FDA Issues 5 New International Warning Letters

FDA's Increased International Presence

The “Most Recent Warning Letters” section of the FDA website lists five Warning Letters to international firms. The Warning Letters were posted on May 10 and will disappear into the Warning Letter labyrinth on the website in a few days (see previous post). They are to firms in both Europe and Asia and come from four different centers: the Center for Devices and Radiological Health; the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API); the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research; and the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (two Warning Letters for Seafood HACCP).

The Warning Letters do not state if the inspections were conducted by one of the FDA’s new International Resident Posts- but it is likely that the FDA’s increased global presence contributed to the enforcement actions. FDA now has offices in China, India, Belgium, and Costa Rica. This is addition to FDA’s International Inspection Cadre which is primarily drawn from FDA Field Investigators (Consumer Safety Officers) working for the 20 FDA District Offices across the country. The fact that different offices are issuing Warning Letters around the world at the same time gives a clear indication of FDA’s increased international enforcement efforts.

FDA International Resident Posts

Read the Warning Letters:

Hong Kong – Medical Devices

Spain – Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients

Sweden – Biologics cGMP

Korea – Seafood HACCP

On the Blogroll: Last week we had the FDA Lawyer’s Blog. This week I want to highlight a recent article on the FDA Law Blog on “FDA Warning Letter ‘Close Out’ Process Not Working.”

Please join GxP Perspectives on LinkedIn at:

GxP Perspectives LinkedIn Group

FDA Warning Letters: How to Navigate FDA’s Website

One of the Many Exhibitors at the
ACRP Conference

FDA Warning Letters, and some thoughts on critical and creative thinking, conclude my reporting from the Global Conference for ACRP – the Association of Clinical Research Professionals – held last week at the Washington State Convention Center in Seattle. During the conference it became apparent that many people, including FDA employees, have a difficult time searching for Warning Letters on FDA’s website. The Warning Letter section is an absolute mess. So I thought I would provide a few simple search tips to help find Warning Letters for GCPs. Unfortunately cGMP Warning Letters are more difficult, but the tips still help. Then I would like to tell you about an interesting session I attended on critical and creative thinking.

When searching for FDA Warning Letters, the link is below, scroll down and choose to “Browse Warning Letters by SUBJECT.” You will be presented with the alphabet. Click on “C” and then scroll down past all the “cGMP” categories until you reach “Clinical Investigator” where you will find the majority of GCP Warning Letters.

Searching for FDA Warning Letters

They will be listed in alphabetical order. There is a “Sort by:” option. Choose “Letter issued DESC” from the drop down menu. You will then have most of the GCP Warning Letters with the most recent listed first. You can also choose as subjects: Clinical Investigator – Sponsor; Bioresearch Monitoring; IRBs; Sponsor Obligations; and “IDE….” for medical device Warning Letters. There are several ways of listing for each category. You can sort by “Letter Issued DESC” for each category. There are five GLP categories plus Good Laboratory Practices. Go figure.

FDA Warning Letters

There were a number of interesting sessions that I attended at the ACRP meeting. I wanted to tell you about Critical Thinking in a Regulated Environment, because it can be so darn difficult. Kirk Mousley described critical thinking as producing ideas and then evaluating ideas. Citing Iris Verdi he described creative thinking as original, imaginative, and uncommon. He discussed that creative thinking comes through different avenues: it is often a revisement of something that already exists (evolution); a combination of two or more ideas (synthesis); or just a different way of looking at things, asking yourself, “how else can I look at this?”

How Can I Look at This Differently?

Mousley also discussed the barriers to creative thinking including “not part of an approved process” (SOPs). He noted that the regulatory process itself discourages critical thinking by imposing a “process mentality.” He countered that by suggesting that you build into a process the encouragement of critical thinking. And he pointed out the myth that “every problem can only have one solution or one right answer.” One of the points that I emphasize when doing a root cause analysis of a problem identified during a CAPA process is that you should Always Look for More Than One Root Cause.

====

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

====

On The Blogroll: The FDA Lawyers Blog discusses a variety of interesting issues including bioequivalence data, litigation tactics, and Victory for Embryonic Stem Cell Researchers.

Please join GxP Perspectives on LinkedIn at:

GxP Perspectives LinkedIn Group

FDA & OHRP Hold Regulatory Forum at ACRP Meeting in Seattle

Jerry Menikoff of OHRP & Jean Toth-Allen of FDA

FDA and OHRP both presented at a Regulatory Affairs Public Forum at the ACRP Global Conference on Sunday, May 1st.Speaking for FDA were Leslie Ball, MD, Director of the Division of Scientific Investigations (DSI) which initiates the majority of Bioresearch Monitoring inspections at FDA. Also from FDA was Jean Toth-Allen, PhD, Biophysicist, Office of Special Medical Programs. Jerry Menikoff, MD, JD, spoke on the panel as the Director of the US Office for Human Research Protection. The Association of Clinical Research Professionals hosted the forum in a setting more reminiscent of a TV game show than a professional panel that was complete with theme music and multi-colored columns highlighting the stage. However the questions posed were the ones on everyone’s minds and the speakers gave some good answers.

Please note that the Plenary Session on the Regulatory Affairs Public Forum was recorded and is available on the ACRP website for free.

