FDA Audits and Protocol Complexity
An increasing amount of public data on clinical trial research has become available, including ClinicalTrials.gov and Open Payments.
An increasing amount of public data on clinical trial research has become available, including ClinicalTrials.gov and Open Payments. In addition, Europe has developed equivalent databases, or is in the process of developing them. The FDA has made its global site audit results available for some time to the public. The number of audits increased substantially, growing from 1,185 in 2008 to 10,264 in 2013, the last full year available. The summary results do indicate that up to 2010, the FDA increased the number of audits outside the United States. However, since 2011, the percentage of sites audited outside the United States has remained stable at 26% to 28%.
Publicly available data allow us to quantify variables across organization and therapeutic areas that may be associated with such considerations as study completion times and results. Importantly, conclusions based upon these public data lend themselves to third-party interrogation. A recent Wall Street Journal article for instance indicated that the FDA compliance issues reported for 46% of all audits indicated increasing protocol complexity. However, a review of the public FDA data does not support this assertion.
The FDA reports the results of their audits in three major categories, with more detail also available: no action indicated (NAI), official action indicated (OAI) and voluntary action indicated (VAI). Since 2008 there has been virtually no change in the audit results. An older study by the author1 demonstrated that site experience, rather than protocol design, was the major variable associated with the severity of audit results. Smaller and less experienced sites were far more likely to be cited for compliance issues. Protocols may indeed be becoming more complex, but the FDA audit results do not allow us to draw that conclusion.
Source: FDA.gov, BIMO Inspection Classification Database, March 2015.
1H. Glass, “FDA Audit Results as an Investigator Evaluation Tool,” Applied Clinical Trials,, Volume 6, Number 4, April 1997
*The author wishes to thank Ankit Lodaya, a PhD student at the University, for gathering the FDA audit data.
Behind the Buzz: Why Clinical Research Leaders Flock to SCOPE Summit
February 7th 2025In this episode, we meet with Micah Lieberman, Executive Conference Director for SCOPE Summit (Summit for Clinical Ops Executives) at Cambridge Innovation Institute. We will dive deep into the critical role of collaboration within the clinical research ecosystem. How do we bring together diverse stakeholders—sponsors, CROs, clinical trial tech innovators, suppliers, patients, sites, advocacy organizations, investors, and non-profits—to share best practices in trial design, program planning, innovation, and clinical operations? We’ll explore why it’s vital for thought leaders to step beyond their own organizations and learn from others, exchanging ideas that drive advancements in clinical research. Additionally, we’ll discuss the pivotal role of scientific conferences like SCOPE Summit in fostering these essential connections and collaborations, helping shape the future of clinical trials. Join us as we uncover how collective wisdom and cross-industry partnerships are transforming the landscape of clinical research.
Reaching Diverse Patient Populations With Personalized Treatment Methods
January 20th 2025Daejin Abidoye, head of solid tumors, oncology development, AbbVie, discusses a number of topics around diversity in clinical research including industry’s greatest challenges in reaching diverse patient populations, personalized treatment methods, recruitment strategies, and more.
