Protocol: Burn Wound Repair with Cultured Skin Substitute IDE Number: G980023
Conducted by: The Walter B. Morley Research Foundation January 2009- December 2009
Table of Contents: Page:
1. Demographics/ Subject Status Summary 3 2. Informed Consent 7 3. Compassionate Use 12 4. Case Report Form Summary 15 5. Subject Eligibility 19 6. Randomization/ Wound Site Selection 23 7. Pre Treatment of Study Sites 29 8. Burn Area Estimates 33 9. Summary-Pre-Study Visit 36 10. Pre-Study Medical History 37 11. Pre-Study Physical Exam 38 12. Pre-Study Serum Antibodies 39 13. Pre- Study Skin Biopsy for Tracing 40 14. CSS Tracings in Vitro 41 15. Post Operative Date Completion For All Sets 42 16. Biopsy of Recipient Sites 46 17. Photography of Wound Bed/ Pre-Surgery 47 18. Photography Post Graph 48 19. Study Site Tracings for POD 14/ POD 28 49 20. Microbial Cultures 51 21. Healed Wound Biopsy 52 22. Healed Area/ Donor Area Ratio 53 23. % Engraftment Completed for POD 14 55 24. % Engraftment Completed for POD 28 56 2
25. Physical Exam Conducted at POD 0 57 26. Physical Exam Conducted at POD 28 58 27. Serum For Antibodies Completed for POD 28 59 28. Investigator Global Assessment 60 29. Qualitative Outcome 62 30. Adverse Event Summary for POD 14/28 68 31. Cultured Skin Substitute Wound Care 70 32. Unanticipated Adverse Devices Effects/Serious 76 Adverse Events/ Event Reporting
33. Concomitant Medications 96 34. Abnormal Laboratory Values 111 35. Primary Study Endpoints 112 36. Secondary Study Endpoints 116 37. Device Quality Assurance Testing/ Sterility Testing 120 38. Device Returned 122 39. Device Labeling/Device Storage 124 40. Device Disposal 126 41. Device Shipping Information Available 128 42. Protocol Deviation Summary 130 43. Protocol Deviation Reported to IRB 131 44. Protocol Deviations Reported To Sponsor 133 45. Sample Audit of the First 81 Subjects in the CSS Study 134 46. Annual Reports 135 47. Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) Review 145 48. System Audit Conundrums 146
49. The Morley Research Foundation Interview Report 146 For Physicians and Nurses Involved in the CSS Clinical Trial 50. Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) Report 150
Audit of Regulatory and Institutional Review Board 163
Appendix A: Various Versions of Qualitative Outcome 197 Case Report Forms Appendix B: Listing of Adverse Events 200 Appendix C: Investigator Global Assessment Case Report Forms 201 Appendix D: Copy Device Label Provided to Auditors 202 Appendix E: Safety Monitoring Procedure 203 Appendix F: Conflict of Interest Statement 205 Appendix G: Article Medical Advances Incubate in Corryville 207
3
1. Demographics/ Subject Status Summary The demographics for the subjects of the Cultured Skin Study were captured on the case report forms for general use. There were no restrictions per the protocol for age, gender, or race. Figure 1.1 (below) illustrates that the ages for the study participants ranged from a few months old up to 27 years old. As shown in figure 1.2, the overall gender of the study audit population was male. Males were shown to be five times more likely to be a burn patient with respect to the make-up of this study. The breakdown for race, shown in Figure 1.4, indicates that the majority of subjects were Caucasian, closely followed by Hispanic, then few numbers for African American and others. Per figure 1.3, the majority of study subjects were enrolled by the Cincinnati Shriners site, followed by Galveston Shriners, then the Sacramento Shriners, with one subject enrolled at the Boston Shriners site. The questions that evolved from the enrollment of these outlying sites will be addressed within the specific section where the question occurred.
4
Figure 1.1 Subject Age Summary 5
Figure 1.2 Subject Gender Summary
Figure 1.3-Subject Location Summary 6
Figure 1.4-Subject Race Summary
As noted in Figure 1.5 (below), there were fifty seven (57) subjects in the audit population. One subject (Subject 86) was allotted two separate subject numbers (86 and 118) thus explaining the use of 58 subject numbers, yet only having 57 subjects in the audit population. This subject was originally randomized as number 86 and then randomized a second time as 118. Of the fifty-seven (57) subjects, forty-four (44) subjects were enrolled and treated with Cultured Skin Substitute. Thirteen (13) subjects were consented for the study, but did not receive treatment (see below). Seventeen (17) subjects were enrolled and treated under compassionate use. Four (4) subjects were enrolled and treated on study, but did not meet all inclusion/exclusion criteria. Eligibility was unable to be verified on six (6) subjects.
Figure 1.5-Treated Subjects Summary 7
The following subjects were consented, but not treated with device: Subject Number Location Reason for Non-Treatment 83 Cincinnati unknown 85 Sacramento Subject had infection at biopsy site 89 Cincinnati unknown 90 Galveston unknown 94 Galveston unknown 101 Sacramento unknown 110 Galveston unknown 111 Galveston unknown 116 Galveston unknown 117 Galveston unknown 122 Galveston unknown 125 Cincinnati Subject expired prior to receiving device 135 Cincinnati Subjects parent withdrew consent (did not want any further heroic measures) and subject expired soon after
8
2. Informed Consent Form All subjects had an informed consent signed by a parent or guardian. Per the Code of Federal Regulation Part 50.25 (1); Part 50.25 (2) and Part 50.25 (b) (5), the informed consent process should have been consistent throughout the study and at all sites. While there were some irregularities regarding the Informed Consent Form (ICF) issues (as noted on the individual subject forms), the most serious issues identified, are listed below:
Subject #90: The ICF (Spanish version) signed by the person obtaining consent and the parent of the subject on 8/10/04. This was 3 days after consent signature of PI and interpreter. The ICF copy in the CRF does not show an IRB approval date. The IRB approved the emergency use of the CSS on 8/10/04. There is no documentation that shows approval of this emergency use by UC (sponsor) Subject #93: My child is listed on first page of ICF instead of actual childs name. Childs name should have been entered instead of my child. Subject #95: Signatures are not noted as to the relationship to the subject. Subject #100: IRB review date of April 2005 on ICF. Only month and year are noted; no ICF approval date or expiration date on ICF. Subject #104: No HIPAA form was located. Since subject and family was from Mexico and signed an English ICF, there should have been a note to file stating that the person signing the consent was bilingual and could understand the English ICF. Subject #105: The ICF received approval from University of Texas IRB, but a HIPAA form was not present. Auditors were able to identify a request to FDA for the compassionate use of CSS. However, no FDA approval or UC approval for compassionate use could be located. Subject #107: A request (dated September 8, 2005) to FDA requesting enrollment this patient into the study under compassionate use was present, however auditors were unable to locate FDA approval. Subject #109: Spanish version of ICF signed was received from Cincinnati May 2004 and was revised in Galveston 12/14/2004 and again on 8/12/05. The revisions are unknown as the ICF is in Spanish and no documentation is available to identify the changes. There is a second copy, same version signed on 10/31/05. The reason is unknown why two copies of the ICF were signed one day apart. Subject #114: The version date of ICF is unknown. A sticker, with hospital information, was placed over the top of the version date on each page of the consent form. Subject # 119: The subjects name is not written, and only the phrase my child appears in the space provided for the subjects name. The subjects mother provided only initials instead of completing her signature on both the ICF and HIPAA. There was no documentation available to support why this occurred as part of the ICF process. Subject #123: ICF IRB approval date was 6/7/06 with an expiration of 7/20/06 which is more than one year. There are two consents of the same version signed on two different days with no explanation of why this occurred. 9
Subject #124: ICF (version dated 9/1/ 2005) was only approved for 10 days by the UC IRB. The IRB approval date was 7/10/2006 and the date of IRB expiration was 7/20/2006. Subject #127: ICF (version dated 9/1/2005) states my child instead of childs name. This subject appears to have been a compassionate use subject however documentation not found to substantiate these findings. Subject #129: ICF (version dated 9/1/2005) is on plain paper, no heading for Shriners Hospital or University of Cincinnati. Subject: #138: Parents signed ICF (version dated 6/1/2008) on 11/11/2008, and FDA did not approve compassionate use until 11/12/2008.
Figure 2.1- Informed Consent Summary Per Figure 2.1 above: The second bar on the graft shows that 40 patients signed the HIPAA form and this was verified by a copy in the medical charts, 17 subjects did not have a signed HIPAA form in their medical records. The third bar on the grafts indicates that most ICFs had an IRB approval date on the consent form. Three subjects did not have the stamped approval. One subjects ICF approval stamp was covered by the 10
hospital record stamp, another subjects approval stamp was too faint to read, and the third subjects ICF had no stamp of IRB approval on it. The fourth bar on the graft shows that only 5 subjects were ever re-consented out of the 57 study subjects. Twenty four subjects should have been re-consented. The consent forms that had procedure changes for the subject or changes in the risk section should have been presented to the subject and/or their family for re-consent. Subjects who are presently enrolled and actively participating in a study should be informed of a change if it might relate to the subjects willingness to continue participation in the study as per CFR50.25 (b) (5) - A statement that significant new findings developed during the course of the research which may relate to the subject's willingness to continue participation will be provided to the subject. These are as follows: Subject #86: Should have been re-consented 4 times. Subject # 87: Should have been re-consented 4 times. Subject #82: Should have been re-consented 3 times. Subject #96: Should have been re-consented 2 times. Subject #97: Should have been re-consented 1 time. Subject #98: Should have been re-consented 2 times. Subject #99: Should have been re-consented 1 time. Subject #102: Should have been re-consented 3 times. Subject #103: Should have been re-consented 1 time. Subject #104: Should have been re-consented 2 times. Subject #106: Should have been re-consented 3 times. Subject #112: Should have been re-consented 2 times. Subject #114: Should have been re-consented 3 times. Subject #115: Should have been re-consented 1 time. Subject #119: Should have been re-consented 1 time. Subject #120: Should have been re-consented 1 time. Subject #123: Should have been re-consented 1 time. Subject #124: Should have been re-consented 1 time. Subject #126: Should have been re-consented 2 times. Subject #127: Should have been re-consented 1 time. Subject #129: Should have been re-consented 3 times. Subject #130: Should have been re-consented 3 times. Subject #131: Should have been re-consented 3 times. Subject #134: Should have been re-consented 3 times. The 2006 Standard Operating Procedures copies from the University of Cincinnati IRB, which were provided to the Morley Research Foundation, were missing several pages. Of those missing pages was the informed consent information; therefore, it is not known what the policy on re-consenting was at that time. There was no SOP regarding re-consent process made available to the auditors. 11
Below is a table of the ICF changes that required ICF amendments and thus should have necessitated re-consenting of subjects:
Date of ICF Changes Made IRB Approval Date August 2002 Original ICF for audit purposes 07/23/2003 April 2003 First bullet point in Risk section: Added in Each preparation of cultured skin substitutes is tested before clinical use, and must be negative for infection. Second bullet point adds in Also, similar kinds of materials used for similar kinds of tissue repair have been associated with the development of auto-immune disease at a later time in life, but this has not been seen with cultured skin substitutes in more than 15 years experience. Added in as the third bullet point: the polymer fabric, and other materials used in preparation of the cultured skin substitute are from bovine sources (cows or beef). Also, several drugs are used for preparation and application of cultured skin. These drugs include penicillin, streptomycin, neomycin, polymyxin B, mupirocin, ciprofloxacin, amphotericin B, hydrocortisone and insulin, If the patient is known to be allergic to these materials or drugs; she/he should not be treated with cultured skin substitutes. Added a fourth bullet point: It is also possible that an allergic reaction and loss of cultured skin grafts could occur from the treatment of burn scars, if the original burns were treated with cultured skin. Specific tests will be performed to determine whether a risk of allergic reaction may occur for treatment of burn scars. Deleted bullet point #6 referring to mouse cell preparation of CSS. 06/22/2003
October 2003 Change in Risk Bullet point #2 was changed back to match the August 2002 ICF version. Bullet point #3 regarding the polymer fabric from bovine sources was deleted. Bullet point #4: allergic reaction of loss of CSS was deleted. 01/27/2004 May 2004 Procedures section: added in and/or clinical examination that follow the course of the healing process. And Joint range of motion will be recorded when applicable. Risks section: added the allergic reaction by CSS made from the bovine cells paragraph that was removed in the October 2003 version. 06/23/2004 September 2005 Risk section: Number of patients changed from 75 to 125 of experience with CSS and no incidence of autoimmune disease. Section 16: Changed number of participants from 30 at 3 sites to 180 at 5 sites. 09/28/2005 January 2006 Procedures section: changed the term debridement to removal; added on a reason of traced and photographed treated areas to evaluate whether the cultured skin is growing normally with the rest of your body. Changed the range of motion recording to Passive range of motion. Change in Experimental Procedures: Added in a bullet point that states: Skin test for allergic reaction if burn scars were previously treated with cultured skin. Change in 03/08/2006 12
Risk section: added in first bullet point Also, antibiotics are applied to the cultured skin for several days to reduce chances of infection. Deleted CSS from cadaver skin will only be used if it has tested negative for HIV (AIDS) and hepatitis, and also has satisfied all other safety standards that are required for tissue banking. General Information: changed from 5 participating institutions, back to 3 institutions. July 2006 Procedures section: surgical removal is now back to debridement; Added in for the treated areas traced and photographed at one year changed to add and periodically between three and five years post- grafting. Added in the wound biopsy section of procedures routine clinic visits after your discharge. Deleted the passive in the range of motion recorded section. Added in skin test performed to evaluate whether CSS skin may be used for treatment of burn scars after treatment of original burns with CSS. In the Experimental Procedures section: Deleted the skin test for allergic reaction if previously treated with CSS. In Risks section: first bullet point: deleted the sentence regarding antibodies are applied to the CSS for several days to reduce chances of infection. Added in a bullet point: a chance of rejection of the skin substitute, if allogeneic cells from cadaver skin are used. The chance of rejection of cultured allografts (cadaver skin cells) is no greater than the chance of rejection of cadaver skin that is routinely used as a temporary wound cover. Next bullet point added in cultured skin made from cadaver skin will only be used if it has tested negative for HIV (AIDS) and hepatitis, and also has satisfied all other safety standards that are required for tissue banking. General Information: Changed back to 5 institutions participating. 07/10/2006 June 2008 In the Commercial Products section there is a section added in per IRB instructions regarding Conflict of Interest: adds in Dr. Steve Boyce, a sub-investigator on this study, has received payments from the company that owns the rights to the process used in this study. This disclosure is made so that you can decide if this relationship will affect your willingness to participate in this study. 06/18/2008
No documentation is identified explaining why sentences were added in, then taken out, then added back in again.
13
3. Compassionate Use
The total number of compassionate use subjects was seventeen (17) for the CSS study. Figure 3.1, below, demonstrates the compliance of the compassionate use information gathered during the audit.
Figure 3.1-Compassionate Use Summary
14
The regulation below states the proper conditions in which compassionate use informed consent should be utilized: Compassionate Use (or Single Patient/Small Group Access) as per Medical Devices FDA Guidance IDE Early/ Expanded Access The compassionate use provision allows access for patients who do not meet the requirements for inclusion in the clinical investigation but for whom the treating physician believes the device may provide a benefit in treating and/or diagnosing their disease or condition. This provision is typically approved for individual patients but may be approved to treat a small group. Criteria: Serious disease or condition or no alternative Time-frame: During clinical trial FDA recognizes that there are circumstances in which an investigational device is the only option available for a patient faced with a serious, albeit not life-threatening, disease or condition. In these circumstances, FDA uses its regulatory discretion in determining whether such use of an investigational device should occur. Prior FDA approval is needed before compassionate use occurs. In order to obtain Agency approval, the sponsor should submit an IDE supplement requesting approval for a protocol deviation under section 812.35(a) in order to treat the patient. The IDE supplement should include: A description of the patient's condition and the circumstances necessitating treatment A discussion of why alternatives therapies are unsatisfactory and why the probable risk of using the investigational device is no greater than the probable risk from the disease or condition An identification of any deviations in the approved clinical protocol that may be needed in order to treat the patient The patient protection measures that will be followed. (Informed consent, concurrence of IRB chairperson, clearance from the institution, independent assessment from uninvolved physician, authorization from IDE sponsor)
As figure 3.1 demonstrates, the compassionate use regulations were not always followed by the Sponsor/investigator. The source documentation needed to substantiate that all the above reference points were completed. Auditors could not locate all authorizations required by the regulations to enroll a subject as a compassionate use subject. The graph indicates what items could not be identified. There are references to emails for approval however it does not appear that all emails were printed out. There is certainly not a clear documented progression showing when the request came in from the site, documentation of all approvals needed, then documentation back to the site stating that documents were approved. All signed ICFs were able to be located.
15
Figure 3.2 identifies the location breakdown for all compassionate use subjects in the treated population:
Figure 3.2 Compassionate Use Patients By Location
16
4. Case Report Form Summary As figure 4.1(below) indicates, the case report forms were not completed in a consistent manner throughout the study. The Boston Shriners site was the only outlying site that had a record of who attended the training session regarding the cultured skin substitute. There was no documentation on what was included in the training session, just that a training session took place. Therefore, there was no documentation that any of the sites received proper training on CRF completion.
Figure 4.1-Case Report Form Summary The Code of Federal Regulations 312.62 Investigator recordkeeping and record retention (section b): Case histories. An investigator is required to prepare and maintain adequate and accurate case histories that record all observations and other data pertinent to the investigation on each individual administered the investigational drug or employed as a control in the investigation. Case histories include the case report forms and supporting data including, for example, signed and dated consent forms, any medical records 17
The Code of Federal Regulations 812.140(a)(3)(i) A participating investigator shall maintain the following accurate, complete, and current records relating to the investigator's participation in an investigation:(3) Records of each subject's case history and exposure to the device. Case histories include the case report forms and supporting data including, for example, signed and dated consent forms and medical records including, for example, progress notes of the physician, the individual's hospital chart(s), and the nurses' notes. Such records shall include: (i) Documents evidencing informed consent and, for any use of a device by the investigator without informed consent, any written concurrence of a licensed physician and a brief description of the circumstances justifying the failure to obtain informed consent. The case history for each individual shall document that informed consent was obtained prior to participation in the study.;812.140(a)(3)(ii) A participating investigator shall maintain the following accurate, complete, and current records relating to the investigator's participation in an investigation:(3) Records of each subject's case history and exposure to the device. Case histories include the case report forms and supporting data including, for example, signed and dated consent forms and medical records including, for example, progress notes of the physician, the individual's hospital chart(s), and the nurses' notes. Such records shall include :ii) All relevant observations, including records concerning adverse device effects (whether anticipated or unanticipated), information and data on the condition of each subject upon entering, and during the course of, the investigation, including information about relevant previous medical history and the results of all diagnostic tests. 812.140(a)(3)(iii) A participating investigator shall maintain the following accurate, complete, and current records relating to the investigator's participation in an investigation:(3) Records of each subject's case history and exposure to the device. Case histories include the case report forms and supporting data including, for example, signed and dated consent forms and medical records including, for example, progress notes of the physician, the individual's hospital chart(s), and the nurses' notes. Such records shall include: (iii) A record of the exposure of each subject to the investigational device, including the date and time of each use, and any other therapy. 812.140(a)(4); A participating investigator shall maintain the following accurate, complete, and current records relating to the investigator's participation in an investigation:(4) The protocol, with documents showing the dates of and reasons for each deviation from the protocol. 812.140(a)(5) Any other records that FDA requires to be maintained by regulation or by specific requirement for a category of investigations or a particular investigation. The case report forms were not consistent for all sites of the study. Major variations are listed below: Qualitative Outcome Form: Different forms used throughout the study; two different forms were used within the same subject. The forms do not reflect a revision date: one form has no date on it and one form has a revision date of October 2003. One form has a label (e.g. none = 1, hypo = 2, normal = 3, hyper =4 for pigmentation) under each number specified. The other form shows the numbers as 1 through 4, however the label is none under 0; the label normal is between the numbers 1 and 2 and hyper is the label under number 3. The same type of variance occurred on the skin pliability. One on form 0 = normal; 1 = supple; 2 = yielding, 3 = firm; 4 = rope; 5 = contracture. The other form has normal under 0; 1 by itself, 2 has the label firm 3 is by itself and the label contracture goes across the number 4 and 5. By not using a consistent format for the collection of the Qualitative Outcome data the results do not accurate reflect these outcomes. Subject #82: The CRFs were not completed. Consistency in CRF collection is not the same between the sponsor and the sites. Sacramento Shriners made their own forms for data collection and only used a few of the CRFs from the sponsor. The data was combined for Post Operative Date (POD) 91,182 and 365. Sets 3 and 4 were combined. Subject #84: Information written in on CRFs at different times in different handwriting, with no initials/signatures or date given. Follow up was not done per protocol, even though the subject did return to clinic for follow up visits per the medical records. Subject # 86: The CRF/Source was copied and sent to UC Shriners. The CRFs were typed and there is no signature or date identifying when these were completed or who completed them. 18
Subject #87: CRF pages were not completed. The Boston site stated that they would only record information regarding safety and efficacy as subject is emergency use and not an actual research subject. On 8/12/04 M. Reed from UC Shriners requested forms from Boston site. Subject #91: CRFs not complete, including physical exam form and Qualitative Outcome form for set one. Subject #92: POD 81, 182, and 365 data collection was not done. Other CRFs were done a week or more out of window with no reason why it wasnt completed on time as subject was in the hospital and there was access to the subject. Logs were not completed. Subject #93: CRFs not signed some not dated and incomplete forms. Incomplete forms include: physical exam form for set one, Qualitative Outcome for set one /POD14, IGA for set one/ POD 14, and Qualitative Outcome for set one/POD 28 Subject #95: CRFs not signed, incomplete, many CRF pages are marked thru with a line and the note says to see the treatment summary in medical chart; however medical treatment summary was not present. Subject #96: CRFs are incomplete to include: Microbiology for set one, Qualitative Outcome for sets one, two and three. Subject #97: CRF pages appear to be written by two different people (handwriting different and different pens used). No dates or initials to indicate when additional information was written in. Other than set 2, no set was completed past POD 28, no Physical Exams (PE) were done. Subject #99: CRF corrections were made during the audit. Blanks in CRF were left blank for several years then completed in 2009. Errors marked thru with no initials, date, or reason why change was made. Subject #100: CRFs not completed, notes state to see patient treatment summary. Subject died three days after receiving CSS. No initials, signatures, dates on CRFs. Forms were filled out with header information from POD 0 thru POD 365, forms were then marked through with a line across the page, after the subject died. Subject #102: Corrections made after annual reports to FDA, major burn magazine publications, and national talks given. Most CRF pages have edits made on them with the accompanying date of correction noted as August 26, 2009.
Subject #104: CRFs are incomplete-Specifically: physical exam form for Set 1/ POD 0 and several Qualitative Outcome and Investigator Global Assessment Forms. There are changes made by Peggy Simpson, RN at UC Shriners on the Galveston Shriners forms. Peggy initialed but did not date the changes. Other changes are scratched thru (e.g. PE pre study) with no initial or date as to who or when they were done. Set 1 Qualitative Outcome form is signed and dated (by M. Reed RN, who was a research nurse at UC Shriners) on a Galveston subject. Subject #106: Forms not completed until two years after the subject was treated. Many CRFs not signed or dated. No PI review of CRF. Changes made to CRF forms several years later than original entry made. On 11/10/2005 a protocol deviation was generated for a Set 2 physical exam not being completed. However, Peggy Simpson completed a physical exam page for Set 2, four years later. The IGA for Set 1, POD 14 and 28 were edited by Peggy Simpson on 8/19/2009. Not all changes are signed and dated. Subject #107: CRFs not completed until Peggy Simpson RN at UC Shriners completed forms in July 2009. Subject #108: CRFs were not completed for set 1 from POD 14 to POD 365. Set 2 and 3 had no collection performed. Subject #109: CRFs are typed, no signature. PE for pre study visit has a date of 10/29/2 005 which is prior to ICF consent. 19
Subject #112: This is a hairy cell nevus, not a burn subject. All CRF forms were for burn study subjects, no CRFs exists for data collection for a hairy cell nevus subject. Subject #114: A few CRFs were completed approximately 3 years after the initial CRF documentation was performed. Subject #115: This was a scar contracture release and re-grafting. The CRFs were designed to collect data for burn subjects, not a later contracture release and re-grafting. Subject #120: CRF has changes that were performed by Peggy Simpson, RN at UC Shriners. These changes were made on August 2009, which is three years after the initial information was reported. OR report dated 4/21/2006 contradicts what is reported in the CRF with regards to no comparative site available. Subject #121: The CRFs appear to have been typed up after the initial information was gathered. The site was handwriting the information on CRFs, and the medical records were mostly hand written. It is unknown how these typed forms appeared in the CRFs. Subject #123: Corrections to CRFs were made by Peggy Simpson, research nurse at UC Shriners in July 2009; 3 years after the initial CRFs were completed. Subject #124: PI review was signed off by Dr. Kagan and Dr. Boyce in July 2009. Subject records were completed in 2006. Subject #130: PI review and sign off by Dr. Kagan was done on 01/29/2009 when subject was completed in September 2007. Subject #131: PI reviewed and signed off on 01/29/2009 when subject was completed in August of 2007. Subject #133: CRFs incomplete. This subject received CSS for scar contracture due to previous burn. The CRF was not designed to capture information for scar contracture subjects. Therefore, a majority of this information was left blank.
The case report forms were overall, very poorly designed. There were areas of data capturing that did not sync with the protocol. Additionally, there was no documentation for site personnel training, with respect to CRF completion. There is question about who was responsible for CRF completion, why some of the CRFs were completed in a typed format (specifically from the Galveston site), and in what timeframe the CRFs were completed. The majority of the CRFs were completed with ink in standard pen/paper format. However, there were several CRFs that were typed, and multiple cases where typed CRFs appeared even after deviations were noted by Dr. Steve Boyce that the information had not been collected. The auditors identified Peggy Simpson, RN, research nurse at the UC Shriners site as making corrections/changes to CRF documents during the course of the audit. This information was provided, via email, to the FDA representative Ms. Sonali Gunawardhana, and Mrs. Simpson was directed to immediately stop making corrections or changes to the CRF pages. The compliance office at UC was also notified. As figure 4.1 clearly outlines, the majority of the subject population (33 subjects) did not have proper CRF completion. Individual pages were incomplete, and follow- up visits were not being documented, even as subjects were being seen in the outpatient clinic. CFR 812.140(a) (4) Investigator records: A participating investigator shall maintain the following accurate, complete, and current records relating to the investigators participation in an investigation: The protocol, with documents showing the dates of and the reasons for each deviation from the protocol. This regulation was violated in approximately half of the subjects enrolled. The investigators at the sites did not oversee the research protocol as follows: 20
1. CRFs were not completed properly 2. CRFs were improperly corrected 3. CRFs were not signed off by the PI and/or sponsor 4. Diagnostic Test were not signed off by the PI 5. Source Documentation was not maintained. CRFs were used as source documentation. 6. CRF completion could not be verified, as some CRFs were not signed by the person completing the document; however the original CRFs did not have a place designated for a signature and date on many of the pages. 7. CRFs that were typed in, appear to have been done at a later date, however they were signed off by someone (name not legible) and dated back at the date the form should have been done. Without running a full investigation into this matter, there is no way to tell if this was actual study misconduct with back dating. It does appear suspicious as several subjects had deviations written by Dr. Boyce regarding the fact that no data was collected, and yet there was typed data, with a signature and date from years ago on the form.
5. Subject Eligibility Per CFR 812.40 the Sponsor did not provide the study sites with the information they need to conduct the investigation properly: Per CFR 812.25 (c) The investigational plan shall include : Risk analysis: A description and analysis of all increased risks to which subjects will be exposed by the investigation; the manner in which these risks will be minimized; a justification for the investigation; and a description of the patient population, including the number, age, sex, and condition.
The November 2003 protocol does not identify a description of the patient population. Per Case Report Form Page (Form CSS 7.2, revised October 2003) the following inclusion/exclusion criterion is noted: Inclusion: Age is birth -75 years, TBSA > 50% (or 10% full thickness) Burn includes full thickness Patient is not showing signs of sepsis Expected to need grafting after 3 weeks post primary biopsy Informed Consent signed Exclusion: Patient is pregnant or lactating Patient is prisoner Patient is mentally incompetent.
21
The following subjects were enrolled on study, and did not meet all inclusion/exclusion criteria, specified per Case Report Form CSS 7.2:
Subject 120: did not have 50% TBSA or 10% full thickness burns Subject 107: did not have 50% TBSA or 10% full thickness burns
Per the Sponsor provided Informed Consents dated April 2003, May 2004, Sept 2005, Jan 2006, and July 2006, the following allergies were noted as study risks:
If a patient is known to be allergic to beef, s/he should not be treated with cultured skin substitutes.
allergic reactions to several drugs used for preparation and application of the cultured skin could occur. These drugs include penicillin, streptomycin, neomycin, polymixin B, mupirocin, ciprofloxacin, amphotericin B, hydrocortisone and insulin. If a patient is known to be allergic to these drugs, s/he should not be treated with cultured skin substitutes.
These risks should have been included in study inclusion/exclusion criteria, as it clearly states that subjects with these known allergies should not be treated with cultured skin substitute. Study data does not indicate that subjects were specifically being evaluated for these specific allergies at the time of study entry.
