{"id":13035,"date":"2019-07-19T06:39:00","date_gmt":"2019-07-19T11:39:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/en.ennov.com\/?p=13035"},"modified":"2022-03-17T06:33:28","modified_gmt":"2022-03-17T11:33:28","slug":"risk-based-monitoring-improved","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/blog\/clinical-blog\/risk-based-monitoring-improved\/","title":{"rendered":"Risk-Based Monitoring Improved"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>On July 17th, the FDA and Duke Margolis Center for Health Policy sponsored a <strong>workshop<\/strong> entitled \u201c<strong>Improving the Implementation of Risk-Based Monitoring Approaches of Clinical Investigations<\/strong>\u201d. The sessions featured 24 speakers representing the FDA, EMA, large pharma, CROs\/AROs, clinical vendors, TransCelerate, MCC, SCRS, and SCDM.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This post focuses on the following points that were addressed during the workshop :<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><a href=\"https:\/\/en.ennov.com\/blog\/clinical-blog\/risk-based-monitoring-improved\/#RBQM\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Concept of Risk-Based Quality Management (RBQM)<\/a><\/li><li><a href=\"https:\/\/en.ennov.com\/blog\/clinical-blog\/risk-based-monitoring-improved\/#RBM\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Risk-Based Monitoring (RBM)<\/a><\/li><li><a href=\"https:\/\/en.ennov.com\/blog\/clinical-blog\/risk-based-monitoring-improved\/#RBMC\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Risk-Based Monitoring Components<\/a><\/li><li><a href=\"https:\/\/en.ennov.com\/blog\/clinical-blog\/risk-based-monitoring-improved\/#SDVR\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Source data Verification and Review (SDV\/SDR)<\/a><\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p>Please click on one the links above to go directly to the corresponding section of the post.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Often, the term Risk-Based Monitoring causes people to pivot directly to Source Data Verification. What is an acceptable level of SDV? If I do sampled or targeted SDV, does that mean I am running a risk-based trial? The experts speaking at the meeting consistently reinforced that the topic of SDV is a relatively small element of implementing risk-based approaches in clinical trials.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><img fetchpriority=\"high\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"520\" height=\"304\" src=\"https:\/\/en.ennov.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/RBQM.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-13036\"\/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>The first speaker was <em>David Burrow<\/em>, Director of the FDA\u2019s Office of Scientific Investigations. David emphasized that clinical quality and regulatory compliance are not the same. He introduced the concept of <strong>Risk-Based Quality Management<\/strong> (RBQM) to ensure quality is consistently maintained in a clinical trial. RBQM encompasses Risk-Based Monitoring (RBM) \u2013 but includes much more.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>He identified three common elements to RBQM:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><strong>Risk Assessment<\/strong> (pre-study and ongoing)<\/li><li>Well-designed and articulated <strong>protocol and investigational plan<\/strong><\/li><li>Risk-based <strong>monitoring plan<\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"RBQM\">RBQM \u2013 From Box Checking to Critical Thinking<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>RBQM moves organizations from a \u201cbox-checking\u201d QA mentality to a focus on risk identifying, monitoring and mitigation where critical thinking by experts drives quality. Speaker Steve Young, CEO of CluePoints, summarized the elements of RBQM as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>Study <strong>design<\/strong> employing QbD principles: well thought out design, patient and site centricity, removal of non-core procedures<\/li><li>Study <strong>planning<\/strong> and risk mitigation: critical processes and data identification, risk assessment and risk control<\/li><li>Study <strong>execution<\/strong> employing targeted quality management: central monitoring, remote monitoring, and on-site monitoring<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The Risk Assessment<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Risk assessment and mitigation allows for the identification of higher risk areas that can be mitigated and lower risk areas that can be adapted and simplified.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Without a <strong>high-quality risk assessment<\/strong>, it\u2019s not possible to execute a risk-based approach to a clinical trial. One presenter estimated that it takes a cross-functional team 20-80 hours to assess the risk for a specific protocol and develop appropriate mitigations. This also raises a point emphasized throughout the sessions: risks need to be study-specific.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>David stated that a risk-based approach could not be layered on top of an improperly designed protocol (Although clearly several attendees felt they were being compelled to do this). Other speakers later clarified that there may be standard risks as well, but those are in addition to properly assessed study-specific risks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Risk identification should focus on Critical to Quality (CtQ) parameters<\/strong> and not simply document the monitoring activities you are already doing. The TransCelerate Risk Assessment Categorization Tool (RACT), or a company-specific version, was mentioned as a source for risk assessment numerous times throughout the sessions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The Protocol<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The protocol establishes most expectations concerning the trial for the study team and the sites. It should identify CtQ parameters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The Monitoring Plan<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>One of the speakers mentioned an old industry concept \u2013 <strong>the \u201cChristmas Tree\u201d protocol<\/strong>. This is a protocol that, like the Christmas tree you have in your attic, gets taken out periodically and added to \u2013 with new ornaments and decorations \u2013 but nothing ever gets taken away. He felt that monitoring plans are going in this direction \u2013 every time a new issue is uncovered, it\u2019s added to the monitoring plan without a thoughtful re-examination of what is no longer needed, or not needed for a particular study.