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 Hello, Does anyone know how long FDA's EUA process takes for approval compared to a 510k.  EUA seems to ask a lot of the same information that a 510k requests so not clear on what the benefits are or if it's worthwhile.  I assume you will eventually have to achieve traditional market clearance at some point. Any insight would be most appreciated. Thank you.

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
This message was posted by a user wishing to remain anonymous Have you looked into PRA Health Sciences?

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
Hi All, Always appreciate and respect the great advice that comes through this forum: The scope of my question is CE Mark of a Class IIa medical device system under the MDD (and then eventually MDR): We have Class I devices which will be CE Marked through self-certification. These devices can be used with other CE marked products (not owned by us). One of which is not CE Marked as a medical device (conformity to machinery and low voltage directives). In terms of what we consider this vendor, what [More]

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
Thank you all for participating in our Tagging Project! We're glad to hear you enjoyed it. All volunteers were entered into a drawing for a $50 Amazon gift card. See a video of the drawing attached.  I'm happy to announce that the winner is ...  @Jonathan Amaya-Hodges ! Thanks again to all who participated. If you're interested in more volunteer opportunities, see our full list here .​​ ------------------------------ Danielle Fezell Manager, Chapter & Volunteer Relations, RAPS Rockville MD United [More]

Files Attached Document
RE: Sort It Out by participating in the RAPS Tagging Project

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
Thank you RAPS, what a pleasant surprise! I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the project! Now, if only Amazon had any toilet paper in stock... ------------------------------ Jonathan Amaya-Hodges Associate Director, Regulatory Affairs CMC Combination Products and Medical Devices Cambridge MA United States ------------------------------

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
Hi everyone, As currently drafted,  the 2020 Chinese Pharmacopeia, the benchmark publication on the safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals legally available in China, includes 319 new entries. The publication includes more than 5,500 traditional Chinese and Western medicines. The official compendium of the standards of purity, description, test, dosage, precaution, storage, and the strength for each drug legally marketed in China is published by the Chinese Pharmacopoeia Commission. It is designed [More]

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
This message was posted by a user wishing to remain anonymous When this was first issued we printed it out, filled in the answers with careful handwriting and then scanned it back in - which seemed to be perfectly acceptable. Since then we've converted their form to a fillable PDF.​

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
Hello,  I can see many unapproved combinations of Minoxidil as topical solution like minoxidil+ Azelaic Acid; Minoxidil + Finasteride; Minoxdil+ niacin+retinol+caffeine that are available online for sale in US but these drug products are not approved by FDA as visble from USFDA website.  Can anyone explain that is there any mechanism or guideline to allows to sell such unapproved drug products online in US and also in EU? Or is this totally illegal practice?  Thanks Ankur RAC

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
Hi, Ankur - Some may be "legal," others not. It's a big industry, and it is fair to be cynical. Combination products for sale that have not been approved-as the combination-by FDA are just that, unapproved drugs. I assume you checked for the approval status in FDA's "Orange Book" (https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/ob/index.cfm). Even if both active pharmaceutical ingredients in a 2-drug mixture were approved separately on their own, it does not mean the combined product is approved for [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
Hi, Willard - The Product code RHP won't show any 510(k)s because that is not a match for any regulated medical device. You can see the classification in the "Radiation Emitting Electronic Product Codes" page (https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPCD_RH/classification.cfm?PCD=RHP), where it also notes that for this Product Code, there are no applicable standards for these "UV Lamp, Germicidal" products.  If it were a medical device, it might fall under FDA's classification for certain [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
These are all unapproved new drugs. Many people who have very limited knowledge of our OTC drug system, assume that if it is sold OTC, it is a monographed drug and they can change the formulation. They do not know that there are two types of OTC drugs allowed-compliance with a monograph or NDA. Minoxidil is one and chlorhexidine antiseptic wash is another. ------------------------------ David Steinberg,FRAPS President Steinberg & Associates, Inc. Pompton Plains NJ USA 609-902-8860 -------------- [More]

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
The only  possible way I can see any of these products being legally marketed in the US without going the OTC NDA route would be if the ingredients  other than Minoxidil are considered "inactive" and have some purpose (other than their active ingredient purposes) in the formulation.  That said, this might work for the last combination in your listing because all of these can and are often used in OTC products as inactive ingredients with understood and current reasons for existing in a formulation [More]

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
This message was posted by a user wishing to remain anonymous For device-lead drug combination products, is there any difference in the quality (grade) of API used compared to a pure drug product? The cGMP guidance for combination products does not seem to specify, and since drug claims cannot be made on device-lead drug combination products, it was not clear what quality of drug is required. Thank you!

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
Hi @Britta Cyron , Thanks for your question. Let me connect with m​y RAPS colleagues on this to get you an answer and then I will follow-up with you directly. Best, Annie ------------------------------ Annie O'Brien Community Manager Regulatory Affairs Professional Society regex@raps.org ------------------------------

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
Hello, If there is a significant change to an accessory cleared under a 510(k) of a product, are we supposed to file a significant change to the FDA for the original 510(k) for the accessory? ------------------------------ Shikha Malik Regulatory Affairs Specialist II Dallas TX United States ------------------------------

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
​I doubt FDA would have any willingness to change the requirements or expectations for a drug product based on whether it is in a strictly drug product versus in a combination product.  The fact also that there is not a published allowance for this is further evidence that FDA expects that the drug will meet the requirements as expected for drug products without providing any allowed changes or classes of changes.  Remember, FDA expects that drug products meet specific requirements.  Things like [More]

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
Hello, The EUA is much faster than the 510(k) process.  However, the EUA intended uses are only authorized during the state of emergency.  Once the state of emergency ends so does your authorization for the EUA intended uses.  The 510(k) clearance is permanent and authorizes the product with its cleared intended uses, to be put into interstate commerce. Hope that helps. ------------------------------ William Coulston PMP, MS, RAC Quality & Regulatory Manager San Antonio TX United States -------- [More]

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
Annie: Thank you for sharing this news.  I am curious whether the Board considers this a limited exception or a potential new normal option going forward? Scott ------------------------------ Scott Bishop Houston TX United States ------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- Original Message: Sent: 04-May-2020 08:50 From: Annie O'Brien Subject: New: Take the RAC Exams Online this Summer! The RAC board has been working hard to find solutions offering more flexibility [More]

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
Hello Shikha, This depends on whether the form, function, and operation of the medical device is affected by the change to the accessory.  Without knowing the device, the accessory, or the type of change, it is hard to say, but I refer you to the FDA Guidance document for when to complete a 510(k) for an existing device.  If you go through the flowchart and read the descriptors for each there is the item B.5 and then the sub-boxes 1 through 4.  There is the question whether a change to accessory [More]

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
Yes, you will need to achieve a 510(k) clearance after the emergency use has been officially ended by the FDA as William mentions.  Much of the information is the same, but the review process is intended to be expedited.  If you want to continue selling the product in the United States after the emergency use, you should really submit a 510(k) now; while the virus issue may continue for a few months it will take a few months for 510(k) clearance.  And if you have an EUA Approval this really is not [More]

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
Thank you for posting this here Annie as the webcast was excellent (as would be expected from Dr. Akra haha) - but really it was great to have this publicly available as there was nice information about the EU MDR conveyed. ------------------------------ Richard Vincins RAC Vice President Global Regulatory Affairs ------------------------------

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
Good morning, Willard. In the U.S., disinfectants fall under the jurisdiction of both the FDA and EPA.  The agencies have an MOU in place to better define there roles.  Accordingly, devices that are  intended for "trapping, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest or any other form of plant or animal life (other than man and other than bacteria, virus, or other microorganism on or in living man or other living animals). . ." are defined as "pesticide devices", under  FIFRA section 2(h),.    Pesticide [More]

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
These types of products and combinations you mention are all unapproved drugs and unapproved combinations.  Unless the specific combination is approved or listed in an OTC monograph, it is a new drug and requires a NDA to market it.  Minoxidil is a Rx to OTC switch product so it requires a NDA or ANDA to market this drug in the US, even as a OTC drug.  Thus any combination with minoxidil is a new drug. In the past the FDA has also specifically stated that combining different types of products (drug [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.

By Laurie Meehan

SOP revision. It falls somewhere between income tax prep and colonoscopy prep on the likability scale.  So why would you want to read about it?  Maybe you’re hoping someone’s figured out a way to make the process more efficient and less painful.  Maybe we have.