The following subjects should not have been enrolled and treated with CSS, per the risk assessment information presented in the Informed Consent:
Subject 82: Subject had history of allergy to Penicillin Subject 121: Subject had history of allergy to Penicillin
22
Per 45 CFR 46.111 (a) (6) When appropriate, the research plan makes adequate provision for monitoring the data collected to ensure the safety of subjects.
There was no evidence that appropriate data safety monitoring was put into place as part of the research plan, thereby ensuring that appropriate risk assessments were being made as part of the screening process.
Figure 5.1-Subject Status Summary
23
Per Figure 5.1: Of the forty-four (44) treated patients, eligibility was unable to be verified on six subjects: and the reasons noted are as follows:
Subject 87: Unable to verify that subject was not showing signs of sepsis
Subject 96 Unable to verify that subject was not showing signs of sepsis
Subject 106 Unable to verify if patient was mentally competent
Subject 107 Unable to verify if subject had sensitivity of CSS of any of its components
Subject 114 Unable to verify if subject was not showing signs of sepsis
Subject 130 Unable to verify if subject was not showing signs of sepsis
24
6. Randomization/ Wound Site Selection
Protocol d.2.1 Wound Site Selection: Two comparative sites of similar area and depth will be selected for each test. After selection, Site A will be defined as the right most location, the upper most location, or the front most location. Site B will be defined as the left most, the lower most or the rear most location. After the selection and definition, cultured skin or split-thickness skin will be applied according to the computer-generated randomized schedule. Wherever possible, contra-lateral sites will be used. Comparative sites will not include joints hands or face. Sites will be randomized according to the schedule (provided in protocol). If enrollment exceeds 36, an additional randomized schedule will be generated. Protocol d.2 Study Format: The paired-site comparison format will be used to evaluate cultured cell-collagen- GAG skin and conventional split-thickness skin graft for closure of full-thickness, excised burns. This study will be performed in a prospective, randomized design with each pair in the same patient on wounds of similar area and depth. For each administration of cultured cell-biopolymer skin substitute to a wound site, a comparative site will be treated with meshed or unmeshed split-thickness skin. Whether site A or B is treated with the experimental skin substitute will be randomized by computer generation prior to initiation of the study. The other site of the pair will be treated with split-thickness skin. Each application of cultured skin or split-thickness skin to sites A or B will follow the randomization schedule. Up to 20 randomized pairs will be generated for each year of the study.
The following subjects were randomized correctly, and protocol adherence was maintained for the wound site selection: Subject 92 Subject 124 Subject 132
Per CFR 812.110, investigators did not follow the investigational plan (protocol) dated November2003, with respect to wound site selection of study sites and randomization: Per d.2.1: Two comparative sites of similar area and depth will be selected for each test:
Per review of all study subjects, there was no documentation to support that the comparative study sites were measured for similar areas or depths.
25
A comparative site (split thickness autograft ) was not grafted on the following study subjects: Subject 84 Subject 114 Subject 87 Subject 119 Subject 100 Subject 120 Subject 113 Subject 96 Subject 115 Subject 108
For each administration of cultured cell-biopolymer skin substitute to a wound site, a comparative site will be treated with meshed or unmeshed split-thickness skin.
The following subjects had multiple applications of CSS whereby a comparative sites of split- thickness skin was not grafted with each CSS administration:
Per Figure 6.1: It is noted that the majority of the comparative sites were placed with the first application of CSS. However, the protocol does not specify that the first application is to be used as the comparative set; rather it states that for each administration of CSS, a comparative site will be treated with split- thickness skin. 26
Figure 6.1- Comparative Site Summary
After selection, Site A will be defined as the right most location, the upper most location, or the front most location. Site B will be defined as the left most, the lower most or the rear most location:
The following subjects were not grafted in accordance with protocol section d.2.1, as noted above:
Subject 95: Autograft (Site B) was placed in a strip across lower abdomen. CSS (Site A) was placed on abdomen, face and neck
Subject 96: CSS (Site A) face, neck bilateral shoulders and (Site B) Autograft was applied to the chest
Subject 102: CSS (Site A) was placed on the back. Autograft (Site B) was placed on left shoulder and left/right buttocks.
Subject 104: CSS (Site B) was placed on the face. Autograft (Site A) was placed on right leg, just below the knee (joint).
27
Subject 106: CSS (Site A) was placed on anterior chest. Autograft (Site B) was placed on right anterior chest.
Subject 107: Autograft (Site A) was placed on the left thigh. CSS (Site B) was placed on the right foot.
Subject 109: Per the graft location diagram in CRF, Autograft (Site A) was placed in pieces on the head, right shoulder, left hand, top of the left foot, buttocks, posterior head, lower back, posterior left arm, and the left calf. This graft placement does not follow what is specified per protocol
Subject 112: CSS (Site A) was placed on the buttocks and back. Autograft (Site B) was placed on left posterior thigh and buttocks
Subject 133: CSS (Site A) was placed on front and back of right leg. Autograft (Site B) was placed on front of right foot.
Comparative sites will not include joints, hands or face:
For the following subjects, comparative sites were not placed in accordance with protocol section d.2.1:
Subject 104: Set 1: CSS (Site B) was placed on the face and the Autograft (Site A) was placed on right leg, just below the knee (joint).
Subject 96: Set 1: CSS (Site A) face, neck bilateral shoulders and (Site B) Autograft was applied to the chest
Subject 92: In Set 1, CSS (Site A) was placed on the right knee (anterior/posterior)
Whether site A or B is treated with the experimental skin substitute will be randomized by computer generation prior to initiation of the study. The other site of the pair will be treated with split-thickness skin. Each application of cultured skin or split-thickness skin to sites A or B will follow the randomization schedule.
Figure 6.2 (below), illustrates the overall number of subjects with respect to randomization. The following subjects were not randomized, or randomized incorrectly:
Subject 84: Not randomized no comparative site administered Subject 87: Not randomizedno comparative site administered Subject 96: Not randomized no comparative site administered 28
Subject 100: Not randomizedno comparative site administered Subject 108: Not randomizedno comparative site administered Subject 113: Not randomized no comparative site administered Subject 115: Not randomizedno comparative site administered Subject 114: Not randomizedno comparative site administered Subject 119: Not randomizedno comparative site administered Subject 120: Not randomized no comparative site administered
Subject 95: Per the protocol randomization schedule, the subject was randomized correctly, however there was no source documentation available in this subjects study file in order to verify how the site determined or completed the randomization.
Subject 82: Per the protocol randomization schedule, the subject was randomized correctly, however there was no source documentation available in this subjects study file in order to verify how the site determined or completed the randomization. 29
Figure 6.2-Correctly Randomized Subjects
30
7. Pre Treatment of Study Sites Protocol d.2.2 Wound treatment:
Before excision, wounds will be treated identically according to prevailing standards of burn care. In cases of burns involving very large area of body surface, eschar may be excised and wounds covered temporarily with human cadaver allograft, or the dermal replacement, Integra Artificial Skin (Integra). One day prior to skin auto grafting, patients treated with allograft will have it excised to viable tissue which most frequently is subcutaneous fat. Excised wounds are soaked overnight in 2.5% (wt/vol) solution of sulfamylon (mafenide acetate), and grafted the following day. In the operating room, wounds will be irrigated thoroughly with saline to reduce the residual concentration of sulfamylon which is known to be highly toxic to cultured keratinocytes. Alternatively, if Integra was used as a temporary cover, the outer silicone layer will be removed to expose the vascularized wound bed. After preparation of the wound bed, meshed or unmeshed AG will be applied to one site and CSS with backing of N-Terface (a non-adherent dressing) to the other site, and secured to wounds with surgical staples.
Per CFR 812.110, investigators did not follow the investigational plan (protocol) dated November2003, with respect to pretreatment of study sites:
Before excision, wounds will be treated identically according to prevailing standards of burn care: Prevailing standards of burn care were noted as varied, amongst the institutions.
Per Figure 7.1: It was identified that burn wounds were typically being treated according to appropriate standards of burn care:
31
Figure 7.1-Wounds Treated According to Prevailing Standards of Burn Care
The protocol specifies that the burn wound sites will be treated identically. The following subjects were noted as having different types of temporary wound coverage for Site A and Site B (prior to the first application of CSS) for which a comparative site was used: Subject 93: Site A: Integra Site B: Allograft Subject 97: Site A: Integra Site B: Allograft Subject 102: Site A: Integra Site B: Autograft Subject 131: Site A: Integra Site B: Allograft Subject 132: Site A: Integra Site B: Allograft
In cases of burns involving very large area of body surface, eschar may be excised and wounds covered temporarily with human cadaver allograft, or the dermal replacement, Integra Artificial Skin (Integra):
The following subjects were noted as having temporary wound coverage obtained with Autograft, which is not specified as a temporary wound cover per protocol: Subject 92: Site A: Autograft Site B: Autograft Subject 102: Site A: Integra Site B: Autograft Subject 109: Site A: Autograph w/homograft overlay Site B: Autograph w/ homograft overlay 32
Figures 7.2 and 7.3, illustrate the overall temporary wound coverage for Sites A and B prior to the first CSS application.
Figure 7.2-Temporary Wound Coverage for Site A Prior to CSS Application 33
Figure 7.3-Temporary Wound Coverage for Site B Prior to Application
Excised wounds are soaked overnight in 2.5% (wt/vol) solution of sulfamylon (mafenide acetate), and grafted the following day. In the operating room, wounds will be irrigated thoroughly with saline to reduce the residual concentration of sulfamylon which is known to be highly toxic to cultured keratinocytes:
Per overall review of subject data, these specific procedures were not noted as being consistently followed as the protocol standard with respect to the pretreatment of burns. Specifically, there was no documentation of the process of wound irrigation to eliminate sulfamylon concentration as specified in protocol section d.2.2
34
One day prior to skin auto grafting, patients treated with allograft will have it excised to viable tissue which most frequently is subcutaneous fat.--- Alternatively, if Integra was used as a temporary cover, the outer silicone layer will be removed to expose the vascularized wound bed.
The sites were consistently reporting, on study source documents, the Pre-Study date of Eschar Excision as the date that temporary wound cover was excised prior to the first application of CSS. There was no consistent documentation regarding the removal of the silicone layer from Integra prior to CSS or Autograft placement.
There were no protocol specifications provided for pretreatment of non- burn wounds, being treated with CSS. The following subjects were treated for indications other than burns:
8. Burn Area Estimate The Burn Area Estimates are relevant in that the initial burn estimate reported on the registration page of the CRF sometimes differed from the actual anatomical burn estimate page. The chart listing below indicates 11 of the 43 2 nd degree burn estimates did not match. Of the 43 subjects that had 3 rd degree burns 18 of the subjects had a variance and of the total burn estimate 21 of the 43 subjects had inconsistencies. Some of the subjects had variations in both 2 nd and 3 rd degree burn areas. Several of the inconsistencies can be attributed to the fact that the area on in the CRF was left blank thus created a 0 in the database. There was only one or two people recording information for the CSS study subjects. It seems intuitively obvious that someone (PI) should have been looking at these inconsistencies and requesting a clarification for the data records. These discrepancies show a consistent lack of attention to the details of the study which demonstrates a lack of commitment to follow the CFR section 812.40 regarding Record Keeping. Subject 85: Treatment Indication: Giant Hairy Nevus Subject 112: Treatment Indication: Giant Hairy Nevus 35
Burn Area Estimates (cont) Highlights difference in burn estimate data recorded in initial overall estimate and summed estimates by body includes treated patients only 2nd Degree Burns 3rd Degree Burns Total Burn Area Anatomical Anatomical Anatomical Enroll #: Initial Est. Burn Est Difference Initial Est. Burn Est Difference Initial Est. Burn Est Difference 129 1 1 0.00 80 80.25 0.25 81.25 81.25 0.00 130 10 10.4 0.40 84 85.15 1.15 94 0 -94.00 131 0 0 0.00 90 90 0.00 90 0 -90.00 132 0 0 0.00 68 68 0.00 68 68 0.00 133 0.75 0.5 -0.25 58.75 58.75 0.00 59.5 48.25 -11.25 134 7 7 0.00 65 65 0.00 72 66 -6.00 136 24.25 24.25 0.00 43.5 43.5 0.00 67.75 67.75 0.00 137 12.5 12.7 0.20 58.5 58.6 0.10 70.5 71.2 0.70 138 0.5 0.5 0.00 75.5 75.5 0.00 76.0 76 0.00 139 0 0 0.00 69.85 69.85 0.00 69.85 69.85 0.00
37
9. Summary of Pre-Study Visit: Informed Consent; Medical History Completed; Microbial Culture of Recipient Sites; Physical Exam Completed; Serum Antibodies Collected; Site Biopsy Conducted.
Figure 9.1- Pre-Study Visit Figure 9.1 illustrates a summary of the overall completion of the pre study visit information. There are additional grafts below that separate this information. There were forty four (44) treated subjects in this study population. It was observed that all 44 treated subjects had signed the Informed Consent Form (ICF), and thirteen (13) untreated subjects also signed ICF. While all of the subjects reviewed in this part of the audit, did sign the ICF. There were some discrepancies, as noted below: Subject 129 - ICF is on plain paper, no heading for Shriners Hospital or UC. ICF states that the study has periodic visits for the 1st year; however subject not brought back in for visits 91,182 or 365. There is no documentation that the subject withdrew from the study. 38
Subject 121 - There is an ICF for Galveston Hospital which states received from Cincinnati May 2004; revised in Galveston 12/12/04 and then revised again 02/24/06. Subjects mother signed the Spanish ICF. It is unknown what changes were made in the two revisions. Subject 104 - No HIPAA form located in copies given to auditors. Since subject and family was from Mexico and signed an English consent, there should have been a note to file stating that the person signing the consent was bilingual and could understand completely the nature of the ICF.
10. Pre Study Medical History
Figure 9.1- Pre-Study Medical History Completed Both the total pre study visit chart and the individual detailed chart show that one hundred percent of the subjects did have a pre- study medical history completed as per the protocol requirements. This pre study medical history was taken from the initial History and Physical (H&P) reports when the subject was initially brought into the ER facility and/or the Shriners Hospital H&P notes. The medical history often was provided by the parents or guardian who accompanied the subject to the hospital.
39
11. Pre-Study Physical Exam The physical exam graph (Figure 11.1) shows that eighty six (86) percent of the subjects had a complete Physical Exam (PE) performed. The other fourteen (14) percent was incomplete. The sites were completing the PEs based on information located in the medical records, and usually the research nurse was the person responsible for completing the PE form. Fourteen percent of the PE forms were left incomplete, sometimes only one or two areas were not completed, however for baseline information all categories should have been completed per CFR 812.140(a)(3) - Records of each subject's case history and exposure to the device. Case histories include the case report forms and supporting data including, for example, signed and dated consent forms and medical records including, for example, progress notes of the physician, the individual's hospital chart(s), and the nurses' notes. Such records shall include:
Figure 11.1- Pre-Study Physical Exam Completed
40
12. Pre- Study Serum Antibodies
Figure 12.1- Pre-Study Serum Antibodies The overall pre study visit chart shows that forty (40) subjects had the serum antibodies collected and four (4) did not. Of the four that did not have antibodies drawn, three had them drawn per Dr. Boyces database, however could not be confirmed by auditors in the medical records. One subject did not have the serum antibody drawn at pre study and subsequently died at POD 12. The detailed pie chart for the serum antibodies collected shows that only 9% of the 91% of the number of antibodies were not done. This was from the four identified patients referenced in the above paragraph. The results of the serum antibody studies were virtually impossible to identify. The records were maintained in an extremely poor manner and not sufficiently for auditor review. Less than half of the subjects, twenty four (24) had actually results, and thirty three (33) did not have any results identified. It is uncertain what the purpose of the antibody collection was per the protocol. The ICF states that the antibodies were to be drawn to test for allergic reaction of the cultured skin. Since less than half of the subjects actually had results from the testing done, and there were no notes to file to explain why these tests results were not obtained. The subjects had their blood taken twice during the study (Pre study and POD 28) and these antibody tests were not performed. This is a violation of CFR 812.100 Subpart E-Responsibilities of Investigators: An investigator is responsible for ensuring that an investigation is conducted according to the signed agreement, the investigational plan and applicable FDA regulations, for protecting the rights, safety, and welfare of 41
subjects under the investigator's care, and for the control of devices under investigation. An investigator also is responsible for ensuring that informed consent is obtained in accordance with part 50 of this chapter. Additional responsibilities of investigators are described in subpart G.
13. Pre-Study Skin Biopsy for Tracing Figure 13.1, below, illustrates that (forty) 40 subjects had the biopsy done and that the appropriate protocol mandated tracing was completed of the biopsy. The biopsy tracings could not be located for four subjects. As the pie chart shows, the majority of subjects did have the skin biopsies for tracings performed by the site. Biopsy tracings could not be verified for the following subjects: Subjects 88, Subject 91, Subject 114, and Subject 120
Figure 13.1-Pre-Study Skin Biopsy For Tracing Conducted
42
14. CSS Tracings in Vitro
Figure 14.1-CSS Tracings in Vitro Completed for POD 0 The protocol specified procedures required that CSS tracings in vitro be completed at POD0. These were tracings that were completed for all pieces of CSS in the set. The following was observed with regards to CSS tracings in vitro: Subject #105: was listed as incomplete as it was observed that a set that was not applied due to contamination. Subject #134: originally had a set 3; however the information regarding the CSS tracings could not be located or verified. Subject #124: expired prior to set 1 being applied. Subject#113: expired prior to set 2 being applied. Subject #112: the first set was not applied due to contamination of grafts.
43
15. Post Operative Date Completion for all Sets
Figure 15.1-POD Completion by Set Number
Figure 15.2-Total POD Completion Across All Sets Figures 15.1 and 15.2 identify a lack of follow up on the study subjects as mandated per: 44
CFR 812.140(a)(3)(i) Documents evidencing informed consent and, for any use of a device by the investigator without informed consent, any written concurrence of a licensed physician and a brief description of the circumstances justifying the failure to obtain informed consent. The case history for each individual shall document that informed consent was obtained prior to participation in the study.; 812.140(a)(3)(ii) All relevant observations, including records concerning adverse device effects (whether anticipated or unanticipated), information and data on the condition of each subject upon entering, and during the course of, the investigation, including information about relevant previous medical history and the results of all diagnostic tests.; 812.140(a)(3)(iii) A record of the exposure of each subject to the investigational device, including the date and time of each use, and any other therapy.; 812.140(a)(4) The protocol, with documents showing the dates of and reasons for each deviation from the protocol; 812.140(a)(5) Any other records that FDA requires to be maintained by regulation or by specific requirement for a category of investigations or a particular investigation. Auditors observed that the sites lacked compliance in completion of the data sets for POD 0, POD 7, POD 14, and POD 28, as not one of these sets was completed in 100 % accordance with the study protocol. Overall PI or Sponsor oversight is in question. Documentation that states the PI (Drs Boyce and Kagan) did not check the CRFs until the initial year was completed by the subject was present. However, the issue is that these checks or PI signed template sheets were signed up to 2 or 3 years after the closure of the subjects initial year on study. Auditors observed the lack of attention to gathering the data requested per the protocol and in the CRF, in the study visits following POD 28. Subjects were still in the hospital or returning as outpatients, however there is nothing to support why the follow- up visits were not completed. It was observed, however, that many of the photographs were taken at or near the correct follow up dates, yet the other study procedures, which should have been completed, were not. Subsequently, there was no documentation to support these study discrepancies. In reviewing the medical records the subjects were still in the hospital or being seen regularly in the outpatient clinic. There was no viable reason why the follow up data could not have been obtained on the majority of the subjects. Per the CRFs the only data that needed to have been collected was the Photography, the Healed Wound Biopsy (as possible), and Qualitative Outcome (QO) and at visit POD 365 the addition of the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA). The site only needed to complete photos and (QO) three (3) times over a period of 11 months. At the end of the one year, an additional (IGA) would have needed to be completed. The CRFs were often used as the source documentation. It was observed that there were no dictated notes or any records found that could substantiate the information recorded on QO or IGA forms. The CRF forms also did not have proper completion instructions present, thus variations in completion were noted. For example the QO stated it was based on the Vancouver Scar Scale. Presumably, everyone that completed the QO form would know exactly how to complete this form. The instructions on how to assess the pliability (for example) should have been included on the form or given to the site in a written manner so that consistency could have been maintained throughout the study and throughout personnel changes. The clinical scar assessments are subjective and validation is operator dependent. To use clinically, the raters should have been trained. Interpretation of the results is subjective. The IGA form is another example of the same type of problem. The majority of the IGA forms have a question that asked were there any adverse events?, and was typically answered with a no and the adverse event page was marked no. The sites did not understand the reporting of adverse events, and the majority of event that did get reported were acknowledge as part of the burn and not related to the CSS. Auditors also observed that Steve Boyce Ph.D., wrote the protocol, was in the operating room when 45
subjects were treated with the CSS, often completed the CRFs himself, compiled the data, reported the data, and published the data. The Physical Exam (PE) reports were completed by the research nurses, as was confirmed through the interview portion of the audit. According to the interviews with the Cincinnati Shriners research nurses, the nurses would go back into the computer medical records and complete the PE form from the nursing assessments of the patient. While these nurses were listed as sub investigators for the study, the PE forms were not completed in a consistent manner. Some forms, for example, listed Sinus Tachycardia as normal and others listed it as abnormal on PE page under cardiac. The training should have been made clear to the sites, how to complete the PE form. PE forms were often completed based on expected burn status of burn patients. However there were subjects where the PE appeared to have completed correctly. Some forms (especially the typed ones) were identical from previously forms with no changes except for dates. The primary factor is that the PE forms were not consistent. Some examples of what was noted during the audit are listed below: Subject 124: Form states patient records from July 11, 2006 - September 12, 2006 were reviewed by Dr. Boyce July 10, 2009 and Dr. Kagan on July 23, 2009. Subject 84: No comparative site utilized. Information written in on CRFs at different times in different handwriting, with no initials/signature or date given. Follow up not done per protocol, even though subject did return to clinic for follow up visits. Subject 132: Error corrections were not signed or initialed; Template form stating PI Dr. Kagan has reviewed all data from beginning to end on this patient, and signed and dated 1/29/09. Pre- study PE was done as same day of PE for set 1. The pre study PE was noted with all no's recorded and the PE for set 1 used the H&P notes dated 12/22/07. Subject 131: The CRF has a boilerplate page in the very front that states "I have reviewed all case report forms and the results of all diagnostic tests for research subject (131 written in the blank) from enrollment (24 Aug 2007 written in the blank ) through (29 Aug 2007 written in)" ---It was signed and dated by Dr. Kagan on 1/29/09 Subject 99: CRF corrections made during audit. Blanks in CRF were left blank for several years then completed in 2009. Errors marked thru with no initials, or date, or reason why change. Subject 109: Forms are typed; auditor unable to ascertain name of person signing. Unknown if person is eligible to sign off forms. PE for pre-study has a date of 10/29/2005 which is prior to ICF consent. Subject 120: CRFs have many changes noted by Mrs. Peggy Simpson in July 2009, which is three years after information was recorded. Not all changes were noted as to why they were marked through or dated and initialed. The appearance to auditors is that Mrs. Simpson, was trying to clean up data without knowing when or why changes were made, ultimately makes it more difficult to discern what occurred. Subject 133: Template page for PI to sign off for review. Signed and dated by Dr. Kagan on 01/29/2009 and Dr. Boyce 02/06/2009. CRFs have mark outs with no initials or dates. All visits have not been completed. Subject 82: Consistency in documentation is not found between the sponsor and sites. Sacramento Shriners made their own forms for data collection, and only used a few of the CRFs from the sponsor. 46
The data for the Qualitative Outcome report switched the numbering system from the original CRF, so looking at the numbers the data would be off. The sets were combined for POD 91,182 and 365 which is in error. Sets 3 and 4 were combined. Either the sponsor did not conduct training, or there was no communication about how to complete forms. Subject 104: CRFs are incomplete, there are changes made by Peggy Simpson, RN at Cincinnati Shriners on the Galveston forms. Mrs. Simpson initialed but did not date changes. Other changes are scratched through, without accompanying initials and date, in order to track the data change (for example: Physical Exam Pre-Study). Set 1 Qualitative Outcomes report is signed and dated by Melissa Reed, research nurse in Cincinnati, regarding a Galveston patient. Subject 86: The CRF/Source was copied and sent to University of Cincinnati. The pages were typed and there is no signature or date identifying when these were completed or who completed them. It appears that Steve Boyce, who at this time was the PI listed, gave approval as the sponsor, and then completed many of the CRFs himself. Auditors question bias and accuracy as Dr. Boyce had total control of this subject's information. Subject 123: Many corrections were made by Peggy Simpson in July 09; three years after the initial data was recorded. Errors previously crossed out with no initials Drawings of graft placements were done on female and baby forms when this was a 13 yr old male. Subject 101: Subject signed consent and underwent a biopsy for making CSS. There is no documentation found in subject's medical records, as well in Dr. Boyce's database to explain why subject did not continue in study. Additionally, there was no record of what became of the biopsy. The Sponsor had received information, based on an email found from Cincinnati to Sacramento which states shipment of CSS was expected for August 3, 2005. There are no CRFs completed, except for 3 lines regarding the biopsy. No reason is noted as to why this subject did not continue on study, or if any follow- up was completed. Subject 102: Corrections made after annual reports reported to FDA and major burn magazine publications, and national talks given. Most pages have changes made on them on August 26, 2009. Subject 106: Case report forms (specifically the IGA and Qualitative Outcome) were not completed until a couple of years after the fact. Several CRFs were not signed or dated. No review by PI of case report forms as no PI review form was present in the CRF. Changes are made to CRF forms several years later than original entry made. Not all changes are signed and dated at each change. Subject 97: There are pages with two different hand writing styles and types of ink used. No dates or initials to indicate when additional information was written in. Other than set 1, no set was completed past POD 28, no PE's were done, protocol was not followed, see deviations and comments for further information.
47
16. Biopsy of Recipient Sites Figure 16.1 is showing the biopsy of recipient sites completed. This graph demonstrates that that the biopsies were overall not completed in a protocol compliant fashion The X axis represents the number of Sets applied (Sets 1- 12) and the Y axis represents the number of biopsies completed for the total number of set numbers applied. For example, of the total number of Set Ones applied (42) only 25 biopsies could be verified as completed. Set two has an equal number biopsies performed as well as the same number as not performed, and the same can be observed for Set Four. It can be observed for sets 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, that the overall biopsy collections not completed was greater than the biopsies completed. These biopsies were to be collected at POD 0 (date of surgery) from the subjects. Some of the dictated OR reports stated the biopsies were collected, however many did not. The investigators for the study did not always document information regarding the research part of the subjects care. Auditors observed that the investigators relied upon the research nurses to document the biopsy; however it is ultimately the responsibility of the principal investigator to see that the information is collected and documented. There were no notes to file to explain why the biopsies were not being performed and recorded in the CRFs as the protocol required.
Figure 16.1-Biopsy of Recipient Sites Completed (Site A and B)
48
17. Photography of Wound Bed, Pre-Surgery Figure 17.1, below, is graphic representation of how the sites performed the required photography of the wound bed, per protocol. While the documentation reflects that the photography was done for the most part, when the sets 11 and 12 were documented, they were incomplete. Only sets 9 and 10 were done totally correct. Auditors observed that the photography was consistently the most well documented and most completed procedure for the study.
Figure 17.1-Photography of Wound Bed, Pre-Surgery (Site A and B) A specific photography discrepancy noted: Nursing Note dated 02/08/08 states Dr. Boyce is here to take pictures. However, in the CRF photography log (dated 02/08/08) the Photographers ID is signed by Peggy Simpson, RN.
49
18. Photography Post Graft Figure 18.1, demonstrates the consistent decline in the post graph photography from POD 0 to POD 365. There were to have been 159 photographic events for the study population. This is based on the 159 total CSS sets applied. The graft illustrates that at POD 0, 129 photos were completed and 30 were either incomplete not done, or unable to verify. The decline shows that at POD 7 only 108 photos were done completely, at POD 14 only 104 were done completely and at POD 28 only 90 were done completely. It is noticeable that after POD 28, completed photographs were minimal. Only 29 were done completely at POD 91, 28 were done completely at POD 182, and only 26 were done completely at POD 365. This was in part to the lack of POD 91-365 completion throughout the entire subject population. The sites, especially Cincinnati, took full body photos, which made it impossible to compare previous photos as those photos were done on specific areas. The photos were not done in a consistent manner across all sites. There were no written instructions identified in file records informing sites of how to capture the photos in a dependable method. Some photos were close ups of the areas grafted with CSS or AG and others were from a distant of an entire body area or the whole body. The graph also shows that many of the later POD information were not captured, at all, by the sites.
Figure 18.1-Photography Post Graft
50
19. Study Site Tracings for POD 14/ POD 28 Figure 19.1 shows that out of the one hundred fifty nine (159) site tracings that should have been completed at POD 14, only 101were completed per protocol. Thirty eight (38) were incomplete, four (4) were not applicable due to the grafts were not applied, or the subject was a giant nevus, nine (9) were that the entire POD 14 was not done, and seven (7) had information that was unable to be verified by the audit team.
Figure 19.1-Study Site Tracings for POD 14
51
Figure 19.2 shows similar information to the POD 14 information collected for the site tracings. The numbers completed, incomplete, not applicable, and unable to verify are almost identical. A point that is noteworthy here is that the number of totally not done at POD 28 from POD 14 almost doubled. This was only 14 days after the POD 14 information was collected, and prior to the subject being discharged from the hospital. There was no information the auditors could discover as to why the data collection was not continued in a manner to comply with the regulations regarding the record keeping required for research studies.