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Another speaker articulated the <strong>ideal approach to the monitoring plan<\/strong> with a quote from \u201cThe Little Prince\u201d:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\"><p>\u201cPerfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.\u201d<\/p><cite>Antoine de St-Exup\u00e9ry<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>The monitoring plan should be reviewed and updated<\/strong> based on any updates to the risk assessment and mitigation plan, which themselves should be reviewed periodically. Monitoring activities need to be documented to demonstrate compliance with the plan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The monitoring plan needs to be clear to CRAs (which number in the hundreds for large trials) and key elements also need to be explained to sites so they understand how they will be monitored. The FDA will often review the monitoring plan on request.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Finally, the monitoring plan is only one of a number of plans that should address risk including the medical monitoring plan, the safety management plan, etc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"RBM\">Risk-Based Monitoring<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Before beginning any discussion of RBM, it\u2019s best to establish a common vocabulary, as it\u2019s frequently found that not everyone has the same definitions for components of RBM. The facilitators provided the following definitions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Risk-Based Monitoring<\/strong>: Monitoring that focuses sponsor resources and oversight on important and likely risks to investigation quality, including risks to human subject protection and data integrity, and on risks that may be less likely to occur, but that could have significant impact on the overall quality of the investigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Centralized Monitoring<\/strong>: Program of analytical evaluation carried out by sponsor personnel or representatives (e.g. clinical monitors, data management personnel, or statisticians) at a central location other than the site at which the clinical investigation is being conducted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>On-site Monitoring<\/strong>: In-person evaluation carried out by sponsor personnel or representatives at a clinical site at which the clinical investigation is being conducted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Remote Monitoring<\/strong>: Monitoring of specific activities, as defined either within process documents or in the monitoring plan, performed by the monitor away from the site at which the clinical investigation is being conducted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Adoption \u2013 and Barriers<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Throughout the day, there was considerable discussion on the adoption of RBM. In a recent survey published by ACRO, 64% of new trial starts are \u201cRBM enabled.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><img decoding=\"async\" width=\"949\" height=\"541\" src=\"https:\/\/en.ennov.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/RBM-Survey-adoption.jpg\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-13037\"\/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>The consensus at the workshop was that <strong>large pharma and CRO have made extensive progress towards adoption RBM<\/strong>, but many smaller organizations are reluctant, often due to concerns coming from the QA function. Champions need to educate QA on the fact that RBM involves better understood risk, not more risk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>One attendee expressed an opinion that RBM should be considered a gift by QA, because it provides a mechanism for identifying preventative actions that would ordinarily not exist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Several participants mentioned sponsors\u2019 concerns that they would \u201cmiss something\u201d in RBM studies. FDA\u2019s advise was that they should be concerned about failing to detect systemic errors, not random errors \u2013 and that RBM will actually enhance your ability to detect systemic errors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Tom Rolfe<\/em>, Director of Risk-Based Monitoring at GSK, expanded on <strong>barriers to RBM implementation<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><strong>Inconsistent acceptance of RBM approaches by regulatory authorities<\/strong> may negatively impact global product development programs<ul><li>Regional differences based on monitoring practices, GCP inspection experience and\/or culture, etc.<\/li><\/ul><\/li><li><strong>Industry concerns regarding RBM implementation<\/strong> of clinical investigations include:<ul><li>The quality of data<\/li><li>Unknown audit findings by Inspectors and impact on registration<\/li><li>Differences in clinical research organizations (CRO) RBM methodology and impact for sponsor oversight<\/li><li>Accidental unblinding of sponsor<\/li><\/ul><\/li><li><strong>Lack of clarity on how to implement RBM<\/strong> with differing study types.