- This topic has 2 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 2 weeks, 2 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
-
Hi Victoria,
As for GCP training renewal:
The International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines do not specify a fixed frequency for retraining requirements for investigators within the clinical trials industry. However, the principles of ICH GCP emphasize the importance of ongoing training to ensure that investigators and their staff are adequately qualified and continuously updated on GCP principles and relevant regulations.
While ICH GCP itself does not mandate a specific retraining interval, many regulatory bodies and sponsors have their own requirements or recommendations. For example:
FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration): The FDA does not specify a retraining frequency but emphasizes the need for continuous education and training.
EMA (European Medicines Agency): Similarly, the EMA does not mandate a specific retraining interval but expects that investigators and their staff are adequately trained and updated.
Sponsors and CROs (Contract Research Organizations): Many sponsors and CROs have their own internal policies and may require investigators to undergo GCP retraining every 2-3 years.
Professional Organizations: Some professional organizations and training providers recommend retraining every 2-3 years to ensure that investigators stay current with evolving regulations and best practices.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the United Kingdom also emphasizes the importance of ongoing training for investigators and clinical trial staff but does not specify a fixed retraining frequency in its guidance on Good Clinical Practice (GCP).
The MHRA’s expectations align with the principles of ICH GCP and focus on ensuring that investigators and their staff are adequately trained and competent to conduct clinical trials. Here are some key points from the MHRA’s perspective:
Competency and Training: The MHRA expects that investigators and their staff are competent and qualified to perform their roles in clinical trials. This includes having a good understanding of GCP principles, relevant regulations, and the specific protocols of the trials they are conducting.
Initial and Refresher Training: While the MHRA does not mandate a specific retraining interval, it is expected that investigators and their staff receive initial training and periodic refresher training to keep their knowledge up-to-date.
Risk-Based Approach: The MHRA advocates for a risk-based approach to training. This means that the frequency and content of training should be tailored to the needs and risks of the specific trial, the role of the individual, and any identified gaps in knowledge or skills.
Documentation: The MHRA expects that training records are maintained to demonstrate that investigators and their staff have received appropriate training and are qualified to conduct their roles in the trial.
In practice, many UK-based clinical trial sites, sponsors, and CROs follow a retraining interval of every 2-3 years to ensure compliance with MHRA expectations and to maintain a high standard of GCP knowledge. However, the ultimate responsibility lies with the investigator and the sponsor to ensure that training is adequate and up-to-date.
For the most current and detailed information, it is always a good idea to consult the MHRA’s official guidance documents and resources, such as the “MHRA GCP Guide” and the “MHRA Inspectorate Blog,” which provide insights into the agency’s expectations and interpretations of GCP requirements.
In summary, while there is no universally mandated frequency for ICH GCP retraining, it is generally recommended and often required by sponsors and regulatory bodies that investigators undergo periodic retraining to maintain their competency and compliance with GCP principles.
-
Hi Victoria,
As for CV renewal during particular study:
While it is not typically required to update investigator CVs after a study has been initiated, there are certain situations where it might be necessary or beneficial to do so. Here are some key points to consider:
Regulatory Requirements: Regulatory authorities generally do not require investigator CVs to be updated after study initiation unless there are significant changes that could impact the investigator’s ability to conduct the study safely and effectively. However, it is always a good idea to check specific local regulations and guidance.
Changes in Qualifications or Experience: If an investigator gains new, relevant qualifications, training, or experience after the study has started, it may be beneficial to update their CV. This can help demonstrate the investigator’s continued suitability to conduct the study and can be useful for sponsors, ethics committees, and regulatory authorities.
Changes in Study Personnel: If there are changes in study personnel, such as the addition of a new sub-investigator or the replacement of the principal investigator, updated CVs should be provided for these individuals. This is to ensure that their qualifications and experience are appropriately documented.
Sponsor Requirements: Sponsors may have their own internal policies and may request updated CVs from investigators during periodic monitoring activities or if there are significant changes to the study or study personnel.
Inspections and Audits: In the event of an inspection or audit by regulatory authorities or the sponsor, up-to-date CVs may be requested. Having current CVs on file can help demonstrate compliance with regulatory requirements and the investigator’s continued suitability to conduct the study.
Good Documentation Practice: Maintaining up-to-date CVs for investigators and study personnel is part of good documentation practice. This ensures that records are accurate, complete, and current, which is crucial for maintaining the integrity and credibility of the clinical trial.
In summary, while it is not typically required to update investigator CVs after a study has been initiated, there are situations where it may be necessary or beneficial to do so. It is important to maintain good documentation practices and to comply with any specific requests from sponsors, ethics committees, or regulatory authorities. If in doubt, it is always a good idea to consult with the sponsor or the relevant regulatory authority for guidance.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.