One question brought up the issue of sponsor oversight of outsourced clinical trial responsibilities. Toth-Allen said that the sponsor is ultimately responsible for all of the clinical trial responsibilities and only CROs are specifically mentioned in the regulations. She emphasized the need to have SOPs in place covering how they are going to oversee contracts of vendors and what the contracts should cover. Leslie Ball said that DSI had an increased focus on sponsor and CRO inspections.

Dr. Ball said that she thinks sponsors should look at three qualities when selecting vendors:

1. The overall capability of the organization and staff.

2. That contracts clearly point out who is responsible for specific responsibilities.

3. That the sponsor oversees the vendor’s activities while the trial is ongoing.

When Does FDA Inspect?

Another area of interest was when and where FDA would inspect. Both Leslie Ball and Jean Toth-Allen said that FDA was focusing more on inspections during the actual conduct of the study and not just when a sponsor makes an application to the agency.

Dr. Ball said that with the shift to more sponsor/CRO inspections that FDA inspections were looking at sponsor oversight of ongoing trials. She also said that DSI was developing a risk-based site selection tool that looked at three different levels. First, at the application level, did the application pose certain risks that FDA needed to consider. Then at the trial level, tending to focus on pivotal trials. Then at the site level, were there complaints or a history of non-compliance. She also said that they were looking at data from the application such as the rate of subjects dropping out or very high or very low rates of adverse events.

Dr. Leslie Ball, FDA

Dr. Ball also emphasized that FDA looked at what they considered important, specifically data integrity for primary efficacy endpoints or key safety indicators, and oversight by the sponsor. She noted that many things that are routinely listed on a Form FDA 483, Inspectional Observations, such as study drug accountability sometimes didn’t find their way to a Warning Letter that focused on items of significance to the approval of the application.

Another interesting discussion was on the topic of online informed consent forms, which are beginning to appear. Jerry Menikoff said it depended on the nature of the study when an online consent might be appropriate. Jean Toth-Allen spoke of the need for a verification process, that the online consent was given by a real person.

Discussion on Electronic Medical Records in
Clinical Trials

Finally the panel discussed electronic medical records (EMRs). All three panelists supported the use of EMRs. Toth-Allen said that if an EMR is used in a clinical trial then the institution needs to provide access to verify the record, that it was not acceptable to for monitors to be told that you can’t see it, which elicited a hearty round of applause from the many monitors in attendance. Dr. Ball noted that there were a lot of advantages to EMRS. “You can actually read them,” she said. She also emphasized that EMRs should have the same criteria for clinical trials, that they should be ALCOA– Attributable, Legible, Contemporaneous, Original and Accurate. She also said that although they may not need to be Part 11 compliant, they did need to have an audit trail so that all changes to the record could be traced.

To view the Regulatory Forum visit the
ACRP Website on the Plenary Sessions

=====

On the Blogroll: RegBlog on all things regulatory from the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Covers much more than FDA

=====

Please join GxP Perspectives on LinkedIn at:

GxP Perspectives LinkedIn Group

On The Blogroll: Applied Clinical Trials Blog discusses,
“It Takes a Village: Recruiting Latino and Hispanic Patients.”

FDA Enforcement: The Four Elements of Proof

FDA Enforcement:
The Four Elements
of Proof

What is FDA required to document to initiate an enforcement action? What proof is necessary to establish clear and significant violations of the regulations? What elements of noncompliance do FDA field investigators need to establish that a Warning Letter, seizure, injunction, consent degree, or prosecution is required? FDA has basic requirements that should be documented during an inspection: they are called the Four Elements of Proof. When reviewing a Form FDA 483, Inspectional Observations, it should be compared against these basic required elements for consistency, relevancy and significance. Let’s look at the Four Elements of Proof, sometimes referred to with the acronym JIVR.

Does FDA Have Jurisdiction?

JURISDICTION: For FDA to take an enforcement action, it needs jurisdiction. We know that FDA regulates drugs, medical devices, and biologics/vaccines. However, It isn’t always simple. There is a strict definition of “drug” in the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act. That is the reason FDA lost at the Supreme Court with the first attempt at asserting jurisdiction over tobacco in the 1990s. It was “a question of intent,” which is also the title of former Commissioner Dr. David Kessler’s fascinating book on his time at FDA. Laws and regulations usually have a section for “definitions.” Take some time to read them. It will help you understand the way FDA interprets inspections and when to seek enforcement actions.

An Early FDA Inspection: Railroad Watering Points

INTERSTATE COMMERCE: One of the principal functions of the United States government is to regulate interstate commerce. Railroads were the principal means of interstate transportation when FDA was founded and an important area of FDA concern. And just try to document medical oxygen in interstate commerce. I once had a promotion delayed for three months because as a Bioresearch Monitoring investigator, I was dealing with the biopharmaceutical and medical device industries where interstate commerce is basically assumed. So I had to go out to a couple of medical gas repackers and collect DOC Samples (a DOC sample consists of paperwork, not a product) to establish that I could document interstate commerce. (See Warning Letter Below for Interstate Conveyance Sanitation.)

What is the Violation?

VIOLATION: There should be a “clear and significant” violation of the regulations to put something on a 483 or Warning letter. If the laboratory normal range for the inclusion/exclusion criteria for blood glucose is 80-120 Mg/DL and the result is 121 that is a clear violation. Is it significant? I think not. Determining significance is not an easy task. It is something that may need discussion during an FDA inspection. Patient, professional discussion of the issue is usually the best approach. Your FDA field investigator may not have experience in the specific therapeutic area or technical issues of the inspection. It isn’t always easy conducting an FDA inspection and establishing the four elements of proof and the significance of the violation. And remember, You cannot determine the root cause of a problem if you don’t know what the violation is. What is the Violation? Find it in the regulations.