Figure 19.2 Study Site Tracings for POD 28
52
20. Microbial Cultures Figure 20.1 illustrates overall that the microbial tests were performed on the subjects. Per protocol, these microbial culture tests were to be completed Pre0, POD 0, POD 0, POD 7, and POD 14. For the most part the tests were executed and an organism was identified or not as determined through the microbiology testing. A decline of data is noted the further out the subject went from Pre-study to POD 14, as is similar to the data collected on most all of the other protocol procedures. Data at the beginning (Pre-study 0) was one hundred twenty (120) completed cultures and thirty nine (39) incomplete, not applicable, or unable to verify. For POD 0 one hundred nineteen (119) was completed and forty (40) were not completed as the study required. For POD 7, One hundred and eleven (111) were completed and a total of forty eight (48) were not completed properly. By the time POD 14 came due only seventy seven (77) of the subjects had the microbial cultures performed and eighty two (82) subjects did not have the microbial cultures done. The data collection for the microbial cultures follows the same trend as the other information collected for this study. The initial information, pre study and POD 0 was completed and documented fairly well However, at each subsequent visit, following POD0, the data collection dropped off to approximately half by POD 14, as observed in the graph below.
Figure 20.1-Microbial Culture of Recipient Sites
53
21. Healed Wound Biopsy
Figure 21.1- Healed Wound Biopsy Completed for PODs 7-365
Figure 21.1, illustrates an overall lack of compliance with respect to the collection of a healed wound biopsy at all protocol specified time points. The protocol states that healed wound biopsies will be obtained on post operative dates 7,14,28,91, 182 and 365, not to exceed more than six biopsies total. There were so few actual healed would biopsies performed on the subjects, the information gathered would be negligible. The healed would biopsies were to be sent to a dermatologist for dermato- pathologic interpretation. No records were identified with any results, so the few biopsies performed were not evaluated by a dermatologist. There were records that indicated subject was not in the operating room on the day that the biopsy was to have been performed, and that is why the biopsy was not taken. The fact that so few biopsies were performed when up to 6 should have been done questions the collection process. While the protocol states the healed would biopsies would be performed as possible, this process was a secondary endpoint of the study under protocol section d.4.5. Out of the 159 sets of grafts applied to subjects, only 16 sets had the healed wound biopsies completed, but then not read by a dermatologist. There is a lack of valid data to make any assessment of this endpoint.
54
22. Healed Area/Donor Area Ratio The completion of this data does not follow the protocol. The protocol states in section d.2 Study Format: For each administration of cultured cell-biopolymer skin substitute to a wound site, a comparative site will be treated with meshed or unmeshed split-thickness skin. As the CFR 812.140 (a) (4) states: A participating investigator shall maintain the following accurate, complete, and current records relating to the investigators participating in an investigation: (4) the protocol, with documents showing the dates of and reasons for each deviation from the protocol. The case report form Investigators Global Assessment (IGA) for POD 14 asked the question: Healed area: donor area ratio for cultured skin substitute. The same question was asked on the same form for POD 28. However, per the protocol schedule of events, this assessment was to be completed only at the POD 28 time point. Figure 22.1 shows that this information was periodically collected at POD 14, and that the majority of the healed area donor area ratio evaluations were completed at POD 28, as outlined in the protocol schedule of events. However, there were deficiencies in the overall collection of the appropriate data point of post operative day 28. The fact that this data was to be used as an end point for the study and the data was not captured as per protocol, and deviations were not reported as per protocol, raises serious questions as to how determinations were made for annual reports, presentations, and publications that were prepared by Steve Boyce, PhD during the years this CSS study has been ongoing.
Figure 22.1-Healed Area Donor Ratio Completion for POD 14 55
Figure 22.2- Healed Area Donor Ratio Completion for POD 28
56
23. % Engraftment Completed for POD 14
Figure 23.1- % Engraftment Completed for POD 14 Figure 23.1 illustrates that most subjects did have this event completed in the case report forms. The column reporting not applicable is reporting subjects where sets were not applied, therefore engraftment was not evaluated. The sites occasionally consolidated sets and applied as one set during one operation, thus engraftment was evaluated collectively, for multiple sets. The not done category was where the case report form pages were not completed. The POD column indicates that the entire post operative date information was not done. The unable to verify column denotes that there was not enough information provided to validate the information in the case report form. Out of the potential one hundred fifty nine (159) events one hundred thirty three (133) engraftments were completed on the case report forms.
57
24. % Engraftment Completed for POD 28 Figure 24.1: % Engraftment Completed for POD 28
Figure 24.1, for POD 28, again shows that the majority of the case report forms were completed with information for this date. This chart is the same as the previous engraftment chart for POD 14. There is a higher incidence of the entire POD 28 not being completed at all at day 28 than what was identified at POD 14. This engraftment information is one of the primary endpoints for the CSS clinical trial.
58
25. Physical Exam Conducted for POD 0 Figure 25.1 displays that 41 Physical Exams were not done, two where the entire POD was not done, and one was incomplete. The 4 that were listed as n/a were graft sets that were not applied. Record keeping is required by the CFR 812.140 as well as Good Clinical Practice. POD 0, POD 7, and POD 28 were key study data capture points for this CSS study. For POD 0 there are only 5 required events that needed to be recorded for the case report forms. There was a specific research nurse at each site that was responsible for the data collection. In addition to a specified research nurse, the PIs responsibility is to see that the events were performed and recorded. On top of those two people, it was the sponsors duty to hold the sites accountable for the data collection. All of these processes that should have been in place failed.
Figure 25.1-Physical Exam Conducted for POD 0
59
26. Physical Exam Conducted for POD 28 Figure 26.1 shows that at POD 28, which is a primary data analysis point per the protocol, 159 physical exams should have been performed for all of the sets that were grafted throughout the research subject population. Of the 159 physical exams to be completed, 36 were not done at all, 17 were part of an entire POD visit which not done, one was unable to be verified against source data, and 4 were not done due to the grafting not being done on a particular set. This diagram explains that 36% of the information, for this key primary data analysis time point, was not collected as specified in the protocol. Code of Federal Regulation 812.40 is clear regarding the mandated record keeping and proper documentation of required data for a clinical trial. The process of a research nurse to record the data, the PI to review and sign off on the data, the sponsor to review and query the site if the data poses questions all failed to be adhered to on this study. It is apparent that the PI at the site did not accurately review the records as well as the sponsor (either Dr. Boyce earlier on, or UC later in the study-as both were considered sponsors). The lack of documentation could have been exposed earlier and the site may have been able to gather the data in a timely manner with proper oversight.
Figure 26.1-Physical Exam Conducted for POD 28
60
27. Serum Antibody Collection at POD 28
Figure 27.1-Serum Antibody Collection for POD 28 Figure 27.1 illustrates that one hundred nineteen (119) serum antibody tests that were scheduled for POD 28, were not done. In addition to the 119 not done, 4 were noted as n/a, meaning that those sets were not grafted. Of the total of 159 serum antibody tests that were required for POD 28, only twenty eight (28) were done and documented in a manner that auditors could identify. For the seven that the auditors noted as unable to verify, specific notes were located as to the serum antibody being drawn from the subject however no results were found to match this documentation. The medical records did not indicate that the serum antibodies were drawn, and very few research nurse notes identified documentation regarding the serum antibody tests. Results of the test were not documented in the case report forms or medical records. The only location that results were acknowledged was the spreadsheet that Steve Boyce, Ph.D. was keeping. There was no way to identify if the test was done, who performed the actual testing, and what the result of the test was other than the spreadsheet Dr. Boyce maintained. Without actual test results to identify the serum antibody outcomes, the spreadsheet remains unverifiable.
61
28. Investigator Global Assessment: Per protocol section d.4.2, data will be collected on the Investigators Global Assessment (IGA) form on days 14 and 28. At POD 14, the IGA assessed the following (per Case Report Form CSS 7.10): 1. Percentage Healed graft (from tracing) for Site A and Site B A. Cause(s) of failure of autograft/ CSS B. Was re-grafting needed? C. Date that the manufacturer was notified of device failure D. The date of the Monday of the week in which regrafting was expected to be performed E. The type of graft that was expected to be used and reason 2. Healed area: donor area ratio for cultured skin substitute 3. Were there any adverse events during the course of the this study 4. Status of the subject (continues in study/ discontinued in study) 5. If subject was discontinued from study, indicate reason 6. Was the subject discharged with cultured skin intact?
The percentage healed for sites A and B was to be obtained from the study site tracing obtained at POD 14 and POD 28. Per protocol section d.3.2: the total area, open area, and closed area of wounds at POD 14 and 28 will be obtained by direct tracings onto a plastic sheet. Tracings on plastic sheet will be measured by computer-assisted planimetry and values entered into the data table. Auditors observed that the sites were reporting numbers for this evaluation as whole number percentages as well as specific values to the hundredth place. It is unclear how these assessments were made by the investigators if computer assisted planimetry was necessary. There is no documentation on the process by which these values were obtained. The Investigator Global Assessment was intended to be an assessment to be completed by the appropriate participating Investigator; therefore the appropriate investigator should have been making all assessments as required. There was no standard of completion noted throughout the study documentation. There were differences on the IGA noted between the two protocol specified time points. Specifically at POD 28, the Investigator Global Assessment Form (per Case Report Form CSS 7.11) omitted section A-E as noted above. However, graft failure was noted as occurring in between POD 14 and POD 28.
62
Per the protocol schedule of events and Protocol section d.3.3, Healed Area /Donor Area ratio for CSS is to be evaluated at POD 28 only. It is unclear why the POD 14 IGA also requested a Healed Area: Donor Area Ratio for CSS. Sites were often reporting a ratio of healed area versus donor area at the POD14 time point. Per Figure 28.1 it is noted that a Healed Area/Donor area ratio was calculated at POD 14 at least once, for each of the 12 groups of sets applied across the subject population. This conflicts with the protocol, and it is unknown how and why this assessment was calculated if POD 28 was the appropriate time point for this evaluation.
Figure 28.1- Healed Area Donor Ratio Completion for POD 28
63
29. Qualitative Outcome
Per CFR 812.110, investigators did not follow the investigational plan (protocol) dated November2003 with respect to collection of the Qualitative Outcome data:
Per Protocol: d.4.3.4 Qualitative outcome and scarring for each site will be scored at each time point using the Vancouver Scar Scale that uses ordinal scale of 0-3, with 3 being the worst. Scoring will be performed by an investigator not responsible for the acute care of the patient. Factors to be scored include: erythema, pigmentation, pliability, and raised scar. The requirement for site reconstruction will also be scored as an absolute event. One scoring sheet will be completed for each patient at each time point including both the A and B sites. Evaluation of qualitative outcome will begin at day 14 after grafting, be performed no less than weekly during the acute hospitalization, and at subsequent visits to the outpatient clinic.
The data collection for the Qualitative Outcome assessment was captured on Case Report Form CSS 7.9. (See Appendix A). It was noted that the factors of erythema, pigmentation, and scar height were scored on the ordinal scale of 0-3. However, per this form, the factor of skin pliability was scored on a scale from 1-5, which is not consistent with how the protocol defines this assessment should be scored. Different versions of this form were identified throughout the subject study record. Additionally, there were noted variations in the ordinal scales used for scoring the qualitative factors between the different forms. An example of this was identified in Subject 134, Set One, at POD 365. In this particular case, the Qualitative Outcome form reported Pigmentation as Hypo (0-1), Normal (in between 1 and 2) and Hyper (3). The more commonly noted versions of this form had ordinal scales as follows: None (0), Hypo (1), Normal (2) and Hyper (3). The Qualitative Outcome form (form CSS 7.9) acted as both source documentation and the Case Report Form. The data captured on this assessment was unable to be verified against any additional medical records. Additionally, this page was consistently not signed and dated by the person completing the evaluation; therefore the identity of the person making the assessment was not able to be determined. Whether an investigator was independent of the subjects acute care was also not able to be determined. This form, however, was often identified as being completed by Dr. Boyce, but it is unclear if he or someone else made the actual assessments. There were noted inconsistencies in how this data was captured by the investigators. This indicates a lack of protocol training and overall monitoring for study compliance as per CFR 812.40. For some subjects, the factors, to be scored, were reported as a numerical value over the selected score (i.e.: 100 would be entered over the value for Red with regards to erythema) and in some cases an X was placed over the selected value. In the instances where by a number was placed over the selected score, the values were often broken down over the scale. (i.e.: 80 would be reported over Red and 20 would be reported Pink, for the factor of erythema). It is unclear how data could be appropriately extrapolated from this assessment if multiple values were present for the factors being scored. 64
Per the protocol schedule of events, the Qualitative Outcome evaluation was required at POD 14, 28, 91, 182, 365 and greater than 365 (if possible). This is not consistent with protocol section d.4.3.4, whereby it states that this assessment should begin at day 14 and be performed no less than weekly during the acute hospitalization. Overall, the Qualitative Outcome data was not being captured at weekly intervals during the acute hospitalizations for the subject population as specified by protocol.
Per Figure 29.1: Qualitative Outcomes were observed as not being completed beginning at POD 91 through POD 365 over the entire subject audit population.
Figure 29.1 Qualitative Outcomes 65
Figure 29.2-Qualitative Outcome POD 14
66
Figure 29.3-Qualitative Outcome POD 28
67
Figure 29.4-Qualitative Outcome POD 91
Figure 29.5-Qualitative Outcome POD 182
68
Figure 29.6-Qualitative Outcome POD 365
69
30. Adverse Event Summary by Set for POD 14 Figure 30.1: This information comes directly from the Investigator Global Assessment form. There is a question on that form that states Were there any adverse events during the course of this study? The box was to be checked yes or no. As figure 30.1 shows, the CRF was checked no the majority of the time. The FDA came to the Cincinnati site between March 16 and June 21, 2006 and sited the site for failure to report and accurately document unanticipated and anticipated adverse device events to the sponsor and reviewing IRB. After the Warning Letter and the subsequent Integrity Hold Letter, Peggy Simpson RN, research nurse for the study, began to review the subjects CRFs and initiated documentation of the adverse events. Sometimes the no reported on the CRF Investigator Global Assessment form was changed to a yes. Additional details regarding this information are can be located in the UADE/AE/SAE section of this report. It is noteworthy that the Integrity Hold letter was dated February 2, 2007 and the site did not start to record the adverse events until the fall of 2008 and continued into early 2009. There was much discussion between the University of Cincinnati and FDA regarding the reporting of adverse events and as this discussion was still ongoing when the MRF came on board this project.
Figure 30.1-Adverse Event Summary By Set for POD 14
70
Adverse Event Summary for POD 28 Figure 30.2, illustrates the adverse event summary for POD 28, and is similar to that of POD 14 information. The Nos are more in number than the Yess recorded, however the figure shows that for the later graft sets, the numbers start to level out and be more equal. This graph, and the previous one, includes the changes made from the original nos to yes by Peggy Simpsons changes made to the case report form documents.
Figure 30.2-Adverse Event Summary for POD 28
71
31. Cultured Skin Substitute/ Wound Care
Protocol - d.2.2 Wound Treatment Wound dressings will be administered similarly to descriptions in previous studies by the principal investigator, using a non-adhesive porous dressing (i.e. , N-Terface) in direct contact with the cultured skin. Wet dressings soaked with solutions of non-cytoxic antimicrobial agents and nutrients will be maintained for 5 days over both sites if they are under a common dressing. Alternatively, if AG is under a separate dressing, it may be irrigated according to prevailing standards which at present are alternating 2 hour administrations of GU irrigant (400 Units/mL Polymixin B and 40 g/mL Neomycin) and 5% sulfamylon. Topical irrigation with non-cytotoxic antimicrobials and nutrients does not inhibit engraphment of AG. However, sulfamylon solutions will not be used on CSS sites due to high toxicity. At post-operative day (POD) 5, wet dressings will be discontinued and dry dressings will be administered daily until POD 7 at which time dressing changes will be performed twice daily. Subsequently, CSS sites will be cleansed with non-detergent cleanser (i.e. , Shur-clens, Allclenz), rinsed x3 with saline and allowed to dry. Open areas will be treated with a non-adherent dressing (i.e. Adaptic) coated with an ointment consisting of equal parts of Neosporin, Bactroban and Nystatin. Dry keratinized areas will be treated with a moisturizing lotion (i.e., Curel) and covered with bulky cotton gauze. The specific nursing care instructions for CSS are described per IDE application, Attachment 4 (section f.1.4.3)
Per CFR 812.110, investigators did not follow the investigational plan (protocol) dated November2003, or the nursing care instructions (per IDE application Attachment 4, section f.1.4.3) with respect to the care of Cultured Skin Substitute
Per overall review of subject records, there was no consistent documentation of completion with regards to the specified requirements for treatment of CSS. Per protocol d.2.2: .sulfamylon solutions will not be used on CSS sites due to high toxicity:
Subject 129: Sulfamylon was reported as being used on CSS sites on 7/20/2007, 7/22/2007, 7/23/2007, 7/24/2007, and 7/26/2007
Per Protocol d.2.2: At post-operative day (POD) 5, wet dressings will be discontinued and dry dressings will be administered daily until POD 7 at which time dressing changes will be performed twice daily. The following subjects were not treated according to protocol (November 2003): 72
Subject 82: Set 1 POD 10: 1 of 2 dressing changes were completed Set 1 POD 11: 0 of 2 dressing changes were completed Set 5 POD 10: 1 of 2 dressing changes were completed Set 5 POD 11: 1 of 2 dressing changes were completed Set 5 POD 12: 0 of 2 dressing changes were completed Set 5 POD 13: 0 of 2 dressing changes were completed
Subject 86: Set 1 POD 9: 0 of 2 dressing changes were completed Set 2 POD 10: 1 of 2 dressing changes were completed Set 2 POD 11: 1 of 2 dressing changes were completed Set 2 POD 13: 1 of 2 dressing changes were completed Set 3 POD 8: 0 of 2 dressing changes were completed Set 3 POD 11: 1 of 2 dressing changes were completed Set 3 POD 12: 1 of 2 dressing changes were completed Set 3 POD 13: 0 of 2 dressing changes were completed Set 4 POD 8-14: 1 of 2 dressings changes were completed Set 5 POD 9: 1 of 2 dressing changes were completed Set 5 POD 14: 0 of 2 dressing changes were completed Set 6 POD 9: 1 of 2 dressing changes were completed Set 6 POD 10: 0 of 2 dressing changes were completed Set 6 POD 11-14: 0 of 2 dressing changes were completed Set 7 POD 8-14: 0 of 2 dressing changes were completed
Subject 103 Set 1 POD 8-14 1 of 2 dressing changes were completed Set 4 POD9 1 of 2 dressing changes were completed Set 5 POD4 Subject taken out of wet dressing 1 day early
Subject 107: Set 1 POD 8-14 1 of 2 dressing changes were completed
Subject 99: Set 3 POD 10-13 1 of 2 dressing changes were completed Set 6 POD 8-14 1 of 2 dressing changes were completed
Subject 123: Set 2 POD 8-11 1 of 2 dressing changes were completed
Subject 130: Set 6 POD 4 1 of 2 dressing changes were completed Set 6 POD 5 1 of 2 dressing changes were completed Set 11 POD2 0 of 1 dressing change was completed
Subject 137: Set1 POD14 1 of 2 dressing changes were completed
Subject 139: Set 1/ 2 Subject was taken out of protocol dressings Set 3 An unscheduled dressing changed was completed at POD1
Subject 138: Set 5 Taken out of dressing from POD 10-14 73
Per IDE application, Attachment 4 (section f.1.4.3): CSS sites are to be irrigated every 8 hours with CSS solution of a specified volume (usually 30 ml/graft) beginning at POD 0 through POD 5. The following subjects were not treated according to the investigational plan, specifically regarding the completion and frequency of CSS site irrigations between POD 0 and POD 5: Subject 82: Set 2 POD2: 2 of 3 CSS irrigations were completed
Subject 86: Per nursing notes dated 9/14/2004 at (0400 and 0636) both time points specify that grafts were soaked with CSS solution. This was not at a frequency of q8 hours. Set 8 POD 2: 2 of 3 CSS irrigations were completed Set 3 POD 3: 2 of 3 CSS irrigations were completed Set 3 POD 4: 1 of 3 CSS irrigations were completed Set 4 POD 2: 2 of 3 CSS irrigations were completed Set 4 POD 3: 1 of 3 CSS irrigations were completed Set 4 POD 4: 1 of 3 CSS irrigations were completed Set 5 POD 0: 2 of 3 CSS irrigations were completed Set 5 POD4: 2 of 3 CSS irrigations were completed Set 6 POD1: 2 of 3 CSS irrigations were completed Set 6 POD2: 2 of 3 CSS irrigations were completed Set 6 POD3: 2 of 3 CSS irrigations were completed Set 7 POD2: 2 of 3 CSS irrigations were completed
Subject 87: Set 1 POD 1: 0 of 3 CSS irrigations were completed
Subject 108: Set 2/3: CSS irrigations were completed q4 hours
Subject 130: Set 6: grafts were placed in dry dressing instead of CSS irrigation
Subject 131: Set 6: grafts were placed in dry dressing instead of CSS irrigation
Subject 136: CSS grafts were taken out of dressing protocol and placed in DAB/Sulf solution post operatively
Subject 139: Set 1 and Set 2 grafts were put in dry dressing instead of being irrigated with CSS solution
Cultured Skin Substitute Solution
Per IDE application, Attachment 4 (section f.1.4.3): CSS sites are to be irrigated every 8 hours with CSS solution of a specified volume (usually 30 ml/graft) beginning at POD 0 through POD 5
There are no consistent records available identifying that CSS solution was used as specified, or recording the amount of CSS solution used per application 74
There was reported misuse of CSS solution: Subject 86: Per operative note dated 5/28/2004: It was noted that entire subject was prepped with CSS irrigation solution. It was noted that CSS was not grafted during this operation. The CSS solution was used as a standard surgical prep with no supporting documentation for the reason why this occurred. The CSS solution was prepared, by the Sponsor, specifically for the care of Cultured Skin Substitute. It was used because of its non-cytotoxic, antimicrobial agents for management of microbial contamination on wounds. There are no accountability records regarding the preparation, storage, transport, or dispensing of this solution. There were no specifications regarding the contents of the CSS irrigant. The contents of this solution should have remained consistent throughout the study. There were noted substitutions and changes made to this solution during the study:
Subject 95: It was noted that site ran out of CSS solution. Site was instructed by Melissa Reed, at the University of Cincinnati, to use 1mL of Neosporin GU Irrigant in 1000mL of saline for irrigation.
Subject 105: It was noted that the solution was changed by the site. There is an email, filed with the CRF, dated Nov 18 2005. The email is from Melissa Reed to Carol Fabby and Alandra Mangold (at Galveston). The email states awareness of modification to the CSS irrigation solution by the Galveston Site. This modification was noted for Subject 105, for Set 1 and Set 2 POD 2-7. The solution was noted to have been modified, per the request of a Galveston attending, and contained Neomycin GU in normal saline base, which is noted as not containing all the proper antibiotics for microbial coverage. It notes that the Galveston staff has been educated and informed that modifications to the CSS and the protocol cannot be made without permission thru the IRB and FDA.
Subject 131: Double antibiotic solution was used for one (1) irrigation of CSS for Set 5 at POD 5, instead of CSS irrigation solution
Microbe sensitivity tests to the CSS solution were often performed at the University of Cincinnati site, but not noted as being completed at any of the other study sites. The protocol does not specify that these sensitivity tests are to be completed, however, it was frequently noted that CSS sites were infected with microbes noted to be resistant to the antimicrobial agents in the CSS solution. There were no specified procedures given on how to treat the CSS sites that were found to have CSS solution resistant microbes. In many cases, the sites were grafted with CSS even 75
when CSS solution resistant microbes were detected prior to grafting. Therefore, there was no non-cytotoxic, antimicrobial management available for these sites: Subject 130: There were four (4) reported deviations (8/24/2007, 8/31/2007, 9/7/2007, 9/14/2007) of CSS being place on contaminated wound beds whereby the organisms identified were noted as resistant to CSS nutrient solution and CSS saline solution. The sensitivity tests, which were performed, against the CSS irrigant were reported as resistant or sensitive to CSS Nutrient and CSS Saline. The protocol does not detail two separate irrigations used on the CSS sites rather this irrigant was described as one solution with nutrient and antimicrobial components Per Table 31.1: Of the irrigation sensitivity tests run, there were a total of thirteen (13) subjects who had reported microbe resistance to either the CSS solution or CSS nutrient components of the irrigation.
76
Table 31.1 Sensitivity to Irrigation R = Resistant S = Sensative R = Resistant S = Sensative Enrollment # Set Result Enrollment # Set Result Result for CSS Nutrient 88 1 S Result for CSS Nutrient 112 2 R Result for CSS Nutrient 88 2 S Result for CSS Nutrient 112 2 S Result for CSS Saline 88 2 S Result for CSS Saline 112 2 S Result for CSS Nutrient 88 3 S Result for CSS Nutrient 113 1 S Result for CSS Saline 88 3 S Result for CSS Saline 113 1 S Result for CSS Nutrient 88 4 S Result for CSS Nutrient 115 1 S Result for CSS Saline 88 4 S Result for CSS Saline 115 1 S Result for CSS Nutrient 91 1 S Result for CSS Nutrient 119 1 S Result for CSS Saline 91 1 S Result for CSS Saline 119 1 S Result for CSS Nutrient 91 2 S Result for CSS Nutrient 120 1 R Result for CSS Saline 91 2 S Result for CSS Nutrient 120 1 S Result for CSS Nutrient 91 3 S Result for CSS Nutrient 123 1 S Result for CSS Saline 91 3 S Result for CSS Saline 123 1 S Result for CSS Nutrient 92 1 R Result for CSS Nutrient 124 2 S Result for CSS Nutrient 92 1 S Result for CSS Saline 124 2 S Result for CSS Nutrient 92 2 R Result for CSS Saline 126 1 S Result for CSS Nutrient 92 2 S Result for CSS Nutrient 126 2 S Result for CSS Nutrient 93 1 R Result for CSS Nutrient 126 3 S Result for CSS Nutrient 93 1 S Result for CSS Saline 126 3 S Result for CSS Saline 93 1 S Result for CSS Nutrient 126 4 R Result for CSS Nutrient 97 1 S Result for CSS Saline 126 4 R Result for CSS Nutrient 98 1 R Result for CSS Nutrient 126 4 S Result for CSS Nutrient 98 1 S Result for CSS Saline 126 4 S Result for CSS Nutrient 98 2 S Result for CSS Nutrient 126 5 S Result for CSS Nutrient 99 1 S Result for CSS Saline 126 5 S Result for CSS Nutrient 99 2 S Result for CSS Nutrient 126 6 S Result for CSS Nutrient 99 3 S Result for CSS Saline 126 6 S Result for CSS Nutrient 99 4 R Result for CSS Nutrient 127 1 S Result for CSS Nutrient 99 4 S Result for CSS Saline 127 1 S Result for CSS Nutrient 99 5 S Result for CSS Saline 127 2 R Result for CSS Nutrient 99 6 R Result for CSS Nutrient 128 1 S Result for CSS Saline 99 6 S Result for CSS Nutrient 130 1 R Result for CSS Nutrient 102 1 S Result for CSS Saline 130 1 R Result for CSS Nutrient 103 2 S Result for CSS Nutrient 130 2 R Result for CSS Nutrient 103 3 S Result for CSS Saline 130 2 R Result for CSS Nutrient 103 5 S Result for CSS Nutrient 130 3 R Result for CSS Nutrient 103 7 R Result for CSS Saline 130 3 R Result for CSS Nutrient 106 1 S Result for CSS Nutrient 130 4 R Result for CSS Saline 106 1 S Result for CSS Saline 130 4 R Result for CSS Nutrient 107 1 S Result for CSS Nutrient 130 5 R Result for CSS Nutrient 107 2 S Result for CSS Saline 130 5 R 77
Prior to the onset of this third party audit, the FDA and University of Cincinnati agreed upon a list of adverse events (See Appendix B) that the sites were to use in order to extract specific adverse events from the subject data and report prospectively. This, however, was only completed for a few subjects at the University of Cincinnati, therefore the majority of adverse event data was extracted by the auditors, as part of the audit process, per the previously agreed upon list of events.
Per Figure 32.1, the total number of adverse events reported for this subject population was 733l. Of the total number of events, 1782 events were identified by the sites either during study, or as part of the event reporting agreement with the FDA, for the purpose of this third party audit. From the 1782 events identified by the sites, seventy (70) events were reported as unanticipated device events, four (4) events were reported as serious adverse events and two (2) events were reports as both serious and unanticipated.
Figure 32.1-Adverse Events Reported By Site
78
Figure 32.2: -Other Events: Shows the overall events of ARDS, Death, and infection.
