Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Wir verwenden Ihre LinkedIn Profilangaben und Informationen zu Ihren Aktivitäten, um Anzeigen zu personalisieren und Ihnen relevantere Inhalte anzuzeigen. Sie können Ihre Anzeigeneinstellungen jederzeit ändern.

Fraud & misconduct by Mukesh Jaiswal

This Presentation describes Frauds and misconduct occurs during clinical trial..

  • Loggen Sie sich ein, um Kommentare anzuzeigen.

Fraud & misconduct by Mukesh Jaiswal

  1. 1. By: Mukesh Kumar Jaiswal
  2. 2.  Falsification of data in proposing, designing, performing, recording, supervising or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.  Falsification includes both acts of omission (consciously not revealing all data) and commission (consciously altering or fabricating data)
  3. 3.  Fraud does not include honest error  Deliberate or repeated noncompliance with the protocol and GCP can be considered fraud.
  4. 4.  Investigators  Study coordinators  Data management personnel  Lab personnel  IRB staff  CRAs and sponsor personnel  FDA
  5. 5. Study Coordinator Nurse Hospital Sponsor Investigator Office Staff Sub-investigator CRA 39% 17% 9% 9% 9% 9% 4% 4%
  6. 6.  Difficult to determine but still considered rare  Reported to significantly impact 1-5% of pharmaceutical clinical trials.  Only ~3% of FDA inspections uncover serious GCP violations resulting in Warning Letters
  7. 7.  Sponsor – data validity compromised, submission jeopardized, additional costs  Investigator – fines, legal expenses, disqualification/debarment, license revocation, ruined career  Institution – lawsuits  Subject – safety at risk, loss of trust in clinical trial process
  8. 8.  Lack of resources (staff, time, subjects)  Lack of GCP training  Lack of regulatory oversight  Laziness  Loss of interest  Pressure to perform or to publish  Money, greed
  9. 9.  High staff turnover  Staff are disgruntled, fearful, anxious, depressed, defensive  High pressure work environment  Obsession with study payments  Absent investigators  Lack of GCP training  Unusually fast recruitment
  10. 10.  Implausible trends/patterns:  100% drug compliance  Identical lab/ECG results  No SAEs reported  Subjects adhering perfectly to a visit schedule  Perfect efficacy responses for all subjects
  11. 11.  Site data not consistent with other centers (statistical outlier)  Source records lack an audit trail - no signatures and dates of persons completing documentation  All source records & CRFs completed with the same pen  Perfect diary cards, immaculate CRFs
  12. 12.  Subject handwriting and signatures are inconsistent across documents  Questionable subject visit dates (Sundays, holidays, staff vacations)  Impossible events (eg, subject randomized before IP even available at the site)
  13. 13.  Subject visits cannot be verified in the medical chart or appointment schedule  Data contains “digit preference” – some digits used more frequently than others (0, 5, and even digits)
  14. 14.  Expect fraud – start from the assumption that records are bogus.  Question missing, altered, and/or inconsistent data – offer to retrieve records yourself, keep pulling on loose ends.  Don’t be intimidated – challenge to explain suspicious data
  15. 15.  Be suspicious of blame shifting –remind the investigator that he/she is responsible for study conduct.  Cultivate whistleblowers – pay attention to staff complaints, establish rapport, and be approachable.
  16. 16.  Many fraud cases uncovered by staff whistleblowers  Ethical commitment to report fraud:  I recognize my right and responsibility as a clinical research professional to question suspected falsified data, and if necessary, proceed with appropriate reporting procedures as mandated by the appropriate regulatory agencies.  Many institutions have an Office of Compliance with reporting hotlines
  17. 17.  During pre-study evaluation, sponsors should carefully scrutinize sites for interest in the study, stability of the staff, investigator/staff interactions, workload, and level of training.  Everyone involved in the clinical trial process should complete regular GCP training.  CRAs should be expert on the protocol particularly with parameters that determine eligibility (inclusion/exclusion criteria) and primary efficacy endpoints
  18. 18.  Sponsors should emphasize their policy on fraud at the initiation visit  Institutions should set-up systems to encourage fraud reporting and protect whistleblowers