Regulations Assign Responsibility

RESPONSIBILITY: Regulations assign responsibility. In clinical trials they are assigned to sponsors, investigators, and IRBs. In GMPs and postmarket activities responsibilities are assigned to the “applicant” and the manufacturer of a regulated product. In the GLP regulations, responsibility is assigned to the testing facility. Responsibility is a Big Deal to an FDA investigator. It is just as important to ask, “Whose regulatory responsibility is it?” as it is to ask, “What is the Violation?” Without regulatory responsibility you cannot determine who should recommend the actions necessary to correct a regulatory error.

There you have it. The four elements of proof. The basic requirements for FDA enforcement.

=====
Interstate Conveyance Sanitation Warning Letter
=====
News from FDA: There is a new Proposed Rule (proposed change in regulations) from FDA on the Disqualification of Investigators. This proposed rule modernizes and harmonizes current regulations. The Final Rule will probably look quite similar.
=====

On the Blogroll: GxP Perspectives made the list for Top 40 Websites (and tweets) on the FDA. This comes from FDAZilla. I think it is a pretty good list.

Also: David Spero has an excellent post called The Art of Motivation on his blog. This isn’t about regulations, its about people.

============

Please join GxP Perspectives on LinkedIn at:

GxP Perspectives LinkedIn Group

=====

GxP Perspectives is now on twitter: @GxPPerspectives

.

FDA Clinical Trials: Quality Considerations for Pivotal Studies

When Should Quality Begin?

When should quality preparation begin for a pivotal phase III clinical trial? About once a month I get a call asking for help for a clinical trial because its time to get ready for FDA inspections. I ask “When will the application be filed?” The response? “Soon, very soon.”

It is a good thing to prepare for an FDA inspection. It is even better to prepare at the beginning, reviewing the quality considerations necessary to do the job right by “frontloading quality.” Here are some things I think you should consider. (Please take the survey at the end)

Phase III Considerations for Compliance with the FDA Bioresearch Monitoring Program: by Carl Anderson

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration conducts inspections of clinical trials as part of their Bioresearch Monitoring program. Although all FDA regulated clinical trials are subject to inspection, the large majority of inspections are the result of an application for the approval of an investigational product. Results of an FDA “Bimo” inspection can have a direct impact on the review and approval of an NDA, PMA, or BLA by the agency. FDA conducts inspections of clinical trials for two primary reasons:

1. To ensure the integrity of data submitted to the agency in support of an application.

2. To protect the safety, rights, and welfare of human participants in clinical trials.

The regulations that the FDA enforces for clinical trials are collectively known as the good clinical practice (GCP) regulations. They include 21 CFR Parts 11, 50, 54, 56, 312, 314, 601, 812, and 814. They can be found on the web at: http://www.fda.gov/oc/gcp/regulations.html. In particular FDA Bimo inspections cover the specific responsibilities required of sponsors and investigators covered by 21 CFR 312 Subpart D: Responsibilities of Sponsor and Investigators. For medical devices they are contained in Part 812.

The primary guidance document used for GCPs is the International Conference on Harmonization E6: Good Clinical Practice: Consolidated Guidance. This document is the international standard and the primary GCP regulation in many countries. ICH documents for clinical studies including E6 can be found at the link on the bottom

There are two types of GCP inspections that are of concern for sponsors. The first type is the inspection of clinical investigators at the sites where research is conducted. The majority of FDA inspections are of the investigators. The second type is the inspection of the sponsor or contract research organization. This is a routine inspection for medical device sponsors and is becoming more common at drug sponsors. Although most inspections are at clinical sites, in the event that serious deficiencies are documented, there can be directed inspections of sponsors that can result in serious regulatory action.

QA for the Data Lifecycle

Prior to beginning a pivotal study the sponsor should establish a system of clinical quality assurance. This is a recommendation, not a requirement, of FDA. E6 defines quality assurance (QA) as: “All those planned and systematic actions that are established to ensure that the trial is performed and the data are generated, documented (recorded), and reported in compliance with GCP and applicable regulatory requirement(s).” Among the most important QA activities are the following:

Clinical trial materials. They should be produced in compliance with good manufacturing practice (GMP) regulations and qualified by an onsite audit.

Increased Enforcement of
Part 11

Computerized systems including eCRFs. There are many forward looking systems available for electronic case report forms (CRFs) including systems that are internet based. These vendors are not regulated by FDA and do not receive regulatory inspections. The burden is on the sponsor to determine if the vendor provides GCP compliant services. All should be qualified by an onsite audit.FDA has started looking a lot closer at eCRF systems.

Site management organizations (SMOs). These are unregulated organizations that provide support for clinical investigators and recruit study subjects. FDA inspections of sites using an SMO have frequently been cited for noncompliance with GCPs. SMOs should also receive onsite audits.

Central IRBs. These commercial institutional review boards have a better record than SMOs. However, the protection of human participants in research is a central FDA concern. Commercial IRBs should be qualified by an onsite audit.

Randomization services. This might not require an onsite audit and qualification, but the sponsor needs to critically determine that the vendor can supply the required services.

