Skip to main content

Conducting Audits for Contract Research Organizations (CROs)

BayBiotech.NET
Performing site visits to your CROs for compliance audits at certain time intervals ensures the integrity and quality of data you are receiving for the clinical research. Sponsor audits also set stage for engaged CROs to prepare for direct FDA audits and leads to increased chances of success.
Audits may be either routine audits to check the facilities for compliance or may be based on the performance or any non-compliance issue that may have come in the highlight during the course of the study. In either case an audit provides CROs with timely opportunity to take corrective and preventive action measures and makes the CRO facility aware of sponsor’s vigilance leading to compliance on their part as well as best outcomes of financial investment for the sponsor.
Before performing an audit, an audit plan must be drafted by the auditor specifically preparing a check list of the items or issues that are recognized as critical steps of the procedures performed at CRO sites. This information might be gathered from the team members at sponsor’s organization who have been involved in developing the SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) and standards for the studies conducted at the CRO site. It is the job of the auditor to ensure that the audit plan and the accompanying checklist have all the critical components included relevant to the quality performance.
After finalizing the plan and a checklist, auditor must have the higher management’s approval for the same before visiting the CRO site. Some of the important components to include in auditor’s checklist for a CRO visit are: checking for completeness of training records of the employees, making sure the current version of SOPs are in use, facility is 21CFR Part 11 compliant, ensuring that critical steps of the procedures are performed according to the protocol as well as the general health of the facility appears to be of standard quality as well as in accordance with different federal and state compliances. A successful auditor must also be able to understand the complete reporting structure and roles and responsibilities of the employees at the CRO site.
Once the audit is completed, auditor must present a report with important findings highlighting the non-compliance issues within a month’s time frame and communicate the findings to the higher management and consecutively to the CRO for corrective and preventive actions.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Good Machine Learning Practices

BayBiotech.NET A joint effort by FDA,  United Kingdom’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and Health Canada have developed guiding principles to help promote utilization of medical devices that are safe and effective and utilize artiificial intelligence and machine learning. To find out more details check out the link here!

Group C (Treatment IND) Drugs

BayBiotech.NET Since 1976, National Cancer Institute (NCI) in agreement with FDA has established the Group C classification system to allow access to certain drugs for the cancer patients specifically falling under a category that adequate alternative therapy or if the available alternative therapy has significant toxic effects. Each Group C drug protocol specifies patient eligibility and drug use information. Group C drugs are provided only to properly trained physicians who have registered themselves with NCI using a special form to assure that their patient qualifies under guidelines - or protocols - for the drug. Physicians using drugs under Group C have no reporting requirements to the NCI other than the obligation to report adverse drug reactions. Group C drugs are provided free of charge, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services provides coverage for care associated with Group C therapy. Making Group C drugs available to the critically ill patients not only provi...

Risk Based Clinical Monitoring

BayBiotech.NET FDA's recommendation of Risk Based Monitoring of Clinical Trials , as published in their Draft Guidance in August 2011. For the first time, FDA provided guidance on monitoring of clinical investigations in 1988 which was recently withdrawn, stated that the “most effective way” to monitor an investigation was to “maintain personal contact between the monitor and the investigator throughout the clinical investigation.” At the time the guidance was issued, sponsors had only limited ways to effect meaningful communication with investigators other than through on-site visits.   This guidance recommends an assessment by the sponsor for the need of 100% on-site monitoring. Such an assessment may be based on the complexity of the study protocol and not be generally applicable to all trial types. It explains the importance of remote monitoring facilitated by the use of electronic data capture system (EDC) and also emphasizes the need of the identifying crit...