The SWAT Technique

Last month, we worked with a company to revise a set of SOPs using a technique we call SWAT.  (Any edgy appeal that name might have otherwise had will be immediately dulled by its acronym expansion: “SOP Working Analysis Team.”  It’s the best we could do.  Don’t judge.)

The goal of the SWAT technique is to revise the most documents in the least time, while preserving friendships, sobriety, and original hair color.  The heart of SWAT is an immersive, multi-day working session in which participants discuss SOP revisions and incorporate them in real time.  Careful planning, thorough preparation, and commitment from management and participants are keys to keeping the SWAT session productive.

It’s Not For Everyone

Up front, we need to say that SWAT won’t work for every organization.  While the size of the company may not be important, the size of the working team needs to be fairly small.  Also SWAT won’t work for every set of SOPs.  The documents need to be part of a natural grouping – a set of similar procedures – and not a random collection.

But in the right situations, SWAT works very well.  Last month, we conducted a 2-day SWAT session with a client’s QA department to revise a set of 10 auditing SOPs.  We’ve also successfully used the technique with ClinOps teams, for example, to revise sets of monitoring SOPs.

SWAT Planning and Preparation

The SWAT process begins with central planning.  A coordination team selects a logical grouping of SOPs to revise, and assembles a list of specific revisions to be made.  Where it’s not possible to provide specific revisions, instructions and guidelines are developed, such as “remove audit report distribution details” or “update to reflect new file safeguarding practices.”

Each SWAT participant is assigned an SOP from the revision set.  The participant doesn’t need to be the author of record, but must be knowledgeable enough to “represent” the SOP – to learn the document well and understand how it’s similar to the other SOPs in the revision set and in what ways it’s unique.  Based on this understanding, prior to the SWAT session, participants make applicable revisions to their individual documents using the information received from the coordination team.  Participants should also note questions and any open issues appropriate for SWAT discussion using inline comments. 

SWAT Session

The result of the SWAT session is a set of approval-ready SOPs.  The precise structure of the SWAT session to get you there depends on a variety of factors, such as how similar or dissimilar the SOPs are, the extent and complexity of the revisions, and whether subject matter expertise is concentrated or distributed among the group.  But all successful SWAT sessions we’ve conducted share these attributes:

• Duration of 2 to 3 days.  Just long enough to accomplish the aggressive goal, just short enough to keep everyone from diving out the window.
• Real-time revision.  The “SOP of the hour” is projected on a screen while participants sit in front of PCs and update their assigned SOPs accordingly.
• Rigorous facilitation. It’s natural for discussions about company procedures to morph into other topics, such as business strategy or staffing requirements.  Discussion *will* get off topic.  When it does, the facilitator must act quickly to table it.  You can maintain a list of tangent topics on a flip chart, schedule a meeting to discuss the most pressing items, ring a cowbell, blow an air horn, or drop a quarter in the “Diversion Jar” and move on, but keep those conversations out of your SWAT session.  Save the war stories for dinner.
• Commitment to the process.  Scheduling the session is one thing, but remaining dedicated to the session is an act of will. It’s so ridiculously easy for outside work to creep in.  Management and participants must be committed to carving out the time and keeping the barbarians at the gate.
• Of course: Plenty of caffeine and yummy treats.

If you’ve ever worked on SOPs, you know there’s a big difference between done and almost done.  To help ensure you emerge from the SWAT session with the former, time must be allotted for participants to format, polish, and conduct a quality review.  If it’s possible to scare up some on-site administrative support, that could help expedite the process.

SWAT Benefits

When you look on your team’s Outlook calendar and see 3 entire days blocked out, it can seem like an awful lot of time devoted to SOP revision.  But SWAT really doesn’t take any longer than the usual process, it’s just more obvious.  Does SWAT take significantly *less* time?  Mmmm, not sure, but SWAT brings with it other benefits.

SWAT produces a more consistent set of SOPs.  Since every document is compared to every other, it’s easy to notice and correct incidental differences.

SWAT is a cross-training opportunity.  Participants enter SWAT knowing their own SOP very well.  They leave knowing the whole SOP revision set very well.

SWAT gets it done.  Auditors, how many times have you cited facilities for failure to revise their SOPs within the specified window?  It’s not because there’s a willful disregard for SOP procedures.  It’s because, in the real world of work, revising SOPs is seldom prioritized highly enough to get on anyone’s schedule until the end of the revision window encroaches or – oops – has passed.  But schedule a SWAT and they will come. (And because the effort is so visible and so obviously resource-intensive, no one wants to be the one to drop the ball.  Participants come prepared and the resulting documents are the better for it.)

SWAT is a lot more fun.  Revising SOPs on your own is really boring.  Revising them in immersive sessions with colleagues is significantly more enjoyable.  Gallows humor reigns supreme.  Copious amounts of chocolate are consumed.  Air horns are blown in celebration.  Friendships, sobriety, and hair color remain intact.  Participants live to write another day.



_______________________________________________________________________
Photo Credit:  Tenaciousme CoffeeArt, under Creative Commons License

What if your favorite movie quotes were written for QA professionals? Would they be as memorable? We think so, but we’ll let you decide.

In the fall of 2015, the internet was rife with tweets sporting the hashtag #ScienceMovieQuotes.  Creative scientists repurposed their favorite movie quotes, gleefully infusing them with nerdy humor for the entertainment of their colleagues.  Such a great idea was just asking to be stolen.  And who are we to resist the siren call of piracy?  So here’s our best attempt at making #QAmovieQuotes go viral.*

…And because the rhymes were just too good, we couldn’t resist…




If you’re feeling creative, here are the American Film Institute’s 100 greatest movie quotes of all time.  Please share your humor!  (Fair warning – we took all the good ones.)

By Laurie Meehan

________________________________________________
* Thanks to Robyn Barnes of MasterControl for this fun idea.

Photo credits

Brando: User:Aggiorna / CC BY-SA-3.0, changes made
Badge: User:Dandvsp / Wikipedia Commons / CC BY-SA-3.0
Nicholson: User:Nikita~commonswiki / CC BY-SA-2.5, changes made
Shawn: Sam Felder / CC BY-SA-2.5, changes made
Leigh: Trailer Screenshot, A Streetcar Names Desire,1951, Public domain
Freeman: User:FRZ / CC BY-SA-2.5, changes made
Aladdin Chocolates: Hans Lindqvist, 2009, Public domain
Flower: Walt Disney, Bambi, 1942, Public Domain
Doune Castle: Keith Salveson / CC BY-SA-2.0
Bogart: Trailer Screenshot, Casablanca,1942, Public domain
Newman: Warner Bros. Entertainment, Cool Hand Luke, 1967, Public Domain

Anx·i·ety (noun)
The state of uneasiness caused by apprehension of possible misfortune.

Yep.  That’s the word that comes to mind whenever anyone mentions FDA inspections.

But anxiety often stems from a lack of control, and in a regulatory inspection, you have more control than you might think.  There are many steps you can take -- before, during, and even after an inspection is over -- that can give you a fair degree of control over the outcome.   Here, Polaris auditors Lauren Kelley and Michele Commins share some of those steps with you.



Pre-inspection Preparation
For-cause inspections may be unannounced, but routine FDA inspections of submission data are scheduled in advance*.  That means most inspections are not pop quizzes; they’re final exams.
Remember how happy you were when a teacher gave you access to a prior year’s exam to study from?  You knew the type of questions that would be asked.  You knew how to prepare.

So this is the first tip we’d like to share.  FDA has, indeed, given you a copy of their exam in advance, in the form of its Compliance Program Guidance Manual, CPGM 7348.811.  This is the document all FDA field investigators use to conduct inspections at clinical sites.  It outlines in great detail what documents investigators will review, what dates they’re going to verify, what processes they’ll evaluate, what data they’ll collect, and what records they’re going to compare.  Despite its rather uninspired title, this is your copy of the final exam.

You know cramming is a risky strategy, so the earlier you get familiar with the CPGM the better.  Inspection readiness is a state of preparedness more than it is a laundry list of activities; it takes some time to get there.

When the Inspector’s in the House
According to the CPGM, one of the first pieces of information the FDA investigator will obtain is a list of all of the studies performed by the clinical investigator, including protocol number, sponsor, and study dates.  So even though FDA has scheduled its inspection with you, and has told you what study the investigator is coming to inspect, any study is fair game.  An FDA investigator can look at any document she wants, or talk to any staff member he chooses, whether related to the “assigned” study or not.