QA Audits of Clinical Sites

Audits of clinical sites. ICH E6 states that: “The sponsor’s audit plan and procedures for a trial audit should be guided by the importance of the trial to submissions to regulatory authorities…” The sponsor should audit a pivotal clinical trial throughout the data lifecycle. In particular the sponsor should audit problematic sites during the study. It is the sponsor’s responsibility to “secure investigator compliance” if the investigator is violating GCPs. This was the first violation cited on the Sanofi-Aventis Warning Letter and has historically been a major violation cited on FDA Warning Letters to sponsors.

Top enrolling sites should always be audited during the course of the study because of their increased importance for a successful study and the likelihood that the site will receive an inspection by FDA. The sponsor should also audit sites that may be inspected by FDA at the conclusion of the study including data outliers, sites with a history of noncompliance, and sites that do not have a history of FDA inspections.

Database audits The sponsor’s data management activities should have independent QA review. This should include a qualification audit if data management is contracted out. An excellent resource for data management is the Society of Clinical Data Management. They publish a Good Clinical Data Management Practices Guide which is available for purchase on their website below.

Trial master file (TMF) audits: A TMF consists of the Essential Documents section of ICH E6. There should be QA review periodically throughout the study. The failure to adequately document a clinical trial will hinder any application to FDA. The agency field investigators have a saying that, “If it isn’t documented then it didn’t happen.” Take a look at the TMF page at the top of the blog for additional resources.

Conduct Regular GCP Training

GCP training: The sponsor should have a training program that includes initial and continuing training on good clinical practice. The training program should be in writing and training should be documented. At least once a year staff members should attend an outside conference, meeting, or workshop that includes clinical trial professionals that are not the sponsor’s employees.Peer-to-peer interactions are necessary to develop staff

GLP audits: The FDA conducts routine surveillance audits of nonclinical test facilities. An FDA inspector may randomly select a study of the sponsor to track as part of that inspection. Protocols and final reports are collected and sent to FDA headquarters as part of the inspection. The sponsor should always qualify a nonclinical laboratory used for GLP studies submitted to the agency. The new FDA Sponsor Compliance Program (see previous post) gives instructions for looking at nonclinical studies during GCP inspections at the sponsor.

Sponsor audits and mock FDA inspections

Always Prepare for an FDA Inspection

Finally, a sponsor should conduct audits of their clinical management department and conduct “mock FDA inspections” in preparation for the regulatory audits that will inevitably take place after the NDA, PMA, or BLA is filed. Preparing for a regulatory inspection is invaluable for effectively hosting any regulatory agency, in particular FDA. Medical device sponsors need to remember that FDA typically inspects sponsors submitting a PMA. Drug sponsor inspections are on the increase. The “OAI” violation rate for inspections of medical device sponsors was 33% in fiscal year 2007. OAI stands for “official action indicated” the most serious classification.

An OAI classification can cause FDA to delay or reject an application.

====

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

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

================
This just in: Request for Comments- Exculpatory Language Used in Informed Consent, a joint FDA and OHRP draft guidance document (September 2011)

================
Society for Clinical Data Management

ICH Guidance Documents
================
On the Blogroll: PharmTech Talk has had a number of interesting blog posts of late.
====

On LinkedIn

Please join GxP Perspectives on LinkedIn at:

GxP Perspectives LinkedIn Group

=====

GxP Perspectives is now on twitter: @GxPPerspectives

FDA Issues New Guidance for Sponsor & CRO Inspections

FDA Issues Updated Guidance on Sponsor & CRO Inspections

FDA is increasing their emphasis on Sponosr and CRO inspections with the release of an updated version of the Compliance Program Guidance Manual, CP 7348.810, Sponsors, Contract Research Organizations, and Monitors (CPGM). This FDA guidance document gives instructions to FDA personnel on how to conduct an inspection of a sponsor or CRO involved in FDA regulated research.

It significantly modernizes the previous CPGM, released over 10 years ago, introducing new sections and deleting sections that were obsolete or irrelevant.

There are new sections on the Registration of Studies on ClinicalTrials.gov; Review of Site Records; Financial Disclosure; Electronic Records and Electronic Signatures; Emergency Research; International Data; and GLP Studies. Other sections, such as Medical Devices, are substantially updated and clearer. The new CPGM should professionalize FDA’s approach to sponsor and CRO inspections and ensure closer review of a sponsor’s regulatory responsibilities. It is long overdue. I have done a brief analysis of Section III, Inspectional, of the new CPGM. There are also some helpful links to documents in Section VI, References and Contacts including several documents that I had never heard of before.

Sponsor and CRO Inspections Usually Will be Scheduled

The first significant change is right at the beginning of Section III, Inspections, “under this program will be pre-announced unless otherwise instructed in the inspection assignment.” This formalizes a policy that began a few years ago under the Medical Devices Initiative. In addition, the new CPGM makes a point of emphasizing a statement routinely included in FDA inspection documents: Approaches that differ from those described in FDA’s Guidance documents should not be listed on the (Form FDA) 483 (Inspectional Observations) unless they constitute deviations from the regulations.” There are also instructions that the new CPGM “provides only the minimum scope of the inspection” for the field investigator to “expand the inspection as the circumstances warrant.” There are also specific instructions on how to document a violation:

“Any deviations from regulations should be thoroughly documented. For example, if the sponsor failed to review monitoring reports in a timely fashion and/or failed to bring non- compliant clinical investigators into compliance, monitoring reports, report review dates, and evidence of clinical investigator continued non-compliance should be documented and copied.” (original emphasis)