<ul><li>Complex trial designs<\/li><li>Trials with a small sample size (e.g., oncology, biologics, early phase, umbrella &amp; basket studies).<\/li><\/ul><\/li><li><strong>Uncertainty on FDA expectations around Quality Tolerance Limits<\/strong> (QTLs)<\/li><li>Data privacy regulations and evolving use of electronic medical records (EMR) for remote source document review<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>This discussion prompted <strong>requests for FDA to provide feedback or metrics on inspection findings in RBM studies<\/strong> as compared to non-RBM studies. FDA was not optimistic about this, saying that they have neither the sample sizes nor the resources to do this. This is also complicated by the fact that there is nothing close to a standard implementation of RBM. As <em>David Burrows<\/em> of FDA stated, \u201cJust because someone might say that they have used risk-based monitoring\u2026 doesn\u2019t necessarily mean that what they did is what we believe risk-based monitoring should be.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Flawed Approaches, Poor Outcomes, Significant Potential Value<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p><em>David Burrow<\/em> of the FDA offered some insight into <strong>what not to do in implementing RBM<\/strong>.&nbsp;Specifically, he mentioned the following flawed approaches:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>Switching to centralized monitoring without implementing a plan to guide what is being looked for, why and when.&nbsp;Shifting to 100% centralized monitoring is not risk-based monitoring.<\/li><li>Simple random sampling approaches without \u201cintent\u201d and a risk-based plan<\/li><li>100% SDV with no focus on CTQ \u2013 this is just looking for transcription errors, not elements that are critical to quality.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>He referred to these as failures in the worst cases, and lessons learned in better cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>David also addressed the value that the FDA sees in RBM and encouraged the industry not to let fear act as a \u201cbungee cord of resistance\u201d in making progress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The <strong>Value of Risk-Based Monitoring<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\"><p>In some instances where we\u2019ve seen true risk-based monitoring implemented, we have seen a great correlation between the issues that were identified in the risk-based monitoring system and the issues we see in the application review on the back end. So anecdotally, I think that works really well.<\/p><cite>David Burrow, FDA<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Sponsor RBM Experience \u2013 Positive Perceptions<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Justin Stark<\/em> of Novartis, presenting on the behalf of Transcelerate, shared the <strong>results of a member survey<\/strong> that included eight measures: audit findings, SAE reporting, significant protocol deviations, overall monitoring costs, on-site visit interval, issues open to close, eCRF entry, and query open to close.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For all eight measures, <strong>at least 50% of sponsors reported better outcomes<\/strong> (and at least 70% reported the same or better).&nbsp;For example, for audit findings, 62% reported better outcomes, 30% were largely unchanged, and 8% were worse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Site RBM Experience \u2013 Less Positive Perceptions<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Michele Cameron<\/em>, Director of Clinical Research for Clearwater Cardiovascular, spoke on behalf of the Society for Clinical Research Sites (SCRS) and discussed site experience with RBM. She presented the results of a <strong>2016 survey of 309 sites on their experience with RBM<\/strong>, which was disappointingly poor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The survey measured a total of 12 factors on how RBM has impacted the site, with a significant number of sites reporting increases in regulatory obligations, workload, resource needs and cost. A significant number also reported a degradation in their relationship with the associated sponsor or CRO and a decrease in the number of patients they were able to see.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><img decoding=\"async\" width=\"674\" height=\"431\" src=\"https:\/\/en.ennov.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/RBM-Survey-impact.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-13038\"\/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>She attributed problems to the CRA not being able to provide clarification on the monitoring plan, work being passed on to site that were not their responsibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>She felt that there is a need to account for site diversity (size, structure, operation, and experience). Sites also need a clear RBM guideline from the inception, and preferably input into the plan. They need knowledgeable contacts that can answer sites quickly and would benefit from the monitor having a trigger for collaborative phone calls instead of constant, repetitive e-queries. Finally, she recommends less frequent, more substantial phone visits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"RBMC\">Risk-Based Monitoring Components<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"711\" height=\"665\" src=\"https:\/\/en.ennov.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/RBM-Diagram.