Challenges of risk-based monitoring of clinical trials

M. Simović, N. Nikolić
{"title":"Challenges of risk-based monitoring of clinical trials","authors":"M. Simović, N. Nikolić","doi":"10.3109/10601333.2015.1046990","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The oversight of monitoring activities in clinical trials generally comes from the ICH GCP Guidelines and covers a wide range of responsibilities: trial progress oversight, adherence to the Study Protocol, Standard Operating Procedures, Good Clinical Practice, applicable regulatory requirement(s) and Source Data verification vs accuracy and completeness of the Case Report Form entries. Risk-based monitoring was developed and adopted by Sponsors, Investors, and CROs to decrease the costs of clinical trials and make study management more effective. Both the EMA and the FDA support such an approach with their papers. Interestingly, the review of the EMA “Annual report of the GCP Inspectors working group in 2012” has consistently shown persistence of a significant number of findings in fields/areas of monitoring that cannot be fully or partially captured with a centralized or targeted monitoring approach and cannot be identified, such as essential documents, presence and adherence to SOPs, trainings, and the quality of source documentation. Such results open up new challenges for Sponsors, CROs, and other stakeholders. As long as all current ICH GCP Guidelines are a cornerstone of clinical research, monitoring plans and risk assessments will include overseeing a significant pool of additional aspects, apart from the SDV.","PeriodicalId":10446,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Research and Regulatory Affairs","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Research and Regulatory Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3109/10601333.2015.1046990","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Abstract The oversight of monitoring activities in clinical trials generally comes from the ICH GCP Guidelines and covers a wide range of responsibilities: trial progress oversight, adherence to the Study Protocol, Standard Operating Procedures, Good Clinical Practice, applicable regulatory requirement(s) and Source Data verification vs accuracy and completeness of the Case Report Form entries. Risk-based monitoring was developed and adopted by Sponsors, Investors, and CROs to decrease the costs of clinical trials and make study management more effective. Both the EMA and the FDA support such an approach with their papers. Interestingly, the review of the EMA “Annual report of the GCP Inspectors working group in 2012” has consistently shown persistence of a significant number of findings in fields/areas of monitoring that cannot be fully or partially captured with a centralized or targeted monitoring approach and cannot be identified, such as essential documents, presence and adherence to SOPs, trainings, and the quality of source documentation. Such results open up new challenges for Sponsors, CROs, and other stakeholders. As long as all current ICH GCP Guidelines are a cornerstone of clinical research, monitoring plans and risk assessments will include overseeing a significant pool of additional aspects, apart from the SDV.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于风险的临床试验监测的挑战
临床试验中监测活动的监督通常来自ICH GCP指南,涵盖了广泛的责任:试验进度监督,对研究方案的遵守,标准操作程序,良好临床实践,适用的监管要求以及源数据验证与病例报告表条目的准确性和完整性。基于风险的监测是由发起人、投资者和cro开发和采用的,以降低临床试验的成本,使研究管理更有效。EMA和FDA都在他们的论文中支持这种方法。有趣的是,EMA对“2012年GCP检查员工作组年度报告”的审查一致显示,在监测领域/领域中存在大量持续存在的发现,这些发现无法通过集中或有针对性的监测方法全部或部分捕获,也无法识别,例如基本文件、对sop的存在和遵守、培训和源文件的质量。这样的结果给发起人、cro和其他利益相关者带来了新的挑战。只要所有现行的ICH GCP指南都是临床研究的基石,监测计划和风险评估将包括监督除SDV之外的大量其他方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Changes to protocol in the regulation of adverse drug reactions – historical and current European view Policy and regulations in light of the human body as a ‘superorganism’ containing multiple, intertwined symbiotic relationships Community pharmacists’ knowledge and perceptions on risk management plans in the Southern Region of Portugal Increasing the odds of effective drug development: Elevating regulatory affairs professionals to strategic partners Current regulatory challenges and approaches in the registration of herbal drugs in Europe
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1