuring that EMR data from one system is mapped to appropriate EDC fields in another system relies heavily on data standards that are still being defined and need to be implemented on both sides. 

Source Data Verification (SDV)
If data is transmitted directly from the source system to an Electronic Data Collection (EDC) system, SDV is not required, since the source data isn’t being transcribed manually. (Note: other types of Source Data Review (SDR) activities are still necessary, even if SDV isn’t. SDR must be conducted to verify ALCOA-C data principles such as attribution, originality, accuracy, completeness, etc.) Direct transmission from source system to EDC system is the typical pathway for items (a) – (d) above, and so SDV is not required for these types of eSource.


Common Confusions
SDV. Unless there is EMR/EDC integration – Item (e) above – source data from an EMR system needs to be manually transcribed. This is what makes T/F question #1 false. Just because source data originates in an EMR, it does *not* suggest SDV checks are superfluous. You could argue, as many have, that SDV is not a high-value activity and uncovers only a small percent of data error. That argument may well influence how much SDV is conducted, but whenever data is transcribed from original source into an EDC system, SDV is a relevant discussion.

EDC Data. It’s not unusual for someone to refer to data stored in EDCs as eSource. Data stored in EDCs are electronic, and may be source, but only if the EDC is the first place the data is recorded. This is what makes T/F question #2 false.

In Summary
If you’re ever in a discussion about eSource and things start going sideways, it may be time to haul out the formal definition of eSource -- in all its tedious detail -- to make sure everyone is using the term the same way. 

_____________________________________________________

Image Credit: Paradox by Brett Jordan

    WARNING LETTER

VIA UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
SIGNATURE REQUIRED

December 1, 2018

Mr. Kris Kringle, Owner
Santa’s Workshop, LLC
1225 Santa Clause Way
North Pole, Arctic Circle
 
Dear Mr. Kringle:

The U.S. FDA inspected your manufacturing facility, Santa’s Workshop, LLC at
1225 Santa Claus Way, North Pole Arctic Circle, from April 2 to April 20, 2018.

This warning letter summarizes significant violations of CGMP regulations for finished product. See 21 CFR, parts 210 and 211. During our inspection, our investigators observed specific violations including, but not limited to, the following.

CGMP Violations

1.    Your firm failed to ensure that each person engaged in the manufacture, processing, packing, or holding of product has the education, training, and experience, or any combination thereof, to enable that person to perform his or her assigned functions (21 CFR 211.25(a) and 211.28).

Many members of your Enterprise Labor Force (ELF) unit lacked sufficient prior experience for designing and assembling (b)(4). At the time of our inspection, no ELF members had received training on CGMPs, and most were unaware of their responsibilities in the areas of cleanliness and proper attire. Hands and faces were often coated with chocolate, and bells on hats and shoes prevented protective apparel from attaining a proper fit. More generally, factory staff demonstrated an undisciplined, almost gleeful disregard for quality procedures. On three separate occasions, at critical stages of the manufacturing process, floor workers erupted into spontaneous song and dance.



Your written response of May 18, 2018 is inadequate because it does not address these training and experience deficiencies. While endearing, the ability to “sit on a shelf” or “live in a hollow tree” does not constitute acceptable manufacturing experience. Candy coating does not qualify as protective covering. And sticking one’s hands in a nearby snowdrift is not a recognized sanitation procedure. “Pure as the driven snow” is not a thing. Especially with all those reindeer knocking about.

2.    Your firm failed to maintain a system by which the distribution of each lot of product can be readily determined to facilitate its recall if necessary (21 CFR 211.150(b)).

Product distribution records were incomplete and, in the event of a recall, would be insufficient to identify all product recipients.

Your written response of May 18, 2018 is inadequate. Santa’s Own Procedures (SOPs) are insufficient to capture the information required to conduct a thorough recall.  Mr. Kringle may well know which customers are naughty and which are nice -- who’s good, who’s bad, who’s sleeping, and who’s awake, but this information is not written down and, in the opinion of our investigators, would be of limited value if it were.

3.    Your firm failed to store product at an appropriate temperature to ensure the identity, strength, quality, and purity of the products are not affected (21 CFR 211.142(b)).

Entire sections of the facility lacked effective air conditioning, resulting in destruction of all (b)(4) warehoused in two large storage rooms. A third inadequately cooled room was not in use, and except for some miscellaneous items – a couple hunks of coal, a corncob pipe, and a large, oddly sad puddle of water – the room was all but empty.