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-13039\"\/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>The following definitions were provided for risk-based monitoring components:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Centralized Monitoring<\/strong>: Program of analytical evaluation carried out by sponsor personnel or representatives (e.g. clinical monitors, data management personnel, or statisticians) at a central location other than the site at which the clinical investigation is being conducted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>On-site Monitoring<\/strong>: In-person evaluation carried out by sponsor personnel or representatives at a clinical site at which the clinical investigation is being conducted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Remote Monitoring<\/strong>: Monitoring of specific activities, as defined either within process documents or in the monitoring plan, performed by the monitor away from the site at which the clinical investigation is being conducted<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>All three types of monitoring can be risk-based.&nbsp; An assessment of the protocol and overall risk assessment should be used to determine which components should be used and how to implement them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Centralized Monitoring<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The goals of centralized monitoring can include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><strong>Identification<\/strong> of:<ul><li>Missing or inconsistent data<\/li><li>Data outliers<\/li><li>Unexpected lack of variability<\/li><li>Protocol deviations<\/li><li>Systematic errors<\/li><li>Data integrity issues<\/li><\/ul><\/li><li><strong>Analysis<\/strong> of:<ul><li>Data trends (e.g. range, consistency, variability of data) within and across sites<\/li><li>Site characteristics and performance metrics<\/li><\/ul><\/li><li><strong>Selection<\/strong> of sites and\/or processes for targeted on-site monitoring<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Stephanie Clark<\/em>, Director Risk Management \u2013 Central Monitoring at Janssen, outlined her organization\u2019s approach to centralized monitoring:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><strong>Standard Key Risk Indicators (KRIs):<\/strong> Dashboard with standard operational and safety KRIs to indicate potential risks in countries\/sites. Applicable across studies<\/li><li><strong>Study-Specific Reports (SSRs):<\/strong> Visualizations based on unique, study-specific Critical to Quality (CtQ) factors to identify potential risks in study\/countries\/sites<\/li><li><strong>Central Statistical Surveillance (CSS):<\/strong> Statistical analysis of entire trial data set to identify signs of intentional\/unintentional noncompliance. Identifies sites that need further focused monitoring<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p>Janssen has tried to <strong>\u201cdemocratize\u201d data insights<\/strong> \u2013 so everyone from CRAs to study physicians to clinical operations leaders have access to this data.&nbsp; Users also receive role-specific training on how to leverage these insights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>There were several <strong>interesting examples of signals monitored using centralized monitoring<\/strong>.&nbsp; It was emphasized that these signals are not inherently problems, but instead require investigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>IQVIA \u2013 mechanisms for <strong>fraud detection<\/strong>, including potential duplicate subjects and visits, digit preference and roundoff, and patient or lab visits on weekends or holidays.<\/li><li>Janssen \u2013 examination of oncology trial subjects who had <strong>reported no adverse events<\/strong> \u2013 especially when linked to certain sites.<\/li><li>Janssen \u2013 detection that <strong>biomarker samples<\/strong> were <strong>not taken<\/strong> for two consecutive months at a specific site.&nbsp; The site was retrained, and the issue did not reoccur.<\/li><li>MCC \u2013 significant <strong>expedited ordering of lab kits<\/strong>, often indicating that new, untrained study personnel had joined the study.&nbsp; In this case, this was a signal that would come from working with a partner, and that partner would need a channel to report their concerns.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Many times, data can\u2019t really be analyzed until enrollment is well underway or complete as analysis requires a meaningful data set to be valid.&nbsp; It often takes experts to pull out true findings from noise, and to explain findings to study teams in such a way that they are meaningful and actionable.&nbsp; Control over who is looking at the data and how is often needed to prevent accidental unblinding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Remote Monitoring<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Participants were seeing more tools that allowed remote monitoring and source data verification, including <strong>wearables<\/strong>, <strong>electronic health records<\/strong>, <strong>ePRO<\/strong>, and <strong>eConsent<\/strong>.&nbsp; For some of these technologies, there is a risk tradeoff, as tools such as ePRO and wearables are less tightly controlled than EDC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>One participant from a medical device company described her organization\u2019s approach to remote monitoring as very similar to onsite monitoring, just without the physical presence:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>Confirmation letters, visit reports and follow-up letters generated in the same manner as for an onsite visit<\/li><li>Study coordinator sets aside time for the visit<\/li><li>Investigator confirms availability<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">On-Site Monitoring<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Of course, there are also risk adaptations that can occur within an on-site monitoring framework.&nbsp; At the most basic level, <strong>the expected frequency of site visits must be established<\/strong>, and the triggers for changing the visit interval based on the perceived risk identified.&nbsp; This is a very significant issue for CRO-run trials as cost models depend on the expected number of visits.