|
|
|||||||
|
|
Link:
Pharm/Biotech Resources Released by FDA: 1/23/06. Posted by FDA: 1/30/06
Between May 2 and 5, 2005, Mr. Joel Martinez and Dr. Constance Lewin, representing the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), inspected the Human Investigation Committee (HIC) of Houston, Texas, which serves as an Institutional Review Board (IRB). The purpose of this inspection was to determine whether HIC was in compliance with the regulations governing IRBs and those governing the protection of human subjects participating in clinical trials contained in 21 CFR Parts 56 and 50. These regulations apply to clinical investigations of products regulated by FDA. We are aware that at the conclusion of this inspection, our investigators presented and discussed with you a Form FDA 483, lnspectional Observations. From our evaluation of the establishment inspection report, the documents submitted with that report, and your written response dated May 31, 2005, addressed to FDA's regional office in Dallas, Texas, we conclude that the IRB failed to adhere to certain requirements in 21 CFR Parts 56 and 50 (as described below). The regulatory violations were identified from the review of the IRBs procedures and the review of the following studies:
We wish to emphasize the following: 1. The IRB failed to ensure that informed consent would be sought from each prospective subject or the subject's legally authorized representative in accordance with and to the extent required by 21 CFR Part 50. [21 CFR 56.111(a)(4)] a. For protocols [deleted] (protocol and informed consent approved by HIC on 8/28/01), [deleted] (protocol and informed consent approved by HIC on 6/6/02), and [deleted] (protocol and informed consent approved by HIC on 9/24/02), the IRB failed to ensure that a description of any reasonably foreseeable risks or discomforts to the subject were included in the informed consent documents (ICDs). [21 CFR 50.25(a)(2)].
b. For protocols [deleted] the IRB failed to ensure that the ICDs disclosed appropriate alternative procedures or courses of treatment, if any, that might be advantageous to the subject. [21 CFR 50.25(a)(4)] The INDICATIONS section of the Clozaril labeling states that: "Clozaril is indicated for the management of severely ill schizophrenic patients who fail to respond adequately to standard drug treatment for schizophrenia. Because of the significant risk of agranulocytosis and seizure associated with its use, Clozaril should be used only in patients who have failed to respond adequately to treatment with appropriate courses of standard drug treatments for schizophrenia, either because of insufficient effectiveness or the inability to achieve an effective dose due to intolerable adverse effects from the drug." The WARNINGS section further states that: "Before initiating treatment with CLOZARIL, it is strongly recommended that a patient be given at least 2 trials, each with a different standard drug product for schizophrenia, at an adequate dose, and for an adequate duration." The ICDs for protocols [deleted] state only that "[o]ther treatments and therapies for schizophrenia are available. Those might include other medications and psychotherapy." These ICDs failed to point out that there are several drugs indicated for the treatment of schizophrenia for which the labeling does not recommend that use be restricted to patients who have failed other schizophrenia treatments and that might have been beneficial in treating the subjects' condition. These ICDs also failed to point out that, because of the significant risk of agranulocytosis and seizure, the approved labeling for ClozarilŪ strongly recommended that this drug be used only in severely ill schizophrenic patients who failed to have an adequate response to at least two of these other therapies. In your written response to the above items, you state that you will recommend that in the future the IRB require that a medical or scientific IRB member ensure that medical monitoring of subjects comply with boxed warnings for drugs that have, such warnings and that medical monitoring comply with manufacturers' warnings for investigational drugs. We are concerned that this response does not address whether the IRB will actually ensure that informed consent is sought in accordance with FDA regulations and, more specifically, does not address the IRB's failure to ensure disclosure of all reasonably foreseeable risks and appropriate alternative procedures or courses of treatment that might be advantageous to the subject. 2. The IRB failed to ensure that risks to subjects were minimized by using procedures consistent with sound research design and which do not unnecessarily expose subjects to risk. [21 CFR 56.111(a)(1)] The approved ClozarilŪ labeling states that "[p]atients who are being treated with Clozaril must have a baseline white blood cell (WBC) and differential count before initiation of treatment, and a WBC count every week for the first six months. Thereafter, if acceptable WBC counts have been maintained during the first six months of continuous therapy, WBC counts can be monitored every other week." The product labeling further states that "WBC counts must be monitored weekly for at least four weeks after the discontinuation of ClozarilŪ." HJC approved protocols C [deleted] with the following WBC monitoring schedule:
The monitoring frequencies for WBC counts in these protocols (ranging from 10 to 26 days) were not adequate to ensure that risks to subjects were minimized. In your written response, you state that you will recommend that in the future the IRB require that a medical or scientific IRB member ensure that medical monitoring of subjects comply with boxed warnings for drugs that have such warnings and that medical monitoring comply with manufacturers' warnings for investigational drugs. We are concerned that this limited response, with only a promise for a recommendation to the IRB, does not provide sufficient assurance that in the future the IRB will in fact ensure that risks to subjects are minimized in all FDA-regulated research under the IRB's review. 3. The IRB failed to have a written procedure in place to ensure prompt reporting to FDA of any unanticipated problems involving risks to human subjects or others. [21 CFR 56.108(b)(1)] While your IRB's written procedures do mention reporting to the IRB, they do not contain a procedure for ensuring prompt reporting to FDA of any unanticipated problems involving risks to human subjects or others. In your written response, you state that you will recommend that the IRB amend its bylaws to provide for prompt reporting of unanticipated problems to FDA. We are concerned that this response, with only a promise for a recommendation to the IRB, does not provide sufficient assurance that the IRB will in fact amend its procedures to incorporate the above written procedure, which the IRB is required to have for FDA-regulated research. This letter is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of deficiencies for the protocols reviewed and approved by the IRB. Because of the departures from FDA regulations discussed above, please inform this office, in writing, within 15 working days of your receipt of this letter, of the actions you have taken or plan to take to prevent similar violations in the future. Failure to adequately and promptly explain the violations noted above may result in further regulatory action. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Constance Lewin at (301) 827-7279, FAX (301) 594-1204. Your written response and any pertinent documentation should be addressed to:
|
||||||
|