There are specific instructions that stem from FDA’s increased vigilance regarding falsification of data:

Increased Emphasis on Falsification of Data

“Discuss potential violations involving fraud subject to Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C.) with your supervisor, District Compliance Officer, and assigning Center contact for appropriate referral to the Office of Criminal Investigations (OCI).” Reader’s should note that Title 18 violations are the ones that can put you into prison. Here are the new sections of the CPGM:

D. REGISTRATION OF STUDIES ON CLINICALTRIALS.GOV

“ClinicalTrials.gov is a website maintained by the National Library of Medicine (NLM). Its establishment was mandated by the 1997 FDA Modernization Act (FDAMA) to provide a public resource for information on studies of drugs, including biological drug products. The FDA Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA) mandated expansion of this data bank and included enforcement provisions to help ensure compliance.” There are specific guidance instructions in this section including a discussion of the Form FDA 3674, which we all will be paying closer attention to. Among the additional instructions to FDA field investigators are:

“6. Determine whether primary and secondary outcomes measures are listed on ClinicalTrials.govfor the study/studies. Determine if the outcome measures, if any, listed on ClinicalTrials.gov are generally consistent with the primary and secondary outcomes in the sponsor’s study protocol(s).

7. When examining informed consent documents related to an applicable clinical trial registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, determine if the appropriate required statement referencing ClinicalTrials.gov is included6. 21 CFR 50.25(c). The statement is:

‘’A description of this clinical trial will be available on http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov, as required by U.S. Law. This Web site will not include information that can identify you. At most, the Web site will include a summary of the results. You can search this Web site at any time.’’’

For the section on Monitoring Procedures and Activities there is one significant change in recognition of the changes in the conduct of clinical trials: “With the prevalence of multisite clinical trials, traditional monitoring techniques – early and frequent on-site visits at all clinical sites – have become resource intensive. Regulations do not prescribe a specific monitoring technique, simply stating that sponsors are required to select monitors qualified by training and experience to monitor the investigational study (21 CFR 312.53(d), 511.1(b)(8)(ii), and 812.43(d)).”

Monitoring of Clinical Trials is Evolving

In part, this statement recognizes that 100% source/CRF verification might not be practical or necessary, that sponsors may need to adapt new techniques, sometimes described as “Compliance Monitoring,” where monitoring records and reports are reviewed to determine outlier data. This could include no adverse events reported at a specific site. The CPGM goes on to state: “Determine if all CRFs are verified during monitoring visits. If a representative sample was selected, determine how the size and composition of the sample were selected.”

Financial Disclosure is discussed for the first time by FDA in a CPGM. Financial disclosure violations are very rarely cited by FDA during sponsor/CRO inspections. This may change with these instructions:

“1. Determine if the sponsor obtained financial disclosure information from each investigatorbefore his/her participation in the clinical trial, as required by 21 CFR Part 54 and 21 CFR 312.53(c)(4) and 812.2(b)(5) and 812.43(c)(5).

2. Determine if the sponsor received prompt updates regarding relevant changes in financialdisclosure information from investigators during the study and for one year after study completion.

3. Determine if the sponsor reported to FDA (on Form FDA 3454 and 3455, respectively), allpertinent investigator disclosures and certifications of financial information as required by 21 CFR 54.6.

4. Determine if the sponsor retained the documentation to support the certifications anddisclosures of investigators’ financial information that was reported to FDA.”

Updated Section on
Part 11

There is an updated section on Electronic Records and Electronic Signatures. The FDA guidance document, “Guidance for Industry Part 11, Electronic Records; Electronic Signatures – Scope and Application” (Part 11 Guidance) is discussed at length confirming that this document currently represents FDA’s enforcement policy regarding Part 11.

The CPGM emphasizes issues including the Scope of Electronic Records & Signatures; Procedures; Data Collection; & Security.

Finally there are new sections on Emergency Research; International Data; & Nonclinical Laboratories reflecting new regulations, guidance documents, or inspection policies. It is important to note that although FDA will not inspect GLP studies at every sponsor/CRO inspection, the possibility exists. The new CPGM gives the field investigator specific instructions on what to look for in non-clinical studies. (UPDATE: Read the recent Sponsor Warning Letter on Preclinical Studies on the link below.)

The new CPGM will significantly change how Sponsor/Contract Research Organizations, and Monitor inspections are conducted. It confirms a shift to review of sponsor responsibilities by FDA’s Bioresearch Monitoring program managers. It is a very important document for sponsors and CROs to review.

Read the New CPGM

Guidance for Industry on Financial Disclosure

Guidance on Certifications Required By FDAAA (including clinicaltrials.gov)

Compliance Policy Guide on Fraud and Untrue Statements…

Part 11: Scope & Application Guidance

Sponsor Warning Letter on Preclinical Studies from CDRH

====

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

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

====

On the Blogroll:

Marc Stecker’s Photos

=====

On the Blogroll: FDA Matters once again discusses the importance of FDA’s contributions to public health. Please read Steven Grossman’s post on Change Takes Time.

