Cargando…
Descriptive Analysis of Good Clinical Practice Inspection Findings from U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency
BACKGROUND: The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) have collaborated in good clinical practice (GCP) inspections since September 2009. The two agencies operate under different regulatory frameworks for GCP oversight. No systematic assessments of GCP...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9356921/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35610469 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s43441-022-00417-w |
_version_ | 1784763626733699072 |
---|---|
author | Sellers, Jenn W. Mihaescu, Camelia M. Ayalew, Kassa Kronstein, Phillip D. Yu, Bei Ning, Yang-Min Rodriguez, Miguel Williams, LaKisha Khin, Ni A. |
author_facet | Sellers, Jenn W. Mihaescu, Camelia M. Ayalew, Kassa Kronstein, Phillip D. Yu, Bei Ning, Yang-Min Rodriguez, Miguel Williams, LaKisha Khin, Ni A. |
author_sort | Sellers, Jenn W. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) have collaborated in good clinical practice (GCP) inspections since September 2009. The two agencies operate under different regulatory frameworks for GCP oversight. No systematic assessments of GCP inspection findings have been reported. METHODS: We identified common inspections of clinical investigators, sponsors, and contract research organizations conducted by both agencies in support of marketing applications that had the same trial data submitted between 2009 and 2015. We grouped inspection findings into deficiency areas. We reviewed and compared these findings and calculated concordance rate for each deficiency area. RESULTS: Twenty-six clinical investigator sites and 23 sponsors/contract research organizations were inspected by both agencies in support of 31 marketing applications during this period. For FDA, the most common GCP findings were deficiencies related to Protocol Compliance for clinical investigator inspections and Trial Management issues for sponsor/contract research organization inspections. For EMA, deficiencies related to Documentation (including Trial Master File) were the most common findings for both clinical investigator and sponsor/contract research organization inspections. There was high concordance, of approximately 90%, for deficiencies related to Protocol Compliance for clinical investigator inspections and Trial Management for sponsor/contract research organization inspections between the two agencies. There was a concordance rate of about 70% for Documentation deficiencies for both clinical investigator and sponsor/contract research organization GCP inspections. CONCLUSION: GCP inspection findings from 49 common clinical investigator and sponsor/contract research organization inspections were comparable, providing support for continued FDA-EMA GCP collaboration. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9356921 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-93569212022-08-08 Descriptive Analysis of Good Clinical Practice Inspection Findings from U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency Sellers, Jenn W. Mihaescu, Camelia M. Ayalew, Kassa Kronstein, Phillip D. Yu, Bei Ning, Yang-Min Rodriguez, Miguel Williams, LaKisha Khin, Ni A. Ther Innov Regul Sci Original Research BACKGROUND: The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) have collaborated in good clinical practice (GCP) inspections since September 2009. The two agencies operate under different regulatory frameworks for GCP oversight. No systematic assessments of GCP inspection findings have been reported. METHODS: We identified common inspections of clinical investigators, sponsors, and contract research organizations conducted by both agencies in support of marketing applications that had the same trial data submitted between 2009 and 2015. We grouped inspection findings into deficiency areas. We reviewed and compared these findings and calculated concordance rate for each deficiency area. RESULTS: Twenty-six clinical investigator sites and 23 sponsors/contract research organizations were inspected by both agencies in support of 31 marketing applications during this period. For FDA, the most common GCP findings were deficiencies related to Protocol Compliance for clinical investigator inspections and Trial Management issues for sponsor/contract research organization inspections. For EMA, deficiencies related to Documentation (including Trial Master File) were the most common findings for both clinical investigator and sponsor/contract research organization inspections. There was high concordance, of approximately 90%, for deficiencies related to Protocol Compliance for clinical investigator inspections and Trial Management for sponsor/contract research organization inspections between the two agencies. There was a concordance rate of about 70% for Documentation deficiencies for both clinical investigator and sponsor/contract research organization GCP inspections. CONCLUSION: GCP inspection findings from 49 common clinical investigator and sponsor/contract research organization inspections were comparable, providing support for continued FDA-EMA GCP collaboration. Springer International Publishing 2022-05-24 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9356921/ /pubmed/35610469 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s43441-022-00417-w Text en © This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Research Sellers, Jenn W. Mihaescu, Camelia M. Ayalew, Kassa Kronstein, Phillip D. Yu, Bei Ning, Yang-Min Rodriguez, Miguel Williams, LaKisha Khin, Ni A. Descriptive Analysis of Good Clinical Practice Inspection Findings from U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency |
title | Descriptive Analysis of Good Clinical Practice Inspection Findings from U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency |
title_full | Descriptive Analysis of Good Clinical Practice Inspection Findings from U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency |
title_fullStr | Descriptive Analysis of Good Clinical Practice Inspection Findings from U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency |
title_full_unstemmed | Descriptive Analysis of Good Clinical Practice Inspection Findings from U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency |
title_short | Descriptive Analysis of Good Clinical Practice Inspection Findings from U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency |
title_sort | descriptive analysis of good clinical practice inspection findings from u.s. food and drug administration and european medicines agency |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9356921/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35610469 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s43441-022-00417-w |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sellersjennw descriptiveanalysisofgoodclinicalpracticeinspectionfindingsfromusfoodanddrugadministrationandeuropeanmedicinesagency AT mihaescucameliam descriptiveanalysisofgoodclinicalpracticeinspectionfindingsfromusfoodanddrugadministrationandeuropeanmedicinesagency AT ayalewkassa descriptiveanalysisofgoodclinicalpracticeinspectionfindingsfromusfoodanddrugadministrationandeuropeanmedicinesagency AT kronsteinphillipd descriptiveanalysisofgoodclinicalpracticeinspectionfindingsfromusfoodanddrugadministrationandeuropeanmedicinesagency AT yubei descriptiveanalysisofgoodclinicalpracticeinspectionfindingsfromusfoodanddrugadministrationandeuropeanmedicinesagency AT ningyangmin descriptiveanalysisofgoodclinicalpracticeinspectionfindingsfromusfoodanddrugadministrationandeuropeanmedicinesagency AT rodriguezmiguel descriptiveanalysisofgoodclinicalpracticeinspectionfindingsfromusfoodanddrugadministrationandeuropeanmedicinesagency AT williamslakisha descriptiveanalysisofgoodclinicalpracticeinspectionfindingsfromusfoodanddrugadministrationandeuropeanmedicinesagency AT khinnia descriptiveanalysisofgoodclinicalpracticeinspectionfindingsfromusfoodanddrugadministrationandeuropeanmedicinesagency |