Blind monitors or greedy sponsors? [GxP / QC / QA]

posted by Ohlbe – France, 2022-05-24 16:21 (1094 d 23:18 ago) – Posting: # 23014
Views: 9,163

Dear Helmut,

❝ also interesting the list of medicines concerned by the procedure. You can read it ‘backwards’, i.e., look at the sponsors.


Well, marketing authorisation holders / applicants were not necessarily the sponsor of the study. Some of them just bought the dossier off the shelf, before or after the marketing authorisation was granted. Due diligence: generally, nil, especially if the marketing authorisation was already granted. EMA organised a workshop with representatives of the generic drug industry some years ago, after the first referrals of this type. Nothing came out of it. Industry's position: "we can't audit the study when we buy the dossier coz' we were not the sponsor". It went nowhere.

❝ Given that, were monitors of the other sponsors :blind: or just greedy?


Or just incompetent ? Or were some of the sponsors perfectly aware of the scam, and willing to use such CROs precisely because they were sure their study would pass ?

Regards
Ohlbe

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,680 registered users;
38 visitors (0 registered, 38 guests [including 24 identified bots]).
Forum time: 15:40 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Pharmacokinetics may be simply defined as
what the body does to the drug,
as opposed to pharmacodynamics, which may be defined as
what the drug does to the body.    Leslie Z. Benet

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5