scholarly journals An audit of US FDA warning letters issued to sponsors, institutional review boards and investigators over a six-year period

2021 ◽  
pp. 01-06
Author(s):  
Unnati Saxena ◽  
Debdipta Bose ◽  
Shruti Saha ◽  
Nithya J Gogtay ◽  
Urmila M Thatte

The present audit was carried out with the objective of evaluating warning letters (WLs) issued to trial sponsors, clinical investigators and institutional review boards (IRBs) by the United States Food and Drug Administration during a six-year period and compare it with two similar earlier audits. WLs were reviewed and classified as per stakeholders and further categorised as per predefined violation themes. The chi-square test was performed for trend analysis of WLs. A total of 62 WLs were issued to the three stakeholders. The maximum number of WLs were issued to the clinical investigators (36/62, 58.06%), followed by sponsors (19/62, 30.64%), and least to the IRBs (7/62, 11.29%). Among sponsors, lack of standard operating procedures for the monitoring, receipt, evaluation and reporting of post-marketing adverse drug events was the most common violation theme (8/19, 42.1%). Among clinical investigators, deviation from investigational plan was the most common violation theme (31/36, 86.11%.). For IRBs, inadequate documentation was the most common violation theme (6/7, 85.71%). We saw an overall reduction in the number of WLs issued to the stakeholders. Thus, we identified multiple areas on which each stakeholder should work for improvement.

1996 ◽  
Vol 3 (8) ◽  
pp. 804-809 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey S. Jones ◽  
Lynn J. White ◽  
Linda C. Pool ◽  
James M. Dougherty

2021 ◽  
pp. 153857442110225
Author(s):  
Joel Mathew John ◽  
Vimalin Samuel ◽  
Dheepak Selvaraj ◽  
Prabhu Premkumar ◽  
Albert A Kota ◽  
...  

Objective: The use of drug coated balloon (DCB) for angioplasty has shown superior efficacy against plain balloons for treating complex infrainguinal arterial disease. We report and compare the clinical outcomes following application of DCB(Paclitaxel) and plain angioplasty (POBA) in our tertiary care centre. Methods: A retrospective, single centre analysis of 301 patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia involving the infrainguinal segment was conducted between September 2014 and September 2018, after approval from the Institutional review board. We analyzed clinical outcomes by measuring postoperative ABI improvement, restenosis requiring reintervention procedure, minor and major amputations at the end of 18 months. . To find the association between the group variables (POBA and DCB) and other risk variables, Chi-square test/Fisher’s exact test was used. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used. Results: Patients who underwent treatment with plain balloon (POBA) and DCB(Paclitaxel) angioplasty were 246(81.7%) and 55(18.3%) respectively. Our study group was predominantly male (Male: Female = 6.7:1), most patients were more than 50 years of age (n = 251, 83.4%). Smoking (n = 199, 66.1%) and diabetes (n = 210, 69.8%) were the most common atherosclerotic risk factors. Postoperative Ankle Brachial Pressure Index (ABI) improvement were similar in both groups (POBA = 57.7%; DCB = 69.8%; p = 0.103). Minor and major amputations following POBA were 26% and 22%; and DCB were 12.7% and 16.4% respectively. Re-stenosis requiring a re-interventional procedure within 18 months was 15%, (n = 37) following POBA; and 12.7% (n = 7) following DCB (p = 0.661). Conclusions: This retrospective study shows similar clinical limb related outcomes following POBA and DCB at 18 months. However, our comparative analysis between the POBA and DCB groups was totally unadjusted and not adjusted for common confounders such as age and sex. Hence, for one to draw definitive conclusions leading to changes in clinical practice; a randomized, prospective study with a larger patient cohort is needed.


2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. DEBORAH SHILOFF ◽  
BRYAN MAGWOOD ◽  
KRISZTINA L. MALISZA

The process of research is often lengthy and can be extremely arduous. It may take many years to proceed from the initial development of an idea through to the comparison of the new modalities against a current gold-standard practice. Each step along the way involves rigorous scientific review, where protocols are scrutinized by multiple scientists not only in the specific field at hand but related fields as well. In addition to scientific review, most countries require a further review by a panel that will specifically address the ethics of the proposed research. In Canada, those panels are referred to as Research Ethics Boards (REB), with the United States counterparts known as Institutional Review Boards (IRB).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document