79
Below shows a listing of the 7331 events, and the number of each event identified for this study: Number and type of Adverse Events Identified Adverse Event Number Identified Microbial colonization of burn wounds 1305 Other infection 508 Hyperthermia (>/=39.5C) 408 Burn wound excision 372 Hypothermia (<37.2C for 2 hrs) 334 Pruritus (requiring medication) 289 Grafting with autrograft 284 Diarrhea (>/= 2/shift or >/= 6/day) 271 Leukocytosis (WBC > highest normal range) 256 Grafting with allograft, Integra or other temporary wound 253 Sinus tachycardia 199 Atelectasis 195 Hypertension 192 Tachypnea 188 Respiratory failure PaO2 < 60 mm Hg and/or PaCO2 > 45 181 Thrombocytosis (plt >/= 350) 170 Mild coagulopathy (PT>12.3, PTT>36.5) 148 Grafting with CSS 128 Graft Loss >10% 126 Hyperglycemia (glycosuria, insulin drip) 106 C-reactive protein (>/= 30) 93 Hypotension 91 Leukopenia (WBC < lowest normal range) 91 Graft loss (</= to 10% of the extent grafted) 85 Vomiting (>/= 2/shift or >/= 6/day) 82 Thrombocytopenia (plt </= 145,000) 81 Pulmonary edema 60 CSS regraft 59 other surgery 58 Wound infection 53 pain 43 Sedation 40 Anemia 39 Graft site contracture requiring release or revision 30 Constipation 29 Amputation of extremeties/digits from deep burn 28 Pain from primary injury 27 Sepsis/septicemia 27 Urinary tract infections (>100,000 CFU) 25 Nausea 20
80
Adverse Event Number Identified Asymptomatic electrolyte imbalance 19 Renal tonic dopamine 18 Urinary tract infection, early 17 Inhalation injury and/or airway (req. intubation) 16 Pneumothorax 15 Pressor or ionotrope requirement 15 Pleural Effusions 13 Coagulopathy (twice the upper limit of the normal range 12 Confusion/delirium 12 removal of silatica from Integra 11 Unplanned surgical intervention 11 hypoglycemia 9 Pulmonary Infiltrates 9 Line infection (>100,000 CFU of organisms) 7 rash 7 Compartment syndrome (extremity) 6 Autograft/regraft 5 Death 5 Mental status changes 5 Pneumonia 5 suprastomal granuloma 5 Urinary tract infections 5 Acute renal failure 4 Congulopathy (twice the upper limit of the normal range 4 Dysrhythmia 4 Intubation due to declining respiratory status not related 4 Repeat grafting to same body site (>10% org grafted) 4 Abdominal Compartment Syndrome 3 Autografting to donor site for failure to heal 3 Celluitis 3 Electrolyte Imbalance (non specified) 3 Exploratory Surgery 3 Multiple organ failure/multi-system organ failure 3 Renal failure 3 ventilated 3 ventilation required 3 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) 2 airway obstruction 2 bloody secretions from trach req. bronchoscopy 2 fluctuant mass 2 81
Number and type of Adverse Events Identified Adverse Event Number Identified Hematomas 2 hypothermia 2 kidney stones 2 Reinsertion of Trach Tube 2 tachycardia 2 wound excision 2 other surgery 1 abscess of thumb 1 anoxic injury 1 autograft regraft of CSS 1 back pain 1 bilateral corneal abrasions 1 bilateral subdural effusions 1 bleeding from tracheostomy 1 blisters 1 brain atropy 1 Brain/Skull Injury 1 cardiac arrest 1 cardiomyopathy 1 cerebral atrophy 1 Change in Vision 1 Chronic pain and burn like sensation to the right ankle 1 constant staph infection on bilateral lower extremities 1 css regraft of CSS 1 CSS regraft with Autograft 1 CSS regraft with CSS 1 decubitus 1 deep vein thrombosis 1 Diarrhea (>/= 2/shift or >/= 6/day) 1 dysphagia 1 excision and grafting of burn injury 1 Excision of hypertrophic scar 1 Excision of ulceration 1 Extraction of Dressing Material 1 fracture to femur 1 fractured femur 1 fungal infection of the left jaw 1 grafting with Amnion 1 Hypertension 1 hypospadias 1 82
Number and type of Adverse Events Identified Adverse Event Number Identified Hypothemia 1 Inadequate Soft Tissue Coverage 1 intubation with ventilation 1 Jaundice 1 metabolic acidosis 1 Occluded trachestomy 1 other 1 pancreatitis 1 Particulate Granules associated with CSS 1 Phimosis 1 pressure area 1 Reaction to Fresh Frozen Plasma 1 Removal of Left Thumb Digital Stacking 1 removal of silastica from Integra 1 Repeat autografting to same body site (>10% org grafted) 1 repeat failed attempts at trach capping 1 repeat grafting of same body site (>10%) 1 repeat grafting to same body site >10% 1 respiratory depression 1 sebaceous cyst 1 sedation 1 seizure activity 1 small bowel obstructioin 1 systemic inflammatory response syndrome 1 thrombocytosis 1 tibia and fibula fracture 1 unexplained eosinophilia and itch 1 ventilation 1 worms 1 Total Adverse Events: 7331
83
The 10 most frequently reported events were as follows:
Event Number of Events Reported Microbial Colonization of Burn wound 1305 Other Infection 508 Hyperthermia (>/= 39.5 C) 408 Burn Wound Excision 372 Hypothermia (<37.2 C) 334 Pruritus (requiring medication) 289 Grafting with Autograft 284 Diarrhea (>/=2 per shift or >/= 6 per day) 271 Leukocytosis (WBC >highest normal range) 256 Grafting with Allograft, Integra, other 253
Per CFR 812.3 (s) a unanticipated adverse device effect is any serious adverse effect on health or safety or any life-threatening problem or death caused by, or associated with a device, if that effect, problem, or death was not previously identified in nature, severity, or degree of incidence in the investigational plan or application (including a supplementary plan or application), or any other unanticipated serious problem associated with a device that refers to the rights, safety or welfare of the subjects.
The Sponsor did not identify expected adverse device effects as part of the Investigational Device Exemption Application (January 1998) or in the investigational plan (e.g. protocol) dated November 2003.
The sites and Sponsor were responsible for reporting any serious adverse effects on health and safety or any life-threatening problems or death as an unanticipated adverse event, as no events had been previously identified as expected.
Subject 100: Event of Death was reported as an SAE by the site, but not reported as an Unexpected Adverse Device Event.
84
Per CFR 812.40: Sponsors are responsible for selecting qualified investigators and providing them with the information they need to conduct the investigation properly
Unexpected events, noted during the clinical progression of this trial should have been updated and information reported to all sites participating in this study. This was not completed by the Sponsor.
Per CFR 812.50 (1) An investigator shall submit to the Sponsor and to the reviewing IRB a report of any unanticipated adverse device effect occurring during an investigation as soon as possible, but in no event later than 10 working days after the investigator first learns of the effect.
Per the overall review of subject records, there was not adequate record of adverse event reporting to the Sponsor and to the appropriate reviewing Institutional Review Boards. The sites were not reporting adverse events per Form CSS 7.8 in the Case Report Form. Per the protocol schedule of events (version November 2003), an adverse event summary was to be collected at Post Operative Days 14 and 28. This summary was incorporated into the Investigator Global Assessment as the question Any AEs? and was answered Yes or No. The sites should have been evaluating subjects for adverse events and possible UADEs during the entire study duration and not only at these specific time points.
Figures 32.4 and 33.5, (below), show the summary of AE reporting for POD 14 and POD 28 (as noted on the Investigator Global Assessment) across the 159 CSS sets applied. The majority of the reporting indicated that no adverse events were present. However, because no expected events were ever identified as part of the investigational plan, investigators and Sponsor should have been reporting events in accordance with CFR 812.3. Additionally, seventy events were noted as Unexpected Events per the reports completed and filed with the subject records. It is unclear why similar events were not consistently reported as unexpected across the subject population. For instance, there were 126 events of graft loss greater than 10% identified, yet only 26 of these events were identified as unexpected. There were no parameters on why certain events were considered unexpected. 85
Figure 32.4- Adverse Event Summary By Set for POD 14 86
Figure 32.5-Adverse Event Summary for POD 28
87
Per Figure 32.6: Of the 70 UADEs reported in the subject records; only 54 could be verified as reported to the appropriate Institutional Review Board.
Figure 32.6- Unanticipated Device Event Reporting
88
The following reported UADEs were not reported to, or could not be verified that they were reported the appropriate Institutional Review Board:
Subject 131: Hypotension/ Onset date: 8/27/2007 Subject 131: Repeat Regrafting of same body site (>10%)/ Onset date: 1/25/2008 Subject 131: Repeat Regrafting of same body site (>10%)/ Onset date: 12/21/2007 Subject 128: Particulate Granules associated with CSS/ Onset date: 2/2/2007 Subject 130: Leukopenia/ Onset date: 10/2/2007 Subject 126: Pain/ Onset date: 1/3/2007 Subject 96: Constant Staph infection on bilateral lower extremities/ Onset date: 4/27/2005 Subject 98: Graft Loss >10% / Onset Date: 4/29/2005 Subject 134: Suprastomal Granuloma/ Onset Date: 6/5/2008 Subject 134: Fluctuant Mass/ Onset Date: 5/28/2008 Subject 134: Occluded Trachestomy/ Onset Date: 5/16/2008 Subject 134: Suprastomal Granuloma/ Onset Date: 5/2/2008 Subject 134: Graft Loss >10%/ Onset Date: 6/4/2008 Subject 134: Graft Loss>10%/ Onset Date: 5/30/2008 Subject 134: Graft Loss >10%/ Onset Date: 5/9/2008 Subject 113: Sepsis/Septicemia/ Onset Date: 4/17/2006
Per CFR 812.46 (b) A Sponsor shall immediately conduct an evaluation of any unanticipated adverse device effect
Per review there was no documentation of the Sponsor following up on a report of a UADE from the study sites.
89
Reported Deaths: There were a total of five (5) deaths reported from the treated study subject population subjects 82-139
Subject 100:
Reported that subject died on 7/2/2005. Cause of death was reported as still under investigation. Medical records reported that subject had a large bowel movement and subsequently became agitated with a low O2 saturation. Subject became cyanotic and death was pronounced after 35 minutes of CPR. The report states that subject developed sudden mottling followed by arrest, suggesting a possible embolism to his aorta. An autopsy was not performed.
Causality to device was reported: Not Related Number of Day from Device Application: 3 Reported to the IRB: Yes Reported to the Sponsor: Yes Reported to the FDA: Yes
Subject 103: Reported that subject died on 10/30/2005 as a result of cardiopulmonary arrest.
Causality to device was reported: Not Related Number of Days from Device Application: 23 Reported to the IRB: Unable to Verify Reported to the Sponsor: Yes Reported to the FDA: Yes
Subject 113: Reported that subject died on 4/17/2006 as a result of deep necrosis and compartment syndromes.
Causality to device was reported as: Not Related Number of Days from Device Application: 3 Reported to the IRB: Unable to Verify Reported to the Sponsor: Unable to Verify Reported to the FDA: Unable to Verify
90
Subject 123: Reported that subject died on 9/6/2006 as result of sepsis and multi-organ failure.
Causality to device was reported as: Not Related Number of Days from CSS Application: 11 Reported to the IRB: Unable to Verify Reported to the Sponsor: Unable to Verify Reported to the FDA: Unable to Verify
Subject 124: Reported that subject died on 9/12/2006 as a result of sepsis.
Causality to device was reported as: Not Related Number of Day from CSS Application: 59 Reported to the IRB: Unable to Verify Reported to the Sponsor: Yes Reported to the FDA: Yes
Graft Loss/ Re grafting
It was observed that there was no consistency with regards to the determination or reporting of graft loss at either the CSS or autograft sites. The investigational plan did not identify parameters for an expected versus an unexpected event of graft loss. Additionally, graft loss was not captured by the sites in a manner in which the graft loss or re-grafting could accurately be quantified.
Per protocol d.4.3.1: Graft failure will be characterized as sites that remain wet at the surface, progressively become more red, and form granulation tissue. Partial or complete graft success will be scored as an outer wound surface that is epithelialized, keratinized and dry.
Sites were not reporting graft failure or success on the protocol defined criteria as noted in section d.4.3.1. From the events of graft loss, which were reported by the sites, graft loss was based on the Investigator Global Assessment evaluation regarding percentage healed graft from tracing for both POD 14 and 28 (See Appendix C). Events of re-grafting were also reported as part of the Qualitative Outcome assessment, collected at PODs 14, 28, 91, 182, 365 and greater than 365,( as possible).
91
Per Figure 32.7(a) (b) (c): 126 events of graft loss greater than 10% were identified and 85 events of graft loss less than or equal to 10% were identified. This includes both the CSS and Autograft sites.
Figure 32.7 (a) 92
Figure 32.7 (b) 93
Figure 32.7 (c) 94
From the 126 events of graft loss identified, only the following events were identified as Unexpected Adverse Device Events (as reported per the investigator on the Adverse Event Report Form). It is unclear why only these specific events of graft loss were noted as unexpected.
Graft Loss >10% reported as Unexpected, per subject records:
Subject 130: event date of 11/23/2007 Subject 130: event date of 9/28/2007 Subject 130: event date of 9/14/2007 Subject 130: event date of 11/2/2007 Subject 130: event date of 1/11/2008 Subject 139: event date of 3/13/2008 Subject 139: event date of 2/26/2009 Subject 139: event date of 3/12/2009 Subject 136: event date of 9/19/2008 Subject 136: event date of 8/29/2008 Subject 136: event date of 9/5/2008 Subject 136: event date of 9/10/2008 (x2 events) Subject 136: event date of 9/19/2008 Subject 136: event date of 9/26/2008 (x2 events) Subject 138: event date of 1/30/2009 Subject 138: event date of 1/27/2009 Subject 138: event date of 1/21/2009 Subject 138: event date of 1/13/2009 Subject 112: event date of 9/9/2006 Subject 98: event date of 4/29/2005 Subject 134: event date of 6/4/2008 Subject 134: event date of 5/30/2008 Subject 134: event date of 5/9/2008 Subject 132: event date of 2/13/2008
Graft Loss less than or equal to 10% reported as Unexpected, per subject record:
Subject 138: event date of 2/3/2009 Subject 138: event date of 1/25/2009 Subject 138: event date of 1/2/2009 Subject 139: event date of 2/26/2009 Subject 139: event date of 3/13/2009
95
Per Figures 32.8 and 32.9: The number of CSS and autograft re-grafts are shown for the subjects who had reported re-grafts. Re-grafting was captured as part of the POD 14 Investigator Global Assessment. Additionally, the Qualitative Outcome also reported re-grafts. It is unclear how subsequent assessments were calculated from the time of re-graft. For example, if a subject was re-grafted at POD 14, then the next assessment reported was for POD28. However, this is not an accurate time frame for assessment. There was no clear documentation, for how the re-grafts were being assessed independently as per protocol section d.3.2: Repeat graftings will be considered independent events. Figure 32.8-Reported Auto Re-grafts
96
Figure 32.9- Reported CSS Re-grafts
97
33. Concomitant Medications The concomitant medications were collected as a part of this audit report as a special request by FDA. The study case report forms were not designed to gather any medication information. The MRF audit team recorded the medications that were created between UC and FDA in conference calls regarding the affect medications may or may not have had on the device. Table 33.1 shows an overall listing of concomitant medications noted and the frequency of event in the audit population. The individual subject reports, identify the specific medications noted for each subject. The medications used to treated burn study patients were listed in order of how they related to the device. The medications were given a number as to whether the medication affected the device or the medication is affected by the device. Only the medications that affects the device are listed in this report, as all the medications that could be affected by the device were labeled a 1 meaning not related at all, thus this category was eliminated from the final report. Per table 33.2 and as Figure 33.3 identifies, there were 225 times medications were used on subjects that definitely affected the device. These drugs were listed as a 5 on the scale meaning definitely affected the device. There were two drugs used Mafanemide Actate Cream was used 125 times and Mafanemide Acetate solution 0.5% was used 100 times. The medical records only noted the use of the medications and not why they were used, thus making any interpretation from this data is out of the scope of the auditors. There were 66 times that medications were used on the study subjects that were rated a 4 as probably affected the device. These drugs were Levophed; Growth hormone; Epinephrine Solution and Epinephrine. The medical records only noted the use of the medications and not why they were used, thus making any interpretation from this data out of the scope of the auditors. There were 458 incidences of medications used that were rated a 3 as possibly affected the device. These drugs were: Oxandralone, Bactroban, Neomycin, Amphotericin B, Vitamin C, Zinc, and Ibuprofen. Neomycin was used 180 different times. Again the medical records only noted the use of the medications and not why they were used, thus making any interpretation from this data out of the scope of the auditors. There were 1,016 drugs rated as a 1 as unlikely affecting the device. A listing of those drugs is shown below the pie chart. The individual subject records have the complete record for which subjects received which drugs and on which dates. For any specific information please refer to the individual patient record con med section (concomitant medication section). There are a total of seven thousand eight hundred seventy (7, 870) con meds listed in this audit report. That includes the topical medications applied to the subjects as well as all other medications given to the subjects. Table 33.4 is a listing of all topical concomitant medications noted as applied, and the number of times each topical drug was applied. 98
Table 33.1
Con Meds Utilized and Number of Events Drug Number of Events Ketamine 605 Packed RBC 385 Vancomycin 312 Bacitracin 279 Amikacin 274 Zosyn 270 Whole Blood 238 Tylenol 219 Silver Sulfadiazine 213 IVIG 176 Neomycin 172 Fentanyl 170 Electrolyte solutions 149 Benadryl 146 Morphine 141 Versed 139 Mafanemide Acetate Cream 125 Eucerin 123 Fresh Frozen Plasma 119 Nystatin 112 Albumin 109 Mafanemide Acetate sol 0.5% 99 CSS Irrigation Solution 96 Lasix 86 Potassium 83 Propofol 80 Albuterol 79 Calcium 75
99
Con Meds Applied and Number of Events Drug Number of Events Vecuronium 70 Methadone 68 Tylenol w/codeine 64 Vitamin C 62 Insulin 61 Nystatin 58 Magnesium 55 Polymixin B 54 Dopamine (renal dose) 53 Ambien 52 Ativan 50 Carafate 50 Folic Acid 43 Hydroxyzine 41 Valium 41 Seroquel 40 Folic Acid 40 Dulcolax 39 Platelets 39 Tylox 39 Zinc 38 Primaxin 37 Neurontin 37 Zinc 37 Precedex 35 Polymixin B 35 Nystatin 33 Oxandralone 32 Ibuprofen 32 100
Con Meds Applied and Number of Events Drug Number of Events Benadryl 28 Phenergan 27 Pipercillin 27 Nystatin topical 27 Benadryl 26 Aquaphor 26 Ativan 26 Risperdal 25 Epinephrine 25 Mineral Oil 25 Methadone 25 Seboflurane 25 Dobutamine 23 Hydromorphone 23 Tylenol 22 Packed RBC 21 Curel 21 Oxandralone 20 Versed 19 Aquacel Ag 19 Ascorbic Acid 19 Hydrocortisone 18 Polymixin B 18 Electrolyte solutions 18 Colistin 17 Claritin 17 Vitamin C 16 Prilosec 16 Whole Blood 16 101
Con Meds Applied and Number of Events Drug Number of Events Fentanyl 16 Ambien 15 Neurontin 15 Potassium 15 Zantac 15 Vitamin D2 14 Bactroban 13 Trazodone 13 Potassium 13 Miralax 12 Heparin 12 Vitamin D2 12 Lasix 12 Seroquel 12 Azactam 11 Electrolyte solutions 11 Phosphorus 11 Erythromycin 10 Ciprofloxacin 10 Fentanyl 10 Ampho B 10 Vicodin 9 Pavulon 9 Growth hormone 9 Vitamin D3 9 Ketamine 9 Levophed 9 Phenergan 9 Prozac 8 102
Con Meds Applied and Number of Events Drug Number of Events Pavulon 8 Flovent 8 Milk of Magnesia 8 Neosporin 8 Cymbalta 8 Diflucan 8 Protonix 7 Fresh Frozen Plasma 7 Ibuprofen 7 Lunesta 7 Ativan 7 Carafate 7 Growth hormone 7 Electrolyte solutions 7 Pepcid 7 Ciprofloxacin 7 Epinephrine 7 Hydroxyzine 6 Ketamine 6 Cryoprecipitate 6 Cefapime 6 Tygacil 6 Epinephrine Solution 5 Zyvox 5 Benadryl 5 Prevacid 5 Pepcid 5 Vancomycin 5 Neomycin 5 103
Con Meds Applied and Number of Events Drug Number of Events IVIG 5 Vancomycin 4 Vasopressin 4 Heparin 4 Clindamycin 4 Hydrocortisone 4 Methadone 4 Lexapro 4 Lyrica 4 Diflucan 4 Fentanyl 4 Propofol 4 Precedex 4 Albumin 4 Albuterol 4 Tylenol w/codeine 4 Benadryl 4 Risperdal 3 Zyvox 3 Tylenol 3 Zosyn 3 Ampicillin 3 Oxandralone 3 Zoloft 3 Packed RBC 3 Diamox 3 Bacitracin 3 Seroquel 3 Prevacid 3 104
Con Meds Applied and Number of Events Drug Number of Events Phenergan 3 Phosphorus 3 Polymixin B 3 Dopamine (renal dose) 3 Vecuronium 3 Carafate 3 CSS Irrigation Solution 3 Folic Acid 3 Magnesium 3 Mineral Oil 3 Miralax 3 Valium 3 Mupirocin 3 Magnesium 3 Tylenol 3 Morphine 3 Tylox 2 Protonix 2 Ascorbic Acid 2 Percocet 2 Zinc 2 Zinc 2 Fentanyl 2 Polymixin B 2 Dulcolax 2 Magnesium 2 Hydroxyzine 2 Moisturel 2 Prilosec 2 105
Con Meds Applied and Number of Events Drug Number of Events Tube feeding 2 Electrolyte solutions 2 Platelets 2 Elavil 2 Lunesta 2 Polymixin B 2 Posaconazole 2 Neomycin 2 Nystatin topical 2 Insulin 2 Albuterol 2 Hydromorphone 2 Diflucan 2 IVIG 2 Carafate 2 Fresh Frozen Plasma 2 Erythromycin 2 Growth hormone 2 Amikacin 2 Mupirocin 2 Versed 2 Whole Blood 1 Unknown 1 Precedex 1 Ciprofloxacin 1 Calcium 1
Vitamin D3 1 Celexa 1 106
Con Meds Applied and Number of Events Drug Number of Events Carafate 1 Potassium 1 Ciprofloxacin 1 Amphotericin B 1 Mupirocin 1 Albuterol 1 Zosyn 1 Albuterol 1 Ambien 1 Risperdal 1 Zoloft 1 Morphine 1 Rifampin 1 Neomycin 1 Amphotericin B 1 Prozac 1 Aquaphor 1 Propofol 1 Azactam 1 Azactam 1 Rocuronium 1 Zantac 1 Amikacin 1 Lasix 1 Tube feeding 1 Levophed 1 Pepcid 1 Folic Acid 2
Con Meds Applied and Number of Events Drug Number of Events Diflucan 1 Vitamin C 1 Timentin 1 Lidocaine Injection 1 Vancomycin 1 Dulcolax 1 Dulcolax 1 Dulcolax 1 Platelets 1 Phosphorus 1 Epinephrine 1 Vitamin D2 1 Nitric Oxide 1 Tylenol w/codeine 1 Potassium 1 Mafanemide Acetate sol 0.5% 1
109
Table 33.2 2/12/2010 12:34 PM Medications used and the likelihood it Affected the Device Definitely Likelihood this Medication Affected the Device Medication: Mafanemide Acetate Cream How often was it used: 125 Medication: Mafanemide Acetate sol 0.5% How often was it used: 100 Probably Likelihood this Medication Affected the Device Medication: Levophed How often was it used: 10 Medication: Growth hormone How often was it used: 18 Medication: Epinephrine Solution How often was it used: 5 Medication: Epinephrine How often was it used: 33 Possibly Likelihood this Medication Affected the Device Medication: Oxandralone How often was it used: 57 Medication: Bactroban How often was it used: 13 Medication: Neomycin How often was it used: 180 Medication: Ampho B How often was it used: 10 Medication: Vitamin C How often was it used: 79 Medication: Zinc How often was it used: 79 Medication: Ibuprofen How often was it used: 40 Unlikely Likelihood this Medication Affected the Device Medication: Eucerin How often was it used: 123 Medication: Aquaphor How often was it used: 27 Medication: Bacitracin How often was it used: 282 Medication: Clotrimazole How often was it used: 1 Medication: Curel How often was it used: 21 Medication: Dopamine (renal dose) How often was it used: 56 Medication: Heparin How often was it used: 17 Medication: Insulin How often was it used: 64
110
Figure 33.3
111
Table 33.4 12:29 PM Topicals Applied and Number of Events Drug Number of Events Bacitracin 279 Silver Sulfadiazine 213 Neomycin 172 Mafanemide Acetate Cream 125 Eucerin 123 Nystatin 112 Mafanemide Acetate sol 0.5% 99 CSS Irrigation Solution 96 Polymixin B 54 Nystatin topical 27 Aquaphor 26 Mineral Oil 25 Curel 21 Aquacel Ag 19 Bactroban 13 Erythromycin 10 Neosporin 8 Hydrocortisone 4 Mupirocin 3 Moisturel 2 Unknown 1 Propofol 1 Azactam 1
112
34. Abnormal Laboratory Values The MRF recorded all abnormal laboratory values for each subject audited in the Cultured Skin Substitute (CSS) study. The lab values are noted as abnormal if the laboratory range for the subjects age is above or below the range for that particular patient. Each subject has full listings of all the laboratory values that were identified as abnormal in the individual subject section of this report. The auditors did not separate out these values for charts or graphs as abnormal lab values are a given with the extent of the subjects injuries on this study. The MRF did chart out a few subjects; however the graphs simply showed a high increase of abnormal values dropping down consistently to back in the normal lab ranges as time progressed. The improved lab values could be contributed to the subjects improved health overall as the study proceeded. Auditors can isolate any laboratory value recorded in the subject record or a combination of laboratory values for the FDA if so required, however the labs were collected with the criteria of the name of the laboratory test (i.e. BUN, Ca, C-reactive Protein, etc.); the date the lab value was done; the time it was drawn; the value of the lab; if the lab result was signed off by the PI or a Sub-I, and the date it was signed off. Per the DSMB report, provided to MRF on March 24, 2010, abnormal lab values are classified as Minor complications. If the FDA wanted to specify labs pertaining to anemia, the MRF could assemble the WBC, etc. and print those off in graph form. Given that 99,983 labs were noted as abnormal for the audited subjects, the MRF has listed all the labs recorded, and will provide FDA with any subsequent charts or graphs FDA deems necessary. This study had no specific laboratory values consistently recorded in the CRF. Abnormal lab values were captured as part of this third party audit and not as part of the investigational plan.
113
35. Primary Study Endpoints There were four (4) primary study endpoints identified in the current investigational plan (Nov 2003 protocol): d.3.3: Primary endpoints after grafting will be determined for both cultured skin substitutes and split thickness skin autograft. Data collected will test the hypothesis that the cultured skin substitutes reduce requirements for harvesting of split thickness skin for wound closure End point 1: Protocol Section d.3.3.1: Ratios of closed area/donor area (both in cm sq) will be expressed as a dimensionless factor to quantify wound closure/cm sq of donor skin for each type of graft. If cultured skin substitutes are efficacious, then a statistical increase in healed area/donor area is expected. This will demonstrate whether CSS reduce requirements for donor skin harvesting to complete wound closure This calculation is defined as: Healed area at POD 28/Donor area Per protocol section d.3.2: the total area, open area, and closed area of wounds at POD 14 and 28 will be obtained by direct tracings onto a plastic sheet. Tracings on plastic sheet will be measured by computer-assisted planimetry and values entered into the data table. Per the Investigator Global Assessment, this calculation is reported as the Healed Area / Donor Area ratio for CSS. This evaluation was intended to be completed by the investigator at the study site; however there was no documentation on the process by which investigators were calculating these values being reported on the subject Case Report Forms. Since study site tracings were to be obtained by investigators or appropriate study staff, it is unclear on the process by which these tracings were measured by computer assisted planimetry. However, values for Healed Area Donor Area Ratio for CSS were being reported on the Case Report Forms. Per protocol section d.3.3.1, a calculated measurement of healed area at POD 28 was required by investigators in order to complete the Investigator Global Assessment section for Healed Area/ Donor Area Ratio for CSS. Additionally, it was observed that this assessment was also reported at POD 14, by some investigators (See Figure 35.1), which is not consistent with the protocol as noted in section d.3.3.1. This endpoint does not clearly define how instances of re-grafts are factored into the analysis. Furthermore, the sites were typically only grafting one comparative autograft site per patient, but evaluating multiple CSS sets per patient. The difference in CSS versus autograft sites would seem likely to impact this endpoint significantly. 114
Figure 35.1-Healed Area Donor Ratio Completion for POD 14
115
Endpoint 2: d.3.3.2: % TBSA closed with each graft type will be determined to quantify the magnitude of impact of cultured skin substitutes on wound closure. It is expected that CSS will be less than autograft. This endpoint will also be expressed as % TBSA/ donor area by dividing the product of this calculation by column E (Treated Area)
This calculation is defined as: (Healed area at POD 28/TBSA) x 100 = %TBSA healed
This endpoint assessment does not factor in the events of graft failure requiring re-grafting. It was not clear how the sites were capturing the healed area of re-grafted sites at POD 28, as it was noted that much of the re-grafting took place between POD 14 and 28.
The measurement of healed area at POD 28 was dependant on the study site tracings being completed and measured. Per Figure 35.2: 61 study site tracings were either not completed, or could not be verified as completed at the POD 28 time point, therefore, making it unclear how this endpoint could be analyzed in these instances. Additionally, the sites were typically only grafting one comparative autograft site per patient, but evaluating multiple CSS sets per patient. This difference in CSS versus Autograft sites would seem to likely impact this endpoint significantly.