&nbsp; Sponsor and CRO should discuss how costs will be handled if more frequent visits are needed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Stephanie Clark<\/em> of Janssen mentioned that her organization can take some data review activity and move it to in-house roles who can look at data early and in an ongoing fashion.&nbsp; This means there is sometimes an opportunity to do fewer on-site visits.&nbsp; Visits can then be spent doing activities that uniquely require CRAs to be on site.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"SDVR\">Source Data Verification and Review<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>A significant portion of the conference was devoted to SDV and SDR.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Source Data Verification (SDV)<\/strong>: the process by which data within the CRF (or other data collection system) are compared to the original source of information, to confirm that the data was transcribed accurately.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Source Data Review (SDR):<\/strong> the review of the source documentation to check on quality, compliance, staff involvement, and other areas that aren\u2019t associated with a CRF data field.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Almost universally, both presenters and participants were skeptical about the value of SDV and generally considered <strong>SDR<\/strong> to be <strong>much more valuable<\/strong>.&nbsp; Some opinions included:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><strong>100% SDV adds risk<\/strong>.&nbsp; This is because it is done at the expense of important monitoring activities such as training, and because it shifts the focus away from risks to the most critical data elements and processes.<\/li><li><strong>SDV is a proxy<\/strong> to see if something is wrong with the site.&nbsp;That is, sloppiness in data entry could indicate more extensive problems.<\/li><li>SDV is mainly justified if critical endpoints exist where transcription errors could have a high impact.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Research supports the conclusion that 100% SDV plays in overall quality.&nbsp; For example, a survey by TransCelerate indicated that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\"><p>Despite variability in the way companies manage their data review activities, all companies were similar in the low rate of SDV-generated queries. The average percentage of SDV queries generated was 7.8% of the total number of queries generated.<\/p><cite>[Source: <a href=\"http:\/\/www.transceleratebiopharmainc.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/TransCelerate-RBM-Position-Paper-FINAL-30MAY2013.pdf.pdf\">POSITION PAPER: RISK-BASED MONITORING METHODOLOGY<\/a>]<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p>A TransCelerate <strong>survey<\/strong> of 17 members provides insight into sponsors\u2019 view towards SDV use by their CROs.&nbsp;94% indicated that 100% SDV of all data points is not required of their CRO partners. 6% (1 company) does require it.&nbsp;In terms of providing <strong>guidance to CROs<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>53% provide guidance on SDV levels, but allow flexibility<\/li><li>29% do not give specific guidance on SDV levels<\/li><li>12% give specific SDV levels, no flexibility<\/li><li>6% do not use CROs<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Nicole Stansbury<\/em>, Vice President, Central Monitoring Services for Syneos Health, described a methodology that included:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><strong>Reduced SDR\/SDV<\/strong>, based on the use of a risk assessment \u2013 identifying SDV to be verified based on visits, subject, or data points<\/li><li><strong>Targeted SDR\/SDV<\/strong> driven by central monitoring findings<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Sharon Love<\/em> of MRC Clinical Trial Unit at UCL presented <strong>research on measuring RBM and SDV<\/strong>.&nbsp;Conclusions included that risk-adapted monitoring was not inferior to extensive on-site monitoring, and 100% SDV was little different to SDV of key scientific and regulatory variables.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Throughout the session, it was emphasized that 100% SDV has been implemented by a conservative industry, not dictated by the regulators.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>FDA guidelines explicitly refer to a <a href=\"http:\/\/academy.gmp-compliance.org\/guidemgr\/files\/1278.PDF\">representative number of subject records<\/a>, not all subject records. ICH GCP states that a \u201cStatistically controlled sampling may be an acceptable method for selecting the data to be verified.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>David Burrow<\/em>, Director of the FDA\u2019s Office of Scientific Investigations, summed up the attitude of the FDA to SDV:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\"><p>We\u2019re not saying not to do any source data verification any more, but it should be done with intent, when it\u2019s indicated for the right purpose.<\/p><cite>David Burrow<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On July 17th, the FDA and Duke Margolis Center for Health Policy sponsored a workshop entitled \u201cImproving the Implementation of Risk-Based Monitoring Approaches of Clinical Investigations\u201d. The sessions featured 24 speakers representing the FDA, EMA, large pharma, CROs\/AROs, clinical vendors, TransCelerate, MCC, SCRS, and SCDM. This post focuses on the following points that were addressed [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":232,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"content-type":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[150],"tags":[],"type_content":[],"job":[],"employees_type":[],"class_list":["post-13035","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-clinical-blog","entry"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v19.2.1 (Yoast SEO v27.