Most of your preparation will have been study-specific; questions about other studies will catch your staff off-guard, and a review of records for other studies may find them less than inspection-ready.  So here’s our second tip.   Avoid anything that might pique the investigator’s curiosity about a study that is not the original subject of the inspection.  Make sure the room you reserve as your investigator’s “home base” is free of any documents, reports, notes, phone lists, and post-its.  Make sure you tidy up offices, workspaces, and facilities site-wide, and keep extraneous chatter in check.

After the Visit
If your FDA inspection resulted in zero observations, then stop reading, thank your awesome staff members, and go celebrate.  If, however, you did receive a Form FDA 483, it’s probably not the end of the world, but you do have some work to do.  Our third tip is this:  remember that the sponsor/CRO is your ally here.  They have as much invested in FDA’s assessment of your study data as you do, and they have the regulatory, QA, even legal resources that you might not.   You’re not required to formally respond to 483s, but if you do, you’re likely to receive a more favorable Establishment Inspection Report (EIR) in the end.  Let your sponsor/CRO help you with your response.

Tips Do Not a Plan Make
Tips are helpful, but you’ll need more than that to ensure a successful FDA site inspection.  You need an inspection readiness plan -- a plan that you document and keep current.  All site staff members need to train on the inspection procedures and the individual roles they will play.  (Fourth tip: don’t forget to train your temporary employees; an office temp working at the receptionist desk could be the first person your FDA investigator speaks with.)

A Last Thought
Inspections are stress-inducing events, and nervous people make mistakes.  Investigators know this, and expertly exercise the “pregnant pause,” knowing how difficult it is for people to withstand an excruciating silence without volunteering unsolicited information.

So one last tip:  conduct a mock inspection before the FDA comes to visit.  It will stress test your procedures and identify improvements you need to implement.  A thorough mock inspection will give staff members an opportunity to rehearse their roles and interview techniques so they can execute your plan and speak to the FDA investigator with confidence.

_______________________________
* For-cause inspections are also known as Investigator-oriented, and routine inspections are also known as study-oriented.

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

What can small sponsors do to secure the outsourcing resources they need as large CROs form strategic alliances with Big Pharma?

Partenships between large pharmaceutical companies and large CROs have become the norm.  The advantages for sponsor companies include shared risk, knowledge transfer, dedicated resources, shorter time to market, and the ability to implement the massive data integration that clinical development requires.  Strategic alliances are arguably as advantageous for their outsourcing partners, providing a steady pipeline of work that’s larger in scope and longer in duration than is typical under traditional arrangements.



Strategic Partnerships in Big Pharma: Implications for the Rest
Advantages for one segment of the industry can introduce disadvantages for another.  Alliances among the large players increase competition for top-drawer CRO resources. Smaller sponsors may find it more difficult to receive the quality of service and level of commitment they might otherwise expect.  A large CRO is likely to assign their most talented personnel to projects associated with their strategic partners.  And if a partner study were to run into trouble, it would be hard to fault a CRO for pulling experienced staff members off a smaller project in order to help out with the big client.  Though a reputable CRO wouldn’t jeopardize the relationship with the smaller client, their responsiveness to routine requests might suffer.  It might take longer to get a question answered, receive requested documentation, making the job of vendor oversight difficult.

Though selecting a large, well-established CRO at the outset may have seemed like the safe bet, what do you do if you’re a small sponsor or biotech start-up who is dissatisfied with the level of service you’re receiving?

“Let’s Bring It In-house.”
Put off by a negative experience, many companies decide to curtail outsourcing, and bring functions like monitoring and project management in-house.

This response is understandable, but it rarely goes well.  There’s good reason to outsource study functions to a CRO, especially if you’re small, or new, or both.  Mid-study is a terrible time to realize you’re in over your head.  You may find it difficult to contract with the service providers you want in the timeframe you need them.  Services you would have preferred be performed by a single company may now have to be farmed out piecemeal, which has the overhead of multiple contracts and makes vendor oversight more difficult to manage.  You don’t have time to go through a thorough qualification process.  You’re not in a good bargaining position; you’re trying to buy a new car after they’ve towed away your old one.  And now you have to rely on your new service provider(s) – the ones who may not be your first choice, whom you had to choose in haste, whom you didn’t get to thoroughly vet – to jump in midstream and pick up a study that is already in trouble.

Options for Small Sponsors and Start-ups
So what’s the answer?  You have several good options we’ve seen work well for smaller organizations.

(1) Go smaller.  Look beyond traditional outsourcing choices and consider selecting smaller vendors who may well be in a better position to focus on individual projects and give priority to shorter term engagements.  After all, a project that’s small to a big CRO will be comparatively big to a small CRO.

(2) Go long-term.  Consider establishing strategic partnerships of your own.   Doing so would increase the expertise and technology to which you’d have ready access, and could extend your global reach.

(3) Go big, but go vigilantly.  There’s a reason companies hire big, reputable CROs.  ‘Big’ means the CRO has an impressive set of resources at its disposal.  ‘Reputable’ means it has a proven record of successfully completing studies, producing reliable data, and preserving subject safety.  Smaller sponsors can still take advantage of everything a big CRO offers if they can commit to conducting very strict vendor oversight.  They need to closely monitor the quality of the work the CRO performs, frequently assess adherence to the many written study plans, and make sure deadlines are being met.  Service contracts should guarantee a certain level of responsiveness (by specifying maximum turn-around times, for example), especially for those requests that enable these oversight activities.


Qualification is Key
While the key to Option 3 is effective vendor management, the key to Options 1 and 2 is effective vendor qualification.  Resources are tight in a small company, so you need to direct them where your exposure is greatest, where they’ll do the most good.  What could be more essential to the success of your study than choosing the right company to conduct it?   Many sponsors conduct on-site vendor audits.  That’s good.  That’s necessary.  But it’s not sufficient.  To consistently choose the best possible CRO for your study, sponsors need to:

• Formally document and maintain vendor selection criteria and qualification process
• Form selection committees that represent all sides of your business – finance, contracting, operations, finance, QA, data management, pharmacovigilance, biostatistics, etc.
• Conduct on-site audits with well-trained, well-prepared QA auditors
• Track the resulting CAPA activities
• Ensure outstanding issues are resolved before the contract is signed
• Periodically re-evaluate vendors to make sure they can continue to deliver the same level of quality they’ve delivered in the past

Strategic partnerships among large companies have reshaped the research environment for industry players of every size.  Small and mid-sized companies who take the time to review current outsourcing arrangements, assess alternative models, and thoroughly qualify new vendors and partners will fare the best.

Photo Credit: FreeImages.com/Svilen Milev

Year in and year out, protocol deviations are the most common FDA Site Inspection finding. Why does this keep happening?

If you’ve seen FDA’s Inspectional Observation Summaries, you know that in 2015 the most frequently cited violation in clinical research by far was “failure to conduct research in accordance with the investigational plan.”  Do you know this finding also topped the list the year before that?  And the year before that?  In fact, deviating from the protocol has been the most common observation every year for the last decade.

Why does this keep happening?



The Nature of Protocols
This will come as a surprise to no one: not all protocols are well written.  Important procedures can be hidden in the most obscure places.  Charts depicting Time and Events Schedules are famous for carrying dozens of footnotes that appear nowhere else in the protocol, yet convey important study procedures.   For instance, a pre-dosing column may include a footnote that provides a timeframe for performing a physical exam; a post-dosing footnote might specify the interval at which vitals must be taken.   Failing to follow study procedures compromises subject safety and data integrity; FDA won’t care whether the procedures were in big bold italics or 7-point font.

This, too, may come as no surprise, but not all protocols are error-free.   Information in charts may not match the narrative.  Procedures in Section A may conflict with procedures in Section B.  When the FDA investigator spots an inconsistency, you’ll be asked which of the two conflicting procedures you followed and why.  If you performed procedure A only because you didn’t even notice there was a B, it will be clear you didn’t read the protocol as thoroughly as you needed to.  The FDA investigator may become concerned that your study execution differed from the sponsor’s intention.  This is not a concern you want to trigger.