Figure 35.2 Study Site Tracings for POD 28
116
Endpoint 3: Protocol Section d.3.3.3: Ratios of healed area/treated area x100 = % engraftment at day 14 will be compared statistically for the two types of skin grafts. If a statistical difference is found, the graft type with the lower % engraftment will be considered less efficacious than the other. This end point contributes to determination of d.3.3.1 and d.3.3.2 above and d.3.3.6 below
This calculation is defined as: (Healed area at POD 14/Treated area) x 100 = %engraftment
Figure 35.3-Study Site Tracings for POD 14
The measurement of healed area is taken from the study site tracings as noted per protocol. Per Figure 35.3: above, it is noted that 54 tracings were either not completed or could not be verified as completed at the POD 14 time point. It is unclear how this endpoint could be measured in these instances. Additionally, the sites were typically only grafting one comparative autograft site per patient, but evaluating multiple CSS sets per patient. This difference in CSS versus autograft sites would seem to likely impact this endpoint significantly.
117
Endpoint 4: d.3.3.4: # of regraftings for each graft type will be recorded during the acute phase of hospitalization and will be compared statistically. The graft type with the greater # of regraftings will be considered less efficacious than the other.
There was no consistent documentation of the number of re-graftings for each graft type during the acute phase of hospitalization.
36. Secondary Study Endpoints
Per CFR 812.110, investigators did not follow the investigational plan (protocol) dated November2003 with respect to collection of data at POD 7 and 14 on the Site Assessment Form. Per review of subject records, there was not a specific form utilized at POD 7 or 14 entitled Site Assessment Form. Protocol section d.4.3 Endpoints states that multiple evaluations will be performed on days 7 and 14, and data will be collected on the Site Assessment form, however this form was never located in subject records. Per the Protocol, there are four (4) secondary study endpoints identified in the investigational plan
Protocol- d.4.3.1 Incidence of engraftment --will be scored as a trinomial event with failed grafts designated 0, partial engraftment designated 1, and >80% engraftment designated 2. Engraftment will be scored at a single time point, 14 days after surgical application of each pair of grafts. Engraftment will be characterized as treated sites that develop dry, keratinized surfaces which blanch with gentle pressure. Graft failure will be characterized as sites that remain wet at the surface, progressively become more red, and form granulation tissue. Partial or complete graft success will be scored as an outer wound surface that is epithelizlized, keratinized and dry. Per protocol d.4.3.1, engraftment will be scored at a single time point 14 days after surgical application of each pair of grafts. The protocol schedule of events specifies that the percent engraftment is evaluated at POD 14 and 28. This is not consistent with what is reported in protocol section d.4.3.1. Per review of the study records, it is not clear if subjects were being evaluated based on the criteria identified in protocol section d.4.3.1. There was no documentation to support that the sites were assessed for keratinized surfaced based on the application of pressure. The percent engraftment appeared to be reported as part of the Investigator Global Assessment. There were no parameters provided for partial engraftment or graft failure. (i.e. Graft failure = 0% - 10% healed / Partial engraftment = 50% healed).
118
Per CFR 812.110, investigators did not follow the investigational plan (protocol) dated November2003 with respect to collection of the Incidence and degree of bioburden d.4.3.2 Incidence and degree of bioburden in treated wounds will be monitored by swab or quantitative microbial culture of the wound site. Microbial cultures will be taken from the center of each treated wound site. Treated sites that have not developed a dry, keratinized external surface by the 7 th and 10 th post surgical day will be subjected to a additional microbial cultures. Incidence will be scored on the operative day, and at post operative day 7 in a binomial manner (i.e. no growth=0, growth =1). Degrees of microbial growth are defined as low (<10 organismis/gm tissue), moderate (10 <10x5 /gm tissue), or high (>10x5 gm/tissue). Records will also be kept of the species of organisms in the wounds. Per protocol schedule of events, a microbiology culture of the recipient sites was to be collected Pre- Study, POD 0, POD 7 and POD 14. There was no evidence of sites being assessed at POD 10 for additional microbial testing. Figure 36.1 shows the overall number of Microbial Cultures performed at each of the specified time points. At POD 14 it was noted that 59 of 159 cultures were not completed. While microbiology reports were available with the study documents, the Case Report Forms did not capture any specific microbial testing results, including the species of organisms in the wounds. Therefore, it is unclear how this specific data was submitted to the Sponsor for endpoint analysis.
Figure 36.1 Microbial Culture of Recipient Sites 119
Per CFR 812.110, investigators did not follow the investigational plan (protocol) dated November2003 with respect to collection of the Dermato-pathologic data:
Per protocol d.4.3.5: Dermato-pathologic interpretation will be made from histological slides and transmission electron micrographs of biopsies taken from healed wounds. A dermato-pathologist will interpret the epidermis, and underlying connective tissue in comparison to biopsies from areas treated with split thickness skin. Biopsies from wounds treated with meshed split-thickness skin will be collected both from locations with grafted dermis and from mesh interstices. Interpretations of the epidermis, the dermal-epidermal junction and the dermis will be made according to standard dermato-pathological standards for assessment of histologic parameters of scar. Investigational sites were consistently noted as not collecting healed wound biopsies at the time points indicated per the protocol schedule of events. The schedule of events does indicate that these are only collected as possible, however there was no documentation supporting why a biopsy could not be collected. Per Figure 36.2 : Only a small percent of these biopsies were actually completed for the 159 CSS sets applied across this subject population. For the small percent of biopsies collected from the healed CSS sites, there were no histology reports available to substantiate that a dermato-pathologist made the appropriate interpretations of these biopsies, as specified per protocol section d.4.3.5. There was also no documentation, to support that biopsies were collected from the healed comparative autograft sites. The Case Report Forms did not collect data with regards to dermato-pathologic interpretation, so it is unknown how, if any, of this data was reported to the Sponsor for analysis.
120
Figure 36.2-Healed Wound Biopsy Completed for PODs 7-365
121
37. Device Quality Assurance Testing/ Sterility Testing Overall, auditors observed there was not sufficient documentation with respect to the storage, shipment, handling, or disposition of the device utilized in this study (CSS). This finding is also consistent with available documentation for device quality assurance testing. Per Protocol d.2.5: Two assessments of CSS quality are performed on each preparation of cultured grafts. 1.) Surface electrical capacitance (SEC) with the Dermal Phase Meter and 2.) Histological examination of 18 CSS in each set of grafts. Surface electrical capacitance (SEC) with the Dermal Phase Meter measures surface hydration by conductance or impedance of a weak electrical current across the instrument probe. The corresponding signal is transmitted to a computer and is read for 10 seconds in each of four locations on each CSS graft. The final reading is defined as the continuous capacitance and is recorded to a notebook computer. The values from all reading are transferred to an MS Excel spreadsheet and average values are determined. Low values represent low hydration (dry surface), and high values represent high hydration (wet surface). The scale for the instrument ranges from 90 (very dry) to 900 (very wet). These readings correlate with the formation of epidermal barrier. Therefore, SEC indicated the development of the epidermal phenotype of keratinized stratum corneum. Two sets of readings are recorded, typically on incubation days 6 and 9. To pass the quality test, each CSS graft must decrease in DPM values, which corresponds to a decrease in surface hydration. This negative change indicates that epidermal barrier is forming which is criterion for release for surgery. Auditors were unable to locate documentation of two specific SEC readings for the CSS grafts which were cultured as required per protocol d.2.5. A pass/fail rating for SEC evaluation was not clearly stated in the device documentation. However overall, Surface Electrical Capacitance test was observed as having the best supporting documentation for the device quality assurance testing. Per Protocol d.2.5: Histological examination of CSS is performed by embedment of samples in glycol methacrylate which provides superior anatomic preservation and image resolution. CSS samples are evaluated on a qualitative scale of: Excellent, Good, Fair, or Poor (as determined on condition of Epithelium, Fibroblasts, and thickness of Biopolymer Matrix) Per figure 37.1, only 67 histological exams were completed for which the auditors could verify through supporting source records. This same graph shows that 88 were unable to be verified. . The protocol states that the scoring for the Histological Scores was to be listed as Excellent, Good, Fair, and Poor. This scoring was rarely seen. Most of the scoring in the device records listed Good, Slightly thin, Thin, Patchy, Slightly Patchy, Very Thin, Slightly Thin Center. The scoring scale from the protocol was not used as the proper documentation for the Histological examination of the CSS.
Per Protocol d.2.5: Sterility tests of CSS are performed five days before surgery, and on the day of surgery to verify the absence of microbial contamination. 122
Sterility tests, as per the protocol, were to be performed five days before surgery and on the day of surgery to verify the absence of microbial contamination. As per protocol, these tests in addition to the SEC and histological testing would ensure both the quality and safety of the device. Figure 37.1 shows that only ten of the sterility tests were completed five days prior to surgery. The vast majority of the sterility tests were observed to have been completed 7 10 days prior to the surgery date. There is nothing specified in the protocol that indicated the sterility test could have been performed earlier than five days prior to application. In addition, sterility test were to be performed on the day of surgery. One hundred eleven sterility tests were performed as the protocol designated, however 43 were not done day of surgery and 5 others were either incomplete data, or unable to verify the data. Most of the not done category was left blank in the case report forms, and there was no documentation in the medical records. The protocol did not provide flexibility in when these sterility tests were to be performed, and testing time frames were clearly stated in the investigational plan.
Figure 37.1-Device Quality Assurance Testing
123
38. Devices Returned Figure 38.1 reveals that the majority of the CSS grafts sets were placed on the human subjects on this clinical trial. When sets were not used or returned, there was not consistent documentation of why devices were returned or not used. Documentation was elusive in the records regarding the devices. Some instances show, if grafts were left over from one set they might be added with the next graft set. Some of the documentation was written on the back of the page of the burn diagram which specified where the grafts were placed. There was no consistency for documentation. Examples of this are as follows: Subject 84: Set 2: Seven grafts were not used and no record was available with documentation as to how or where they were stored until used at a later date for spot re-grafting. Additionally, there was no documentation on as to reason grafts were not used initially. Subject 86: Set Seven: 32 grafts were sent to Galveston for set seven, however only 14 grafts were used. Auditors were unable to verify what was done with the remaining 18 grafts. Subject 103: Set seven had eight grafts returned from the OR, and no reason was noted. The same subject for set two had two grafts that could not be accounted for. No reason given why the two grafts were not sent to the OR. Subject 107: Set two had six grafts returned. It is unknown why the grafts were not used. Subject 119: Set One. Notes state that 32 grafts were cultured. A handwritten note in the device documentation states that grafts #1 15 were meshed and prepped for surgery, however only #1 8 were applied and grafts 9 15 were returned from the OR and discarded. No indication of the balance of the grafts being discarded due to QA issues, or any other reason. Subject 130: Set Six: Unable to verify what happened with the eight grafts that were not placed on the subject. Set two: two grafts were unused, without documentation or record of these being returned to sponsor. No record of disposition was present. Subject 136: Set two; four grafts were held and re-cultured, per written note in paper records Dr. Boyces database reported all 32 grafts were applied. CRF states 4 were returned to sponsor, no reason noted. Subject 139: Set 3: 21 grafts not used; no documentation if the grafts were not sent to OR, or sent and not used. 124
Figure 38.1-Number of Sets with Devices Returned
125
39. Device Labeling/ Device Storage Auditors observed that the sponsor did not comply with CFR 812.25(f): The investigational plan shall includecopies of all labeling for the device or CFR812.45: A sponsor shall supply all investigators participating in the investigation with copies of the investigational plan and the report of prior investigations of the device The sponsor did not include a copy of device label as part of the investigational plan (protocol). Additionally, the device label was not made available to all investigators participating in this study. Auditors could not verify that any device utilized in this study was labeled in accordance with CRF 812.5(a )(b): Contents. An investigational device or its immediate package shall bear a label with the following information: the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor (in accordance with 801.1), the quantity of contents, if appropriate, and the following statement: "CAUTION--Investigational device. Limited by Federal (or United States) law to investigational use." The label or other labeling shall describe all relevant contraindications, hazards, adverse effects, interfering substances or devices, warnings, and precautions. Prohibitions: The labeling of an investigational device shall not bear any statement that is false or misleading in any particular and shall not represent that the device is safe or effective for the purposes for which it is being investigated. During the course of the audit, a copy of a label was made available to the audit team. (Appendix D) The auditors were informed that the noted label is what was currently being used to label the device. No copies of patient specific labels were noted with subject study records; therefore auditors could not verify the use of this label. The laboratory, whereby the CSS is made, is located on the fourth floor of the Shriners Hospital Building in Cincinnati, Ohio. Access to the floor is by computer key card access only. New employees or visitors must obtain the computer key card access from the security office of Shriners Hospital. The laboratory which is approximately half way down the hall way is reachable by a door from both sides of the hallway. The laboratory is located in the middle of the building. During the year that the auditors were present, people walked in and out of the lab at will. It did not appear that an additional key card or code of any sort was needed, once the laboratory was initially unlocked each morning. As figure 39.1 illustrates, the audit team was unable to verify any element of device storage. This includes monitoring of security of storage area, specifically temperature monitoring. Thereby, auditors were unable to determine if any storage temperature excursions were reported to the Sponsor. The development of the CSS grafts was overseen by Steve Boyce, Ph.D. Dr. Boyce also determined graft QA approval and he was often in the OR for the placement of the grafts. With either Dr. Boyce or the research nurse involved in the process consistently, it appears that much of the communication may have been verbal with respect to the device records. The MRF audit team was not provided with any monitoring logs regarding the laboratory where the CSS was stored. The storage units that held the devices were identified and the auditors were informed by Dr. Boyce, during the site tour, that the units were checked daily but no logs for storage temperature control, or any other type of monitoring was accurately maintained. 126
Figure 39.1-Device Storage
127
40. Device Disposal Figure 40.1, illustrates that the investigative sites did not maintain proper device disposal records as mandated per 21 CFR 812.140 (a)(2)(iii): A participating investigator shall maintain the following accurate, complete, and current records relating to the investigators participation in an investigationRecords of receipt, use or disposition of a device that relate to: Why and how many units were returned to the sponsor, repaired, or otherwise disposed of Per 21 CFR section 812.110(e): Upon completion or termination of a clinical investigation or the investigators part of an investigation, or at the sponsors request, an investigator shall return to the sponsor any remaining supply of the device or other dispose of the device as the sponsor directs. The auditors were told verbally by Dr. Boyce that the device was disposed in a manner consistent with the Standard Operating Procedures of Shriners Hospital. The auditors could only ascertain one record that specifically related to the disposal of the cultured skin substitute grafts. No other records were identified. There was no discussion in the operative notes as to grafts remaining, being returned to the laboratory, or disposed of. Auditors were unable to verify that the CSS disposal met with the regulations of Tile 29 Part 1910 and Title 42, Part 72 and 73 of the CFR. The auditors requested numerous times for ALL information, regarding the device, to be supplied to them. No device disposal logs were ever mentioned, or given to the auditors at any time throughout the audit. There were no records supplied to the auditors regarding CSS that was returned to laboratory from the OR. There were notes adding the grafts to the next grafting procedure sometimes. Proper documentation of records was not found by the auditors regarding the device disposal. 128
Figure 40.1 Device Disposal
129
41. Device Shipping Information Available Per CFR 812.140 (a)(2)(i)(ii): A participating investigator shall maintain the following accurate, complete, and current records relating to the investigators participation in an investigationRecords of receipt, use or disposition of a device that relate to the type and quantity of the device, the dates of its receipts, and the batch number or code markthe names of all persons who received, used, or disposed of each device. There were very few shipping records available for grafts shipped from the Sponsor to the remote investigational sites, as noted in figure 41.1. Additionally, figure 40.1 (above) illustrates that no batch code or number could be verified in device record as required per CFR 812.140 (2) (i), which is noted above. The shipping records identified were for shipments of the device to Sacramento and one shipment to Galveston. Auditors could only verify the following for device shipped to remote sites: date of shipment for eight (8) of the shipments, that the device was consistently transported via Delta Dash (as air bills were present), and the date of receipt on six of the eight shipments. The names of all personnel handling the device were not consistently documented, with the exception of the signatures noted on the Delta Dash air bills. The temperature of each shipment was not recorded and no temperature tracking records were provided to the audit team. It was observed that one shipment was lost due to the extreme weather conditions. E-mail communication, was observed by auditors, which identified a need for temperature tracking instruments with device shipments; however this was never actually identified as being accomplished. Due to the Integrity Hold letter, no further shipments of CSS have occurred. The compassionate use subjects who are continuing to be enrolled are being seen at the Cincinnati Shriners Hospital and while there is not actual shipment of the CSS, the record keeping between the laboratory and the OR should be better documented in regard to listing of devices made, transported to the OR, returned from the OR, copies of the label of each CSS set, and signatures with dates for who signed out the devices, carried the devices, and returned or disposed of the devices. 130
Figure 41.1-Device Shipping Information Available
131
42. Protocol Deviation Summary: Through the course of the audit, it was noted that approximately 370 protocol deviations were identified by the sites, or thru the audit process. Figures 43.1 and 44.1 show a break out of the 370 protocol deviations and the reporting trends to the IRB and Sponsor. However, the most common protocol deviation noted, was lack of adherence to completion of protocol procedures. Table 42.1 gives an overall estimate of the procedures which were not completed for the subject audit population.
Table 42.1 Estimate of Protocol Procedures Not Completed Procedure Number Incomplete Informed Consent: 1 Past Med History: 0 Physical Exam Pre-Study: 0 Serum Antibodies Pre-Study 9 Serum Antibodies POD28 119 Physical Exam POD 0 41 Physical Exam POD 28 17 Skin Biopsy for Tracing 9 Microbial Culture of Recipient Sites: Pre- Study 48 Microbial Culture of Recipient Sites: POD 0 29 Microbial Culture of Recipient Sites: POD 7 25 Microbial Culture of Recipient Sites: POD 14 55 Biopsy of Recipient Sites POD 0 83 Photo of Wound Bed (Recipient Site) 31 Photography Post Graph 58 CSS Tracings in Vitro 2 Study Site Tracings POD14 38 Study Site Tracings POD28: 38 % Engraftment POD14 8 %Engraftment POD28: 8 Healed Area /Donor Area Ratio (POD 28) 84 Qualitative Outcomes(For all time points) 5 Healed Wound Biopsy 901 Adverse Event Summary POD 14 1 Adverse Event Summary POD28 1 Investigator Global Assessment Unable to be determined PODs NOT DONE 390
132
43. Protocol Deviations Reported to IRB
Figure 43.1-Protocol Deviations Reported to IRB The protocol deviation detail, figure 43.1 unmistakably illustrates that the audit team could not verify that protocol deviations had been submitted to the IRB. The UC IRB does not acknowledge receipt of protocol deviations back to a site. There were also several forms used for protocol deviation reports. Some had UC IRB at the top, some were Shriners Hospital forms, and some were simply blank pages with the deviations typed up. No documentation was identified that showed where it was faxed, no handwritten note stating the deviation report had been submitted, no way to verify that it went to the IRB. The figure below shows 370 protocol deviations noted in the auditors database. The audit of the UC IRB protocol files did not reflect the number of protocol deviations that should have been located within those files. In fact, some of the deviations noted were not protocol deviations for the CSS study. They were noted as being misfiled. There was not a standard operating procedure found for reporting of deviations to the UC IRB.
133
The University of Cincinnati IRB website has a deviation form template available, however it is not the same form that has been used in the CSS study records. The website does not list requirements as to when or how the deviations should be reported. The website deviation form has a date of 7/31/2006 on it. Of the 370 protocol deviations recorded in the audit data base, only nineteen of those can be confirmed as being received at the IRB. The vast majority (310) were unable to be verified as being submitted to the IRB, and the forty one (41) nos were deviations identified by auditors, therefore the site did not report these specific deviation. After reviewing the IRB records, it is not possible to match the records of the deviations. The record keeping was minimal from the standpoint of the IRB records as well as site records. This study has been ongoing from 1998 to present, however the IRB records were made up of three small volumes of paperwork, as this was all that was supplied to the auditors from the IRB as to their records for this study.
134
44. Protocol Deviations Reported To Sponsor Figure 44.1-Protocol Deviations Reported to Sponsor
Figure 44.1, shows the number of protocol deviations that were identified as reported to Sponsor. There is a higher number reported to the sponsor as at the beginning of the records for the audit Steve Boyce, Ph.D. was listed as PI for the study and the sponsor. Many of the protocol deviation reports were recorded and signed off by Dr. Boyce himself, thus the sponsor had knowledge of the deviation. After Dr. Kagan became the PI, it is not clearly documented that the deviations went to the sponsor. Much of the documentation for the deviations was noted as completed one to two years after the fact. A few examples noted are: #84 Deviation of 2/10/2004 Written by Dr. Boyce on 3/5/2007 #99 14 out of 20 deviations occurred in 2005 Written by P. Simpson on 9/1/2009 #109 2 typed deviation forms on plain paper No signatures or dates #109 1/19/2006 deviations Written by Dr. Boyce on 4/2/07
135
#109 1/1/06 deviation lists events not done Signed by Dr. Boyce on 2/4/07 Events Typed CRFs; no signatures
# 120 Deviation of 5/26/06 Reported 7/17/2009 The sponsor records indicate that Dr. Boyce initially was in charge of, listing adverse events in the continuing review form only. Deviations were not reported to the IRB by the sponsor until the last three years 2007 to current.
45. Sample Audit of the First 81 Subjects in the CSS Study
Prior to the initiation of this independent third party audit, University of Cincinnati, had agreed with FDA, to conduct a separate audit of the first 81 subjects. Upon conclusion of the separate audit, MRF agreed to a subsequent, random sample audit of the first 81 subjects. The MRF auditors were never informed, by UC, that the initial 81 subjects had been audited. There was communication between UC Compliance and MRF about using the MRF database, to conduct the audit of the first 81 subjects. Additionally, UC Compliance also requested a bid from MRF about allowing MRF to complete the audit of the first 81 subjects. However, to date, MRF has not been notified that subjects 1- 81 have been audited. Therefore, MRF did not complete the agreed upon sample audit of 8 to 12 subjects as was outlined in the audit plan. The first 81 subjects were enrolled under different versions of the protocol, yet these subjects make up the majority of the overall study population and generated the majority of the study data. Because the findings of the third party audit are only inclusive of data collected from subjects 82-139, it is unknown if the findings from the initial subject population could have had any impact of the outcome of this audit. In particular, safety and efficacy data cannot be assessed in its entirety, without data from the review of the initial 81 subjects.
136
46. Annual Reports The Annual Report for period January 1 June 2004 was reviewed by auditors. Similarly as the audit started with subject #82, the audit review comes in middle of the annual reports. Based on the regulations cited below S. Boyce, Ph.D. did not fulfill the requirements for reporting. At the initial reporting date of January 1, 2003 Steve Boyce, Ph.D. was assuming the role of the PI/Sponsor. During the initial time period of the first report for this audit group of subjects for the CSS study (beginning 2003) the annual report should have been submitted every six months, thus there should have been a report for: January 1, 2003 June 30, 2003 July 1, 2003 December 31, 2003 January 1, 2004 June 30, 2004 July 1, 2004 December 31, 2004 January 1, 2005 June 30, 2005 July 1, 2005 December 31, 2005 January 1, 2006 June 30, 2006 July 1, 2006 December 31, 2006 January 1, 2007 June 30, 2007 July 1, 2007 December 31, 2007 January 1, 2008 June 30, 2008 July 1, 2008 - December 31, 2008 Total of 12 Annual Reports Due to FDA
CFR 812.150(a)(3): Investigator reports. An investigator shall prepare and submit the following complete, accurate and timely reports (3) Progress. An investigator shall submit progress reports on the investigation to the sponsor, the monitor, and the reviewing IRB at regular intervals, but in no event less often then yearly. CFR 812.150(b)(5): Sponsor Reports. A sponsor shall prepare and submit the following complete, accurate, and timely reports: (5) Progress reports. At regular intervals, and at least yearly, a sponsor shall A sponsor of a treatment IDE shall submit semi-annual progress reports to all reviewing IRBs and FDA in accordance with 812.36(f) and annual report in accordance with this section. 137
CFR 812.36(0): Reporting Requirements: The sponsor of an IDE shall submit progress reports on a semi-annual basis to all reviewing IRBs and FDA until the filing of a marketing application Annual Reports were submitted by S. Boyce, Ph.D., for the periods: January 1, 2003 June 30, 2004 Period of 18 months July 1, 2004 December 2005 Period of 18 months January 1, 2006 December 31, 2006 Period of 12 months January 1, 2007 December 31, 2007 Period of 12 months January 1, 2008 December 31, 2008 Period of 12 months Total of 5 Annual reports submitted to FDA Other information of note in the Annual report for January 1, 2003 June 30, 2004 Section 11.2 Number of investigators (16)/ investigational sites (3): Steve Boyce PhD writes that he is adding three (3) physical therapists who will be collecting post-grafting data of skin pliability and range of motion as investigators to the CSS protocol. It is unclear why this occurred, when the pliability record was on the Qualitative Outcome (QO) Case Report Form (CRF) and there was nothing in the CRFs for the range of motion record. The research nurses at the sites were recording the information for the QO forms.
1. The subjects that were enrolled (Subjects 74, 86 and 87) were enrolled per Steve Boyce as compassionate use subjects. However in Table 3: Specification of subject enrollment and treatment by medical condition; it appears that Dr. Boyce included them in the total number of acute burn subjects. As Dr. Boyce does not list the subject numbers that are included in the total number of burn subjects it is not possible to assess this accurately. However the University of Texas IRB specifically stated in their approval letters that compassionate use subjects data may not be used in the research study. 2. It is also noted that while Dr. Boyce asked for and received permission to enroll subject with burn scars and giant nevus; there were no changes to case report forms to reflect capture of data for these subject. Many of the queries that were on the case report forms cannot be answered in response to scar or giant nevus skin grafts. Instead of modifying the case report forms to accurately collect data, the same forms as acute burns were used, and the research nurse simply did not complete the forms. 3. Section 11.4.2.1 Qualitative outcome by assessment with a composite Vancouver Scar Scale. As previously discussed this form is filled out by different personnel, sometimes the research nurse on the study, and sometimes Dr. Boyce filled them out. This raises a question of bias by the study personnel. 4. The engraftment graft data cannot be evaluated at this time, as this audit group did not audit the first 81 subjects. 5. The preclinical information cannot be assessed by this audit team. The preclinical and laboratory issues are not in the scope of this audit. 6. Adverse Events for these subjects cannot be verified as the majority of the subjects fall into the previous subset of subject that the MRF did not audit. 138
According to the audit records there were 108 adverse events noted in 2003 and 1,268 noted for 2004. The annual report lists four subjects with an adverse event from January 2003 June 2004. The auditors could not split the numbers to match the annual report, as the annual report included seventeen months of data.
