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

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Amendments for High Risk Device Type Regulatory Pathway

BayBiotech.NET Government Accounting Office (“GAO”) has issued a long-awaited report evaluating the use of the 510(k) process by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA” or the “Agency”) in the January of 2009. Report mainly focused on Preamendment class III devices. Although most high-risk class III medical devices are subject to the demanding premarket approval (“PMA”) process, preamendment class III devices may be cleared through the 510(k) pathway until FDA issues regulations requiring a PMA. Under the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990, FDA was required either to reclassify preamendment class III devices into class I or II, or (2) issue regulations requiring PMA approval for the devices, GAO noted that 20 preamendment class III device types have not yet been addressed by the Agency. GAO has urged FDA to take required steps to address the remaining class III devices that continue to be eligible for 510(k) review. As a result of the report, FDA has committed to address al...
Post a Comment
Read more

Harmonization by Doing (HBD): Japan & U.S. Collaboration

BayBiotech.NET HBD is an international cooperative effort by Japan and US for regulatory convergence for Medical Devices. The efforts are focused on to develop global clinical trials and address regulatory barriers for timely device approvals. To address the needs for additional evaluation, the HBD initiative is a pilot project launched jointly by FDA and MHLW-PMDA for the premarket review of device cardiovascular technology. Instead of taking a theoretical approach to harmonization, HBD is focused on Proof of concept by utilizing parallel development, application submissions and review of actual medical device projects. HBD Study intends to collect and analyze regulatory submission data from multiple applications in the U.S. and Japan. The purpose of the study is to further understand differences that may exist with format and content, to define best practices and to improve globally harmonized processes. To read more about the HBD program, follow the link: http://www.fda.gov/M...
Post a Comment
Read more

510(k) Summary or Statement

BayBiotech.NET A premarket notification from a manufacturer must include either a summary of the 510(k) safety and effectiveness information of the product upon which the substantial-equivalence determination is based or a statement that this information will be made available by the 510(k) applicant to any person within 30 days of a written request. As per FDA definition, these are the definition of Summary and Statements: Summaries are released by FDA regarding a 510(k) clearance when requested under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act whereas Statements are used to arrange for this FOI request to be fulfilled by the 510(k) applicant. 510(k) Summaries: If a summary is included, it must be submitted with the 510(k) notification as per FDA guidelines. The summary must be complete and correct in order for FDA to complete its review of a 510(k) submission. FDA will accept summaries and amendments until it issues a determination of substantial equivalence. If a summary has be...
Post a Comment
Read more