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Risk-Based Monitoring Improved<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Discover: Concept of Risk-Based Quality Management RBQM, Risk-Based Monitoring RBM, Source data Verification and Review SDV\/SDR, and more.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"noindex, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Risk-Based Monitoring Improved\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Discover: Concept of Risk-Based Quality Management RBQM, Risk-Based Monitoring RBM, Source data Verification and Review SDV\/SDR, and more.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/blog\/clinical-blog\/risk-based-monitoring-improved\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ennov Software for Life\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-07-19T11:39:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-03-17T11:33:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/RBQM.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"520\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"304\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Alex Chappell\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@EnnovGroup\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@EnnovGroup\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Alex Chappell\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/dqdev.co\\\/ennov\\\/blog\\\/clinical-blog\\\/risk-based-monitoring-improved\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/dqdev.co\\\/ennov\\\/blog\\\/clinical-blog\\\/risk-based-monitoring-improved\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Alex Chappell\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/dqdev.co\\\/ennov\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ebc4deb7c360f7a979b3af96c6150941\"},\"headline\":\"Risk-Based Monitoring Improved\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-07-19T11:39:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-03-17T11:33:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/dqdev.co\\\/ennov\\\/blog\\\/clinical-blog\\\/risk-based-monitoring-improved\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":3088,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/dqdev.co\\\/ennov\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/dqdev.co\\\/ennov\\\/blog\\\/clinical-blog\\\/risk-based-monitoring-improved\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/en.ennov.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/03\\\/RBQM.png\",\"articleSection\":[\"Clinical - Blog\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/dqdev.co\\\/ennov\\\/blog\\\/clinical-blog\\\/risk-based-monitoring-improved\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/dqdev.co\\\/ennov\\\/blog\\\/clinical-blog\\\/risk-based-monitoring-improved\\\/\",\"name\":\"Risk-Based Monitoring Improved\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/dqdev.co\\\/ennov\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/dqdev.co\\\/ennov\\\/blog\\\/clinical-blog\\\/risk-based-monitoring-improved\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/dqdev.co\\\/ennov\\\/blog\\\/clinical-blog\\\/risk-based-monitoring-improved\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/en.ennov.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/03\\\/RBQM.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-07-19T11:39:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-03-17T11:33:28+00:00\",\"description\":\"Discover: Concept of Risk-Based Quality Management RBQM, Risk-Based Monitoring RBM, Source data Verification and Review SDV\\\/SDR, and more.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/dqdev.co\\\/ennov\\\/blog\\\/clinical-blog\\\/risk-based-monitoring-improved\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/dqdev.co\\\/ennov\\\/blog\\\/clinical-blog\\\/risk-based-monitoring-improved\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/dqdev.co\\\/ennov\\\/blog\\\/clinical-blog\\\/risk-based-monitoring-improved\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/en.ennov.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/03\\\/RBQM.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/en.ennov.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/03\\\/RBQM.png\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/dqdev.co\\\/ennov\\\/blog\\\/clinical-blog\\\/risk-based-monitoring-improved\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/dqdev.co\\\/ennov\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Risk-Based Monitoring Improved\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/dqdev.co\\\/ennov\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/dqdev.co\\\/ennov\\\/\",\"name\":\"Ennov Software for Life\",\"description\":\"Unified Content Management Platform Software for Life Sciences\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/dqdev.co\\\/ennov\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/dqdev.co\\\/ennov\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/dqdev.co\\\/ennov\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Ennov\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/dqdev.co\\\/ennov\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/dqdev.co\\\/ennov\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/en.ennov.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2019\\\/02\\\/ennov-social-graph-1.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/en.ennov.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2019\\\/02\\\/ennov-social-graph-1.jpg\",\"width\":672,\"height\":672,\"caption\":\"Ennov\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/dqdev.co\\\/ennov\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/EnnovGroup\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/company\\\/81570\\\/admin\\\/\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/dqdev.co\\\/ennov\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ebc4deb7c360f7a979b3af96c6150941\",\"name\":\"Alex Chappell\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/dqdev.co\\\/ennov\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2022\\\/02\\\/ennov-e.png\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/dqdev.co\\\/ennov\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2022\\\/02\\\/ennov-e.