Information of note in the Annual report for July 1, 2004 December 31, 2005 1) Galveston subjects treated under compassionate use. Subjects #90 and 94 were Informed Consent (ICF) only, no treatment occurred. 2) Subject #104: Subjects family signed an English ICF, and yet they were from Mexico. There is no documentation that English was understood by the family. This same subject was on three additional research studies and the family signed these ICFs that were in Spanish. There was no UC approval on file; there was a letter to FDA requesting approval, however no letter of approval from FDA granting approval for this subject was located. Information for set 1, POD 28 was completed by Melissa Reed, research nurse in Cincinnati when the subject was in Galveston, again no reason noted why this was done. There is a deviation report dated 02/28/2007 by Dr. Boyce that states no microbiology log for set 1, and no logs for biopsy, micro, cultures, re- grafting for set 2. These all have typed logs now in the files. When and where they were done, cannot be determined as they are typed (all previous forms from Galveston had been hand written) and there is no date or signature on any of them. 3) Subject #96: No records located regarding approval from UC, UC IRB, or FDA. The ICF that was signed by the subject's mother did not have a signature rather a printed version of her name is placed where the signature should be. There is no note to file to explain why the subjects mother printed rather than signed her same. The ICF is from the University of Cincinnati's IRB and this subject was deemed by the UTMB IRB as an emergency use subject. The sponsor and FDA refer to this as a compassionate use case for this subject. The study at this current time period was not approved at the Galveston site. 4) Subject # 105: Galveston Shriners requested compassionate use for this subject. Records show Galveston request to Dr. Boyce at Shriners in Cincinnati. There is no official approval from Dr. Boyce as the PI/or sponsor. There is a request from Dr. Boyce to the FDA for approval. However, no further documentation is found with the CRF information. There is an email filed with the CRF dated Nov 18 2005. It is from Melissa Reed to Carol Fabby and Alandra Mangold (at UC). The email states awareness of modification to the CSS irrigation solution by the Galveston Site. This modification was noted for Subject 105- For Set 1 and Set 2 POD 2-7. The solution was noted to have been modified, per the request of a Galveston attending, and contained Neomycin GU in normal saline base, which is noted as not containing all the proper antibiotics for microbial coverage. The correspondence also notes that the Galveston staff has been educated and informed that modifications to the CSS and the protocol cannot be made without permission thru the IRB and FDA. There are numerous deviations to protocol which are shown in detail in the individual subject record. Auditors noted that the information in the CRF is typed in, and there is no reference to the person or date for which many of the documents were completed. 5) Section II4.2.1: Qualitative outcome by assessment with a composite Vancouver Scar Scale and CSS growth. Dr. Boyce adds data in that he states he collected on eight subjects between 2-7 years after the grafting which demonstrates that the auto-CSS grows with pediatric patients and suggest that there may be fewer needs for scar reconstruction. As Dr. Boyce states this is not an endpoint in this study so the information should not be included in this data. There was no information in the subset of subjects audited by MRF that showed any data in this 2 7 year after initial CSS graft placement. Also unknown is how Dr. Boyce selected these particular subjects to 139
follow. Auditors could find information to substantiate, however this type of information would either call for an amendment to the study or a new study to determine the relevance of this information. 6) Auditors were unable to assess the engraftment, donor skin information in section II4.2.2 due to the inclusion of the first study subjects that MRF did not review. 7) Adverse Events are assessed separately in the audit report. As a note for July 1 2004 December 31, 2005, 1,268 adverse events were entered into the MRF auditing data base, and the annual report which includes portions of this time frame lists subjects with three adverse events only. 8) Section IV. Other Changes: There is a change requested for the expanded assessment of burn scars. Three requests were made to the site for the complete annual reports. The three copies of the annual report that MRF received did not have this form. However, during the audit, this form was not seen. None of the appendix list of information was attached to the annual report thus MRF was not able to review this information. Information of note in the Annual report for January 1, 2006 December 31, 2006 II.l Summary of Study: In February 2006, the technology rights for this device were acquired by a commercial developer who will assume responsibility for filing of applications for marketing permissions. What does not appear in the annual report, or any subsequent financial disclosure forms, is that Cutanogen Corp was founded in 1997 by Dr. Steven Boyce (per a published newspaper article Medical Advances Incubate in Corryville by Tim Bonfiled with the Cincinnati Enquirer (local newpaper) dated June 30, 1998. (Appendix G) The article below shows that in 2006 Cambrex BioScience Walkersville, Inc. purchased Cutanogen in the amount of $1.5 million fully paid at the closing with additional purchase price payments of up to $4.8 million subject to certain milestones. On 05/26/2006 Dr. Boyce completed the Conflict of Interest (COI) form for the UC IRB. Dr. Boyce states that there are two patent applications pending with UC/SHC. Dr. Boyce is the sole inventor on those patents. Dr. Boyce stated that the technology and licenses for patents were acquired by Cutanogen and sold to Cambrex on 2/28/06. Dr. Boyce currently serves as a paid consultant for Cambrex to assist with product development. Also, that the sale of Cutanogen to Cambrex provides for additional payments to Dr. Boyce upon accomplishment of specific milestones in product development. No actual dollar amount was disclosed. On 06/11/2006 Dr. Richard Kagan completed a COI disclosing that he now owns equity or other ownership in the company or other legal entity who drug, procedure, technique, device or software I am testing. (Does not state the name of the company) May 11, 2007 COI for Steve Boyce PhD still indicates a yes for equity, yes for holds patent rights, yes for consultant, yes for royalty income. Still no dollar amount noted. On June 20, 2007 the UC IRB minutes from meeting state that Dr. Boyce is no longer involved in the enrollment or consenting processes of this protocol because of his significant conflict of interest. On May 9, 2008 Dr. Boyce again completed the COI form (Appendix F) with a yes indicated for equity ownership, patent rights, consultant, and royalty income. The bottom of the UC COI states in bold capital 140
letters IF ANY BOX ABOVE IS CHECK YES, INCLUDE ON A SEPARATE SHEET AN EXPLANATION OF THE CONFLICT (INCLUDING THE AMOUNT OF MONEY) FOR THE IRBS CONSIDERATION. INFORMATION PROVIDED IS CONSIDERED CONFIDENTIAL. Attached to the COI form is Dr. Boyces explanation which states that he founded Cutanogen and in 2006 sold all of the stock (including stock owned by Dr. Boyce). The sale is scheduled to be paid in six installments, one of which is completed and five are pending accomplishment of milestones. That consultant agreement was from March 2006 February 2007, however the consulting agreement has expired. There is additional information provided that on February 5, 2007 Cutanogen and CBSW (Cambrex) was sold to Lonza Corporation, a Swiss BioPharma company. CBSW is now named Lonza Walkersville, Inc. The performance milestones of Cutanogen remain pending completion. There was never a disclosure of any amount which Dr. Boyce may have received even though the IRB requested it. The IRB board stated that there is a perception of conflict. The IRB offered three options: 1) assign another person as PI for the study; 2) disclose in the consent form the detailed information of how the investigator is involved with the company ; or 3) attend the next IRB meeting and discuss why there is no conflict. Dr. Boyce changed the PI of the study to Dr. Richard Kagan and in June of 2008 revised the ICF to state: Dr. Steven Boyce, a sub-investigator on this study, has received payments from the company that owns the rights to the process used in this study. This disclosure is made so that you can decide if this relationship will affect your willingness to participate in this study. The below article was identified that may clarify the relationship. It is not known if the payments were made solely to Dr. Boyce. However since this was a published article found on the web with little effort, it is unclear why Dr. Boyce was so resistant to disclosing a dollar amount to the IRB.
Cambrex Acquires Cutanogen Corpoation 07 Feb 2006 - Cambrex Bio Science Walkersville, Inc., a subsidiary of Cambrex Corporation, announced it has entered into a purchase agreement for all of the stock of Cutanogen Corporation, a privately-held biotechnology company that is focused on products used to treat patients with severe burns. The Company believes that the lead Cutanogen product PermaDerm(TM) cultured skin is the first multi-layered product that combines autologous epidermal and dermal layers of the skin in a product for severe burns that is pliable and grows with the patient. The purchase is expected to close within thirty days, subject to the completion of customary closing conditions. 1) The purchase price consists of $1.5 million to be fully paid at closing with additional purchase price payments of up to $4.8 million subject to the achievement of certain regulatory and commercial milestones. The Company expects to expense all purchase price payments prior to regulatory approval of the product as in-process R&D. The transaction is projected to be dilutive by approximately $0.15 per share in 2006 primarily due to the purchase price payments and accretive in 2007 and thereafter. Per Code of Federal regulations section 812.43 (5): Sufficient accurate financial disclosure information to allow the sponsor to submit a complete and accurate certification or disclosure statement as required under part 54 of this chapter. The sponsor shall obtain a commitment from the clinical investigator to promptly update this information if any relevant changes occur during the course of the investigation and for 1 year following completion of the study. This information shall not be submitted in an investigational device exemption application, but shall be submitted in any marketing application involving the device. . Dr. Boyce failed to comply fully with the disclosure requirements. II.2 Number of Investigators/Investigational sites: Annual report states that after the FDA inspection of March 7, 2006 and the Form FDA 483, issued of June 2006, it became clear that the degree of monitoring required for the sites outside of Cincinnati was beyond the resources available to the project. 141
Consequently, the sites of Galveston, Boston, and Sacramento have been closed. The two sites in Cincinnati remain open under compassionate use permission. Per a discussion with Joann Lindwall, Sr. Regulatory Analyst, FDA Specialist of the Office of Research Compliance at the University of Cincinnati, the monitoring of this study was not going to be done until the completion of the independent audit. Upon the receipt of the Form FDA 483 the University of Cincinnati clearly understood that the University was now the sponsor and had the responsibility to monitor this study per CFR 812.46Monitoring investigations- (a)Securing compliance. A sponsor who discovers that an investigator is not complying with the signed agreement, the investigational plan, the requirements of this part or other applicable FDA regulations, or any conditions of approval imposed by the reviewing IRB or FDA shall promptly either secure compliance, or discontinue shipments of the device to the investigator and terminate the investigator's participation in the investigation. A sponsor shall also require such an investigator to dispose of or return the device, unless this action would jeopardize the rights, safety, or welfare of a subject. (b)Unanticipated adverse device effects. (1) A sponsor shall immediately conduct an evaluation of any unanticipated adverse device effect. (2) A sponsor who determines that an unanticipated adverse device effect presents an unreasonable risk to subjects shall terminate all investigations or parts of investigations presenting that risk as soon as possible. Termination shall occur not later than 5 working days after the sponsor makes this determination and not later than 15 working days after the sponsor first received notice of the effect. (c)Resumption of terminated studies. If the device is a significant risk device, a sponsor may not resume a terminated investigation without IRB and FDA approval. If the device is not a significant risk device, a sponsor may not resume a terminated investigation without IRB approval and, if the investigation was terminated under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, FDA approval. Monitoring of this study has not been done to date even though patients continue to be enrolled in this study under compassionate use. II.4.2. Adverse Events: Dr Boyce reported only ten UADEs. The FDA sent a warning letter on January 12, 2007 and noted that there had been previously identified failure to report and accurately document unanticipated and anticipated adverse device events to the sponsor and the reviewing IRB which violates 21 CFR 812.140(a)(3)(ii)- All relevant observations, including records concerning adverse device effects (whether anticipated or unanticipated), information and data on the condition of each subject upon entering, and during the course of, the investigation, including information about relevant previous medical history and the results of all diagnostic tests; CFR 812.150.(a)(1)- Unanticipated adverse device effects. An investigator shall submit to the sponsor and to the reviewing IRB a report of any unanticipated adverse device effect occurring during an investigation as soon as possible, but in no event later than 10 working days after the investigator first learns of the effect. The annual report for 2006 was not sent to FDA until February 12, 2007 which was a month after the warning letter had been issued to the site. Dr. Boyce continued to disregard the FDAs warning regarding the report of unanticipated and anticipated adverse device events. The auditors data base recorded 1,455 142
adverse events during the time frame of this annual report, of which as stated above, 10 were noted by Dr. Boyce. Section III: Risk Analysis: The annual report states that a safety monitoring process (appendix 2) has been developed and approved by the UC IRB. At the present time, all adverse events are recorded in the case report forms, UADEs are reported to the local IRB and deaths are also reported to FDA independently of an annual report. The Safety Monitoring Procedure that is attached in the appendix lists four (4) objectives (see a copy of this in (Appendix E) The first point is Review of Medical Records. This procedure listing states it is the responsibility of the PI, Sub-Investigators and the CRC to review the subjects medical record for adverse events throughout the subjects participation in the study, at time intervals that have been predefined in the protocol and will include any SAEs that occur within 30 days after the subject completes the protocol. The protocol states Adverse Event Summary to be done at POD 14, and 28. Based on federal regulations 812.50 (1) a report of any UADE occurring during an investigation should be reported as soon as possible, but in no event later than 10 working days after the investigator first learns of the effect. Thus, the procedure sheet attached in the annual report was set up to fail as it disregards the federal regulations. The procedure sheet also does not have a name as to who authored it or a date of when it was written on it. The second point on this safety monitoring procedure page again lists the PI, Sub-I, and CRC as the personnel responsible for the determination of severity. This form maintains that the adverse event will be assessed to determine if it meets the definition of a serious adverse event. The third point, again lists the PI, Sub-I, and CRC as personnel responsible for the determination if the event is expected or unexpected. The fourth point, lists the PI, Sub-I, and CRC as personnel responsible for the Internal Safety Monitoring. The process for this safety monitoring as stated is as part of the bi-monthly research department meetings all protocols will be reviewed. This process will incorporate a review of serious adverse events and will allow for the analysis of both the individual events and possible trends that are not readily discernable when events are considered individually. This process will be reflected in the meeting minutes. Auditors never located any minutes of the research departments monthly meetings. If indeed this was done, and the information was not given to the audit team, the case report forms and the audit adverse event section does not correlate with the information that the procedure list specified. Throughout 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 UADEs continued to not be reported per the audit team review of the CRFs. In addition, the procedure form states that the PI, Sub-I, and CRC were the personnel responsible for seeing the above reference four objectives to be met. It is the Principal Investigators sole responsibility for the conduct of the study and by listing a minimum of three people or more as potential responsible parties it yet again emphasizes the fact that Dr. Boyce ignored the federal regulations as they pertain to the sponsor and the investigator of an IDE study.
The 2 nd page of this appendix refers to Serious Adverse Event Reporting. The flow chart provided pertains to IND submissions and not IDE. While similar reporting requirements are adhered to, the verbiage on this page is reflective of IND reporting and given that this study is a device the language should be that of device reporting.
143
The Federal guidance document states the investigational device exemption (IDE) regulations define an unanticipated adverse device effect (UADE) as any serious adverse effect on health or safety or any life- threatening problem or death caused by, or associated with, a device, if that effect, problem, or death was not previously identified in nature, severity, or degree of incidence in the investigational plan or application (including a supplementary plan or application), or any other unanticipated serious problem associated with a device that relates to the rights, safety, or welfare of subjects (21 CFR 812.3(s)). UADEs must be reported by the clinical investigator to the sponsor and the reviewing IRB, as described below:
For device studies, investigators are required to submit a report of a UADE to the sponsor and the reviewing IRB as soon as possible, but in no event later than 10 working days after the investigator first learns of the event ( 812.150(a)(1)).
Sponsors must immediately conduct an evaluation of a UADE and must report the results of the evaluation to FDA, all reviewing IRBs, and participating investigators within 10 working days after the sponsor first receives notice of the effect ( 812.46(b), 812.150(b)(1)).
The IDE regulations, therefore, require sponsors to submit reports to IRBs in a manner consistent with the recommendations made above for the reporting of unanticipated problems under the IDE regulations. The receipt of a large volume of individual AE reports without analysis of their significance to a clinical trial rarely supports an IRBs efforts to ensure human subject protection. Sponsors can assess the implications and significance of AE reports promptly and are required to report serious, unexpected events associated with the use of a drug or device, including analyses of such events, to investigators and to FDA. In addition, sponsors are required to report analyses of unexpected adverse device experiences to IRBs. FDA encourages efforts by investigators and sponsors to ensure that IRBs receive meaningful AE information. The ultimate goal is to provide more meaningful information to IRBs, particularly when sponsor analysis (including an analysis of the significance of the adverse event, with a discussion of previous similar events where appropriate) is made available to IRBs. No analysis was seen in the review of the IRB documents, the regulatory documents of Dr. Boyce or in any other place during this audit. The event is most often attributable to the underlying disease. In this annual report there is an adverse event report of a non-healing donor site to the left flank that was granulating without evidence of epithelialization requiring an operating procedure for closure. The event occurred on June 5, 2006 and the UC site was made aware and it was reported was June 16, 2006. There is no explanation of why this event was not reported within the 10 day requirement. Information of note for Annual Report January 1, 2007 December 31, 2007 Based on the fact that the integrity hold was placed on this study on February 2, 2007, and Dr. Boyces statement that the sties cannot be monitored it was stated that the Galveston, Boston, and Sacramento sites will be closed formally as soon as possible. The list of investigators still shows the Boston and Galveston investigators as active when it would seem that these sites should have become inactive between February 2, 2007 (Integrity Hold letter) and the close of this annual report (December 31, 2007). There is a change in the risk analysis section regarding a revision of the 10% graft loss. It is unclear how the IDE PI can make a change in the safety reporting while the study is under integrity hold from FDA. Revising the definition of expected adverse events as they related to endpoints of the study should have 144
been approved by the FDA prior to being submitted to the IRB and this documentation is not identified in the study files. Adverse Event Reporting has improved with this annual report, however neither the site or the sponsor seems to understand the FDAs constant notifications (Warning letter of January 12, 2007 or the Integrity Hold letter of February 2, 2007) in addition to the warning letter issued to the Sacramento site in March of 2006, regarding the failure to report and accurately document unanticipated and anticipated adverse device events. The third party audit has identified 695 adverse events and the site/sponsor reported eight (8) for the year 2007. Information of note for the annual report dated January 1, 2008 December 31, 2008. The annual report for 2008 delineates the audit process, the changes in University staff, and FDA staff changes. There is an explanation of the suspension of operations of the Shriners Burn Hospital in Galveston due to the hurricane of September 13, 2008. The subjects enrolled in this time frame were all compassionate use subjects. The adverse events reported for 2008 were 36 UADE reports by Dr. Boyce, whereas the auditors recorded 760 events. While this number of events reported increased over last year, the reporting is still not as complete as the auditors identified additional events which should have been reported. This is the first annual report that lists deviations. The deviations listed either events that should have occurred per protocol, or CRF completion that was not done. The sponsor and the PI (original Dr. Boyce and later Dr. Kagan and site specific PIs) were not reviewing the CRFs to see that they were completed. Dr. Boyce even stated in writing that the CRFs were not reviewed until the end of the subjects treatment had occurred. This is not proper oversight of the clinical research study per the FDA regulations. This again references the warning letter to Sacramento and Cincinnati Shriners sites and UC Integrity Hold letter. Continues failure to ensure an investigation is conducted in accordance with the signed agreement with the sponsor, the investigation plan, applicable FDA regulation and any conditions of approval imposed by the FDA or the IRB (21 CFR 812..100, 812.110(b). The monitoring plan was labeled with the date January 2009 and was to begin with subject 129. In reviewing Subject 129, and later enrolled subjects, it does not appear that monitoring actually had been implemented. It was the understanding of the audit team that Angela Braggs Brown was hired in the summer of 2009 by the compliance office (JoAnne Lindwall). The MRF auditors did not know if she was hired to monitor subjects 129 and above or audit the first 81 subjects of the CSS trial. She was observed sitting in the same office with Peggy Simpson, RN, research nurse for CSS study for several weeks. During this time period, MRF was approached by the Compliance office of the University and asked about the use of the database for the first eighty subjects enrolled on this study. It was the Foundations understanding that Mrs. Braggs-Brown was to monitor initially, then auditors were under the impression that maybe Mrs. Braggs-Brown was brought into audit. Given the fact that Mrs. Braggs-Brown was a personal friend of Peggy Simpson, it did not appear, to the MRF auditors, that either way could be a truly unbiased monitoring or auditing situation Section II.4.4 Reprints of articles published by the investigator in relation to the study. The presentation Dr. Boyce delivered as an oral presentation at the Army Science Conference on December 8, 2008 appears to be in conflict with CFR 812.7 (d)- Represent that an investigational device is safe or effective for the purposes for which it is being investigated. 145
Dr. Boyce made the statement based on the presentation of two burn subjects enrolled as compassionate use subjects in 2007 that These results demonstrate that ESS (engineered skin substitute) reduce requirements for donor skin harvesting for grafting of excised, full-thickness burns involving most of the TBSA. In section ll.1 Summary of Study of this same annual report it states The objective of the quantitative data is to determine whether treatment of full-thickness burns with cultured skin substitutes reduces the requirements for harvesting of split-thickness skin autograft. It is uncertain why a definitive statement was made when this cultured/engineered skin is still being studied and specifically why this presentation was made while the study was on an Integrity Hold. The initial statement referred to at the beginning of this paragraph is repeated in the Conclusions section of the presentation. Dr. Boyce also presented this report as a poster presentation at the Advanced Technology Applications for Combat Casualty Care conference on August 12, 2008 and as an oral and poster presentation at the Armed Forces Institute for Regenerative Medicine All Hands meeting on January 14, 2009. Dr. Jane Strasser of the UC Compliance Department sent a formal notification advising Dr. Boyce to suspend any presentations, publications, and/or media relations regarding the IDE project until FDA removes the Integrity Hold. During this time period, (December 29, 2008) a media publication of UC Health News announced CINCINNATIUniversity of Cincinnati (UC) researchers have received $1.3 million to further develop and commercialize engineered skin substitutes for burn injury repairs as part of the newly formed Armed Forces Institute of Regenerative Medicine (AFIRM). There is no documentation associated with these presentations to request a waiver from FDA for the presentation of this data. Section III. Risk Analysis states that safety monitoring process dated February 2007and the Clinical Trial Monitoring Plan (20090 was implemented and is in use. The MRF has seen nothing that assures these two plans are actually functioning. As stated earlier there was 36 adverse events identified by Dr. Boyce to the IRB and FDA, and the auditors noted 760 adverse events per the guidelines established by UC and the FDA prior to this audit undertaking. No monitoring reports were ever seen in either Dr. Boyces sponsor files, and/or any of the site regulatory files. Section V: Future Plans: Dr. Boyce states that the future plans have changed due to the complexity and indefinite timeline of the Integrity Hold. He states that at present, the procedures of cGMP manufacturing of this device are being established with a commercial developer, Lonza Walkersville, Inc., and plans for alternative pathways for clinical use of the technology are under review. This last statement may suggest that new studies will be designed for the cultured skin substitute, perhaps under the engineered skin substitute; however the fact remains that much of the data for the IDE under audit cannot be verified.
146
47. Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) Review Prior to the employment of Jane Strasser, Ph.D., with the Compliance Department, Dr. Melissa Colbert had called the Morley Research Foundation to request standard operating procedures. After discussions between Melissa Colbert and Jane Green, the University of Cincinnati purchased the Morley Foundations Standard Operating Procedures for Research Sites. UC customized these procedures and put them online for use throughout the University. Upon arrival of the audit team, JoAnne Lindwall realized that UC needed device sponsor SOPs and Institutional Review Board SOPs. The Foundation supplied UC with the SOP templates for Device Sponsors and IRBs which were then customized for UC use. Prior to this year the SOPs in place for the IRB were minimal and nothing was in place for device sponsors. The Cincinnati Shriners Hospital provided MRF auditors with a copy of Shriners SOPs as they pertain to research. The copies supplied to MRF had an adopted date of l/5/2006 however none were signed as approved by anyone. There were some Shriners Review of documents noted but it was not consistently reviewed by Shriners each year in regard to the informed consent process as outlined in Shriners SOPs. According to the Shriners SOPs the informed consent form was to receive approval by the Corporate Office of the Director of Research Programs and then was to be followed by the IRB approval of that informed consent form. Per Shriners SOPs Revising an Informed Consent Form standard operating procedures state that revisions are necessary when the protocol is modified, new risk to subjects are identified The Cincinnati Shriners research staff did not follow their own SOPs as none of the CSS subjects were ever re-consented. The SOP that pertains to Responsibilities of the Research Team number 13 relate to the disclosure to the IRB, SHC, sponsor, and/or subjects of all potential Conflicts of Interest of Research Team members (financial, etc.). This is addressed in detail in the report on Annual Reports. The SOP regarding Maintaining Regulatory Files specifically identifies information to be retained in the regulatory files and as the results of the regulatory audit show this was not done as stipulated by the SOP. There were clearly Shriners SOPs that were not being followed by the site. Sacramento Standard Operating Procedures: The MRF was supplied with the Table of Contents for the SOPs for Clinical Research and the only actual SOP that was given to the auditors was the Informed Consent Process SOP. The auditors looked up on the internet the website www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/clincialtrials/documents.html. The SOPs are listed on the web for anyone to see. Boston Standard Operating Procedures: The only SOP that was reviewed for the Boston Shriners Hospital was the biohazard waste SOP. The Boston site enrolled one subject on the study in a compassionate use setting, and only used the CSS for spot grafting on the subject. When interviewing at each site, no one mentioned following their own or anyones Standard Operating Procedures.
147
48. Systems Audit Conundrums
1) There is no clear process in place for deviation, anticipated adverse event, UADE from the site, to the sponsor, to the IRB, to FDA. From an audit perspective an event that occurred cannot be traced from the event through the process and acknowledgments back down to the site. 2) The site training was minimal and in the interviews with the investigators and nurses many comments were derogatory regarding paperwork. The investigators appeared to feel that placing the grafts on the patients, and the patient care was all that was really important. The investigators gave the impression to the audit team that the paperwork was a hindrance and was inconsequential. The big picture of results for the patients was what was important. 3) A couple of the research nurses, when interviewed, had been uncomfortable with the lack of training and information passed on to them. They acknowledged that the protocol was poorly written as were the case report forms, and stated that Dr. Boyce told them not to worry about it. 4) The IRB files were minimal. There were only three volumes of records found for a study that has been ongoing for 12 years. In the early review of IRB files, lapses in continuing review were noted.
49. The Morley Research Foundation Interview Report for Physicians and Nurses Involved in the CSS - Clinical Trial. Kendal Clinical Quality Assurance performed a systems audit January 14-16, 2008 which was already presented to FDA and UC. The MRF performed its own systems audit related specifically to the study completion during the time period of January 5, 2009 through November 5, 2009. During the approximately 11 months that the MRF was on site at the Cincinnati Shriners Hospital and conducting interviews with key personnel involved in the CSS IDE study it was easy to identify the difficulties that plagued this particular CSS clinical trial. Placement of cultured skin substitute on the study subject. Drs. Kagan, Warner, Bailey and Yakuboff of Shriners in Cincinnati stated that the best possible recipient site is selected for the CSS graft placement. The decision is made between the Surgeon, Dr. Boyce and sometimes the research nurse Peggy Simpson. Not one of the physicians mentioned the randomization process that is required per protocol. This may explain that while most subjects were randomized, the placement of the CSS did not always match the randomization schedule and that different sets (not always the first or each set) was the randomized set that was utilized on the subject. Training of Surgeons regarding CSS placement: Dr. Kagan the Principal Investigator stated in the interview that the training to applying the CSS would be similar to the training for Integra. He noted that he had to attend a 1 day seminar to learn how to use Integra. He acknowledged that training would be necessary regarding the wound bed preparation and the appropriate soaking of the wound bed prior to the placement of CSS. He also stated that while the basics of burn care would already be established, all physicians would have their own learning curve. There was no documented actual formal training for this study. All participating physicians and nurses said they learned on the job and that Dr. Boyce came to each site for the first application of CSS and was in the OR during the process. 148
The majority of the nurses and a couple of the physicians actually stated that they had read the entire protocol and felt they had a good understanding of what was involved. It remains vague why if the CSS was placed, and Dr. Boyce felt he needed to be in the OR every time this occurred throughout the study. While many of the nurses were experienced burn nurses, most of the research nurses learned their part in the CSS study through on the job training. Some have since become certified clinical research coordinators through either SoCRA (Society of Clinical Research Associates) or ACRP (Association of Clinical Research Professionals). It is significant, at this time to note that not one research nurse ever stated that they re-consented a subject. It is apparent to auditors that neither the sponsor nor the investigators complied with the following Code of Federal Regulations:
CFR 812.40- Sponsors are responsible for selecting qualified investigators and providing them with the information they need to conduct the investigation properly, ensuring proper monitoring of the investigation, ensuring that IRB review and approval are obtained, submitting an IDE application to FDA, and ensuring that any reviewing IRB and FDA are promptly informed of significant new information about an investigation. Additional responsibilities of sponsors are described in subparts B and G. CFR 812.43 (4) (i)- Conduct the investigation in accordance with the agreement, the investigational plan, this part and other applicable FDA regulations, and conditions of approval imposed by the reviewing IRB or FDA; CFR 812.43(4) (iii) - Ensure that the requirements for obtaining informed consent are met a CFR 812.100 -An investigator also is responsible for ensuring that informed consent is obtained in accordance with part 50 of this chapter. Additional responsibilities of investigators are described in subpart G. CFR 50.25(b) Additional elements of informed consent. When appropriate, one or more of the following elements of information shall also be provided to each subject: (1) A statement that the particular treatment or procedure may involve risks to the subject (or to the embryo or fetus, if the subject is or may become pregnant) which are currently unforeseeable. (2) Anticipated circumstances under which the subject's participation may be terminated by the investigator without regard to the subject's consent. (3) Any additional costs to the subject that may result from participation in the research. (4) The consequences of a subject's decision to withdraw from the research and procedures for orderly termination of participation by the subject. 149
(5) A statement that significant new findings developed during the course of the research which may relate to the subject's willingness to continue participation will be provided to the subject. (6) The approximate number of subjects involved in the study. Randomization Process: It is worth mentioning that while each subject was randomized, based on remarks made by nurses and physicians during the interviews, the decision was made on where to place the CSS and AG comparative sites was based on the immediate need of the subject at time of placement. While this is understandable due to the nature of the burn victim, the purpose of a research study is to stay as close as possible to the study design for accurate study reporting of data. Based on the data, 34 of the subjects audited by MRF were randomized correctly and 10 subjects were not randomized correctly in that the subject did not have a comparative site skin graft. Case Report Forms Utilized as Source Documentation: During the interview with Peggy Simpson, the clinical research nurse, she stated that the Qualitative Outcome, Global Assessment, tracings, photography log, biopsy log, surgery diagram and the screening form are all CRF pages that are used as source documentation. She also stated she performs the global assessments and qualitative outcomes herself, and the PI signs off. Mrs. Simpson further stated that she uses the nursing notes rather than the physician notes to complete the Physical Exam CRFs as she feels the nursing notes are better than the physician notes. Mrs. Simpson also stated that Dr. Boyce will fill in when she is not there. The auditors did note that same CRFs were completed and signed off by Dr. Boyce.
SIGNIFICANT REMARKS FROM INTERVIEWS: 1. Peggy Simpson, Research Nurse The objectives (of the study) have been met and there is nothing out there to save these patients and that this (CSS) is going to change peoples lives. This (CSS) should be available to everybody and that she feels very strongly about this device. It (CSS) is more pliable, requires less reconstructive surgery and the patients dont itch as much. She knows there are big issues with the study, but this (CSS) is the best thing out there for burn patients. She wants to get it out there regardless of what it takes.
2. Steve Boyce, Ph.D. Dr. Boyce noted that the analyzed data is reported to FDA. He (Boyce) has the Biostats person to run the data but he (Boyce) provided the data to the statistician. He (Boyce) did note that he completes all of the tracing data and the statistician reviewed and compiled all data and determined data constraints. Additionally, when interviewing Dr. Boyce, Dr. Green asked him a question regarding the reporting of UADEs. Dr. Boyce replied by asking what is a UADE? An explanation was provided to him. Dr. Boyce did not demonstrate knowledge of primary function of being the sponsor PI, on this study, as shown by a lack of knowledge of important research terminology.
3. Richard Kagan, M.D. Dr. Kagan indicated that we know it works, it is taking too long to get approved; if it was commercialized it (CSS) would revolutionize burn care; there is military interest in this study, as that this could significantly save soldiers lives; it would shorten hospital stay and decrease infection control. 150
4. Kevin Bailey, M.D. Dr. Bailey said that this study was draped in a morose of government red tape and it is a travesty and heartbreaking on what has been opposed on this. He noted that this goes beyond sanity and common sense. This device (CSS) was a major plus for burned children.
5. Kevin Yakuboff, M.D. Dr. Yakuboff stated I wish it could be made faster. He feels that production will be better when it is massed produces. He does not see any negative and that this is saving lives. He also stated that absolutely the objectives of the study were being met.
