maintaining quality in clinical research optimizing ......organization (iso 9000, 9001, 9004)...
TRANSCRIPT
Maintaining Quality in Clinical Research – Optimizing Planning
and Oversight Activities
Jean Mulinde, M.D.
Senior Policy Advisor
Division of Clinical Compliance Evaluation
Office of Scientific Investigations, CDER, FDA
2
FDA Disclaimer
• The views and opinions presented here represent those of the speaker and should not be considered to represent advice or guidance on behalf of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
3
Today’s Journey
• Quality in Clinical Research
• FDA Regulation and Guidance
• Study Oversight – Centralized Monitoring Examples
• FDA Oversight Activities – CDER’s Clinical Investigator Site Selection Tool
• Final Thoughts
4
Quality in Clinical Research
• Clinical research is the means by which preventive, diagnostic, and therapeutic interventions are evaluated
• Relied on for decision making by
– Patients and Caretakers
– Physicians/Medical Personnel
– Industry
– Regulators
5
Reminder: Clinical Trials of Quality
• Scientific question is important; there is a need to produce high-quality evidence to inform decision making on use of a preventive, diagnostic, or therapeutic intervention
• Trial design is adequate to answer this scientific question; if study well conducted the results will be credible
• Data produced are sufficiently accurate and reliable (fit for purpose) so that they may be used for decision making
• The rights, safety, and welfare of trial participants have been adequately protected
6
Why an addendum to ICH E6?
• Since the 1996 adoption of ICH E6 GCP, clinical trials have evolved substantially – Increases in globalization
– Increases in study complexity
– Increases in technological capabilities
• Good Clinical Practice (GCP) approaches needed modernization to keep pace with the scale and complexity of clinical trials and to ensure appropriate use of technology
Source: Concept Paper, ICH E6, www.ICH.org
7
How Do We Get from Here…
8
To Here….Proactive Quality and Risk Based Approaches
Quality Management Systems
Quality by Design
Protocol
Vendor and Investigator
Oversight Plans
Risk Based Monitoring Data Management Plan
Safety Monitoring Plan
Plans, Plans, Plans, Etc.
9
Quality Management System
• A Quality Management System (QMS) is an integrated system through which organizations can systematically plan and achieve quality objectives linked to their broader strategic goals
• Well described – International Standards Organization (ISO 9000, 9001, 9004)
• Fully implemented across many industries, though use in clinical development arena lagging
• A reasonable assumption that principles and experience from other sectors may be leveraged to inform development of quality management systems in the clinical development arena
10
To Here….Proactive Quality and Risk Based Approaches
Quality Management Systems
Quality by Design
11
Quality by Design (QbD)
• Premise: Quality in clinical trials is defined as the absence of errors that matter.
What do we really need to get right to ensure reliability of results and patient protection? (Risk based thinking)
• Assumption: Likelihood of a successful, quality trial can be improved through prospective attention to preventing important errors that could undermine our ability to obtain meaningful information from a trial.
12
Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI)
• Public-private partnership initiated to develop and drive adoption of practices that increase the quality and efficiency of clinical trials.
• Duke University serves as host of CTTI with infrastructure expenses and projects funded by grant funding from FDA and annual fees of member organizations.
• More than 80 organizations from across clinical trial enterprise (regulators, industry, patient advocacy groups, professional societies, investigator groups, academic institutions)
13
CTTI QbD Project
• Identify best practices and develop methods and tools to apply principles of QbD to the scientific and operational design of clinical trials.
• “Principles document” – Describes Critical to Quality (CTQ) factors generally relevant
to most clinical trials – Emphasizes that the criticality of different CTQ factors is
based on the type and design of trial being conducted – Emphasizes the importance of engaging all stakeholders in
study development – Emphasizes the importance of not falling into check list
mentality, but use of interactive discussion when consider CTQ factors
– Provides considerations and example questions for each CTQ factor to spur cross-functional group discussion
14
Principles Document – CTQ Factors
15
CTQ Factor – Protocol Design
https://www.ctti-clinicaltrials.org/projects/quality-design
16
To Here….Proactive Quality and Risk Based Approaches
Quality Management Systems
Quality by Design
Protocol
Vendor and Investigator
Oversight Plans
Risk Based Monitoring Data Management Plan
Safety Monitoring Plan
Plans, Plans, Plans, Etc.
17
Leveraging Resources for Success
18
To Here….Proactive Quality and Risk Based Approaches
Quality Management Systems
Quality by Design
Protocol
Vendor and Investigator
Oversight Plans Data Management Plan
Safety Monitoring Plan
Plans, Plans, Plans, Etc.
