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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sellers, Jenn W., Mihaescu, Camelia M., Ayalew, Kassa, Kronstein, Phillip D., Yu, Bei, Ning, Yang-Min, Rodriguez, Miguel, Williams, LaKisha, Khin, Ni A.
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