Welcome to our new website! If this is the first time you are logging in on the new site, you will need to reset your password. Please contact us at raps@raps.org if you need assistance.
The site navigation utilizes arrow, enter, escape, and space bar key commands. Left and right arrows move across top level links and expand / close menus in sub levels. Up and Down arrows will open main level menus and toggle through sub tier links. Enter and space open menus and escape closes them as well. Tab will move on to the next part of the site rather than go through menu items.
The regulatory function is vital in making safe and effective healthcare products available worldwide. Individuals who ensure regulatory compliance and prepare submissions, as well as those whose main job function is clinical affairs or quality assurance are all considered regulatory professionals.
Share your knowledge and expertise with your regulatory peers by submitting an in-depth, evidence-based article focusing on key areas and emerging issues in the global regulatory landscape.
One of our most valuable contributions to the profession is the Regulatory Code of Ethics. The Code of Ethics provides regulatory professionals with core values that hold them to the highest standards of professional conduct.
Your membership opens the door to free learning resources on demand. Check out the Member Knowledge Center for free webcasts, publications and online courses.
Like all professions, regulatory is based on a shared set of competencies. The Regulatory Competency Framework describes the essential elements of what is required of regulatory professionals at four major career and professional levels.
RAPS Euro Convergence brings regulatory peers from the EU and worldwide together in one forum to gain insights and exchange ideas on the region's most pressing issues. Register today to attend 10-12 May 2021.
Registration is now open for RAPS Convergence 2021! Gather with the regulatory community 12-15 September for four days of learning, engagement, and excitement.
With contributions from more than 30 authors from seven countries, the new edition incorporates a global overview of the field and is designed to help you get the most out of your regulatory intelligence endeavors.
Regipedia is an interactive resource created to benefit RAPS members with 24/7 access to more than 2,300 regulatory terms.
Hear from leaders around the globe as they share insights about their experiences and lessons learned throughout their certification journey.
The RAPS store will be under maintenance Saturday, 17 April between 5 AM and 12 PM EST. Store functionality may be unavailable at times during this window. We apologize for any inconvenience caused during this time.
Posted 28 May 2013 | By Alexander Gaffney, RAC,
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) this week sent a Warning Letter to a Principal Investigator for allegedly failing to adhere to the agreed-upon investigational plan, among other alleged deviations.
The letter, made public by FDA on 28 May 2013, pertains to observations made by regulators during a series of inspections conducted in late 2012 of a clinical site maintained by Dr. Jose Joseph-Vempilly, a Fresno, CA-based investigator. Those investigations resulted in a FDA Form 483 being sent to Joseph-Vempilly alleging that he had failed to follow statutory requirements and FDA regulations.
FDA's allegations boil down to two main contentions: that Joseph-Vempilly "failed to ensure that the investigation was conducted according to the investigational plan," and that he "failed to maintain adequate case histories that record all observations and other data pertinent to the investigation on each individual" in the investigation.
To the former point, FDA alleges that the study had several deviations from the agreed-upon parameters, including two patients who were taken off of an inhaled corticosteroid, another who stopped using the corticosteroid, and a fourth patient who stopped using the corticosteroid one day prior to a checkup point. In all four cases, the patients were not excluded from the treatment randomization, FDA said, violating the protocol and "jeopardizing subject safety and welfare."
FDA said these deviations "raised concerns about the validity and integrity of the data collected at [the investigator's] site."
The second set of allegations made in the Warning Letter pertains to the adequacy and accuracy of case studies maintained by the investigation, which FDA said it found lacking. Those case histories were supposed to include records of patient blood pressure, pulse rate and body temperature, but FDA said it found several instances when recordings were listed when they were not actually taken. Several progress notes in the case file documents indicated that "these measurements were not taken at every visit," but nevertheless were recorded.
FDA said it was unable to determine the extent of the alleged falsification, but said Joseph-Vempilly had "acknowledged" the falsification, and indicated that he had informed the institutional review board (IRB) overseeing the study upon being made aware of the problems in July 2011. The problems were blamed on a research coordinator who has since been terminated, according to his correspondence with FDA.
FDA, however, said his response was inadequate in that it did not provide sufficient information regarding corrective actions to be taken to avoid problems occurring in the future.
FDA Warning Letter to PI
Tags: PI, warning letter
Regulatory Focus newsletters
All the biggest regulatory news and happenings.