The MHRA published in March 2023 their ‘GCP Inspections Metrics Report’, covering the period from 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020.
I am pretty sure no regulatory agency would accept my 2019-2020 Annual Product Quality Review (APR/PQR) being published 3 years late. Regulatory agencies need to hold themselves accountable and are fairly poor at doing so. The EMA is not alone at this, the recent EMA report was two year old data.
The MHRA GCP inspectors reported the following observations in the two-year period:
Commercial sponsors: 4 critical, 17 major, 34 other. All critical observations were related to pharmacovigilance (PV).
CROs: 4 critical, 25 major, 41 other. Critical observations were related to data integrity, IMP management, and protocol compliance.
Non-commercial sponsors: 4 critical, 12 major, 26 other. Critical observations were related to clinical sample analysis, data integrity, sponsor oversight, and PV.
Phase I Units: 1 critical, 8, major, 28 other. The critical observation was related to dose escalation.
Beyond wishing for an 11 month cycle of writing and approval on my annual reports, there is some valuable information there.
In 2021, three CHMP GCP inspections were conducted entirely remotely, and three inspections were conducted in a hybrid setting. A total of 286 deficiencies, comprising 24 critical, 152 major and 110 minor findings were recorded for the 27 CHMP requested inspections conducted in 2021. This represents an average of 10-11 findings per site inspected. The three top categories were: “General”, “Trial Management” and “Computer System”. An increase in findings related to computer systems (e. g. Audit Trail and Authorized Access, Computer Validation, Physical Security System and Backup) is noted compared to the last reports.
Under organisation and personel we see “Delegation of tasks to inappropriate team members.” This reinforces the needs for strong cv and job descriptions, and linking to both hiring and personnel qualification.
The computer systems observations are the greatest hits of data integrity, and should be a wakeup call to any company that treats GCP and GMP computer systems differently.
Let the 2022 annual GCP training development begin. And make sure you get that training done on time!
The US FDA recently changed the Investigations Operations Manual to allow Investigators direct access to a company’s databases during a BIMO inspection (See Section 5.10.2.1)
As the conduct of clinical and non-clinical trials increasingly moves toward 100% electronic data capture, to include electronic case report forms, medical records, patient-reported outcomes, informed consent systems and other electronic study records, it has become necessary for bioresearch monitoring investigators to have access to these electronic systems and databases in order to successfully perform inspections. Overseeing the firm’s personnel while they access their system is not always practical in BIMO inspections, as this can result in the firm having to dedicate an individual to this task.
Obviously, if you haven’t, you should be updating your GCP Inspections SOP, especially since they have a few interesting requirements, such as “While you may complete a form needed by the firm in order to obtain read-only access, such as an account request form, you will not sign such form as per section 5.1.2.3. You may acknowledge via email that you have completed any required training necessary for access.”
I think for many in the GCP world this change is sort of a sleeper change. We have been used to giving access to EMA inspectors for years, who often know more about your TMF than you do by the time they walk in the door.
The real interesting thing is how this spells a shift in attitude at the agency that has been a long-time coming. And how it fits into recent trends in the increase in remote inspections.
Remote inspections are here to stay. Set aside the FDA’s current view that a remote event is not an inspection. And one of the big things that stand out about remote inspections is they do not work well to find data integrity issues, as we’ve seen from the decrease in observations that is not proportionate to the overall size of inspections. I think what we are seeing here is a recognition of that, and the first shift in mindset at the agency.
I’d expect to see the FDA change their approach on the GMP side as they continue to absorb the lessons learned from remote inspections. It is a trend that I would be paying attention to as you continue your digital journey. It is always important to think “how will an inspector view this data”. Usually, we think in terms of printouts. You should also be thinking about read-only access in the near future.
Paul Gustafson, chair of the Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme (PIC/S) and a senior corporate regulatory compliance and enforcement advisor with Health Canada, stated that the plan was to issue the widely anticipated Annex 1 in mid-year 2022. He repeatedly said July to September so that is interesting news and start getting your contamination control strategies going. There will be a one-year period before in force, with 2 years on some of the lyophilizer requirements.
For those keeping track, it retains the provision calling for testing filters used in the sterilization process, pre-use, post-sterilization integrity testing (PUPSIT). The PUPSIT provision “has driven a substantial amount of discussion and has resulted in a number of papers being drafted,” said Gustafson. This was a very gracious understatement, and I have to admit I really admired his Canadian humor.
FDA continues to evaluate COVID inspection measures
Alonza Cruse, Director of the Office of Pharmaceutical Quality Operations at FDA/ORA did a thorough job going through the COVID measures of Remote Regulatory Assessments and Remote Interactive Evaluations and discussed how the agency was in the process of learning how best to do things going forward.
He also clearly state how they were continuing to get back to normal inspections and discussed new personnel in foreign offices, such as India.
Highlights from Panels
One of my favorite panels was Jo Ann Jacobs and Kara Vogt speaking on “Building Resiliency into Single-Use-Technology Systems” They laid out some good work they are doing as part of a startup to design good functional equivalency and supplier management, obviously learning from PPAP and similar measures. Quite well done. While it leans heavily into my own practice around functional equivalency it was good to see such a rock-solid implementation, and I felt like I learned a few good ideas.
I spoke on Contamination Control, Risk Management and the Quality Management System, having a blast doing so. I was followed by Christa Myers who spoke on “Contamination Control Strategy: From Annex 1 Draft Requirements to Implementation in Practice.” We made a good duo and between the two I hope participants got a real solid idea on how to do this contamination control strategy effectively.
I have requested hearings from my congressional representatives. The path where Emergent received so much money from the federal government to lead to this place is frightening.
Investigations of a Dog 