Your written response of May 18, 2108 was inadequate. FDA isn’t really sure what to do with “that old silk hat we found” in your response package.

4.    Products failing to meet established standards or specifications and any other relevant quality control criteria shall be rejected. Reprocessing may be performed (21 CFR 211.165(f)).

While not strictly a violation of 21 CFR 211.165(f), the rejection and quarantining procedures your firm follows for products that fail to meet established criteria is concerning. While it’s appropriate to reject a (b)(4) that swims, a (b)(4) with square wheels, a (b)(4) that shoots jelly, and a (b)(4) that rides an ostrich, exile to a remote island ruled by a flying lion is, in a word, extreme. Your firm also rejected and exiled a (b)(4)-in-a-box for what was almost certainly an easily remediated labeling problem; reprocessing would have been a more appropriate course of action. Also, we just have to know. Seriously. WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THE DOLLY???

5.    Your firm failed to establish adequate acceptance criteria for sampling and testing necessary to assure that batches of product meet appropriate specifications as a condition of their approval and release (21 CFR 211.165(d)).

Sampling procedures consisted of pulling each finished batch of (b)(4) out of a hot oven, taking a few nibbles, and declaring it “Jingle-icious.” Testers would frequently adulterate samples by submersing and saturating them with milk. These procedures are totally without scientific rigor. Furthermore, sampling was not restricted to members of the Quality Control Unit, but was extended to the entire plant floor. At times, sampling frequency was so high that there was very little, if any, of (b)(4) left to distribute. (On a personal note, our investigators would like to express their appreciation for the opportunity to participate in the testing activity. All the batches they sampled exceeded the strictest statistical quality control criteria, excepting the fruitcake, which could have benefited from additional stability testing and an earlier expiry date.)

Conclusion

Violations in this letter are not intended as an all-inclusive list. Typically the manufacturer is responsible for investigating violations, determining their root causes, and preventing their recurrence. However, in this case we’re going to make an exception. Though your methods and procedures are unconventional and frequently out of compliance with regulations, they are not wholly without merit. Our investigators have never experienced such a high level of workplace morale -- some calling it “downright merry” – and believe it warrants further observation. Investigators have suggested a series of mutually consultative visits to your workshop. Music, dance, batch samples, reindeer games, and the occasional adulterated eggnog are highly encouraged.

Sincerely,
/S/
Holly Bush
Division Director/OPQO Division I
North Pole District Office

Q: Do study site personnel need to be able to answer questions about sponsor-provided computer systems during an inspection?

A: Yes, and there’s a simple thing that sponsors and CROs can do to prepare their sites.

This excerpt was lifted from an online, interactive course entitled “Developing a Part 11 Compliance Plan in Clinical Research.” While the course mainly targeted sponsors and CROs, who have the heaviest regulatory burden in this area, sites also have Part 11 and validation concerns, as demonstrated by this question.

Presenter Lisa Olson, a CSV/Part 11 expert with Polaris Compliance Consultants, briefly described her recommendation, which is both simple and effective. (And since that is total catnip to a compliance blogger, I interviewed her after her presentation to develop the following piece.)

So here it is. Here’s what she said...

Clinical research sites rely heavily on technology to store and manage study data, so regulators are focusing on computer systems and electronic data more than ever before. Many of the systems – such as Electronic Data Collection (EDCs), Interactive Response Technology (IRTs), and e-diaries – are selected and largely controlled by sponsors, CROs, and/or third-party vendors. That doesn’t mean, however, that site staff won’t be expected to answer questions about these systems during a regulatory inspection. Quite the contrary: site personnel are responsible for the integrity of the data these systems house. They need to be able to demonstrate the knowledge required to meet their regulatory obligations.

No one is expecting site staff to be computer specialists; the expertise on these systems resides within the sponsor/CRO/vendor organizations. But the better a site can satisfy a basic, frontline inquiry into the systems it uses, the less likely it is that an inspector will pursue additional lines of questions.

So how can sponsors and CROs help?

They can provide a set of short summaries (one page per system) that answer the questions regulators are likely to ask site staff members. Filed in the Investigator Site File (ISF), ready for use, these summaries will be valuable resources.