For these reasons, it’s imperative that study staff read and understand the protocol.  Study team members need to ask questions about anything they’re unsure of, seek clarification on protocol inconsistencies, and get responses that satisfy before starting the study.   A PowerPoint overview is not sufficient training.

One more irksome attribute of protocols that can make them difficult to follow -- they change.  While most study sites allocate time and resources for initial protocol training, many lack a plan for training staff on protocol amendments.   A disproportionate number of protocol deviations occur in amended procedures, and it’s often because staff members have been insufficiently trained on them.  (And when you do train on protocol amendments, don’t forget to document it.)

Deviation Temptation
A protocol is not a suggestion; PIs cannot substitute their own judgment for prescribed procedures, no matter how well-intentioned the departure.  The protocol for a psoriasis study might call for the PI to perform a series of punch biopsies, very invasive procedures.  After the first biopsy, an empathetic PI might be tempted to skip a second if he observes the plaque is clearing up; the drug is working.  But this would be a protocol deviation.  The protocol for another study might preclude the use of a particular drug, even though the drug is routinely used throughout the practice to treat a symptom that a study participant is exhibiting.  But the study protocol trumps standard of care; prescribing the drug would be a protocol deviation.

A PI who feels she must deviate from the protocol for some reason must obtain prior approval, since failure to follow the protocol can jeopardize the reliability of the study data, if not subject rights and safety.



Deviations Happen
So you’ve thoroughly read the protocol, you’ve asked your questions and received the necessary clarifications, you’ve trained your staff on the protocol and its amendments, and you do your best to follow them.

Despite all your preparation and vigilance, protocol deviations happen.  They just do.  And when they do, here are two don'ts.

(1) Don’t panic.

(2) Don’t let an FDA investigator find them first.
Take the time to fully document any protocol deviations.  Be sure to record why they happened, how they were corrected, and what was submitted to the IRB.

[Note: IRBs have different requirements about what types of protocol deviations should be communicated.  Out-of-window visits are common and are frequently considered too minor to report.  But nothing’s black and white.  If the missed visit resulted in missed doses, that would probably change the calculus. The PI needs to determine whether to notify the IRB, and if no submission is thought necessary, it’s a good idea to document why not.]

_______________________________________________________________

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

While patients are consumers of healthcare services, they can’t be considered customers in the traditional sense. The same is true of students. Over many years of teaching, I’ve noticed this parallel between the healthcare and education professions; both require significantly more “customer participation” to achieve desired outcomes than other industries do. That’s one reason it’s difficult to measure the quality of these institutions and the skills of their practitioners. That’s also why both industries focus so intently on engaging our communities; we simply can’t be successful unless we do.

“Can You Hear Me Now?”
As the old joke goes, there are 3 types of people in this world: those who are good at math and those who aren’t. Many students believe themselves to be permanent denizens of the 2nd camp. They find mathematical concepts confusing and the terminology inscrutable, so they tend not to ask questions. They’re afraid they’re being judged, so they’re not always truthful. Tests and exams fill them with anxiety, and sometimes even panic (no doubt waking to nightmares of trains leaving stations at varying rates of speed). These are the students who need my help the most. Our success in overcoming these challenges together will depend heavily on the student/teacher connection we can establish, yet few students are actually able to choose the teacher with whom they are asked to connect. Sound like healthcare yet?



So it’s no surprise that trends toward greater patient engagement in healthcare, and patient-centricity in clinical research, emphasize clear and compassionate communication. Doctors, like instructors, need to explain concepts in relatable terms, encourage and address questions, assuage unwarranted anxiety, and establish trust. Until that happens, a meaningful partnership isn’t even possible.

When the Cat’s Away, Will the Mice Make Good Choices?
You may remember that old college rule of thumb: 1 hour of class requires 3 hours of study. This means instructors have just 25% of their students’ time to inspire the behaviors and habits that will make a success of the other 75%. “Don’t be the Sage on the Stage,” the mantra goes, “be the Guide on the Side.” If you’ve ever taught in an academic setting, you know how challenging that can be. The role of lecturer is fairly obvious, but the role of coach is nuanced; it evolves over time and it’s different for everyone.

And if a college instructor has just 3 hours of face time a week, a physician is lucky to have 3 hours of face time a year. That’s not much time to persuade, convince, and encourage the lifestyle choices and medication adherence essential to maintaining good health. And when you consider that a good part of each office visit is spent performing examinations and assessments, it’s easy to understand the excitement surrounding mobile health technologies. Beyond delivering real-time, real-world data, smartphone apps can send patients important reminders, make complying with diet and exercise recommendations easier, and make progress toward fitness goals visible.

“And the Survey Says…?”
Most service industries are rightly concerned with customer satisfaction – how to achieve it, how to measure it, and how to improve it. So last year, an article entitled “The Problem with Satisfied Patients” caught my eye. The Atlantic article concluded that higher hospital satisfaction ratings don’t necessarily correlate with better healthcare. A five-star student course evaluation can be similarly misleading. Pleasing a student is not the same thing as teaching a student, just as making people happy doesn’t make them well. That’s not to say that hospitals and colleges shouldn’t solicit feedback; of course they need to understand the perspective of the communities they serve. But healthcare facilities and schools should give satisfaction surveys their proper weight or they risk implementing changes that consume resources but do nothing to improve a patient’s health or increase a student’s proficiency.

Outcomes-based Evaluation
So if outcomes are paramount in both medicine and academia, it follows that the quality of care and education would be best measured by evaluating those outcomes. Right?  Well, it’s a good place to start, but since patients and students share responsibility for success with their doctors and teachers, an individual outcome may be misleading. An instructor can influence, but can’t control, whether a student works on practice problems, studies for tests, asks questions, or even pays attention. A doctor can’t control whether a patient takes a prescription, follows medical advice, or reports relevant symptoms. There isn’t always a straight line between quality of service and success rate.


College instructors try to keep their students engaged by tailoring their coaching styles, offering a mix of delivery methods, seeking out fresh ideas to make the concepts relevant, and maintaining convenient office hours. Looking to improve patient engagement, healthcare systems have found that many people face situations that prevent them from keeping appointments and following medical advice. Some organizations are now providing copay assistance, arranging transportation, and employing patient care coordinators to place routine monitoring calls. None of these services are free, but they can be considerably less expensive than eating the costs associated with hospital readmissions.

The Partnership Starts Here
Teachers want their students to learn and healthcare providers want their patients to be well, but students and patients must actively participate in order to meet those goals. Handing out easy A’s and offering gourmet hospital menu items in response to survey responses won’t cut it.

Success begins with clear, compassionate communication – communication designed to explain complex concepts, to build trust, and to encourage the behaviors that lead to positive results. Understanding the challenges students and patients face enables educators and medical professionals to offer practical, meaningful solutions that can actually improve outcomes.

[In case you missed it, our last blog post was about the most common site inspection finding every year for the last decade: Protocol Deviations and How to Avoid Them.]

As a sponsor or CRO, you understand the importance of a thorough site selection process. A site needs to be able to meet enrollment targets and time frames, protect the rights and safety of study participants, execute the protocol, deliver quality data, and maintain GCP compliance. That’s what your site feasibility surveys and pre-study visits are designed to evaluate. And as you’re assessing a site’s abilities, the site is conducting its own feasibility process. They’re mining their patient database and assessing inclusion/exclusion criteria. They’re reviewing staff credentials and ensuring they have adequate resources to manage the number of subject visits and collect the data the protocol requires.

But when we conduct GCP audits, we find there’s one perspective that is sometimes overlooked by both sides: the needs of the study drug itself.




Study Drug Attributes Affecting Site Selection Process

IP Environment.  Aside from needing sufficient storage space, many drugs have special storage requirements. Does the site have the equipment and resources needed to maintain and adequately monitor and record environmental conditions such as temperature or humidity? Do they have agreements with their vendors that guarantee a specific response time for repairing or replacing faulty equipment? If they lose electricity, do they have back up power, or at least provisions to move the IP off-site? (This is a common auditor question in hurricane-prone areas.)


Preparation of Study Drug.  Does your investigational product need to be reconstituted in a liquid? Do doses need to be compounded in different concentrations? Does the protocol require that an IV solution be prepared, filtered, and sterilized? These activities take time, specially trained personnel, and sometimes specialized equipment such as ventilation hoods. If your protocol demands an involved IP prep, your feasibility survey must include questions that allow you to assess these site capabilities and your pre-study visit should definitely include some time in the pharmacy. 