=====
Please join GxP Perspectives on LinkedIn at:

GxP Perspectives LinkedIn Group

=====

GxP Perspectives is now on twitter: @GxPPerspectives

FDA Inspections: What NOT To Say & How Not To Say It

"It's Not My Job"

FDA Inspections are Always stressful. How should you answer the FDA Investigator’s questions? What should you say or, more importantly, what should you NOT say? Two common answers are to tell the truth and to only answer the question asked. Both are good points. The FDA investigator is conducting a public health inspection so you should want to tell the truth. It also happens to be against the law to lie to a federal official so there are both positive and negative motivations to answer a question truthfully. It is also a good idea to give a brief, factual, and truthful answer to the question you are asked, not a question you think might be asked. And remember to use a complete sentence. Receiving a barrage of monosyllables in an interview is only going to irritate the FDA investigator. The one answer I recommend to never give to an FDA investigator is, “It’s not my job.”

What? Most people who answer, “it’s not my job” are telling the truth! Not only that, it is not a good idea to answer for someone else who actually has that responsibility. However, you have to remember that an FDA investigator has heard that response one hundred times before. People frequently give evasive answers and avoid responsibility when being interviewed by the FDA. It gets very old, very fast.

"I Know Who Has That Responsibility"

A better approach is to say, “That isn’t my job but I know whose responsibility it is and let me see if she is available.” During an FDA inspection it is important to build trust. If an FDA inspector asks a reasonable question, let’s say, “How do you ship investigational product to clinical sites?” It is in your interest to see that the right person answers the question and that you find the right person in a timely manner.

FDA has begun a program to increase the types of GCP inspections it conducts. There will be more inspections of CROs and clinical trial vendors such as clinical laboratories. In fact, they have already started. That means that many more people will need training on how to participate in an FDA inspection. GxP Perspectives will be having some Guest Commentaries on the subject and try to provide some practical solutions.

Frontloading Quality:
The Key to Success

The first step in successfully hosting an FDA inspection is to have a quality system in place that monitors the data or product lifecycle. You don’t want to start your quality process after you lock your database! Then, when FDA does show up, you want to give a positive impression. You want to build trust with FDA. Think back to the last time you phoned your utility company or complained about a pothole on your street. When you finally got a live person and they told you, “that’s not my job,” how did you feel? That isn’t how you want FDA to feel either.

============
A new service: Please check out the Services page at the top of the Blog to learn more about GxP Services.
============

============
Take the GxP Survey! Only Ten Questions!
============

Here are some helpful articles and resources on FDA inspections:

Applied Clinical Trials on Mock FDA Inspections.

Ten Steps for Improving GCP Inspections by Vernette Molloy and my late colleague, Sandy Mackintosh, also in Applied Clinical Trials

FDA Inspection Guides: How the FDA conducts inspections

BioJobBlog: What’s Up With FDA Inspections Anyway?

#######

SPECIAL UPDATE: 18MAR2011: FDA has released an updated version of the Compliance Program Guidance Manual 7348.810, Sponsors/Contract Research Organizations/Monitors. There are new sections on registration of clinical trials on ClinicalTrials.gov, Financial Disclosure, the Part 11 Scope & Application Guidance Document, and other issues. If you work for a sponsor, a CRO, or are a contract CRA you MUST read this document. Review Section III, Inspectional.

##########
A new feature from FDAzilla on FDA 483s–

Read the Press Release on 483s

On the Blogroll: GxP Perspectives made the list for Best 40 Blogs (and tweets) on the FDA. This comes from FDAZilla. I think it is a pretty good list.

##########

Visit the TMF Page at the Top Right of the Blog! I am trying to assemble resources for those of us concerned with the Trial Master File. I welcome any contributions you might have of interesting articles and resource documents.

+++++++++

On The Blogroll: Audrey’s Network– a great way to keep up with news from the San Francisco Bay Area Life Sciences Community

Please join GxP Perspectives on LinkedIn at:

GxP Perspectives LinkedIn Group

GCP Protocol Deviations & Violations: Determining the Root Cause

GCP Protocol Violations: Determing the Root Cause

The top violation cited during FDA inspections of clinical sites has consistently been the failure to follow the investigational plan- Protocol Deviations & Violations. Coupled with recordkeeping violations the failure to follow the protocol has been the mainstay of the Form FDA 483, Inspectional Observations, issued by FDA field investigators to clinical sites for decades. However, FDA has recently been pointing out that the root cause can just as easily be poorly designed protocols as noncompliance by a clinical investigator. In the previous post on GCP CAPA plans I note that at least two root causes that should always be investigated. This is particularly true when you find systematic protocol violations. Two areas that should always be reviewed are:

Protocol Design: Frequently you will find a Note to File in a clinical site’s regulatory binder saying that the study coordinator had been “retrained” in the importance of subject compliance. However, if subjects are routinely missing visits or protocol-required procedures you need to take a look at how well designed the protocol is. Were clinical sites consulted when the protocol was written? Is the visit schedule practical? Are the tests easily performed or do they require special efforts by research staff at a busy medical practice? And just how many protocol amendments do you have anyway? It is the clinical site that will receive an FDA 483 but the root cause very well might be found at the sponsor.

Protocol Violations are the Top GCP Violation at Clinical Sites

Protocol Adherence: Sometimes the clinical site is the cause of the deviation. There is a significant difference between the practice of medicine and the conduct of a clinical trial. I can’t count the times that I have been told, condescendingly, that “We’ve been doing this type of medical procedure for quite some time.” That’s all well and good but have you been reading the protocol for quite some time? A clinical trial is an experiment, and frequently requires activities that are not the usual practice of medicine. You may need to order a second blood test, or change the dose of the investigational product.