The Basics

First, sponsors/CROs should supply identifying information: the name of the system, the vendor, the version of the system currently being used, and a few sentences that describe what the system does.
User Access and Control

To ensure both data integrity and compliance with Part 11 e-record/e-signature regulation, it’s essential that access to a system be controlled and data entry/updates be traceable to a specific person. To that end, the one-pager should describe how unique logins are assigned and how users are restricted to activities appropriate to their roles in the study. A monitor requires read-only access to an EDC system. A study coordinator needs to be able to enter and change EDC data. A Principal Investigator must be able to sign electronic Case Report Forms (CRFs). The role determines the access. Staff should also be able to briefly describe how an audit trail captures metadata that show what data were entered/altered, by whom, and when. (And someone, though not everyone, needs to be able to demonstrate how the audit trail can be used to piece together the “story of the data.” That, however, is too much to ask from our one-pager.)

Validation 101

It would be unusual for site personnel to have detailed knowledge of Computer System Validation (CSV) activities. Nevertheless, the one-pager could include a single line that confirms that the system was validated and by whom. A contact number could be included in case a regulator asks for more information or wants to see validation documents.

Where’s The Data?

Regulators will often ask where system data are stored. The answer to that question can be a simple sentence: The data are hosted by the EDC vendor at such-and-such location, or stored at the CRO, or sit on a local server within the site’s IT department.

Finally, the last line of our one-pager could be a simple statement prepared by the sponsor, CRO, or vendor, confirming that the data are protected wherever they are being stored. The data center is secure and environmentally controlled; the data are backed up to protect against loss; the system is accessed via the web through an encrypted channel -- whatever protections apply.

Conclusion

Regulators are increasingly focused on the integrity of study-related data, and that means added scrutiny of electronic systems and records. More inspections are being conducted mid-study so regulators can evaluate and ask about live systems in current operation. It’s very difficult for sites to field these questions without help from the organizations who make the decisions and have the expertise.

It’s okay to tell an inspector, “I don’t know.” (And it’s always preferable to admit that than to improvise an answer.) But say it too many times, and it casts doubt on a site’s ability to produce and maintain reliable study data. That’s in no one’s interest.

It shouldn’t be overly burdensome to develop a one-page summary sheet for each system so site personnel can address an inspector’s questions on the spot. The Investigator Meetings or Site Initiation Visits would be a good opportunity for sites to raise this point with their sponsors/CROs.

Lisa Olson will be giving an encore presentation of “Developing a Part 11 Compliance Plan in Clinical Research,” on March 24th. She describes all the elements that regulators and clients will be expecting, and since sponsors and CROs can’t implement everything all at once, Lisa prioritizes the activities necessary for developing your plan. You can register for the online course, sponsored by the Life Science Training Institute, here. Use the promotion code olson to receive a 10% discount.

Over the years, attendees of MAGI Clinical Research Conferences have collected a set of practical, actionable suggestions for improving clinical trials. More than eighty such tips appear in the July 2019 edition of Journal of Clinical Research Best Practices*.  In this post, Polaris auditors weigh in on some of their favorite MAGI suggestions. Surprising no one, they also were eager to share some of their own.

Our Favorites Tips from MAGI

So how does a clinical trial tip earn a spot on our exalted Faves List?  First, it must be something we don’t see too often, or not as much as we’d like.(If most organizations already do a useful thing, it doesn’t really qualify as a helpful tip; it’s really just a common practice.) Second, the effort to implement the tip can’t be too onerous. If a practice requires too much interdepartmental coordination, change management, training, money, or resources, it’s not a tip. It’s a full-blown initiative.

So here they are. Each tip from MAGI attendees is in bold font. Our accompanying commentary is in plain text:

• To help ensure quality study conduct, clinical sites should prepare protocol-specific quality checklists for each study. We’ve written about quality checklists from the auditing perspective before. They’re not a panacea, certainly, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be very useful.
  
  
• After study close-out, sponsors and CROs should consider holding conference calls with groups of sites to capture lessons learned. This in turn could be used to improve training, SOPs, SIVs, etc.
  
  
• As a recruitment aid, clinical sites should create pocket-sized, laminated study cards that list the inclusion/exclusion criteria for a study.  Site staff members can keep these cards in their lab coat pockets and quickly refer to them when treating a patient who could be a potential subject.
  
  
• CROs should share risk assessments and mitigation plans with Sponsors. We agree, but would also encourage CROs to keep the sites involved and aware of risks so they can anticipate them and proceed accordingly.
  