6. Johanna Sanders, Research Nurse in Sacramento, California: Ms. Sanders said that this is a positive product and a terribly put together protocol. She noted that changes had to be made to the protocol for functionality and safety. She noted that the data sheets (CRFs) were poor and had to be changed to be functional at their site. Also that because the study was not monitored, that she was never sure if she was doing things correctly.
7. David Greenhalgh, M.D. in Sacramento, CA Dr. Greenhalgh stated that he felt the objectives to the protocol were met and that the skin worked marvelously. However, he felt that the IDE was not well understood.
8. Robert Sheridan, M.D. PI in Boston Dr. Sheridan felt like the grafts did not take well, but that he could not base any opinions off of only one patient. Of Special Note: During the interview process, it was observed by MRF consultants that after interviews, Angela Braggs- Brown would return to Peggy Simpsons office and stay for a lengthy time period (30 minutes) each time. During the interview with Peggy a specific question was asked: Did you and Angela discuss the interview with Dr. Boyce yesterday afternoon? Peggy appeared shocked and stated Yes. At the conclusion of the interview, Mrs. Braggs-Brown spoke up and stated that Dr. Boyce initiated the conversation with Mrs. Simpson regarding audit interview questions, and that she (Angela Braggs- Brown) was not discussing specific audit questions with Mrs. Simpson. It is also of special note that during the interview with Dr. Petra Warner, Angela Braggs-Brown was found to have a recorder which was being carried in under a notebook. Dr. Jane Green identified the recorder upon standing at the conclusion of the interview with Dr. Warner and asked Mrs. Braggs-Brown if she had taped the interview. Mrs. Braggs-Brown responded that the UC Legal Department had asked her to tape the interview. Dr. Green immediately contacted Jane Strasser Ph.D., of the compliance department, and stated that Mrs. Braggs-Brown had not informed anyone connected with the Morley Foundation that she was taped and that it was completely inappropriate to tape someone without their knowledge. Dr. Strasser contacted Charles Jake (UC Legal Department) and upon conversations between Mr. Jake and Dr. Green it was agreed that the audit team should have been informed that the session was being taped and that the tape would be destroyed. One additional observation that the MRF believes the FDA needs to be aware of is that during the time that Angela Braggs-Brown was either monitoring or auditing she sat next to Peggy in Peggys office. She was also observed in Peggys office when not monitoring/auditing, just talking with Peggy and both Peggy and Angela were observed more than twice going into Steve Boyces office shortly after the conclusion of interviews with Cincinnati Shriners staff. The MRF is not drawing any conclusions from 151
this, however from an auditors position this behavior gives the appearance of potential bias and/or hints at potential questionable behavior from someone who is employed as part of the compliance office of the University of Cincinnati.
50. Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) Report A Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) was never implemented during the course of this study. The Sponsor did not make adequate provision for data or safety monitoring during the course of this study as required per 45 CRF 46.111(a) (6): When appropriate, the research plan makes adequate provision for monitoring the data collected to ensure the safety of subjects. The purpose of the DSMB is to identify issues such as: unacceptably slow rates of accrual, high rates of ineligibility determined after randomization, and protocol violations that suggest clarification or changes to the protocol are needed. Additionally a DSMB ensures the credibility of a study, validity of study results, and most importantly, protects the safety of trial participants. In the case of this study, a DSMB review was only completed due to an integrity hold being placed on the study after the majority of all study data had been collected. Per the Integrity Hold Letter, issued to the University of Cincinnati on February 2, 2007, the FDA asked University of Cincinnati to provide a patient listing of every patient complication, and categorize the complications as major or minor. This was to be completed after all patient records had been audited. Per the audit plan, MRF was only responsible for auditing subjects 82-139 and University of Cincinnati would be responsible for auditing the first 81 subjects. To date, there is no evidence that the first 81 patients were ever audited. Additionally, the FDA asked that this patient complication listing be facilitated by convening a Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB). The board was asked to generate predetermined criteria for categorizing events as major or minor. The University of Cincinnati convened a meeting of a DSMB on March 18, 2010. A report from the meeting was provided to MRF on March 24, 2010. The DSMB report (below) was provided to MRF after the completion of the third party audit. Therefore, MRF did not have all specific reporting criteria by which to report audit findings as noted in the DSMB table. From the report provided to MRF, it was observed that the overall DSMB meeting solely identified and classified medical events as major or minor. It is unclear which subjects were reviewed during this meeting as no mention was made of the population reviewed. Furthermore, the first 81 subjects did not undergo an audit, as requested in the integrity hold letter, so it is unknown if any subjects from the unaudited population were reviewed at the DSMB meeting, as required per the integrity hold. As customary for a DSMB, there is no evidence that a complete review of the protocol was conducted in order to identify and define potential issues/current issues with the study design and investigational plan. This would likely be important at this time point as subjects are still receiving this device, under compassionate use. Additionally, no report was provided to summarize adverse events, safety profile, side effects and tolerability. The DSMB should also review and report on the impact of any newly published findings on the safety profile of the study. It is unclear if the DSMB will continue to meet and review the data, for this study, as part of ongoing safety review.
152
DSMB Report Provided to MRF on March 24, 2010: The board members noted present were: David Arenholz, M.D. FACS: a burns specialist and associate professor of surgery at Minnesota University Medical School Edward Liechty, M.D.: a professor of pediatrics and research subject advocate at Indiana University Charles Lucas, M.D.: FACS: a general surgeon and professor of surgery at Wayne State University Gary Purdue, M.D.: a burns specialist and professor of surgery at UT Southwestern Kurt Viele, Ph.D.: an associate professor of statistics at the University of Kentucky
The DSMB members will use medical and scientific expertise to categorize potential patient complications for the given study population as major (i.e., serious to life threatening severity) and/or minor (i.e., mild to moderate severity). In doing so, consideration should include patient impact and interests. The DSMB must agree to the attributes of the grading scale by including defining parameters (e.g., a laboratory range; context descriptions such as symptomatic therapy required, emergency treatment required, death, etc.) and document conclusions accordingly. Uncategorized items (i.e., those left blank) will require explanation. Additional items will be added to the form and applicable information provided. The following tables are provided as a possible template to assist the DSMB with this task. The DSMB should not assume that these tables are complete and is not obligated to use this template. Key issue - major complications are going to be present in a vast majority (all?) of the patients and in and of themselves do not indicates a catastrophic value. Going forward, the main question is relative incidence of these events between treatment groups. All deviations from normal range in quantities on the first four pages (through blood gases) were classified as minor. In some cases, major changes may occur in these measures but they will be caused by major events in later categories? HEMATOLOGY & COAGULATION Minor Major Comments White Blood Count X Red Blood Count X Hemoglobin X Hematocrit X 153
Mean Corpuscular Volume X Mean Corpuscular Hemoglobin X Mean Corpuscular Hemoglobin Concentration X Platelet Count X Lymphocyte Count X Neutrophil Count X Lymphocyte Count X Monocyte Count X Eosinophil Count X Basophil Count X Band Cells X
HEMATOLOGY & COAGULATION (Cont) Minor Major Comments Prothrombin Time X Partial Thromboplastin Time X Activated Partial Thromboplastin X Abnormal Fibrinogen X International Normalized Ratio X 154
Drug Levels X
CHEMISTRY Minor Major Comments Electrolyte Imbalance X Blood Urea Nitrogen X Creatinine X Glucose X Calcium X Phosphorus X Magnesium X Total Protein X Albumin X Alkaline Phosphatase X AST (SGOT) X
CHEMISTRY (Cont) Minor Major Comments ALT (SGPT) X C-Reactive Protein X Total Bilirubin X 155
Immunoglobulin G X Prealbumin X Retinol Binding Protein X Transferrin X Thyroid Stimulating Hormone X Thyroxine (T4) X Triiodothyronine (T3) X Alpha Acid Glycoprotein X Alpha Antitrypsin X Alpha Macroglobulin X Complement C3 X Ceruloplasmin X URINALYSIS Minor Major Comments PH X Specific Gravity X Blood X Protein X Bilirubin X Ketones X Urobilinogen X 156
Nitrite X Leucocyte Esterase X Other Other
BLOOD GASES Minor Major Comments pH X pCO2 X pO2 X Oxygen Saturation X Ionized Calcium X Other Other
CARDIOVASCULAR Minor Major Comments Cardiac Rhythm specifically vtach/vfib or bradycardia to 40 bpm A variety of arrhythmias are common in these patients Blood Pressure Blood Loss See transfusion Transfusion defined as transfusion >40% in excess of age and burn size matched controls
GASTROINTESTINAL & RENAL Minor Major Comments Nausea X Vomiting X Diarrhea X Constipation X Ileus X Pancreatitis present 158
Renal Failure defined as requiring dialysis
Urinary Tract Infection uncomplicated UTI urosepsis Urinary Retention GI bleeding upper GI bleed requiring transfusion
NEUROLOGICAL Minor Major Comments Mental Status Changes X Sedation X Infection meningitis
Inflammation X Nerve palsey any nerve palsey
MUSCULOSKELETAL & SKIN Minor Major Comments Pruritis X Graft Loss graft loss requiring regrafting of the treated site
Amputation present 159
Graft Contracture X Fracture if incurred in hospital Rash X Edema X Dermatitis Fungal X Other Other
SYSTEMIC & OTHER COMPLICATIONS Minor Major Comments Pain X Microbial Colonization X Wound Infection X X only with sepsis syndrome
Sepsis/Septicemia present Line Infection X in absence of sepsis syndrome X if septicemic Compartment Syndrome present after application of the investigation product
Hypothermia X Hyperthermia X Cellulitis X Surgical Intervention X
160
SYSTEMIC & OTHER COMPLICATIONS (Cont) Minor Major Comments Multiple Organ Failure X Death X Acquired autoimmune disorder X Other
Number of infections is valuable information. In addition to the above DSMB reporting table, UC provided relevant sections of their DSMB meeting as clarification (below): The absolute consensus of the Board is that all deaths and episodes of diagnosed sepsis or septicemia are severe complications. It also clear that the vast majority of sepsis episodes are accompanied by a host of other signs and symptoms. For example, septic patients may have any combination of fever, tachycardia, leucocytosis, heart rhythm abnormalities, oliguria, hypotension, electrolyte disturbances and a host of other abnormal findings. It is the consensus of the Board that an isolated change in one of these parameters, in the absence of a diagnosis of sepsis, will be considered a minor complication. The items evaluated are attached to this report.
All patients with life threatening burns will experience multiple infections, most commonly of the lungs (pneumonia), bladder, venous cannulas (line infection) and the burned wound. It is impressive to the Board members how frequently bladder infections and line infections respond to antibiotics, usually in association with removal and/or replacement of the catheter, without developing the physiologic changes associated with sepsis. The board considers uncomplicated bladder or line infections minor complications. Pneumonia is difficult to diagnose and treat, but is classed as a serious infection. Burn wound sepsis is a serious complication requiring urgent surgical excision of the burned tissue. For the purposes of this study, colonization of a wound that responds to topical therapy is a minor complication, unless there is graft loss sufficiently extensive to require re-grafting of that specific site. However, any infection acquired from the cultured skin product is clearly a major complication.
161
Specific abnormalities by organ system.
Hematology and Coagulation Each of the listed tests may have values elevated above normal or depressed below the normal range on a given day. Although it is possible for an individual value to reach a critical or life-threatening number, none of these would occur independent of a causative factor. Therefore, the presence of an extremely abnormal white count will not be the only indicator of a major complication. The consensus of the Board is that the wide range of values found in this patient population will not be considered de facto major complications and will only confirm the diagnosis of a named major complication.
Chemistry A similar range of deviations from normal chemistry values was discussed. Extreme variations from normal will be clearly associated with the underlying etiology. Therefore, an isolated change in any of the parameters listed under the chemistry section is classified for the purposes of this study as a minor complication.
Urinalysis and blood gases. A similar logic applies to the evaluation of the listed complications for urinalysis and blood gases. Although abnormal values for these tests may confirm the diagnosis of a major complication, no one of these would be de facto evidence of a major complication.
Cardiovascular The group has discussed at length the cardiovascular complications encompassed by abnormal cardiac rhythm. It is the consensus of the Board that persistent ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation or bradycardia of less than 40 is a major complication in this patient population. Extreme variations in blood pressure are frequent in severely burned patients, but are not solely diagnostic of a major complication. Specifically, the Board feels that profound hypotension is always associated with a specific diagnosis and this etiology will be listed as the major complication for the purposes of this study. The group also notes that blood loss is universally found in these patients during operative procedures. Therefore, the presence of a single transfusion, or even multiple transfusions, is not indicative of a major complication. However, if patients receiving the investigational procedure require blood transfusions at a rate significantly higher (>40% more) than age and burns size matched patients treated by conventional means, this is a major complication.
Pulmonary Changes in the respiratory rate, pleural effusions, atelectasis, pulmonary infiltrates, and respiratory failure (defined as requiring ventilatory support using a mechanical ventilator) are identified as expected and, therefore, minor complications in this patient population. The presence of pulmonary edema, pneumothorax, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or pulmonary embolus are all identified as major events. The incidence of pneumonia is very high because of the frequent primary injury to the lungs from smoke inhalation. Nevertheless, the Board considers pneumonia, confirmed by bronchoalveolar lavage, as a major complication.
Gastrointestinal and renal Although major GI bleeding from Curlings ulcer was a common occurrence in burn patients 50 years ago, it is now very rare. Therefore, evidence of upper GI bleeding requiring transfusion is a major complication. Pancreatitis is rarely diagnosed in burn patients but is associated with a high mortality and is also considered a major complication. Urinary tract infection is so frequent in our patients as to be considered a minor complication because it is usually easily treatable and responds promptly to parenteral antibiotics and catheter change. Virtually all patients with major burns require prolonged 162
placement of a Foley catheter, which is responsible for the high incidence of these infections. Urosepsis with bacteremia would be captured under the sepsis and septicemia diagnosis as discussed above. Renal failure requiring dialysis is a major complication, but not changes in the renal function tests.
Neurological Evidence of any central nervous system infection, such as meningitis is a major complication. Any nerve palsy, even if caused by intraoperative malpositioning, too tightly applied splints, or a missed compartment syndrome, is also a severe problem.
Musculoskeletal and skin The purpose of the investigational product is to replace skin that was lost as a result of thermal injury. Excision of the wound is necessary to prepare the wound bed for definitive graft coverage. Although virtually no graft will have 100% engraftment in this burn patient population, a major complication is graft loss requiring re-grafting. The Board recognizes that re-grafting using the cultured skin product is much less physiologically damaging than harvesting a new autograft. Although not life-threatening, amputation is also a major complication. It is rarely caused by attempts at wound coverage and is usually the end product of thermal injury destroying tendons, neurovascular structures, joint capsules, or even bones. In contrast graft contractures will occur in 100% of these patients and are not associated with life- threatening events, even though multiple revision surgeries may be necessary. Hospital acquired fractures from any cause would be considered a major complication.
Systemic and other complications Sepsis syndrome is a constellation of signs, symptoms and laboratory abnormalities and indicates an inflammatory metabolic response to a systemic infection. No single finding is diagnostic.
Compartment syndrome is a major complication almost universally initiated in the resuscitation phase of major thermal burns. For the purpose of this study it would be considered a major complication only if it developed after application of the investigational product.
A portion of the experimental product is composed of cells not of autologous origin. Any evidence of an acquired autoimmume reaction is considered a major complication.
163
Based on the DSMB report the following Major Events can be reported for Subjects 82-139:
Regulatory (Sponsor and Investigator)/Institutional Review Board Audit For the Following Sites: University of Cincinnati, Shriners Hospital of Galveston, Shriners Hospital of Sacramento, Shriners Hospital of Boston
The Walter B. Morley Research Foundation (MRF) completed an audit of all regulatory/IRB documents. The audit included all regulatory documents at each of the affiliate sites; Shriners Hospital for Children in Cincinnati, Sacramento, Galveston, and Boston. IRB files that were audited were observed at the Shriners Hospital for Children at Cincinnati for the University of Cincinnati IRB. All remainder of the IRB files from all locations were also observed at the Shriners Hospital for Children at Cincinnati while the audit took place. Regulatory/IRB folders were given to auditors according to the date of files. The regulatory/IRB folders were not placed according to corresponding criteria (site signature log, Curriculum Vitaes, informed consents documents, correspondence, etc.), but placed by the date at the beginning of the file.
FDA Violations Below is a list of the Violations that stemmed from the audit. These violations show: the regulatory folder/IRB file that each violation was located during the audit, a description of each file, the date of the file, MRF auditors comments about the file, actions to be taken by auditors in reporting, the FDA violation number that each file corresponds. The violations comprise of both regulatory and IRB files that were reviewed during the course of the audit.
Sec. 54.4 Certification and disclosure requirements.
(b) The clinical investigator shall provide to the sponsor of the covered study sufficient accurate financial information to allow the sponsor to submit complete and accurate certification or disclosure statements as required in paragraph (a) of this section. The investigator shall promptly update this information if any relevant changes occur in the course of the investigation or for 1 year following completion of the study.
Regulatory Folder Description of File Date of file Comments Action To Be Taken FDA Violation IRB folder for 2006 (folder #1) IRB COI statement for Dr. Richard Kagan 5/11/2006 Dr. Kagan states that he owns equity in the company or other legal entity whose drug, procedure, technique, device, or software he is testing This COI has changed from years past were Dr. Kagan did not disclose that he had equity. There is no company that is listed that he holds 54.4(B) 165
equity in.
Sec. 54.5 Agency evaluation of financial interests (b)Effect of study design. In assessing the potential of an investigator's financial interests to bias a study, FDA will take into account the design and purpose of the study. Study designs that utilize such approaches as multiple investigators (most of whom do not have a disclosable interest), blinding, objective endpoints, or measurement of endpoints by someone other than the investigator may adequately protect against any bias created by a disclosable financial interest.
Regulatory Folder Description of File Date of file Comments Action To Be Taken FDA Violation IRB folder for 2006 (folder #1) IRB COI statement for Dr. Steven Boyce 5/26/2006 Dr. Boyce states that he owns equity in the company or other legal entity whose drug, procedure, technique, device, or software he is testing. He also holds the patent rights to inventions created, he is a scientific advisor or consultant to the company and receives payments from the company, he is entitled to royalty income or income of the sale of this product The company that he holds equity in is the Cambrex corporation 54.5(b)
166
Sec. 50.25 Elements of informed consent. (a)Basic elements of informed consent. In seeking informed consent, the following information shall be provided to each subject: (6) For research involving more than minimal risk, an explanation as to whether any compensation and an explanation as to whether any medical treatments are available if injury occurs and, if so, what they consist of, or where further information may be obtained.
Regulatory Folder Description of File Date of file Comments Action To Be Taken FDA Violation Regulatory files for Sacramento Shriners Sacramento assent for the CSS study version 03/28/00. 3/28/2000 The statement for question #6 "Will you get better if you are in the study?" The answer that is given for the assent states that "you will probably get better even if you are not in the study, but we think you may get better sooner by being in the study." This answer leads the subject to believe that if they were on the study that the study would help them more than using another option for the condition that they have. See comments to the left 50.25(a)(6)
167
Sec. 50.27 Documentation of informed consent. (a) Except as provided in 56.109(c), informed consent shall be documented by the use of a written consent form approved by the IRB and signed and dated by the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative at the time of consent. A copy shall be given to the person signing the form.
Regulatory Folder Description of File Date of file Comments Action To Be Taken FDA Violation Regulatory files for Boston ICF for Boston Shriners (protocol #2004p-000751 with Partners IRB) version 09/99 version 09/99 The consent form was approved by the IRB on 03/18/04 and expires on 03/18/05. This is handwritten in at the top of the first page of the ICF that this is the original copy and is only approved for PG. This version is not the correct version of the ICF that the sponsor used. The version of the ICF that needed to be used was the 05/2003 version not the 09/99 version which was replaced by the 05/2003 version 50.27(a) Regulatory files for Boston ICF version 08/2005 Aug-05 The ICF is version 08/2005. This version is based on the 05/04 version of the protocol, which was never approved by the FDA as a version valid for the CSS study. The ICF is not the correct ICF that should have been used to consent a patient for the compassionate use. The term emergency use has also been used by the site, but then changed over to compassionate use. The ICF is not stamped by the IRB See comments to the left 50.27(a)
168
Sec. 812.140 Records. (a) Investigator records. A participating investigator shall maintain the following accurate, complete, and current records relating to the investigator's participation in an investigation: (1) All correspondence with another investigator, an IRB, the sponsor, a monitor, or FDA, including required reports.
Regulatory Folder Description of File Date of file Comments Action To Be Taken FDA Violation Regulatory files for Boston email correspondence between the Boston site (Martha Lydon) and Melissa Reed (UC) stating that the data collection packet was sent from Boston to Cincinnati 8/18/2004 The email states that Melissa Reed confirmed that the data collection packet was sent back to the sponsor and Melissa Reed confirmed that the packet was received There is not a completed data collection packet in any of the regulatory files. 812.140(a)(1) Regulatory files for Boston Notification of expiration of IRB approval for Boston Shriners 9/6/2007 The IRB approval expired on 09/06/07 at the Boston site according to the IRB. The initial version date was on 05/01/04. The status is inactive- expired. The IRB requests that if the continuing review is not turned in by 09/16/07 the project will be terminated. . 812.140(a)(1) Regulatory files for Sacramento SAE/injury report for the UC Davis IRB for subject CSS 71 1/18/2003 The SAE was death. The event is listed as not unexpected. The event is listed as definitely not related to the device. There is no signature or date for the SAE report and there is no indication for the IRB acknowledgment of the report 812.140(a)(1) Regulatory files for Sacramento SAE/injury report for the UC Davis IRB for subject CSS 66 8/4/2006 The SAE was death. The event is listed as not unexpected. The event is listed as definitely not related to the device. There is no signature or date for the SAE report and there is no indication for the IRB acknowledgment of the report 812.140(a)(1) 169
Regulatory files for Sacramento letter from Mary Beth Lawless to IRB chairperson responding to changes requested by the committee 4/23/2004 The inconsistent reporting of the number of subjects enrolled to date between items 1 and 6. Item 1 states: a total of 8 patients have been grafted with cultures skin at Shriners Hospital for Children, Northern California (SHCNC). The first patient was grafted under emergency use prior to initiation of the protocol at this site. 7 patients have been grafted since then. Item 6 states: There have been 12 subjects enrolled to date, with 7 subjects grafted with CSS. Two subjects were able to achieve sufficient skin grafting without using the CSS. 2 other subjects expired prior to the grafting due to the extent of the injury. The second item that the IRB requests is for the page 5 on the protocol to be changed so that the description of the subject selection is adequate. The site's response back was that HIPAA language has been added to this section under the sub- heading "subject screening." See comments to the left 812.140(a)(1) 170
Regulatory files for Sacramento Memo from the IRB reviewer (Michaela Harris) to the site describing the concerns of the IRB about the continuing review from 04/12/04 4/14/2004 The concerns that needed to be corrected by the site were that there is inconsistent reporting of the number of subjects enrolled between the items 1 and 6, and the description of the study was inadequate for the IRB. The IRB wanted to know if the site was going to use the HIPAA worksheet how was the site going to address how they plan on protecting patient identifiers, the plan for destroying the identifiers, and the language that "no identifiers, used for the recruitment purposes, will be disclosed to a third party except as required by law for oversight of the project. See comments to the left 812.140(a)(1) Regulatory files for Sacramento Study renewal Notice to the UC Davis IRB from the Sacramento shriners site 3/26/2003 The due date of the renewal form is on 03/20/03 and the renewal was not signed by Dr. Greenhalgh until 03/26/03. There are missing pages to the renewal (pages 1thorugh 3 are in the regulatory files, and the three other pages are not).At the time of this study, the following personnel are listed on the renewal form: Greenhalgh, Palmieri, Lawless, Sanders See comments to the left 812.140(a)(1) 171
Regulatory files for Sacramento Study renewal Notice to the UC Davis IRB from the Sacramento shriners site 1/20/2005 Pages 1-3 are in regulatory file. Pages 4-6 are not. This form was received on 01/31/05. PI signed on 01/20/05. At the time of the renewal the following personnel was listed as being on study: Greenhalgh, Palmieri, O'Mara, Lawless, Sanders, and Mooney. See comments to the left 812.140(a)(1) Regulatory folder for 12/06/05 and 01/03/06 Investigator Agreement for Robert Sheridan and CV (Boston) 12/21/2005 The CV for Dr. Sheridan is not signed and dated Need signature for date and signature of CV 812.140(a)(1) Regulatory folder for 12/06/05 and 01/03/06 File for subject #96 with the description of the treatments and results of the subject No date on file The file shows what date each study event that happened and what the result was. On 06/24/05 the file states that subject #96 had 24 adverse events forms reported regarding mandible infection and 100% graft loss to set #5. The adverse event forms that were reported dont show the number of 13 adverse events that had occurred for this study. 812.140(a)(1) Regulatory folder for 12/06/05 and 01/03/06 File for subject #100 for death on 07/02/05 from possible embolism No date on file The file shows that there was not an autopsy performed on the subject #100. The FDA stated that they would like further clarification on the PI judgment call would be in this case. Need to secure documentation from PI that explains the reason for no autopsy 812.140(a)(1) Regulatory folder for 12/06/05 and 01/03/06 AE report for Ucinn IRB for subject # unknown 9/22/2005 Hispanic patient suffered distal right femur fracture, but fracture were not considered a complication of a severe burn injury Need to secure documentation form PI that explains the reason 812.140(a)(1) 172
Regulatory folder for 08/23/07 Correspondence from Dr. Boyce to Dr. Durfor and Mr. Carl DeMarco (FDA) requesting approval for two subjects to be placed with the device for compassionate use. 8/23/2007 The request states that there were 3 copies were sent to the IDE document center as supplement #57. There are no copies that are attached with this correspondence, and the documents cannot be located. The correspondence also shows the approval that Dr. Durfor (FDA) gave to the site/sponsor which stated "This request is approved. Good luck to the physicians and prayers for the patients." Need to find what 3 copies were sent to the IDE document center. 812.140(a)(1) Regulatory folder for 08/23/07 Letter from Dr. Boyce to Charles Durfor and Carl DeMarco (FDA) requesting the compassionate use of the CSS device for two patients 8/23/2007 There is only an ICF from one patient who can be identified as HH, but there is no ICF for the other patient that is in question. Dr. Durfor (FDA) did give approval for both of them on the same date as the fax page infers via email back to Dr. Boyce. There is a HIPAA form and an ICF form that are both located in the folder. The other ICF form still has not been located in the folders. Need to find the ICF that coincides with the patient that the FDA gave approval for. The patient was an 8 month old female with 71% TBSA. There is no ICF on file for this patient in the regulatory folder. 812.140(a)(1) 173
Regulatory folder for 09/21/07 Adverse event for subject #130 DH 9/20/2007 The subject had an event of CSS graft loss > 10%. The Nocardia species is resistant to the CSS irrigation solution that is specified in the protocol for topical use of the CSS wound post-operatively. After consulting with the medical staff, the decision was made to apply CSS regardless of wound contamination due to patient's lack of available skin and medical condition. The patient has now received 4 sets of CSS that have been evaluated for graft loss. Each set is evaluated at POD #14 and POD #20. Graft loss for each set is as follows: Set #1 POD #28-14.6%, Set #2, POD #14-46.5%, Set #3 POD #14-24.8%, Set #4 POD#14-46.2%. Also of note, the patient has been placed open ventilatory support (09/12/07) and antibiotics (09/06/07). The PI signed the adverse event form on 09/20/07. The date that the site was made aware of the event was 09/21/07. The PI pre-dated the signature for the adverse event. The outcome was never resolved. The adverse event was not expected. 812.140(a)(1) Regulatory folder for 11/06/07 Adverse event for subject #131 HH for CSS graft loss > 10% 11/6/2007 Subject #131 had CSS graft loss >10%. Patient received a total of 3 sets of CSS grafts that have been evaluated for graft loss. Set #2 to the anterior trunk was evaluated at POD #14 to have 36.6% graft loss. Re- evaluation at POD #28 revealed graft loss of 20.8%. The cause of the event that is listed is from microbial contamination of wound bed and shearing. The PI signed on 11/06/07. The outcome is still pending and there doesnt appear to be any resolution 812.140(a)(1) 174
Regulatory folder for 02/22/08 Adverse event for subject #132 who had received a IVIG which started on 12/23/07 2/12/2008 The patient was on IVIG which was started on 12/23/07 per protocol to receive IVIG 500mg/kg (5gms) every Wednesday and Saturday. On 02/02/08, the patient received a dose that was stared at 2200 to infuse over two hrs. On 02/03/08 at 0200, the patient was noted to have a "very red face." No change in vital signs or level of consciousness was noted. The physician was notified, PO Benadryl 12.5mg was given per feeding tube at 0800. The "patients color returned to pink color by noon" but "appeared red again this afternoon" and received a second dose of PO Benadryl 12.5mg per feeding tube at 1700. The color (erythema) decreased and has not returned. IVIG was discontinued. Patient had received a total of 13 doses of IVIG. The PI signed on 02/12/08 which is one day before the site knew that the event had taken place. The PI pre-signed the form by a day. 812.140(a)(1) Regulatory folder for 07/14/08 Fax letter to the FDA (Carl DeMarco, and Charles Durfor) about allowing UCinn the compassionate use of the device for a 10 year old patient who had 68% TBSA. Supplement 74 7/14/2008 The fax cover sheet states that Charles Durfor, Ph.D. returned Peggy Simpson's phone call at 1745 on 07/14/08. According to the handwritten note on the fax cover letter, Charles Durfor allowed the enrollment under compassionate use. No letter back from the FDA was located that allowed the compassionate use of the device for the 10 year old patient. Locate letter of acknowledgement. 812.140(a)(1) 175
Folder for Galveston Shriners hospital IRB approval and consents 10/27/05 Informed Consent form version 08/12/05 8/12/2005 The ICF is version 08/12/05, which is a revised copy of the 12/14/04. The ICF states on the form that the original is from Cincinnati on 05/2004. This version was IRB (UTMB) approved on 10/26/05 and is valid through 01/31/06. The PI is Arthur Sanford and the co-investigators are listed as Jong Lee, MD and David Herndon, MD. The UTMB IRB protocol number for this study is 05-050. There is only the first page for this document which has the 10/26/05 approval stamp from the IRB. There is no 2 through 11 pages that are attached 812.140(a)(1) UTMB Galveston IRB documentation (2004-2008) Multiple letters from Dr. Arthur Sanford and Edward Sherwood, MD, Ph.D. form Galveston requesting the CSS from Dr. Boyce for a patient with 95% 3rd degree burns 3/11/2004 There are multiple copies of the letter requesting the emergency use for the CSS. One letter is from Dr. Sanford to Dr. Patterson at the UTMB IRB requesting the use from the IRB, and other letters are from Dr. Sanford (alone) and Drs. Sanford, Sherwood, and Dr. Woodson (chief of Anesthesiology) to Dr Boyce requesting the use from the sponsor Dr. Boyce's response is not attached with the letters 812.140(a)(1)
176
Sec. 812.35 Supplemental applications. (a)Changes in investigational plan --(1)Changes requiring prior approval. Except as described in paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(4) of this section, a sponsor must obtain approval of a supplemental application under 812.30(a), and IRB approval when appropriate (see 56.110 and 56.111 of this chapter), prior to implementing a change to an investigational plan. If a sponsor intends to conduct an investigation that involves an exception to informed consent under 50.24 of this chapter, the sponsor shall submit a separate investigational device exemption (IDE) application in accordance with 812.20(a). (3)Changes effected with notice to FDA within 5 days. A sponsor may make certain changes without prior approval of a supplemental application under paragraph (a)(1) of this section if the sponsor determines that these changes meet the criteria described in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (a)(3)(ii) of this section, on the basis of credible information defined in paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of this section, and the sponsor provides notice to FDA within 5-working days of making these changes. (ii)Changes to clinical protocol. The requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of this section regarding FDA approval of a supplement do not apply to changes to clinical protocols that do not affect: (B) The scientific soundness of the investigational plan
Regulatory Folder Description of File Date of file Comments Action To Be Taken FDA Violation
Regulatory files for Boston Email correspondence from Lisa Petras to Dr. Boyce regarding the Boston Shriners IRB questions and protocol and consent modifications 12/13/2006 Lisa Petras states to Dr. Boyce that the Boston staff has submitted a moderately modified protocol and modified ICF to the local IRB. The protocol has been modified from what the sponsor had sent them which was the 05/204 protocol that was not approved. See comments to the left 812.35(a)(3)(ii)(B) 177
Regulatory files for Boston Email correspondence from Dr. Boyce to Lisa Petras (Boston Shriners) regarding different protocol use at various sites 12/13/2005 The following is from an email correspondence that shows that a uniform protocol has never been in use for all of the study sites involved in the CSS clinical trial: Dr. Boyce states in the email that, "At the present time, we have not developed a uniform protocol for use at all four Shriners Burns Hospitals. Melissa and I will work on this during the next couple of month, but it will not be available for awhile. Therefore, if Dr. Sheridan would like to begin enrolling patients in early 2006, I suggest you submit the revised protocol for approval. The uniform protocol can be submitted later when it is ready. Melissa and I will probably circulate drafts of the uniform protocol, consent, and data collection forms to the clinical research offices of all of the Shriners Burns hospitals to include as many as possible of the local considerations of each hospital." Dr. Boyce states that the same protocol was not used at each of the Shriners sites. The protocol that was using data each site had variations that were site specific. The sponsor cannot change the protocol to make each protocol fit the site. 812.35(a)(3)(ii)(B) Regulatory files for Boston Email correspondence from Melissa Reed (UC) to Martha Lydon regarding the CSS renewal for the IRB 8/31/2006 The email states that the FDA has not provided the sponsor approval for amendments to the protocol, and Melissa Reed tells Ms. Lydon that she will send the most recent approved protocol which should be just like the one used to develop the Boston site's protocol The protocol that Ms. Reed is sending the Boston site is not FDA approved and the protocol is for the IRB to review for their continuing review. 812.35(a)(3)(ii)(B) 178
Regulatory files for Sacramento Protocol version 08/22/01 (this has a previous date of 05/10/01) that has been approved by the IRB on 10/03/01 8/22/2001 The protocol is the 08/22/01 version which was amended from the 05/10/01 version that has not been seen in the files. The version of the protocol has 16 pages where the page 15 is stated as being 16 of 7 instead of 15 of 16. The protocol has seemed to change drastically from 32 pages to 16 pages. This is not the same protocol that the sponsor first gave to the site. There is no correspondence from the site to show this 812.35(a)(3)(ii)(B) Regulatory files for Sacramento Protocol version 04/2004 Apr-04 Verify that the protocol is not a new protocol with endpoints and procedural points that are changed The protocol that is being used for the Sacramento site does not have the same schema page that the Cincinnati site is using. The protocols are different and the schema pages are different as well. 812.35(a)(3)(ii)(B) Regulatory files for Sacramento Protocol version 04/2005 (with approval from the UC Davis IRB on 07/11/07) Apr-05 The protocol has an approval from the IRB on 07/11/07 through 07/11/08. The protocol and the study have been suspended since 2005. There are no subjects that are receiving any treatments during this time period. The approval from the IRB is unknown at this point. The protocol that has been approved is the protocol that had been changed from the sponsored protocol. See comments to the left 812.35(a)(3)(ii)(B) Regulatory files for Sacramento Protocol version 04/2005 Apr-05 The protocol is version 04/2005 (the protocol that was never approved by the sponsor) has an IRB approval on it. The approval date is 06/20/08 and the expiration date is on 06/20/09. There is an IRB stamp that the report is approved on 06/20/08 and expires on 06/20/09. See comments to the left 812.35(a)(3)(ii)(B) 179
Regulatory files for Sacramento protocol version 05/2004 May-04 The version of this protocol is version 05/2004. The version was never approved by the sponsor or the FDA. The IRB has approved this version of the protocol at during the same time period of the version of the protocol 04/2005. The UC Davis IRB has had two separate versions of the protocol approved for the same time period. Neither version is the correct version for the study. These protocols were the last version that the IRB was given by the site. The approval time periods are from 06/20/08 through 06/20/09. See comments to the left 812.35(a)(3)(ii)(B)
180
Sec. 812.150 Reports. (a) Investigator reports. An investigator shall prepare and submit the following complete, accurate, and timely reports: (7) Other. An investigator shall, upon request by a reviewing IRB or FDA, provide accurate, complete, and current information about any aspect of the investigation.
