Cargando…

GCP inspections in Germany and Europe following the implementation of the Directive 2001/20/EC

Background: The implementation of the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC and the Good Clinical Practice Directive 2005/28/EC fundamentally restructured and harmonized the conduct of clinical trials in Europe. GCP inspections – which affect study sites, laboratories, sponsors and contract research...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Göbel, Claus, Baier, Dieter, Ruhfus, Birgit, Hundt, Ferdinand
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2716552/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19675741
http://dx.doi.org/10.3205/000060
_version_ 1782169833136193536
author Göbel, Claus
Baier, Dieter
Ruhfus, Birgit
Hundt, Ferdinand
author_facet Göbel, Claus
Baier, Dieter
Ruhfus, Birgit
Hundt, Ferdinand
author_sort Göbel, Claus
collection PubMed
description Background: The implementation of the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC and the Good Clinical Practice Directive 2005/28/EC fundamentally restructured and harmonized the conduct of clinical trials in Europe. GCP inspections – which affect study sites, laboratories, sponsors and contract research organizations (CRO) alike – make up an important part of these regulations. A common understanding of how these regulations apply in daily life is however not always ensured. Methods: A working group of the Clinical Research/Quality Assurance subcommittee of the German Association of Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (VFA) was established to outline the regulatory requirements, the experience gathered with inspections by means of a survey and to set up guidance on how to manage an inspection. Results and conclusions: The survey, conducted with the help of 15 pharmaceutical companies within the VFA, included a total of 224 inspections (74 inspections in Germany, 150 from other European countries). Most frequent findings in and outside Germany were related to “documentation” (40.5% vs. 21.3%), “investigational new drugs” (16.2% vs. 14.7%), “drug safety” (13.5% vs. 8%) and “application for a clinical trial authorization” (5.4% vs. 12%). From a German perspective, key findings of this working group were the necessity for a clear differentiation of responsibilities between national and federal as well as international authorities, a harmonization of inspection procedures and topics, and a clarification of whether pre-study/on-study and pre-approval/post-approval GCP inspections of the federal higher authority are included in the “Zentralstelle der Länder für Gesundheitsschutz bei Arzneimitteln und Medizinprodukten” (ZLG) requirements. The survey illustrated, that inspections usually are conducted at the investigational site, and that most of the findings are well known and thus could be prevented by communicating and discussing audit results more intensely within study groups. Again, the survey illustrated, that a harmonization of inspections appears warranted. Finally a code of practice is provided that considers these findings and delivers a basis for a successful inspection whether at the sponsor or the GCP site.
format Text
id pubmed-2716552
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher German Medical Science GMS Publishing House
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-27165522009-07-28 GCP inspections in Germany and Europe following the implementation of the Directive 2001/20/EC Göbel, Claus Baier, Dieter Ruhfus, Birgit Hundt, Ferdinand Ger Med Sci Article Background: The implementation of the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC and the Good Clinical Practice Directive 2005/28/EC fundamentally restructured and harmonized the conduct of clinical trials in Europe. GCP inspections – which affect study sites, laboratories, sponsors and contract research organizations (CRO) alike – make up an important part of these regulations. A common understanding of how these regulations apply in daily life is however not always ensured. Methods: A working group of the Clinical Research/Quality Assurance subcommittee of the German Association of Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (VFA) was established to outline the regulatory requirements, the experience gathered with inspections by means of a survey and to set up guidance on how to manage an inspection. Results and conclusions: The survey, conducted with the help of 15 pharmaceutical companies within the VFA, included a total of 224 inspections (74 inspections in Germany, 150 from other European countries). Most frequent findings in and outside Germany were related to “documentation” (40.5% vs. 21.3%), “investigational new drugs” (16.2% vs. 14.7%), “drug safety” (13.5% vs. 8%) and “application for a clinical trial authorization” (5.4% vs. 12%). From a German perspective, key findings of this working group were the necessity for a clear differentiation of responsibilities between national and federal as well as international authorities, a harmonization of inspection procedures and topics, and a clarification of whether pre-study/on-study and pre-approval/post-approval GCP inspections of the federal higher authority are included in the “Zentralstelle der Länder für Gesundheitsschutz bei Arzneimitteln und Medizinprodukten” (ZLG) requirements. The survey illustrated, that inspections usually are conducted at the investigational site, and that most of the findings are well known and thus could be prevented by communicating and discussing audit results more intensely within study groups. Again, the survey illustrated, that a harmonization of inspections appears warranted. Finally a code of practice is provided that considers these findings and delivers a basis for a successful inspection whether at the sponsor or the GCP site. German Medical Science GMS Publishing House 2009-03-31 /pmc/articles/PMC2716552/ /pubmed/19675741 http://dx.doi.org/10.3205/000060 Text en Copyright © 2009 Göbel et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.en). You are free to copy, distribute and transmit the work, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Article
Göbel, Claus
Baier, Dieter
Ruhfus, Birgit
Hundt, Ferdinand
GCP inspections in Germany and Europe following the implementation of the Directive 2001/20/EC
title GCP inspections in Germany and Europe following the implementation of the Directive 2001/20/EC
title_full GCP inspections in Germany and Europe following the implementation of the Directive 2001/20/EC
title_fullStr GCP inspections in Germany and Europe following the implementation of the Directive 2001/20/EC
title_full_unstemmed GCP inspections in Germany and Europe following the implementation of the Directive 2001/20/EC
title_short GCP inspections in Germany and Europe following the implementation of the Directive 2001/20/EC
title_sort gcp inspections in germany and europe following the implementation of the directive 2001/20/ec
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2716552/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19675741
http://dx.doi.org/10.3205/000060
work_keys_str_mv AT gobelclaus gcpinspectionsingermanyandeuropefollowingtheimplementationofthedirective200120ec
AT baierdieter gcpinspectionsingermanyandeuropefollowingtheimplementationofthedirective200120ec
AT ruhfusbirgit gcpinspectionsingermanyandeuropefollowingtheimplementationofthedirective200120ec
AT hundtferdinand gcpinspectionsingermanyandeuropefollowingtheimplementationofthedirective200120ec