-
In November 2024, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning letter to the sponsor as a result of a BioResearch Monitoring Program (BIMO) inspection which observed objectionable conditions. The warning letter cited two violations of the Title 21 CFR.
-
In December 2024, following the release of the 2024 revision of the Declaration of Helsinki (DoH), US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) staff shared the FDA’s perspective on what their role was in the development of the 2024 DoH and how it may impact FDA procedures. The DoH is intended to guide clinical research involving human participants that is often used as the foundation for other guidelines such as the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) Good Clinical Practice (GCP).
-
In October 2024, the World Medical Association (WMA) announced the adoption of the 2024 revision of the Declaration of Helsinki (DoH) during the 75th WMA General Assembly in Helsinki, Finland, the same location where the Declaration was initially adopted 60 years prior.
-
On September 27, 2024, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning letter to an Institutional Review Board (IRB) as a result of a (BIMO) inspection from July of 2023. BIMO inspections evaluate compliance with of FDA regulatory requirements, in this case, title 21 CFR Parts 50, protection of human subject, and 56, Intuitional Review Boards.
-
On November 8, 2024, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) hosted a virtual public webinar for clinical research stakeholders as well as anyone interested in the informed consent process of clinical trials titled “Informed Consent – More than Just Another Document to Sign?”. As the title suggests, the webinar explores the standards for informed consent in FDA regulated trials, how they are impacting the trial participant’s experience, and how they can be innovated and improved upon.
-
Myth: Source data needs to be redacted before it can be reviewed by a monitor for remote monitoring.
Answer: The question is, why would you redact when the patient gave authorization to use and disclose the information for the purposes laid out in the authorization and consent? Remote review is not “collecting” data; it is “reviewing” data. Also, redacting is super laborious, manual, and prone to errors.
-
Join this live, interactive webinar with guest presenters from the Duke Office of Clinical Research within the School of Medicine for ‘A Case for Sponsor Monitoring Remote Access to EMRs.’ This session presents how a successful program was implemented prior to COVID-19 and then leveraged during COVID-19 to support sponsor remote review of EMRs while maintaining control and security of the subjects’ data and maintaining subjects’ privacy based on the HIPAA authorization. Learn about a case example of a successful program implementation that avoids site burden and maintains attributability to records. Explore opportunities for sites and sponsors to find similar solutions. The webinar concludes with a question and answer session.
-
The FDA released new topics in the FAQ section of the guidance document for conducting clinical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic. The rapidly changing environment of the crisis has made it challenging to continue conducting and monitoring clinical trials in the traditional manner due to restrictions on travelling, dispensing investigational products, and social gathering. New questions continue to arise as the logistics of monitoring and conducting clinical trials become apparent.
-
Master protocols can increase efficiency of clinical trials while reducing risks to subjects. A master protocol compares multiple different investigational products with one placebo within one protocol. An adaptive design may be built into the protocol so that a substudy could be eliminated if the data warrants. Read our blog on adaptive design for further information.
-
Metrics Champion Consortium (MCC) launched the work group last October as an opportunity for MCC member organizations to discuss how risk-based quality management is transforming process metrics for monitoring. The work group is considering the impacts that centralized, targeted, and remote monitoring have on process metrics, which have traditionally been based on onsite monitoring.
