The clinical quality management systems approach developed 20 years ago is not sustainable in the today's industry because we've seen dramatic industry changes in outsourcing, remote monitoring, the use of electronic systems in clinical research, and more. But how do we update our approach for 2022 pharma? This article examines 4 imperatives, including how to accomplish them.
3 Reasons Why Sponsors Must Review Monitoring Reports
Despite recent progress in executing and documenting oversight, sponsor oversight remains a challenge, especially with monitoring reports. Penelope Przekop detail three reasons why they must remain top of mind.
About the Author

Penelope Przekop, CEO
Penelope Przekop is a is a biopharmaceutical quality assurance and corporate compliance executive consultant with global R&D and commercial PV expertise. During the early 2000s, she developed and oversaw the first global PV quality and compliance departments established for Wyeth as well as Johson & Johnson. Her work includes qualification and oversight of numerous PV vendors covering all aspects of clinical safety and post-marketed PV. Penelope has facilitated numerous PV regulatory inspections. She frequently leads and conducts PV mock inspections and provides in-depth PV training.
Related Content
Read more from PDC’s teams of experts.
The clinical quality management systems approach developed 20 years ago is not sustainable in the today's industry because we've seen dramatic industry changes in outsourcing, remote monitoring, the use of electronic systems in clinical research, and more. But how do we update our approach for 2022 pharma? This article examines 4 imperatives, including how to accomplish them.
Now that we have years of real-world regulatory outcomes data available, why are we ignoring their power to serve as a corrective lens for our interpretations of the law?
Now that we have years of real-world regulatory outcomes data available, why are we ignoring their power to serve as a corrective lens for our interpretations of the law?
Small to midsize pharmaceutical or biotech companies (small pharma) are enjoying the best of times. Many have exciting products with fantastic preclinical and/or clinical results, great platforms for long-term company growth and licensing possibilities, outstanding medical and technical expertise, and support from intellectual/academic experts. However, from a quality systems perspective, it could be the worst of times. Many have weak quality systems, are not following global regulatory authority regulations and/or guidance, or lack the level of documentation required to reconstruct every aspect of clinical trials.
Small to midsize pharmaceutical or biotech companies (small pharma) are enjoying the best of times. Many have exciting products with fantastic preclinical and/or clinical results, great platforms for long-term company growth and licensing possibilities, outstanding medical and technical expertise, and support from intellectual/academic experts. However, from a quality systems perspective, it could be the worst of times. Many have weak quality systems, are not following global regulatory authority regulations and/or guidance, or lack the level of documentation required to reconstruct every aspect of clinical trials.
Part 1 of this article explained that the FDA's goal is to ensure safety not to provide a compliance safety net to sponsors by enabling arbitrary rules around SUSAR reporting timelines. A few readers raised points to justify using sponsor awareness as Day Zero for SUSAR reporting, regardless of when the PI becomes aware. Part 2 addresses those points and why they miss the mark.
Part 1 of this article explained that the FDA's goal is to ensure safety not to provide a compliance safety net to sponsors by enabling arbitrary rules around SUSAR reporting timelines. A few readers raised points to justify using sponsor awareness as Day Zero for SUSAR reporting, regardless of when the PI becomes aware. Part 2 addresses those points and why they miss the mark.