19
FDA Requirements Clinical Trial Quality and Monitoring
• 21 CFR 312 broadly describes sponsor responsibilities for clinical trials – Selection of qualified investigators
– Monitoring trial progress
– Ensuring the trial is conducted according to the investigational plan
– Review and analysis of accumulating evidence relating to product’s safety and effectiveness
20
FDA Requirements Clinical Trial Quality and Monitoring
• 21 CFR 314.126 broadly describes what constitutes an adequate and well-controlled study – Design permits a valid comparison with a control to
provide a quantitative assessment of drug effect
– Method of selection provides adequate assurance that subjects have the disease or condition being studied
– Method of assigning patients to treatment and control groups minimizes bias and assures comparability
– Adequate measures are taken to minimize bias
– Methods of assessment of subjects' response are well-defined and reliable
21
FDA Requirements Clinical Trial Quality and Monitoring
• 21 CFR 312.120 describes acceptance of foreign data from studies not conducted under IND – Study well designed and conducted
– Performed by qualified investigators
– Conducted in accordance with Good Clinical Practices
– FDA is able to validate data through onsite inspection if necessary
22
FDA Guidance on Oversight
23
FDA Guidance on Monitoring
• Quality is an overarching objective that must be built into the clinical trial
• Monitoring, or oversight, alone cannot ensure quality
• Monitoring is a quality control tool for determining whether study activities are being carried out as planned, so that deficiencies can be identified and corrected
24
Considerations When Developing Monitoring Plans
• Complexity of study design/study endpoints
• Types of study endpoints
• Clinical complexity of study population
• Geography where will be conducted
• Relative experience of clinical investigators
• Stage of study
• Relative safety of investigational product
• Electronic systems to be used in conduct of study
• Quantity of data
25
Considerations When Developing Monitoring Plans
• Discourages “One Size Fits All” approach to monitoring
• Encourages use of a variety of monitoring techniques:
• Centralized
• Remote
• On-site
26
Centralized Monitoring (Including Centralized Statistical Monitoring)
• Systematic central monitoring of clinical trial data has the potential to: – Reduce on-site monitoring needs
– Enhance focus of on-site monitoring
– Increase data quality
– Enhance protection of trial participants
27
Centralized Monitoring (Including Centralized Statistical Monitoring)
• Capability to more readily identify some types of significant issues that impact data integrity
• Findings must be considered in context and determination of clinical relevance not always straightforward
28
Importance of Context - Example 1
Pulse for “0” “2” “4” “6” “8”
• Protocol does not define method of collection
• Plausible based on clinical assessment practices
29
Importance of Context - Example 2
Blood Pressure “0” “5”
• Manual reading with rounding?
• Protocol Design
• Impact
• Criticality of data
element?
30
Importance of Context – Example 3
Blood Pressure “0”
• Further evaluation
needed!!!!
• Impact
- Criticality data element?
• Regulatory review – Adequacy and reliability
data from site
– Adequacy sponsor
oversight (monitoring)
31
Importance of Context – Example 4
• Subject 2301-001: – ICF signed 01Dec2016 – Screen Failure 15Jan2017
• Subject 2303-049: – ICF signed 24Feb2017 – Randomized 23Mar2017 – Completed 23Aug2017
Subject Duplicate Enrollment?
Study Site
Location Subject Date Birth Gender Race Height Weight
2301 Mega City, NY 2301-001 1951-02-17 M WHITE 179 cm 85 kg
2303 Mega City, NY
2303-049 1951-02-17 M WHITE 179 cm 85.3 kg
• Protocol permits screen failure subjects to be re-enrolled >30 days post last assessment
32
Importance of Context – Example 5
• Subject 2964-001:
– ICF signed 01Dec2016
– Randomized15Jan2017
– Completed 15Jun2017
• Subject 2964-014:
– ICF signed 21Jun2017
– Randomized 19Jul2017
– Discontinued 01Sept2017
Subject Duplicate Enrollment?
Study Site
Location Subject Date Birth Gender Race Height Weight
2964 Mini City, SD 2964-001 1926-01-10 F ASIAN 139 cm 54 kg
2964 Mini City, SD 2964-014 1926-01-10 F ASIAN 139 cm 54.1 kg
• Protocol does not permit re-enrollment in investigations of same investigational product
• Further evaluation indicated!!!!
33
Inspection Readiness Risk Management
• Risk identification and evaluation process
• Critical processes/procedures identified
• Plans for risk control (i.e., mitigation, monitoring, etc.)