In cases like this a follow-up letter from the monitor to the clinical site might not be enough. If the root cause is the failure to understand the responsibilities of a clinical investigator then the issue may need to be escalated to someone with the letters “MD” after their name. Sometimes you need a physician to explain the protocol to another physician. Seldom does the “re-education” of support staff work as an effective corrective action.

Determining the root cause of systemic protocol deviations and violations isn’t always easy. However, if you don’t follow the investigational plan you can jeopardize your application. And remember, always investigate at least two possible causes of protocol violations.

==============

In a recent FDA Warning Letter protocol violations are discussed at length.
====

You can help out GxP Perspectives! Please let your colleagues and friends know about GxP Perspectives. I also encourage you to get an email subscription (on the sidebar to your right) or join the LinkedIn group (below).
This just in: Request for Comments- Exculpatory Language Used in Informed Consent, a joint FDA and OHRP draft guidance document (September 2011)

====
On the Blogroll: Cancer Sucks

Visit the TMF Page at the Top Right of the Blog! I am trying to assemble resources for those of us concerned with the Trial Master File. I welcome any contributions you might have of interesting articles and resource documents.
======
Please join GxP Perspectives on LinkedIn at:

GxP Perspectives LinkedIn Group

#######

SPECIAL UPDATE: 18MAR2011: FDA has released an updated version of the Compliance Program Guidance Manual 7348.810, Sponsors/Contract Research Organizations/Monitors. There are new sections on registration of clinical trials on ClinicalTrials.gov, Financial Disclosure, the Part 11 Scope & Application Guidance Document, and other issues. If you work for a sponsor, a CRO, or are a contract CRA you MUST read this document. Review Section III, Inspectional.

I am in the process of writing an analysis of this updated compliance program. Please let me know if you have questions or suggestions for points to consider. Thanks!

##########

New FDA Guidance Documents Planned for 2011

FDA Plans New Guidance Documents in 2011

FDA just issued a new draft guidance document for Electronic Source Documents in Clinical Investigations (see below) and has more in the works. In this Guest Commentary, John Avellanet, founder of Cerulean Associates LLC, takes a look at what is in store for 2011 as far as FDA Guidance Documents with a focus on new documents for postmarket surveillance. The article is excerpted from a lengthier article in John’s newsletter SmarterCompliance. John forecasts new guidance documents every year in his newsletter. There is a link to John’s website below.

Guest Commentary by John Avellanet:

FDA postmarket surveillance is the emphasis of at least six different guidance documents planned for publication in 2011. And these are in addition to the new International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) and Global Harmonization Task Force (GHTF) documents expected, including a GHTF guidance on the handling of recalls and field safety corrective actions (see below).

The list of FDA postmarket surveillance guidance documents includes:

1. Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls (CMC) – Postmarketing Plan
2. CMC Postapproval Changes Reportable in an Annual Report
3. Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Statistics and Trend Analyses
4. Best Practices for Conducting Pharmacovigilence Studies Using Electronic Healthcare Data (remember that since FDAAA of 2007, the term “study” explicitly means postmarket nonclinical study)
5. Medical Device Reporting for Manufacturers
6. Postmarket Surveillance and the National Competent Authority Report Exchange Criteria and Report Form
7. Types of Submissions for Postapproval Changes to Combination Products

Expect New REMS Guidance from FDA

I also expect the agency to release a revised risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS) guidance, at least in draft form, by year’s end. Part of this release will be the creation of a pilot program to test what a standard REMS could like as a default part of any new drug or biologic submission. This means one more step toward pushing the industry to create some type of REMS for every single new drug or biologic developed. The agency will maintain an approach to a standard REMS that will be harmonized with other regulatory member agencies in the ICH. And while such a revised draft REMS guidance may come as a separate document, I suspect the agency may take a newer tact: “guidance by FAQ.”

EMA is Also Releasing New Guidance & Clarifications

Both the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the UK’s health agency (MHRA) have begun publishing clarifications and revisions to guidance documents and regulatory interpretations using question and answer formats posted on agency webpages. The FDA adopted this approach most recently in its “guidance” (for Buildings and Facilities) on avoiding moldy or musty odors in drugs. Might the agency harness the “guidance by FAQ” approach for its upcoming standardized REMS draft and pilot?

The standard REMS template – while seeming to add more requirements to drug development – will actually provide manufacturers and developers more flexibility, something already known to readers of Get to Market Now! Turn FDA Compliance into a Competitive Edge. While I do not expect the REMS guidance and template to be finalized until after the pilot program is complete, consider developing a high-level REMS as part of any late stage development today. Expect to be able to talk intelligently to FDA reviewers of your plans for a postmarket surveillance program. A high-level draft REMS strategy (you need not share the actual document with the agency) will only help.

Finally, be aware that in 2011, the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) will examine the FDA’s postmarket surveillance activities, with a report expected to be published in 2012. This will inevitably result in more postmarket guidance, and may give the FDA the backing it needs to make a basic REMS part of any new drug or biologic submission by 2014.

//////////////////
This just in: Request for Comments- Exculpatory Language Used in Informed Consent, a joint FDA and OHRP draft guidance document (September 2011)
//////////////////
SmarterCompliance Newsletter

Global Harmonization Task Force focuses on medical devices

International Conference on Harmonization focuses on drugs and biologics

=======
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT: From the FDA Alumni Association (FDAAA): The WHO is seeking a pharmaceutical technical officer to work in China ondrug policy. The position looks very interesting. Please forward to anyone you think might be interested. Please contact WHO directly if you have questions. For info contact <a href="Florence Houn “>Florence Houn at FDAA. or view the WHO AnnouncementWHO Announcement
=======

##########

Please join GxP Perspectives on LinkedIn at:

GxP Perspectives LinkedIn Group

======

Special Notice: The Blog was published in the Journal of Diabetes Science & Technology on the topic of Supervisory Responsibilities of Investigators with my colleagues Ann Berenbaum and Patti Young.