Drug Administration. Handing over a bottle of capsules to a study participant is one thing; inserting a butterfly catheter into an antecubital vein is something else again. If drug administration is very invasive, you’ll want to verify that the site has taken this into account when providing you enrollment projections. During subject visits, staff members may have to calculate doses, give intramuscular injections, perform infusions, or conduct sterilization procedures. You’ll want to verify that site staff has this expertise if required. Some clinical trials require a blinded dispenser who cannot be involved in any other study procedure or activities. If so, does the site have the resources for this?

Site Selection: it’s not just the PI, it’s the IP too
The study success and patient safety are jeopardized when a site can’t meet its enrollment target or doesn’t have the resources to execute the protocol. IP requirements can affect a site’s ability to do both. It’s critical that your site selection process – both your feasibility questionnaire and your pre-study visit – evaluate how well the site can meet the storage, preparation, and administration requirements of the study drug.

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

Photo Credit: By Harmid (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Q: If Notes to File can be regulatory red flags, should we quit using them?
A: No, and here's why...

Regulatory inspections are often conducted long after the conclusion of the study. When an FDA investigator asks you a question about an anomaly five years after it’s happened, will anyone recall the circumstances well enough to satisfy the regulator’s concerns? You’ll be doing yourself a huge favor if you write NTFs that answer the questions regulators might one day be asking you.



NTFs can be used to effectively explain an irregularity, locate a document, or note a change in procedures. While there are no regulations or guidances that govern NTFs per se, ICH E6(R2) 2.10 states “All clinical trial information should be recorded, handled, and stored in a way that allows its accurate reporting, interpretation and verification.” A well-written NTF will not only describe an event, but will document who made the notation and when, why the problem occurred, what was done to fix it, and what changes were made to keep it from happening in the future. That’s a lot, so it’s a good idea to develop an NTF template to remind authors to include these elements.

Example of a poorly written NTF:
Informed Consent for study BH-90210 was revised by the IRB 01/7/2017. Subject 867-5309 was not re-consented at her next study visit, as per IRB instructions.

This NTF does nothing more than document the deficiency.

Improved NTF:
Informed Consent for study BH-90210 was revised by the IRB 01/07/2017 to include lab procedures on Visit 5. IRB instructions required a re-consent for all enrolled subjects at next study visit. Subject 867-5309 was not re-consented at her next (2nd) study visit, but was re-consented at her 3rd visit.

This version of the NTF gives us a little more context and lets us know that the subject was re-consented before the new lab procedures were performed. The oversight was corrected in time to preserve Jenny’s* rights, but we still don’t know why it happened; there’s not enough information to satisfy a regulator that failure to re-consent was not a pervasive problem. What were the site’s re-consenting procedures at the time of this study? Were they being followed? Who do we ask?


Complete NTF Using Template



Since the subject was consented before the additional lab procedures were performed, there was no violation of informed consent regulations. This was an oversight with no ill-effects, not a significant break with procedures. Discussing it at the departmental meeting is an appropriate, proportional response. (Note that if the subject had not been re-consented before the new lab procedures were performed, the site would have been in violation of consent regulations and an NTF would not have been sufficient. Both the IRB and the sponsor would have needed to be informed of the failure to consent.)

A poorly written NTF – one that doesn’t provide enough information, one that identifies a problem but no solution, one that is inadequately standing in for proper record keeping – won’t satisfy a regulator’s concerns. These are the sorts of NTFs that can actually do more harm than good. A well-written NTF, on the other hand, is something your future self will thank you for.

In case you missed it, our last post was about how GMP activities affect GCP study procedures.
___________________________________________________________________

* If you know why Subject 867-5309 goes by “Jenny," one of your friends wore a pink tux with shoulder pads to prom.

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

You know you need a computer systems audit, but that’s literally the extent of what you know.
Has this ever been you?

Yes, you use computers on a daily basis, and you may even use the system that needs to be audited. But you don’t spend your day thinking about where all the system components are located, how services and software are combined, and what Part 11 requirements apply. Terms like “cloud computing” make you feel slightly queasy. You’d rather get a root canal than discuss “distributed processing.” Your expertise is in manufacturing. Or clinical research. Or non-clinical lab operations. And somehow it’s your job to make sure an effective and properly-sized system audit is conducted. Great.



Yet your Quality Assurance colleagues -- whether they’re from your internal QA department or an external compliance company -- need your input. They need to understand what software is being purchased, what services are being contracted, how and where components of the system are being implemented, and how the system will be used.

The good news is that the QA auditors can help you. They know that FDA favors a risk-based approach to validation and Part 11 implementation, and they even know what that means. They love to talk about configuration management and change procedures. They love gathering evidence that demonstrates your system works correctly and is in a state of control, and they know what rocks they should look under to find and fix vulnerabilities.

What follows are examples of the types of information you need to convey to QA – and that they should be asking you about – to properly size and scope an audit.

How do You Plan to Use the System?

Suppose you need to audit the supplier of a new Document Management System. The first thing an auditor would need to understand is how you plan to use the system. How mission critical are the documents you’re looking to store?  Are they covered under regulatory scope?  Maybe you plan to use the system as a collaboration environment for developing new SOPs. That would require a relatively low level of scrutiny, especially if you only plan to print out the finalized documents for wet ink signature. (As a point of comparison, if you plan to use the system to finalize SOP approval, the auditor would need to check that Part 11 requirements for electronic signatures are properly implemented.) What if the Document Management System will be housing critical GxP documents, such as Trial Master Files, Master Schedule Sheets, or Master Batch Records? In these cases, the validation would have to be far more thorough, and Part 11 electronic record features, such as audit trails and archiving functionality, would have to be implemented and verified.

Here’s another “use” example. Similar to the term “Document Management System,” the term “Analytics System” does not tell the whole story. From a business perspective, study start up (SSU) metrics may be vital for sponsors and CROs to collect and analyze. But since they have no regulatory impact, the FDA would not require an SSU analytics system to be validated. (That doesn’t necessarily mean you might not want to, though.) On the other hand, a system that performs statistical analysis on study data for regulatory submission is about as critical as it gets, and would require thorough validation and Part 11 implementation. Other analytics systems, such as dashboards that pull data from critical systems, might fall somewhere between these two extremes.

What is the Vendor Providing? And How? And Where?

If you need to audit a complex system, the questions QA will ask you will go beyond system use. The auditors will need to understand the combination of software and services the vendor is providing, and where the software and data reside.

• Does the software and data reside internally at your company or does the vendor provide a hosting service?
  If the vendor is hosting, the auditor needs to tour the facilities and review SOPs and records to evaluate physical security, staff training, environmental controls, backup procedures, disaster recovery plans, data retention, computer infrastructure, and change control.
  
  
• Does the hosting vendor own its own servers or does it, in turn, outsource that function to a 3rd party hosting company, (possibly even in the cloud)?
  If the hosting is outsourced, ideally an auditor would be able to visit the hosting site. Failing that, the auditor would ask questions about the vendor’s qualification processes and review SOPs that govern vendor selection/management procedures. If the vendor outsources other services beyond hosting, those services might need to be considered, as well.
  
  
• Is the vendor providing any other services?
  Many EDC vendors will provide study-specific services such as screen development and data entry validation edits. Auditors would need to review SOPs for providing these services and understand how the vendor tests and manages modifications to these components as the study proceeds.
  Sometimes computer systems vendors provide ancillary services, such as help desk functions and user account management. That would mean additional SOPs and training records for the auditor to look through.

Other Considerations

There are many. For example, where are you in the product life cycle? You ask different questions about a new system than you would about one that has been operating for a few years. Is the product Commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) or highly customized? COTS systems vendors often have their own validation package which auditors would review, and then ensure proper operation in the sponsor/CRO’s specific environment. A highly customized or custom-built system would require a more extensive validation process.


The Take Away

CSV/Part 11 audits will never be standardized, cookie cutter type activities; there are simply too many factors -- in too many combinations -- to consider. You want your QA efforts to be worth the money you spend and be able to answer the questions FDA says you need to be asking. If you’re unsure how to do that, that’s ok. Other people know, as long as you can help them understand how you plan to use the system, what software and services are being supplied, and how components of the system are being implemented.

In case you missed it, our previous post was Notes 2 Fix Your Notes 2 File.
_______________________________________________
Many thinks to Lisa Olson for sharing her insights with me.

