基于风险的质量管理:集中监控的案例。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL INFORMATICS Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science Pub Date : 2024-12-11 DOI:10.1007/s43441-024-00719-1
Nicole Stansbury, Danilo Branco, Cris McDavid, Jennifer Stewart, Kristin Surdam, Nycole Olson, Joanne Perry, Jeremy Liska, Linda Phillips, Amanda Coogan, Anina Adelfio, Lauren Garson
{"title":"基于风险的质量管理:集中监控的案例。","authors":"Nicole Stansbury, Danilo Branco, Cris McDavid, Jennifer Stewart, Kristin Surdam, Nycole Olson, Joanne Perry, Jeremy Liska, Linda Phillips, Amanda Coogan, Anina Adelfio, Lauren Garson","doi":"10.1007/s43441-024-00719-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Since 2019, the Association of Clinical Research Organizations has conducted a landscape survey of risk based quality management (RBQM) adoption in clinical trials. Here, we present data from four years of surveys, with an emphasis on the most recent: the 2022 survey included data from 4958 trials across seven contract research organizations, of which 1004 were new studies started in 2022. Results indicate that while overall risk assessment adoption is strong, it is lagging in other risk-based components which suggests companies are not deriving the full expected benefits of performing a risk assessment and mitigation process to their trials. The 2022 study also suggests new study starts showing promising traction, with adoption hovering near 50% for most RBQM elements. At the same time, the survey suggests industry has mixed views on the potential value of quality tolerance limits (QTLs). Ultimately, centralized monitoring is being underutilized despite the potential of increased patient safety oversight and improved data quality. The authors of this paper developed a case study based on a trial in clinicaltrials.gov to demonstrate how RBQM adoption could include the key RBQM elements such as centralized monitoring, reduced source data review and source data verification as well as implementation of QTLs in a real-world scenario. The authors believe the clinical trial industry has an obligation to utilize centralized monitoring to produce more efficient and effective clinical trials and will make a case to do so in this paper.</p>","PeriodicalId":23084,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Risk-Based Quality Management: A Case for Centralized Monitoring.\",\"authors\":\"Nicole Stansbury, Danilo Branco, Cris McDavid, Jennifer Stewart, Kristin Surdam, Nycole Olson, Joanne Perry, Jeremy Liska, Linda Phillips, Amanda Coogan, Anina Adelfio, Lauren Garson\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s43441-024-00719-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Since 2019, the Association of Clinical Research Organizations has conducted a landscape survey of risk based quality management (RBQM) adoption in clinical trials. Here, we present data from four years of surveys, with an emphasis on the most recent: the 2022 survey included data from 4958 trials across seven contract research organizations, of which 1004 were new studies started in 2022. Results indicate that while overall risk assessment adoption is strong, it is lagging in other risk-based components which suggests companies are not deriving the full expected benefits of performing a risk assessment and mitigation process to their trials. The 2022 study also suggests new study starts showing promising traction, with adoption hovering near 50% for most RBQM elements. At the same time, the survey suggests industry has mixed views on the potential value of quality tolerance limits (QTLs). Ultimately, centralized monitoring is being underutilized despite the potential of increased patient safety oversight and improved data quality. The authors of this paper developed a case study based on a trial in clinicaltrials.gov to demonstrate how RBQM adoption could include the key RBQM elements such as centralized monitoring, reduced source data review and source data verification as well as implementation of QTLs in a real-world scenario. The authors believe the clinical trial industry has an obligation to utilize centralized monitoring to produce more efficient and effective clinical trials and will make a case to do so in this paper.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23084,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-024-00719-1\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL INFORMATICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-024-00719-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自2019年以来,临床研究组织协会(Association of Clinical Research Organizations)对临床试验中采用基于风险的质量管理(RBQM)进行了景观调查。在这里,我们展示了四年调查的数据,重点是最近的调查:2022年的调查包括来自七个合同研究组织的4958项试验的数据,其中1004项是2022年开始的新研究。结果表明,虽然总体风险评估的采用程度很高,但在其他基于风险的组成部分中却落后了,这表明公司没有从其试验中获得执行风险评估和缓解过程的全部预期收益。2022年的研究还表明,新的研究开始显示出有希望的吸引力,大多数RBQM元素的采用率徘徊在50%左右。与此同时,调查显示,业界对质量公差限制(qtl)的潜在价值看法不一。最终,尽管增加了患者安全监督和改善了数据质量的潜力,集中监测仍未得到充分利用。本文的作者基于clinicaltrials.gov上的一个试验开发了一个案例研究,以演示RBQM的采用如何包括关键的RBQM元素,如集中监控、减少源数据审查和源数据验证,以及在现实场景中实施qtl。作者认为,临床试验行业有义务利用集中监测来进行更高效和有效的临床试验,并将在本文中提出这样做的理由。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Risk-Based Quality Management: A Case for Centralized Monitoring.

Since 2019, the Association of Clinical Research Organizations has conducted a landscape survey of risk based quality management (RBQM) adoption in clinical trials. Here, we present data from four years of surveys, with an emphasis on the most recent: the 2022 survey included data from 4958 trials across seven contract research organizations, of which 1004 were new studies started in 2022. Results indicate that while overall risk assessment adoption is strong, it is lagging in other risk-based components which suggests companies are not deriving the full expected benefits of performing a risk assessment and mitigation process to their trials. The 2022 study also suggests new study starts showing promising traction, with adoption hovering near 50% for most RBQM elements. At the same time, the survey suggests industry has mixed views on the potential value of quality tolerance limits (QTLs). Ultimately, centralized monitoring is being underutilized despite the potential of increased patient safety oversight and improved data quality. The authors of this paper developed a case study based on a trial in clinicaltrials.gov to demonstrate how RBQM adoption could include the key RBQM elements such as centralized monitoring, reduced source data review and source data verification as well as implementation of QTLs in a real-world scenario. The authors believe the clinical trial industry has an obligation to utilize centralized monitoring to produce more efficient and effective clinical trials and will make a case to do so in this paper.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science
Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science MEDICAL INFORMATICS-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
13.30%
发文量
127
期刊介绍: Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science (TIRS) is the official scientific journal of DIA that strives to advance medical product discovery, development, regulation, and use through the publication of peer-reviewed original and review articles, commentaries, and letters to the editor across the spectrum of converting biomedical science into practical solutions to advance human health. The focus areas of the journal are as follows: Biostatistics Clinical Trials Product Development and Innovation Global Perspectives Policy Regulatory Science Product Safety Special Populations
期刊最新文献
Impact of Rule 11 on the European Medical Software Landscape: Analysis of EUDAMED and Further Databases Three Years After MDR Implementation. Basic Considerations for Data Pooling Strategy in Multi-Regional Clinical Trials (MRCTs). Global Harmonization of Biosimilar Development by Overcoming Existing Differences in Regional Regulatory Requirements - Outcomes of a Descriptive Review. A Consistent Lack of Consistency: Definitions, Evidentiary Expectations and Potential Use of Meaningful Change Data in Clinical Outcome Assessments Across Stakeholders. Results from a DIA Working Group Literature Review and Survey. A Five-Year Analysis of Market Share and Sales Growth for Original Drugs after Patent Expiration in Korea.
×
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