Access the Abstract Here

+++++++++

Response Letters to a Form FDA 483, Inspectional Observations

How Should You Respond to a Form FDA 483?

What is an adequate response to a Form FDA 483, Inspectional Observations? That question was discussed by two representatives of FDA at a training workshop hosted by the Pacific Regional Chapter of the Society for Quality Assurance and the Organization of Regulatory and Clinical Associates – Northwest. The workshop, held on 4-5 November 2010 in Seattle, featured discussions by Chrissy J. Cochran, PhD, from the Division of Bioresearch Monitoring (BIMO) at the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) and Mihaly S. Ligmond, Consumer Safety Officer, Division of Domestic Field Investigations, Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA). ORA is the field organization that conducts most FDA inspections. Both Cochran, who spoke by teleconference on the 4th, and Ligmond, who attended on the 5th, stressed the do’s and don’ts of responding to an FDA 483.

The Form FDA 483

Both FDA speakers stressed that the 483 is the preliminary observations of the field investigator, not the final compliance determination of the Agency. Both emphasized that there was no requirement to respond in writing to a 483. However, both told the training session that if there are issues identified on a 483, then a clear written response can help prevent enforcement action, including a Warning Letter, by FDA. Cochran discussed a few ineffective FDA 483 response letters received by CDRH. They included a clinical investigator who was using an informed consent form without all of the required elements required by 21 CFR 50.25. These elements include a clear statement of research; alternative procedures; a discussion of confidentiality and other important information. The clinical investigator complained that: “You cited us on a technicality.” This was a clear and significant violation of FDA clinical trial regulations and this was not an acceptable response.

Cochran gave an example of an adequate response to an FDA 483 for protocol violations. The response included a copy of a written procedure developed to prevent recurrence of the violation. The procedure was presented to a seminar for study staff with a sign-in sheet with the date of the seminar. It included implementation dates with a review scheduled after three months to determine the effectiveness of the corrective action.

The response to an FDA 483 should go to both the District Office and to CDRH, Cochran said. She stated that it is the assessment at BIMO that makes the final compliance determination for Bioresearch Monitoring inspections. She reviewed the issues that BIMO considers when reviewing an establishment inspection report (EIR) and a Form FDA 483, Inspectional Observations. These include:

• Are the FDA 483 observations actual violations of the regulations?
• Are there additional violations in the exhibits submitted with the EIR?
• Are the observations documented with exhibits or discussion in the EIR?
• Are the observations significant?
• Did the inspected party address the issue in their response?
• Is the response adequate? “We will carefully look at it.”

Ligmond, who is a National Expert for drug good manufacturing practice (GMP) inspections, gave the following recommendations for a response letter to an FDA 483:

• Set a reasonable timeline for taking action;
• Initiate a “Global Response” if the deficiency can impact other areas;
• Include details and attachments;
• Be comprehensive;
• Address disagreements with the observations;
• As a courtesy, copy the investigator

The FDA 483 is the Preliminary Observation of the FDA Field Investigator

Both Cochran and Ligmond restated the new FDA policy for written responses to an FDA 483 if the response is to be considered by FDA prior to issuing a Warning Letter. That response time is 15 business days from the date the FDA 483 is issued. Ligmond gave an excellent recommendation to avoid possible disputes on FDA 483 observations. “Address misunderstandings promptly, courteously, and with the facts,” he said. He discussed the importance of a daily wrap-up session o clear up any disagreements or inaccurate information that may have been given to the FDA field investigator.

CAPA

Corrective and Preventative Action, or CAPA, was discussed by both speakers. Ligmond said that a CAPA plan should address problems completely and in a timely manner. Cochran said that a good CAPA plan should assess the root cause of deficiencies; identify the problems; evaluate the extent of problems; give a clear timeline, describe the CAPA being taken; and reassess the root cause.

Inspection preparedness was also discussed. Ligmond said to spend each day as if you were going to be inspected by FDA. They stressed the importance of Mock FDA Audits in preparing staff for inspections.

ALWAYS Respond to a Form FDA 483

My own experience is that it is always a good idea to respond to an FDA 483. If there is a problem, then give clear details on how the problem is going to be fixed, with specifics such as a timeframe. If you disagree with the observation, then follow Ligmond’s advice to address it “with the facts” and with documentation of the facts. FDA rarely will accept excuses such as “I thought my study coordinator was going to do that.” However, if there is a legitimate response, you should make it in a clear, respectful manner. The 483 responses I have worked on always included specific actions, specific dates, and a specific person or department accepting responsibility for ensuring that the corrective action takes place. And they always include documentation of corrective actions. If it isn’t documented, then it’s just a rumor.

##########
A new feature from FDAzilla on FDA 483s–

Read the Press Release on 483s

##########

Please join GxP Perspectives on LinkedIn at:

GxP Perspectives LinkedIn Group

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Visit the TMF Page at the Top Right of the Blog! I am trying to assemble resources for those of us concerned with the Trial Master File. I welcome any contributions you might have of interesting articles and resource documents. Let me know!