  
• Sponsors/CROs should ensure proper qualifications of vendors prior to executing contracts. It’s hard to argue with this logic, but we don’t see it as much as we should. Too often qualification audits come after the paperwork has been signed. Should the audit uncover noncompliance or quality risks at the vendor site, it’s much harder to get the vendor to make necessary changes after the contract is in place.
  
  
• CROs should align 3rd party contracts with the Sponsor/CRO contract and the Clinical Trial Agreement. Yep.

Additional Tips from Polaris QA/Compliance Auditors

The MAGI list of clinical trial tips brought others to mind that we wanted to share. We applied the same criteria to these suggestions as we did to the MAGI contributions: (1) not necessarily rare, but not as common as it could be, and (2) not overly complex or expensive to implement.

• When evaluating outsourcing partners and clinical sites, Sponsors and CROs should make sure to look at personnel turnover rates. Frequent turnovers may suggest underlying problems that could jeopardize study conduct and quality.
  
  
• Sponsors and CROs should make sure their Monitoring Report templates are consistent with the Clinical Monitoring Plan (CMP). For example:
  
  
• The CMP calls for a focus on a particular set of critical variables, but the report template only has a place for recording that 100% SDV was completed. This means that there’s no way to document that the monitor put special emphasis on anything.
• The CMP requires bi-direction review of study data – a confirmation that what is in the CRF can be verified in the source, and all pertinent data in the source can be found in the CRF – but the report template only allows for the former to be documented.
  
  
• Every member of the site team has valuable input. It’s important to include the study PI, CRC, pharmacist, and other key personnel in the discussions. In 2017, we wrote an article about the important, yet often overlooked, input that the pharmacist on site can provide.
  
  
• There are many reasons that trial participants leave a study, many of which can’t be remedied with improved site practices. But sites that demonstrate they value the participation of their study volunteers, and honor the time they’re spending and contribution they’re making, tend to have better retention results. To that end:
  
  
• To help participants schedule their time, sites can prepare calendars that include all study visit dates and indicate the activities and procedures they entail. (This, of course, needs to be approved by the IRB).
• When participants arrive, they shouldn’t have to sit in a waiting room or empty exam room; they should be seen immediately so they don’t feel their time is being wasted.
• Sites can provide beverages and light snacks to their study participants who especially appreciate them immediately after a fasting blood draw (protocol permitting, naturally). It’s a small courtesy, and not difficult to do. Whose day isn’t brightened by a proffered nosh?**

Uh oh. Now we got you all thinking about mini muffins and cheddar popcorn. Go ahead. Grab a treat. We'll talk later.

________________________________________________________________
 * Journal of Clinical Research Best Practices, July 2019

** Proffered Nosh™ would be a really great name for a restaurant. Or a fictional Scotland Yard Inspector -- legendary for his wit, brilliance, wine pairings, and fashion sense.

Vertex Pharmaceuticals announced a plan late Tuesday to begin trials before the end of the year of the third in its so-called “triple combo” of pills designed to treat as much as 90 percent of the 75,000 patients worldwide who suffer from cystic fibrosis. That news, announced in conjunction with the Boston-based drugmaker’s third-quarter financial results last night, spurred a 6 percent stock increase after hours, implying the company’s market cap could increase by about half a billion dollars…

On Friday, 21 emerging medical device companies will present their technologies and business plans to a group of local investors at the annual MedTech Showcase, hosted by the Massachusetts Medical Device Industry Council. More than 300 venture leaders and business leaders are expected to attend the event tomorrow, Oct. 28 from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. at the Westin Waltham, 70 Third Ave. As a main event, John McDonough, president and CEO of Lexington-based T2 Biosystems (Nasdaq: TTOO), will be interviewed…

Editor's note: This story was originally published Friday morning, and has been updated to reflect the FDA's decision regarding the drug later that day. A U.S. approval decision for a major drug planned to be marketed by Cambridge-based Sanofi Genzyme that had been expected last Friday has been delayed due to “deficiencies” found during a manufacturing site inspection in France. In its third quarter report, released Friday morning, French drugmaker Sanofi (NYSE: SNY) disclosed that “manufacturing…

• Independent Data Monitoring Committee recommended continuing ongoing Phase 3 trial only in the more advanced “critical” group with Kevzara higher-dose versus placebo and discontinuing less advanced “severe” group

- Libtayo decreased the risk of death by 32.4% compared to chemotherapy

Objective responses seen in 29% of patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma (BCC)

Do we ever learn from our past mistakes? For many years we believed that technology was an inevitable force for good. It would give us instant access to a near infinite amount of information and allow us to easily and instantly connect with nearly anyone on earth. What could go wrong? The answer is that...