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.

When I was a teenager, my grandfather would invite my new boyfriends to run short, pointless errands with him, just so he could watch them drive. He said he could tell a lot about a boy’s character simply by observing his actions behind the wheel. Did he stay under the speed limit? Did he use his signal when he was switching lanes? Did he slow down when children were playing near the road? If so, it was a good sign that the boy was generally a careful and attentive fellow. If not, it was an early indication of reckless tendencies, and I would do well to be on my guard.

What does this have to do with PI oversight?



As Sponsors and CROs, you’re sometimes forced to make site selection decisions based on a limited set of criteria that you deem to be – hope to be – reflective of the site as a whole. In a short space of time, you need to assess a PI’s commitment to study oversight. On what should your pre-study “test drive” focus to help you gauge the level of care and attention a prospective PI will devote to your study?

We have some suggestions.


Assessing Attention to Detail
Any GCP-compliant site can produce a set of current CVs, job descriptions, and training records; they’re essential documents. But the most attentive sites are able to show you more than a collection of records during your pre-study visit with them. These sites keep a complete, organized set of uniform records and can describe their tight system for maintaining it. All documents for each staff member are found in dedicated tabs inside a records binder, or are equally well-organized in an electronic records system. All CVs are in a standard format so Sponsors can easily compare qualifications across individuals. Every document is current; CVs are up to date, and there’s a system in place to track which medical licenses are expiring when. Training records are comprehensive and include training on GCP regulations, site SOPs, and EMRs.

This is not sexy stuff. That’s why it’s a good indicator of PI oversight.  A site that is disciplined enough to keep such tight control over its personnel records is likely to carry that control into all aspects of trial execution.

Assessing Commitment to Protocol Compliance
During site initiation visits, Sponsor/CRO staff is on site to conduct protocol training; all study sites start off the same in this respect. But protocol amendments are inevitable, and sometimes – though nobody’s happy about it – frequent. You need assurances that a site’s response to each amendment will be swift, well-coordinated, and deliberate. Ask the prospective PI, “What procedures does your site follow for managing protocol amendments?”

The A answer:
“When a protocol amendment arrives, we convene a special team meeting to review the changes and discuss their effects. For example, if additional safety tests are required, the team discusses who shall be delegated to perform them? Do we have adequate time scheduled into the visit for any additional procedures the amendment requires? How will I be demonstrating oversight of any new test results? Once we’ve asked and answered these kinds of questions, we document attendance at the meeting, record assignments of delegated duties, and publish meeting minutes.”

The F answer:
“I email the amendment out to my team. I assume they’re all adults and know how to read.” (#TrueStory)

Just Ask
After reviewing essential documents and protocol amendment procedures, you should ask about other PI oversight mechanisms the site has in place. A good prospective site might tell you the PI holds biweekly meetings to review the items raised during monitoring visits. A PI may block out time at regular intervals to review adverse events and other study documents, and sign off on labs. A PI who values staff excellence may actively encourage and support Study Coordinator certification; some may even require it after an initial period of employment. In the past, we’ve worked with sites that have established internal Quality Control procedures, some maintain CAPA programs, and others conduct mock inspections.

There’s a wide variety of responses that can give you confidence a prospective PI is committed to running your study in a constant state of control. Whatever oversight measures are discussed, remember to ask how they will be documented, so during the study you’ll be able to verify that each activity is being consistently carried out.

Epilogue
After running an errand with a boy I met at college, my grandfather happily reported back to me, “He didn’t roll through a single stop sign coming down Green Hill Road. He’s all right, that one.”

My grandfather, a retired police detective for the city of Pittsburgh, knew how to read a person. That boy and I celebrated our 30th anniversary last month.

I was a child bride.

If you found this article helpful, you might also like:
Anticipating Tensions Between Clinical Care and Study Protocol
Avoiding Protocol Deviations

Sites frequently want to know how they can stand out to Sponsors and CROs to win more studies.
Our advice: Implement internal QC procedures.

Sponsors and CROs we work with consider a tight quality control program to be evidence that a site can be counted on to produce reliable data. It shows that managing quality at your site is a continual process, and doesn’t wait for monitors to arrive. In a risk-based monitoring environment, this is an increasingly compelling attribute.

Where to Start: The Usual Suspects
It makes sense for you to focus your QC efforts on those areas where you’ve historically had the most problems. If the phrase “trend analysis” makes you want to jump through a window -- it's okay -- you can climb back inside. You don't have to do a trend analysis. We've identified 3 areas in which audit findings are common and how you can avoid them.



Adverse Events (AEs) and Concomitant Medications (ConMeds). Often two sides of the same coin, AE and ConMed documentation needs to tell a consistent story. If source documents indicate a study participant had a sinus infection, it must be documented on an AE page, and any associated medications documented on the ConMeds page. A medication noted on the AE page must have a corresponding notation on the ConMed page. And all start and end dates must match across the source, AE, and ConMeds pages.

Drug Accountability Records. Calculating compliance percentages and counting pills are positively uninteresting tasks, easy to mess up, and involve math (which for some people triggers terrifying flashbacks of word problems about trains leaving stations). Is it any wonder that drug accountability records are frequent sources of error? Do some spot-checking: verify that the number of returned tablets matches the tallies recorded for them and recheck compliance calculations.

Essential Documents. Maintaining a complete, organized, uniform set of essential documents is an important, yet decidedly unsexy task. That’s why it’s a good indicator of your commitment to quality; a site that is disciplined enough to keep tight control over its essential documents is likely to carry that control into all aspects of trial execution. Make sure to file all documents associated with protocol amendments, such as IRB approvals and revised informed consent forms -- our auditors find these are the items most frequently missing from the essential document set. 

Write It All Down
Document your QC procedures in an SOP. It will serve as training material for site staff and a repository for worksheets and checklists.

There’s no magic organization for this QC SOP. A general set of instructions could outline how reviewers can verify that all documents follow ALCOA principles. For example, on (paper) source documents, are all pages and required signatures present? Are entries legible? Are corrections initialed, dated, and explained? Does the data make sense and lie within expected ranges? Have all data elements been populated? (Tip: turn the paper upside down to catch missing data.)

Checklists that are focused on particular types of documents should be as specific as possible. For example, QC reviews of source documents for screening visits would verify that the correct informed consent form was used, administration of consent was documented, medical release forms were sent if required, demographics were correct, all labs were received, reviewed and signed, all protocol assessments were completed, and all inclusion/exclusion criteria were met and documented.

A Virtuous Cycle
While designed to control quality, performing QC over time may actually improve quality. Results of QC reviews often suggest revisions you should make to your tools and operations to reduce error in the future.

Okay, you can climb back through the window again -- no one said CAPA. (But wouldn't that be impressive?)


Showcasing Site QC Processes
Does implementing a QC program require resources and time? Yes, and that’s the point. It’s evidence to Sponsors and CROs of your commitment to running a quality study. Not only that, but it demonstrates a proper respect for your study participants by ensuring their data can be used.

Oh, and make sure you highlight your QC program on feasibility questionnaires. It’s something to brag about.

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

We may call them “site inspections”, but it’s not the site that’s being inspected when a regulator visits; it’s the Principal Investigator. Though a PI typically delegates study tasks to other staff members, he or she remains solely responsible for the conduct of the study. In fact, the ICH E6(R2) addendum adds two new sections to the international guidance that emphasize PI supervision.

That’s what makes the Delegation of Authority (DoA) log so important and why regulatory inspectors care about it so much. A DoA log serves as evidence that a PI has assigned study tasks only to those staff members with the education, training, and experience to carry them out. If delegates are unqualified to perform their tasks, subject safety could be at risk and it’s highly likely that the study data would be unusable.



Monitors – you can really make a big contribution here. At the outset of the study, you can verify that your PI has made appropriate delegations and the DoA log is complete. You can cross-match the log with training records, CVs, licenses, and source documents and correct any problems as early in the study as possible. Then, throughout the study, you can verify that the DoA log is being maintained.

Coverage
Without referencing any other site document, monitors can spot two types of DoA log omissions.

(1) Missing Assignments. Are there study tasks to which no one has been delegated? The tasks in a DoA log are often represented by a short code to conserve space. A legend at the end of the log translates the code into its corresponding task. Monitors can compare the legend to the DoA log entries to see if any tasks are omitted.