• Ongoing risk tracking and review process (planned and actual)
• Decision process used to determine need for CAPA versus ongoing plans to track issue
• Reporting on deviations occurring from planned risk management plans
34
Inspection Readiness Evidence of Oversight
• Who conducted monitoring, when, how (on-site, remote, central)
• Data and/or activities reviewed
• Description of non-compliance, data irregularities, other deficiencies identified
• Description of any actions taken as result monitoring findings
• When needed, results of root cause analysis
35
Inspection Readiness Evidence of Oversight
• When needed, Corrective and Preventive Action (CAPA) plan implemented and impact tracked When corrective actions unsuccessful action taken (e.g., increased oversight, site closed)
• Issue escalation and communication to appropriate parties, in a timely manner
• When appropriate, consideration as to whether identified issue(s) may similarly impact other sites, whether represent systemic study issue, or have broader product or cross product development implication
36
CDER’s Clinical Investigator Site Selection Tool
37
Challenges
• Finite resources limit the number of inspections that can be conducted
• Identification of sites from which subject protection and/or data integrity risks are greatest to inform decisions on how to best expend limited inspectional resources
38
Application-Inspections Overseen by OSI/OSIS* (CDER, FY2008 - FY2017)
*Based on inspection start date – [Complis database as of December 29, 2017]
• Sponsor (GCP) includes Sponsor/CRO/Sponsor-Investigator
• BEQ Application-Inspections accomplished with 289 FY17 Site Visits
• Good Laboratory Practice and Bioequivalence inspection programs operated by OSIS as of January 2015
39
Clinical Investigator: Data Audit versus Referral* (CDER, FY2017)
* Based on inspection start date – [Complis database as of December 29, 2017]
• Referrals include Complaints, Required Reports, IRB/Sponsor Notifications, and other referrals-internal and external for All OSI Branches
40
Additional Challenges
• Increasing numbers of – Sites per clinical trial
– Foreign trial sites
• Volume data and inadequate data standards increase analysis time
• PDUFA/BSUFA timelines require high level of efficiency
41
Development Goals
• Enable deployment of limited resources towards sites that pose the potentially greatest risk to public health
• Facilitate early site selection/issuance of inspection assignments
• Develop a more consistent, science-based approach to selection of clinical sites for inspection
42
Development
• Collaborative effort across – Office of Biostatistics – Office of Compliance – Office of New Drugs – Office of Planning and Informatics
• Attributes – Identified through series expert interviews across offices – Attributes then ranked as to importance in second round
interviews – 21 attributes used in tool (application, study, site level) – Data included
• Summary site level data provided by applicant (clinsite.xpt)
• FDA internal sources
43
“Clinsite” Dataset
Cross Application/Study Information
IND #, NDA #, BLA #, Supplement #, Number of Sponsors, Study Number (Identifier), Study Title, Domain, Study Arms, Endpoint, Endpoint Type
CI Contact Information Last name, First name, Middle initial, Street, City, State, Country, Postal Code, Phone, Fax, E-mail
Site Specific Data Site ID, Under IND?, Enroll #, Screen #, Discontinued #, Non-serious adverse event #, Serious adverse event #, Death #, Protocol violation #, Max financial disclosure (single investigator), Max financial disclosure (site total), Treatment efficacy, Standard deviation treatment efficacy, Site efficacy, Standard deviation site efficacy
44
Guidance on Providing clinsite.xpt
https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/FormsSubmissionRequirements/UCM332466.pdf
https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/FormsSubmissionRequirements/UCM332468.pdf
45
Inputted Data Processed via Decision Tree Algorithm
46
CDER 21st Century Review Process
Identification of sites for inspection due
Loaded CISST released to reviewers
21st Century Site Selection Meeting
47
High Level Site Ranking View
48
Regional and Country Views
49
Outlier Displays
50
Site Specific Displays
51
CISST Provides • Risk ranking of sites provides a
framework for site selection • Provides standard data exploration
methodology • Assembles many site characteristics in
one tool and gives the user the ability to choose sites based on site views of: – Data Irregularities – Outliers analysis with filters – Inspection history and Investigator
experience – Clinical investigator cross-study
participation – Regional and country-specific summaries – Comparison of variables across
treatment arms – Raw data versus converted data views
• Easy navigation and functionalities • Improves data analysis time • Automated documentation and form
generation
52
Benefits Realized
• Clinical sites identified earlier in review clock
• Enhanced identification of clinical sites with GCP non-compliance
• Archived clinsite data available for data mining
Initiate inspection process earlier
Inspection results sooner
Increased time within review cycle for resolution of issues identified
during inspections
53
Final Thoughts
54
Successful Quality Management and Risk Based Approaches
• Maintain data integrity and the safety of trial participants (and patients in the post approval realm) within, and across, clinical development programs
• Improve efficiencies and optimize resource utilization (Industry, Regulators, Healthcare system)
• Make available beneficial new therapies for patients based on a foundation of high-quality evidence
55
“Quality is never an accident; it is
always the result of high intention,
sincere effort, intelligent direction and
skillful execution; it represents the
wise choice of many alternatives”
- William A. Foster