Click here to continue reading...

US-based drugmaker Mylan and partner India-based biologicals specialist Biocon have announced the launch of their pegfilgrastim biosimilar, Fulphila, in Australia. The drug can be used to treat neutropenia (a lack of white blood cells) in cancer patients.

There are major regulatory lapses in the manufacturing of similar biologics in India. The use of scientific audits could strengthen the regulatory system and improve the provision of high quality biosimilars in the country, according to a recent opinion piece [1] by Dr GR Soni, which was published in GaBI Journal.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first generic version of a commonly used inhaler, marketed as Proventil, and the anti-parasitic Daraprim, which has previously been the subject of a price gouging scandal.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, authorities in Australia and the European Union have allowed drug producers to collaborate to ensure medicine production and supply.

US-based drugmaker Mylan and partner, India-based biologicals specialist Biocon, announced on 28 April 2020 the launch of their pegfilgrastim biosimilar, Fulphila, in Canada. This is the second biosimilar from the pair to be launched in the country.

Top-line: The Congressional schedule and work practices are uncertain over the next few months, leaving many questions about whether and how appropriations bills will move forward. There is a possibility that increased funding at public health agencies, including FDA, may be exempt from FY 21 budget caps. The Alliance’s meeting with Dr. Boon, FDA Associate Commissioner […]

The Alliance met (virtually) on April 15 with Dr. Caitlin Boon, FDA Associate Commissioner for Food Policy and Response and several of her colleagues. She described CFSAN’s and CVM’s role in responding to the current pandemic, as well as how the agency is assuring a continued safe food supply. About 50% of food spending in the […]

Top-Line: There is no new information about the appropriations schedule for Congress. The House will require a rules change for appropriators to work remotely. The death of former FDA Commissioner Donald Kennedy is noted. More on FDA’s extraordinary efforts to address food safety and supply issues. Eventually, Congress will need to address FY 21 funding and […]

Q: Congress must act on FY 21 appropriations. What are the possible ways for Congress to address this? A: Congress must decide if they will do substantive work on the 12 appropriations bills with the goal of passing full-year funding bills before October 1. One alternative would be to fund the beginning of the fiscal year […]

Top-Line: This week we look at House and Senate schedules for returning to DC and starting on the FY 21 appropriations process. This week’s Analysis and Commentary explores the reasons why advances in science and technology foretell that FDA will need significant additional funding in FY 21. This column focuses on vaccine development. Senate Returns […]

Top-line: Congress is inching forward on the FY 21 appropriations process. However, neither the House nor the Senate has adopted rules permitting virtual committee mark-ups. Also hanging over the process is the tight budget ceiling for non-defense discretionary (NDD) programs. Various ways it might be solved and implications for FDA are discussed in this week’s Analysis […]

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Five lawmakers introduced a bipartisan bill giving a full range of medical services to families with children who have life-limiting illnesses and who qualify for Medicaid, which currently has gaps in such coverage.

The Children’s Program of All-Inclusive Coordinated Care (ChiPACC) Act (H.R. 6560) would let states create comprehensive care programs for these children. Its authors are the Co-Chairs of the Congressional Childhood Cancer Caucus: Representatives Michael McCaul (R-TX), Jackie Speier (D-CA), G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), and Mike Kelly (R-PA), together with Representative Diana DeGette (D-CO), a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

“Families with children facing life-limiting illnesses need all the support they can get, and they should be empowered to seek out that support,” the bill’s sponsors said in a joint statement. “We owe it to these kids and their loved ones to help ensure more compassionate care in their most trying times.”

Gaps in Medicaid coverage of hospice and palliative services have deprived many beneficiaries of the care they need because the program does not cover some of children’s unique medical needs.

Under this bill, the family of every child who qualifies for Medicaid will receive a specialized care plan covering a range of services – palliative, counseling, respite, expressive therapy and bereavement – providing them and their families greater comfort and peace of mind.

###

 

Rick Bright confirmed as having left his position as director of BARDA as the agency provides aid to develop solutions for COVID-19.