Regulatory Folder Description of File Date of file Comments Action To Be Taken FDA Violation Regulatory files for Sacramento Letter from Dr. Greenhalgh to the IRB chair (UC Davis) updating the IRB on the status of JSC who was enrolled under emergency use 4/1/2004 An email was sent to Dr. Greenhalgh's research coordinator stating that the report required by the IRB was not received by the IRB within the mandatory 5 working days, and the IRB has not received the report as of 04/01/04. An email back to the IRB committee analyst from Johanna Sanders states that a response was sent to the IRB on 06/05/03, but she will fax a copy of the letter. See comments to the left 812.150(a) (7)
181
Sec. 812.150 Reports. (a) Investigator reports. An investigator shall prepare and submit the following complete, accurate, and timely reports: (1 )Unanticipated adverse device effects. An investigator shall submit to the sponsor and to the reviewing IRB a report of any unanticipated adverse device effect occurring during an investigation as soon as possible, but in no event later than 10 working days after the investigator first learns of the effect.
Regulatory Folder Description of File Date of file Comments Action To Be Taken FDA Violation
Regulatory folder for 07/12/05 Serious adverse event report to the UC Davis IRB in relation to the death of patient #100 7/5/2005 The Serious adverse event report states that in section II of the report, the question is if the event being reported serious, unanticipated and related to the study. The answer is no. The serious adverse event was death. This should have been reported as a serious event and not marked as no. The serious adverse event that took place was not reported as a serious adverse event even though it is on the report. The event that happened was ultimately death. Dr. Boyce wrote to Dr. Charles Durfor (FDA) that the Sacramento site's patient death was still undergoing investigation as of 07/08/05. The determination of death was not yet known, and there was not mention if the device played a role or not. The SAE report states that the investigator feels that the device was not a contributing factor without knowing how the patient expire 812.150(a)(1) Regulatory folder for 12/06/05 and 01/03/06 University of Cinn. Internal adverse event report for subject 103 11/1/2005 The subject suffered from cardiopulmonary arrest and death on 10/30/05. This should have been reported as an SAE due to death. The PI signed the document on 11/01/05 which was one day prior to the site being aware of the death on 11/02/05 and PI pre-dated signature, and death should have been reported as an SAE instead of an adverse event to the IRB. The IRB form did not have SAE on the form and did not have any information for 812.150(a)(1) 182
the date of the adverse event was on 10/30/05. device studies. Regulatory folder for 12/06/05 and 01/03/06 Report form for adverse events in human subjects at UTMB. The patient protocol number is not identified but the UH# is 2787388. no date on file AE is a staph infection in the CSS on his legs with all the CSS skin grafts being lost after a 04/27/05 surgery. The physician noted that the AE was unlikely the result of participation in the research protocol. This could possibly be patient #96 MD, but not for sure. The severity of the event was never marked on the section "this is a required response to the severity." The AE was not ever signed or dated to the IRB or the sponsor. There was not any IRB receipt that acknowledges that the SAE (AE) was ever reported. 812.150(a)(1) Regulatory folder for 12/06/05 and 01/03/06 Report form for adverse events in human subjects at UTMB. The patient protocol number is not identified but the UH# is 2787388. no date on file AE is an invasive fungal infection in his jaw that required removal of approximately 2/3's of his lower jawbone on 03/24/05 and 03/28/05. The AE is listed as significant disability and his whole lower jaw was removed in two surgeries about a week apart. The first surgery took approximately 2 hours to remove the jawbone. The patient had received a G- tube into the stomach for nutritional support. The patient responded slowly to all his lengthy hospitalization. The AE was marked as unlikely. AE was never signed or dated, and the AE was not complete for the section to designate the severity of the AE. IRB did not sign the bottom of the page that the IRB reviewed this AE. 812.150(a)(1) 183
Regulatory folder for 03/18/08 Adverse event for subject #130 for CSS graft loss with regrafting follow-up #5 3/14/2008 The patient has had contamination with mycobacterium asscessus and multiple other microorganisms throughout hospitalization. The patient has now received 12 sets of CSS that have been evaluated for graft loss and regrafting is complete. Each set is evaluated at POD# 14 and POD #28. Files do not have a date that they were ever sent to the IRB. There is no acknowledgment form IRB. AE was not sent 812.150(a)(1) Regulatory folder for 03/18/08 Adverse event for subject #132 for graft loss > 10% with regrafting follow-up #1 3/14/2008 Patient received one set of CSS (20 grafts) on 02/01/08. Wounds traced at POD #12 revealed 30.8% graft loss. The areas of graft loss were regrafted with autograft on POD #13 on 02/14/08 with wound closure completed by discharge Files do not have a date that they were ever sent to the IRB. There is no acknowledgment form IRB. AE was not sent 812.150(a)(1) Regulatory folder for 03/18/08 Adverse event for subject #132 for reinsertion of traceostomy tube follow-up #1 3/14/2008 The patient's tracheostomy tube was down-sized to a 3.0 on 02/09/08 and was plugged on 02/11/08. The tracheostomy tube was removed on 02/12/08. The patient was noted to have moderate secretions and frequent rhonchii on auscultation of lung fields. The patient returned to the operating room on 02/14/08 for a serial excision and grafting procedure to his back. The patient was intubated for the procedure and placed in the prone position. Upon turning the patient form the prone position to the supine position, it is noted that the ETT was partially clogged. A 3.0 tracheostomy tube was placed in the remaining small orifice in the neck. Files do not have a date that they were ever sent to the IRB. There is no acknowledgment form IRB. AE was not sent 812.150(a)(1) 184
Breath sounds and appropriate readings for end-trial CO2 were noted and the ETT was removed. The result is ENT performed a repeat microlayngoscopy bronchoscopy on 03/04/08. The findings were mild tracheal malacia and mild edema of supraglottic structures. The patient's tracheostomy was removed post-operatively on 03/04/08. Regulatory folder for 05/29/08 Adverse event form for subject # 134 5/16/2008 Adverse event was that the patient went to the operating room on 05/16/08 for placement of CSS grafts. At 1307, the patient was noted to have rapid and labored respirations. Some retractions were noted and breath sounds were diminished. The tracheostomy was found to be occluded. This was replaced per anesthesia at 1308 with immediate return of improved breath sounds and regular respirations. Patient has received five grafts. The site did not send the AE until 12 days later when the event occurred. PI did not sign the AE form until 12 days after the site was made aware. No reason given. 812.150(a)(1) 185
Regulatory folder for 07/03/08 Adverse event form from subject #134 6/5/2008 The adverse event is for the patient that received autograft and CSS grafting to the right thigh and right shoulder on 05/23/08. The graft loss of both CSS and autograft was noted and operative procedures were planned for 06/05/08. The follow up plan is for the patient to receive partial regrafting of autograft with autograft to the right inner thigh on 06/05/08. The date on the sponsor sent form is almost a month late (07/02/08) form when the site first knew about the event. 812.150(a)(1) Regulatory folder for 07/03/08 Adverse event form from subject #131 6/30/2008 This is a follow-up for the event of a fractured left femur. The patient was rehab through regimented schedule and the end result seems to be that the patient is full weight bearing with no abnormalities noted. The PI signed the form on 07/02/08 which the date sent to the sponsor was on 06/02/08. This is not possible when the date of the event occurred on 06/30/08, and the reported date was on 06/02/08. A note in the regulatory folder under the email correspondence was asking the sponsor/site to clarify the reason for the mismatched dates and to explain which dates are correct. 812.150(a)(1) 186
Regulatory folder for 02/12/09 Copies of the adverse events that the annual report states were reported to the UCinn IRB and the FDA. 2/12/2009 The following adverse events do not have a stamp from the IRB that they were ever received from the site. The records to show no IRB response will be listed as: subject #, date of event, initial or follow-up #, and description. Subject #134 05/28/08 Initial Fluctuant mass with foreign body
Subject #136 - 08/15/08 Initial Respiratory depression and airway obstruction secondary to sedation Subject #136 - 08/29/08 Initial CSS graft loss > 10% Subject #136 - 09/12/08 The date of event section on the IRB form is always filled out form the site as the date the form is actually completed on. The date of the event should remain unchanged from the original date of the event and the subsequent follow-up should change only 812.150(a)(1) 187
Follow-up #1 CSS graft loss > 10%
Subject #137 - 09/15/08 Initial Autograft loss 10%
Subject #136 - 10/10/08 Follow-up #5 CSS graft loss > 10% Subject #137 - 10/09/08 Initial Autografting to donor site for failure to heal Subject #130 - 01/11/08 Initial for sets #10-12 and follow-up #4 for sets #1-9 CSS graft loss
Subject #131 - 01/18/08 Initial for sets #6, 6b and follow-up #2 for sets #4-5 CSS graft loss
Subject #132 - 02/03/08 initial Erythematous Rash
Subject #132 - 02/13/08 Initial Graft loss > 10% 132 02/14/08 Initial Reinsertion of tracheostomy tube 188
Subject #131 - 02/22/08 Initial Fracture of tibia and fibula
Subject #131 - 03/04/08 Initial Fluctuant mass right flank without drainage
Subject #130 - 03/10/08 Follow-up #5 for sets #1- 12 Graft loss > 10% without regrafting
Subject #132 - 03/13/08 Follow-up #1 Graft loss > 10% with regrafting
Subject #132 - 03/13/08 Follow-up #1 Reinsertion of tracheostomy tube
Subject #131 - 04/04/08 Follow-up #1 Fluctuant mass right flank without drainage
Subject #131 - 04/04/08 Initial Fracture of left femur post discharge
Subject #134 - 05/16/08 Initial Occluded tracheostomy with replacement Subject #134 - 05/23/08 Initial Graft loss > 10% with regrafting
189
Regulatory folder for 03/17/09 The adverse event for subject 140 3/19/2009 The adverse event is for graft loss > 10%. The graft loss is as follows: Set #1-pod #14 19.5%. The outcome is still unresolved There is no acknowledgment from the FDA that this adverse event ever sent. The current date of this audit is 04/30/09. The possibly of the FDA not responding is still ongoing. 812.150(a)(1) UTMB IRB documentation SAE for unidentifiable subject (MR# is 2841680) regarding balloon broke off during PEG tube removal 1/23/2007 SAE is reported as: during an attempt removal on 01/22/07 of a PEG tube the catheter broke. The bell portion on the gastric side remained in the stomach. Abdominal x-rays suggested missing piece was in the stomach. Endoscopy for retrieval revealed an empty stomach. Subject passed the balloon the next day 01/23/07 in his stool without incident. Response was good. This is an initial report to the IRB that the IRB acknowledged on 02/23/07. There is no verification when the sponsor was notified about this UADE. Signed by the PI on 01/23/07. IRB was notified on 01/25/07. 812.150(a)(1) UTMB IRB documentation SAE for unidentifiable subject (MR# is 2822518) SAE is death 12/23/2005 Listed as AE, but is a UADE of death for a subject that cannot be identified. Worsening condition due to burn. Stopped heroic measures at parent request. Autopsy showed diffuse pneumonia in all lobes of her lungs, tubular necrosis in her kidneys, gross adrenal gland necrosis and multi-system organ failure Signed by the PI on 12/23/05. Handwritten note on AE report that states that this was faxed but not reported to the IRB. Cannot verify fax to sponsor or timely response back to the sponsor. 812.150(a)(1) UTMB IRB documentation SAE for unidentifiable subject (MR# is 2822518) SAE is death (follow-up report) 3/7/2007 Listed as AE, but is a UADE of death for a subject that cannot be identified. Worsening condition due to burn, no CSS applied. Stopped heroic measures at parent request. Autopsy showed diffuse pneumonia in all lobes of her lungs, tubular necrosis in her kidneys, Signed by the PI on 03/07/07. Cannot verify fax to IRB or timely response back to the sponsor. This follow-up is over two years after the initial SAE of death. 812.150(a)(1) 190
gross adrenal gland necrosis and multi-system organ failure. (follow-up report) UTMB IRB documentation SAE for unidentifiable subject (MR# is 2827653) SAE is death 4/27/2006 SAE was death that occurred on 04/22/06. Condition worsening and responded poorly to all medical treatments. Subject had 99% 3rd degree burns. No CSS applied Signed by the PI on 04/27/06. Cannot verify fax to sponsor or timely response back to the sponsor. 812.150(a)(1)
Sec. 812.140 Records (b)Sponsor records. A sponsor shall maintain the following accurate, complete, and current records relating to an investigation: (1) All correspondence with another sponsor, a monitor, an investigator, an IRB, or FDA, including required reports.
Regulatory Folder Description of File Date of file Comments Action To Be Taken FDA Violation Regulatory folder for 03/17/03 FDA letter back to the site granting approval for the "compassionate use" to a subject on 03/19/03. 3/19/2003 The letter back from the FDA states that the sponsor/site needs to have completed the issues raised from the FDA letter 02/14/03 that were identified to get the study in compliance and must only use the device in the compassionate use capacity. Dr. Warden was a sub- investigator on this study and should not have signed the letter as a non-involved physician when he was involved with the study. The wording of the letter from UCinn (Dr. Boyce) states that Dr. Warden was not involved with the subject at the present time of the compassionate use request. Clarification as to why Dr. Warden signed the letter for compassionate use and was involved with the study at the present time. 812.140(b)(1) 191
Regulatory folder for 10/24/03 Copy of the research design and methods from the revision of 05/01 (pages 38-46). May-01 The version of this protocol does not match up with the promised revision that was attached to the response letter to the FDA letter for 07/30/03. The only version of the protocol is the 05/2001 version Clarification on the protocol for the version that has been attached to the FDA letter for the response back to the FDA. The version that appears to have been sent back was the version of the 05/2001 and not a revised version of the protocol. 812.140(b)(1) Regulatory folders for 11/13/03 Adverse event report form (internal) for subject DS 11/12/2003 The signature that is required of the principal investigator is actually signed by another physician (writing unreadable) for Dr. Glen Warden MD. There have been only 22 adverse events reported for this study as of 11/12/03. Need clarification on why the IRB did not question the signature for the adverse events. The signature was in place of the PI and not the PI's own signature. There were only 22 adverse events that had taken place at this point in the study. 812.140(b)(1) Regulatory folder for 08/12/05 Letter from the FDA to Dr. Boyce stating that the FDA has reviewed the supplement proposing 50 patients and 3 institutions to the study. The supplement is approved 9/19/2005 There is not any correspondence from the sponsor/site that shows the answers to the FDA letters that granted them the approval for the patient enrollment increase nor the 5 institutions Need to verify the location of the letters or correspondence back to the FDA 812.140(b)(1)
192
Sec. 812.140 Records (b)Sponsor records. A sponsor shall maintain the following accurate, complete, and current records relating to an investigation: (3) Signed investigator agreements including the financial disclosure information required to be collected under 812.43(c)(5) in accordance with part 54 of this chapter.
Regulatory Folder Description of File Date of file Comments Action To Be Taken FDA Violation Regulatory folder for 10/24/03 Investigator List as of 11/03/03 (excerpted from) reporting period 06/01/00 - 10/31/01 11/3/2003 The list is from the 06/01/00 - 10/31/01 reporting period. The fax went out in 11/03/03, and there should be an updated investigator list or an explanation why the list was not updated at least yearly via annual reports. There is a list of investigator agreements that were supposed to be attached to this file. The Investigator agreements are not currently with the file and cannot be located. The original investigators that were in the IDE submission were Boyce, Warden, Kagan, Meyer, Yakuboff, and Rieman on 01/28/98. Two clinical research nurses (Fowler and Caudill) were added as investigators in Supplement 1 on 04/08/98. In a letter dated 06/30/99 Dr. Greenhalgh and the Sacramento Shriners hospital was added as an investigator and a participating institution. On 06/2000 an IRB protocol was approved by the University of California Davis for performance of this study at the Shriners in Sacramento California. Dr. Meyer left the The Sacramento site according to the fax submission of Dr. Boyce has a letter that Sacramento's investigator and site being added to the study on 06/30/99. The first subject went on study at that site according to the spreadsheet created by Dr. Boyce on 06/25/99. The subject according to files went on study 5 days before the investigator and the site were approved. The IRB protocol was not approved until 06/2000 by the University of California Davis' IRB and there had already been a subject on the study since 06/25/99. The study was in complete non- compliance from the first subject. 812.140(b)(3) 193
university of Cincinnati and shriners on 04/2000. In 2001, Palmieri and two clinical research nurses (lawless and sanders) were added as investigators at the Sacramento shriners hospital (no date as to when this was in 2001. IN 2001. Dr. Warner was added as an investigator and Judy Nelson RN replaced Lynn Caudill RN at the Cincinnati hospital.
Sec. 812.150 Reports (b)Sponsor reports. A sponsor shall prepare and submit the following complete, accurate, and timely reports: (1) Unanticipated adverse device effects. A sponsor who conducts an evaluation of an unanticipated adverse device effect under 812.46(b) shall report the results of such evaluation to FDA and to all reviewing IRB's and participating investigators within 10 working days after the sponsor first receives notice of the effect. Thereafter the sponsor shall submit such additional reports concerning the effect as FDA requests.
Regulatory Folder Description of File Date of file Comments Action To Be Taken FDA Violation Regulatory folder for 08/19/08 Email from Joanne Lindwall to Peggy Simpson explaining about adverse events that were submitted to the FDA 9/19/2008 The email explains that there are five adverse events that are being reported to the FDA. The adverse events are as follows: subject #136- occurred on 08/11/08 and submitted on 08/19/08, subject #136-occurred on 08/15/08 and submitted on 08/26/08, subject #136-occurred on 08/29/08 and submitted on 09/09/08, subject #136-occurred on 09/12/08 and submitted on 09/18/08, subject #137-occurred on 09/15/08 and submitted There is only one adverse event that is listed in the regulatory folder with this email. That is the 08/11/08 occurrence. There is no other supporting documentation to show the other four events in this portion of the regulatory folder. 812.150(b)(1 ) 194
on 09/18/08. Regulatory folders for 11/02/05 University of Cincinnati IRB internal adverse event report form for patient# 103 (PI is Kagan) 11/2/2005 Patient #103 had a serious adverse event on 10/30/05 which was death. The IRB form that was used is only an adverse event form instead of a serious adverse event form. The date of the adverse event (SAE) was on 10/02/05 and the date the UC site was aware of the event was on 11/02/05. Dr. Kagan (PI) signed the report on 11/01/05. He signed the report one day prior to the site having knowledge (awareness) of the report. PI signature was pre- dated, and the IRB form does not list any SAE questions nor do the IRB forms have device questions. 812.150(b)(1 ) Regulatory folder for 12/06/05 and 01/03/06 Annual report dated 12/30/05 (PAGE 4) 12/30/2005 There is only one page to the annual report from 12/30/05 that has the number of subjects enrolled, and the number of devices used. Dr. Boyce is stating the history of the study and the number of enrollments that have occurred over the period of 1998 through 2005 Need to locate the remainder of the annual report in the regulatory files 812.150(b)(1 )
195
Sec. 812.150 Reports. (a)Investigator reports. An investigator shall prepare and submit the following complete, accurate, and timely reports: (4)Deviations from the investigational plan. An investigator shall notify the sponsor and the reviewing IRB (see 56.108(a) (3) and (4)) of any deviation from the investigational plan to protect the life or physical well-being of a subject in an emergency. Such notice shall be given as soon as possible, but in no event later than 5 working days after the emergency occurred. Except in such an emergency, prior approval by the sponsor is required for changes in or deviations from a plan, and if these changes or deviations may affect the scientific soundness of the plan or the rights, safety, or welfare of human subjects, FDA and IRB in accordance with 812.35(a) also is required.
Regulatory Folder Description of File Date of file Comments Action To Be Taken FDA Violation Regulatory for folder 02/20/09 Adverse event for subject #138 2/11/2009 The adverse event is for CSS graft loss > 10%. Graft loss is as follows: Set#2-POD #14 7.55% and POD #28 1%, Set#3-POD #14 27% and POD #28 16%, Set #4-POD #15 16% and POD #28 3%, Set #4b-POD #14 17.6% and POD #26 11%. The Sets #4 and 4b have POD days that are 15 and 26 respectively. The POD dates according to the protocol are 14 and 28. The dates that are given are out of window and should be a protocol deviation 812.150(a)(4) Regulatory folder for 03/02/09 Adverse event for subject 139 2/26/2009 CSS graft loss > 10% with regrafting. The graft loss is as follows: Set #1-POD #13 14.6%, Set #2-POD #13 4.5%. The sets 1 and 2 have POD days of 13 on both sets. The POD day should be 14 and there is nothing in the protocol that states that there is room for plus or minus any days between the POD dates. This should be a protocol deviation 812.150(a)(4) 196
Regulatory folder for 04/20/09 Protocol Deviation for subject # 134 6/5/2008 The deviation is that some areas on or around grafts on the right thigh and right shoulder have been excised and autografted. These have been placed in the protocol dressings for post- operative autograft Peggy Simpson RN writes on the protocol deviation that the site will continue to work with the medical staff to assess the most appropriate dressing for the grafts as it pertains to the specific situation. Not found in UC IRB files 812.150(a)(4)
Sec. 812.140 Records. (a)Investigator records. A participating investigator shall maintain the following accurate, complete, and current records relating to the investigator's participation in an investigation: (4) The protocol, with documents showing the dates of and reasons for each deviation from the protocol.
Regulatory Folder Description of File Date of file Comments Action To Be Taken FDA Violation Regulatory folder for 04/20/09 Protocol deviation for subject #132 8/1/2008 POD # 182 not done Patient not present for photos and data and remains in Mexico. Study coordinator will try and communicate with family to show importance of returning for follow-up. Deviation was not signed for until 01/30/09 and was five months after deviation occurred 812.140(a)(4)
197
Sec. 812.150 Reports. (a) Investigator reports. An investigator shall prepare and submit the following complete, accurate, and timely reports: (3) Progress. An investigator shall submit progress reports on the investigation to the sponsor, the monitor, and the reviewing IRB at regular intervals, but in no event less often than yearly.
Regulatory Folder Description of File Date of file Comments Action To Be Taken FDA Violation UTMB Galveston IRB documentation (2004-2008) UTMB IRB response to Dr. Sanford about continuing review for 03/21/08. The IRB approves the study but with stipulations. 3/21/2008 The IRB approves the protocol but with stipulations. Charles Mitchell is still shown as being on the study, and the IRB asks for clarification since Charles Mitchell was removed on 11/17/06. Deb Benjamin was never approved to be on the study. A request to provide reasoning for low enrollment rate is being asked by the IRB as to why the study should continue. The IRB asks these responses be sent to them no later than 03/31/08 or the study may not continue. Administrative deferral would happen on 05/15/08 if not answered. There was no continuing review that was in the files regarding this IRB memo for approval 812.150(a)(3)