(2) Gap in Assignments. Due to staff turnover, reassignment, leaves of absence, etc., delegation for a task frequently does not last the duration of the entire study. A column in the DoA log indicates the delegation start and stop date.  Monitors can check to make sure that when the delegation for a task ends for one staff member, it is picked up by another.

Qualifications
Once you’re satisfied the DoA log completely covers all tasks for the duration of the study, you can check to make sure delegates have the necessary qualifications. You’ll want to compare the log with training records, CVs, and medical licenses from the regulatory binder.

• Has the staffer charged with recording vital signs during a subject visit been formally trained to take blood pressure? Is it documented?
• Did an incoming pharmacist receive protocol training prior to the start date of his study assignments?
• Does state law allow a registered nurse to dispense investigational product, or is a nurse practitioner or physician’s assistant required? Does the protocol require only an M.D. conduct certain procedures? Does the DoA log show the requirement is being followed?

Study Procedures
Even after the focus of the monitoring visit moves past the DoA log itself, you should revisit the log during source document review.

• Have any study tasks been conducted by staff members who have not received official delegation to do so?
• Perhaps the protocol requires a blinded IP dispenser. If so, has the delegated dispenser conducted any other study procedure?

PI Oversight
The PI is responsible for ensuring subject safety, compliance with the regs and the protocol, and control of the investigational product. That obligation cannot be delegated away. PI oversight is critical to a successful study, and the DoA log is where PI oversight starts.

Procedures that are performed by unqualified or ineligible personnel put both study participants and study data at risk. These are the very things regulatory inspectors work to guard against. Good monitors know it and make verifying the DoA log a priority.

__________________
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

Trying to comply with the GDPR got you down?
Maybe our parody will cheer you up.

(Sung to the tune of Lennon-McCartney's "Back in the U.S.S.R.")

Last month, I scheduled one-on-one discussions with our most experienced GCP auditors to ask each of them the same question: What surprises you most about the audits you conduct?

I guess you could say that I was the one who was surprised. I’m not sure exactly what I was expecting to hear, but I thought my teammates were going to talk about things that were new. Instead, I heard a lot more about things that have been around for a long time. To a person, my colleagues said they were surprised to be observing some of the same audit findings they were observing 30 years ago...which *is* surprising when you consider most of them were mere children at the time. ;-)  It seems we have some stubbornly persistent quality and compliance issues in the biopharma industry that decades of neither experience nor technology have seemed to remedy. And the problems are not just persistent; they’re interrelated.



Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)
It’s quite common for auditors to encounter sponsors, CROs, and sites that lack an adequate set of SOPs to describe local procedures. There are several reasons for this. Sometimes it’s a lack of resources. Sometimes smaller, established organizations believe writing it all down is unnecessary, as “people know their jobs.” Sometimes newer companies are simply unaware that written procedures are required for particular operations. But when procedures are not documented, organizations are unable to demonstrate GCP compliance, cannot ensure that activities are performed correctly or consistently, and have difficulty training new staff members. (We’ll come back to training in a bit.)

Frequently missing from a good working set of SOPs are procedures for Disaster Recovery, Handling of Suspected Fraud, and Management of Regulatory Inspections. These SOPs are not used for day-to-day operations, so perhaps that’s why they don’t garner as much attention. Nevertheless, the inability to recover from a disaster, protect the organization from fraud allegations, or pass a regulatory inspection can sink a company.

A fourth SOP that is commonly absent from the set is the document that describes how to write, approve, distribute, revise, and retire SOPs. Also frequently missing from a working set of SOPs is our next topic: Training.

Training
Training can be expensive and time-consuming, and companies increasingly have to do more with less. In-person training has largely been replaced by computer-based systems, on-site training has given way to distance learning, and mentoring has gone the way of the dodo.

The good news is that study sites typically adhere to formal GCP training requirements. What’s often missing, though, is the training that connects GCP concepts to everyday activities. A trainee might correctly answer a multiple-choice question about audit trails, but without that “last mile” of coaching, use Wite-Out to correct a source document error. This is where SOPs come in. When training is conducted using well-written SOPs, it can help bridge the gap between standard GCP training and specific site operations.

It is not uncommon for study-specific training to be lacking in CROs – protocol training, device training, computer systems user training. As part of their vendor oversight procedures (also an SOP!), sponsors should be making sure that CRO staff is adequately trained. 

Trial Master Files (TMFs)
Whether paper or electronic, it’s common for TMF documents to be missing or expired. Replacements for these documents can usually be produced and filed at the time of the audit. Misfiled documents are another matter; they are already there but cannot easily be found. Locating and refiling them essentially doubles the time and cost of the original effort. For example, documents from multiple labs, such as certificates, credentials, vendor audit results, etc., are often mistakenly commingled. Documents must be sorted and refiled so that each facility listed on the 1572 has its own file or electronic folder.


Another very common mistake is treating every document on letterhead as if it’s general correspondence. Search for the word “letter” in the DIA Reference Model and you can see how many opportunities exist for misclassifying correspondence. For example, an IND safety report sent by the sponsor on letterhead should be filed under “Notification of Safety Information,” Section 8.3.18 in ICH E6(R2), not “Relevant Communications,” Section 8.3.11. In an eTMF, an IRB approval letter belongs in 04.01.02, its designated DIA Reference Model position, not 04.04.01, which is reserved for general communication.

The root cause of these misfilings? The filer does not know enough about the filing structure of the TMF and often is not familiar enough with clinical research to know the purpose of each document and where it belongs. The corrective action? Training. Training on the TMF plan, the TMF Management SOP, ICH GCP, and study operations in general.

Technology to the Rescue?
No doubt, CTMSs, eTMFs, eCRFs, ePRO, and other systems have improved clinical operations and reduced error. However, three decades of technological advances have done little to address the most common quality and compliance issues encountered by GCP auditors – and by extension regulators. Some might find that discouraging, but isn’t it also a little satisfying that the solution to our most persistent problems comes down to human communication?

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

In an effort to tease out the priorities of a clinical study site audit, I asked six of our most experienced GCP auditors the following question:

If you only had one hour to conduct a study site audit,
what would you look at?
[Obligatory warnings:  Do not try this at home. This is just a simulation. Caveat lectorem. Dinosaurs in the mirror are bigger than they appear. Et cetera.]

Of course it’s not possible to conduct any kind of meaningful audit in so short a time, but it’s an interesting thought exercise because it gets to the heart of study site risk.
In order to respond to this question, the auditors needed to ask themselves:

(1) What are the greatest site risks to a study?
(2) Where can evidence be found that those risks are being managed?

Answering the first question is pretty easy. The very first paragraph of ICH E6(R2) tells us “Compliance with this standard provides public assurance that the rights, safety and well-being of trial subjects are protected…and that the clinical trial data are credible.” So there it is: the reason GCP exists. When we conduct clinical research, our highest priorities are human subject protection and data integrity. It follows, then, that jeopardizing these obligations is our greatest risk.

So with only an hour to evaluate whether a study site is managing these risks, we can move on to the second question. What would our audit (now referred to as “hour audit”) look like?

IRB Approvals

Hour Auditor has decided to spend the first twenty minutes at the site reviewing IRB approvals. Are all of the IRB approval letters in the Investigator Site Files (ISF)? Is the protocol that’s being executed the same version that the IRB approved? Have the protocol amendments and all of the associated Informed Consent Forms (ICFs) also been approved?

Missing approval letters aren’t necessarily the end of the world. It’s quite possible that the required approvals are sitting on the sponsor portal, having been received from a central IRB. Their absence from the ISF could just be a clerical error. However, it’s a first-order finding if the site was responsible for getting approval from its local IRB and failed to do so. The IRB would have to be notified. The FDA would have to be notified. Without review and approval from an ethics body, the safety of study participants is jeopardized and their rights violated. Everything stops.


Informed Consent

With forty minutes left to go, Hour Auditor spends the next twenty minutes reviewing participants’ ICFs. The selection of these participants may be random or targeted, depending on the results of the IRB approval review. Has each participant signed every applicable version of the ICF? Were they signed before any associated study procedures were conducted? If not, was the delay noted in the subject notes? How was the situation remedied? Was there a CAPA to ensure that any other incidents were corrected and future occurrences prevented? Was the IRB informed?


Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria

Now down to the final twenty minutes, Hour Auditor asks to see the Inclusion/Exclusion (I/E) criteria for two screened and enrolled participants. Most likely, the particulars of the study -- the vulnerability of the patient population, the therapeutic area, and the protocol complexity, among other things -- would drive the selection.

We’re running out of time, and this could be our final stop. With so much else to look at, including source data, IP accountability, staff qualification and training, and Adverse Events reporting, why focus on I/E criteria? Because they give us a glimpse of many aspects of study conduct all at once. When a site can assess complex I/E criteria correctly, it demonstrates protocol compliance and a commitment to producing reliable study data. Examining I/E criteria also gives Hour Auditor a chance to assess source data quality and provides further assurance of subject safety.

Best Laid Plans
As with any audit, particular findings at any step could (and should) alter the plans for this one-hour visit. If the ICF review left Hour Auditor concerned about fundamental flaws in the IC process, the rest of the audit might be spent trying to determine the extent of the problem. An incidental discussion could raise red flags about staff proficiency that may have Hour Auditor poring through protocol training records or scrutinizing the Delegation of Authority log. (Plus, Hour Auditor really, really wants to take a peek at the IP accountability records, and so may find a reason to do so*.)

The point of this thought exercise was to consider (1) the obligations of the clinical research industry to protect subjects and produce reliable data, (2) where the biggest risks to that obligation lie, and (3) how site audits should be prioritized to ensure those obligations are being met and those risks are being managed.

_________________________________________________________________________

*The auditors involved in this discussion did their best to honor the absurdly artificial time constraint I gave them. That meant foregoing activities no self-respecting auditor could bear to forego. This paragraph recognizes some of those activities. (Thank you all. I know this hurt.)

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

Alarm Clock Image via Good Free Photos

    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.

Guest Blogger: Greg Weilersbacher
Founder & President, Eastlake Quality Consulting

All companies outsource. It’s a humbling fact that you simply can’t do it all yourself. This often has to do with resource allocation; your company may allocate dollars to build and sustain some activities in-house while choosing to contract higher-cost operations to qualified suppliers who already have the expertise and equipment. 

You may outsource the manufacturing of tablets, sterile injectable, or topical dosage form, or the GMP release and stability testing of your product. Once the production and testing is complete, the product may need to be stored under controlled temperature and humidity conditions and then distributed to locations around the globe. The Contract Development and Management Organizations (CDMOs) who execute these critical operations are of paramount importance to your company’s success. Choosing the right suppliers will also help to minimize stress-induced headaches throughout your organization. Here are the top five ways to get the most out of a supplier audit.



1.  Come to the Audit Prepared
This seems obvious. However, more often than not, quality auditors step into the supplier’s lobby without doing their homework. Ask yourself the following questions: Why am I auditing this supplier? Is this supplier new to my company or one that we have used before? If used previously, have I read over the audit observations as well as the supplier’s responses and do I understand them? Which audit observations do I suspect would be the most challenging for the supplier to address and which are most important to my company’s requirements for this product? Have I reviewed previously executed production batch records and testing data and are there issues that need to be resolved? Are their deviations and CAPAs to follow up on?

Your understanding the supplier’s work proposal is of great value in refining the scope of the audit. Ask yourself:  Which of our products may be manufactured and tested here and which strengths (e.g., potency) will be produced? Which equipment is likely to be used? For a tablet production, the equipment train could include balances, blenders, roller compactor, spray dryer, solvent-rated oven, comils, tablet press and tooling, gravity feeder, coating systems, de-duster, weight sorter, metal detector, tablet counter, etc. This list of equipment will assist you in requesting equipment records during the audit. 

2.  Stay On Point
Proper audit planning will help to keep the audit organized and adhere to the audit timeline. In advance of the audit, provide the audit host with a list of the technical, lab, and manufacturing staff you wish to speak with and the records you need to review. A well-organized host will have this available for your review. Stick to your audit agenda. This is critical. The best way to derail your progress is to spend precious time chasing down minor issues while glaring problems get little to no attention. Continually refer back to the audit agenda and remember to keep the content of your audit report in mind while executing the audit.


3.  Know Your Technical Expertise and Limitations
Many auditors have led previous lives in the laboratory or in manufacturing while others started their careers in quality assurance and may have little technical background with regard to equipment, manufacturing processes, GMP utilities and laboratory testing. Know your limitations and if necessary strengthen them by hiring an expert consultant to assist you during the audit.

A common problem area that is at best glossed over and at worst completely ignored during an audit is the CDMO’s compliance with GMP utilities requirements. All too often, this is due to the auditor’s lack of understanding of the operation, inputs and outputs, validation parameters, and periodic testing and maintenance requirements for utilities such as HVAC, clean or pure steam, purified water and WFI systems, autoclaves, clean compressed air, nitrogen and other gases used for operating equipment or used during processing activities in manufacturing. Typically, these areas are also less well understood by the CDMO’s employees and as a result noncompliance abound. 

Some GMP utilities may be connected to the facility’s building management system, while others may be stand-alone equipment. In either case, the CDMO should have records of alarms (e.g., out of specification or out of range conditions), an acknowledgement of each alarm by designated staff members, and documentation of corrective actions. The last item is key. This is where the execution of quality systems tends to fail. Make a point to request documentation of corrective actions for each utility alarm. 

Additionally, purified and WFI water systems along with gases, such as clean compressed air and nitrogen, require periodical sampling/testing at each point-of-use. Verify that the timelines (monthly, quarterly, or annual) for sampling and testing were performed as directed by the CDMO’s procedures. These timelines are typically not well adhered to. A clear understanding of all the operations of the supplier’s GMP utility management process will keep your thoughts clear during the audit and help identify areas that are in need of improvement. 

4.  The Auditor’s Job is to Identify the Good and the Bad (Not to Win the Debate)
An important goal of a supplier audit is to identify the supplier’s strengths and weaknesses and come away from the audit with a compliance assessment that your company can use to make important decisions. It is of no value to your company if the goal of the auditor is to show the supplier how much he or she knows by debating the fine points of compliance. GMP auditors with decades of experience generally avoid this competitive exchange as it is unproductive. Rather, it is more important to the spend the necessary time identifying compliance issues, making them known to the audit host in a professional manner, and taking detailed notes that assist in writing the audit report. Your company’s senior managers need to know the supplier’s good and not-so-good points; detailing all of these provides the greatest value. 

5.  Interview the CDMO's Lab Staff, Manufacturing Operators, and Shipping/Receiving Personnel
CDMO’s quality systems are generally written by managers and directors who have many years of industry experience. It is of utmost importance that staff members who execute these systems understand them if your company’s product is to be manufactured, tested, stored, and distributed in a compliant manner. Request to speak with manufacturing staff members who work on the production floor and are likely to work on your product. Ask them about the process they would follow to conduct lines clearance, charge powders to a blender, operate a spray dryer, use a comil, set-up of a tablet press, inspect tablets, use metal detectors, etc. Compare the information they provide to the CDMO’s SOPs to determine if the staff understands their jobs. Listen for phrases such as “I usually do it this way…” or “it’s a different every time but I typically set up the equipment like this…” These phrases reveal a lack of control and adherence to procedures. 

The Take Away
The audit itself lays the foundation for a relationship with the supplier and the take-away message should address the following questions: Will the supplier work to resolve the issues I’ve identified? Am I confident that the supplier will immediately notify and involve my company’s representatives when deviations occur during production or testing? Do the supplier’s quality systems and records meet my company’s requirements and those of regulatory agencies? How confident am I that the supplier will produce and/or test a quality product that my company can stand behind? Is the supplier simply a pair of hands or are they committed to be my partner in this product’s success? The answers will provide you with a comfort level in making the decision to move forward with the CDMO or to look to the their competition.  

*********************************************************************************

A version of this article was first published in Outsourced Pharma.

 About the Author
Greg Weilersbacher is the Founder and President of Eastlake Quality Consulting, a GMP consulting firm based in the Southern California area. Over the last 25 years, he has held director and vice president positions leading Quality Assurance, Quality Control, Analytical Chemistry, Materials Management, GMP Facilities, and Product Manufacturing in biotech and pharmaceutical companies. His unique experiences and technical background have led to the manufacture and release of hundreds of solid oral, sterile, and biologic investigational products to clinics in the U.S. and abroad. Email Greg at weilersbacher.greg@gmail.com.