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/dqdev.co\\\/ennov\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2022\\\/02\\\/ennov-e.png\",\"caption\":\"Alex Chappell\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Risk-Based Monitoring Improved","description":"Discover: Concept of Risk-Based Quality Management RBQM, Risk-Based Monitoring RBM, Source data Verification and Review SDV\/SDR, and more.","robots":{"index":"noindex","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Risk-Based Monitoring Improved","og_description":"Discover: Concept of Risk-Based Quality Management RBQM, Risk-Based Monitoring RBM, Source data Verification and Review SDV\/SDR, and more.","og_url":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/blog\/clinical-blog\/risk-based-monitoring-improved\/","og_site_name":"Ennov Software for Life","article_published_time":"2019-07-19T11:39:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-03-17T11:33:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":520,"height":304,"url":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/RBQM.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Alex Chappell","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@EnnovGroup","twitter_site":"@EnnovGroup","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Alex Chappell","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/blog\/clinical-blog\/risk-based-monitoring-improved\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/blog\/clinical-blog\/risk-based-monitoring-improved\/"},"author":{"name":"Alex Chappell","@id":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/#\/schema\/person\/ebc4deb7c360f7a979b3af96c6150941"},"headline":"Risk-Based Monitoring Improved","datePublished":"2019-07-19T11:39:00+00:00","dateModified":"2022-03-17T11:33:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/blog\/clinical-blog\/risk-based-monitoring-improved\/"},"wordCount":3088,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/blog\/clinical-blog\/risk-based-monitoring-improved\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/en.ennov.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/RBQM.png","articleSection":["Clinical - Blog"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/blog\/clinical-blog\/risk-based-monitoring-improved\/","url":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/blog\/clinical-blog\/risk-based-monitoring-improved\/","name":"Risk-Based Monitoring Improved","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/blog\/clinical-blog\/risk-based-monitoring-improved\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/blog\/clinical-blog\/risk-based-monitoring-improved\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/en.ennov.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/RBQM.png","datePublished":"2019-07-19T11:39:00+00:00","dateModified":"2022-03-17T11:33:28+00:00","description":"Discover: Concept of Risk-Based Quality Management RBQM, Risk-Based Monitoring RBM, Source data Verification and Review SDV\/SDR, and more.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/blog\/clinical-blog\/risk-based-monitoring-improved\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/blog\/clinical-blog\/risk-based-monitoring-improved\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/blog\/clinical-blog\/risk-based-monitoring-improved\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/en.ennov.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/RBQM.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/en.ennov.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/RBQM.png"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/blog\/clinical-blog\/risk-based-monitoring-improved\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Risk-Based Monitoring Improved"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/#website","url":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/","name":"Ennov Software for Life","description":"Unified Content Management Platform Software for Life Sciences","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/#organization","name":"Ennov","url":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/en.ennov.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/ennov-social-graph-1.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/en.ennov.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/ennov-social-graph-1.jpg","width":672,"height":672,"caption":"Ennov"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/x.com\/EnnovGroup","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/81570\/admin\/"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/#\/schema\/person\/ebc4deb7c360f7a979b3af96c6150941","name":"Alex Chappell","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/ennov-e.png","url":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/ennov-e.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/ennov-e.png","caption":"Alex Chappell"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13035","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/232"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13035"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13035\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13035"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13035"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13035"},{"taxonomy":"type_content","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/type_content?post=13035"},{"taxonomy":"job","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/job?post=13035"},{"taxonomy":"employees_type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dqdev.co\/ennov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/employees_type?post=13035"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}