Q & A Assessment of Nicotine Dose #2.docx
DOCX document 29 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FDA-20-RFP-1223088
About this file
This document contains questions and answers regarding a solicitation by the Food and Drug Administration for an assessment of nicotine dose discrimination in marketed cigarettes. Key details include that the study will involve clinical trials to evaluate nicotine dose discrimination, with recruitment of participants to occur at a site that may be located in Canada. The contractor will be responsible for sourcing nicotine with FDA approval and implementing monitoring of the study and data. FDA personnel will also conduct monitoring to ensure protocol and regulatory compliance. The contractor must complete human subjects training and provide documentation of coding procedures and statistical analysis plans. Resumes for key personnel are limited to three pages.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment 1 SB Subcontracting Plan Assessment of Nicotine.doc | DOC document | |
| Q & A Assessment of Nicotine Dose.docx | DOCX document | |
| Amendment 3 RFP Nicotine Dose Discrimination.docx | DOCX document | |
| Amendment 2 RFP Nicotine Dose Discrimination.docx | DOCX document | |
| Amendment 1 RFP Nicotine Dose Discrimination.docx | DOCX document | |
| RFP Nicotine Dose Discrimination.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ASSESSMENT OF NICOTINE DOSE DISCRIMINATION IN MARKETED CIGARETTES #2
| Question 01: | Will FDA provide the nicotine for injection or should the contractor source it? |
| Answer 01: | The Contractor will be responsible for proposing the nicotine used in the study, and once they have FDA’s approval, will be responsible for sourcing it. |
| Question 02: | Is the FDA opposed to the clinical site being located in Canada? |
| Answer 02: | The FDA is not opposed to the clinical site being located in Canada provided there are no unique human subjects protections issues with the site. |
| Question 03: | Please clarify the roles of the RFP terms ‘Study Sponsor(s)’ and ‘Study Monitor’. |
| Answer 03: | The term Study Sponsor is used to describe the CTP personnel responsible for the objectives and primary aims of the study. Study Sponsor could also be used interchangeably with Project Lead or CTP Project Lead. |
The term Study Monitor, or CTP Study Monitor, is used to describe the CTP personnel who will conduct remote monitoring requests during recruitment. The Contractor should have their own site monitoring plan in place, so the goal of the CTP Study Monitor is to simply provide additional oversight of the data and human subject protection monitoring, ensuring all a site monitoring system is in place, the quality of the monitoring activity is appropriate, and that the site is prepared should an FDA Audit occur.
Question 04: Task 5 Data Monitoring: please clarify what CRA/Monitoring vs. Safety/Monitoring will be performed as per the SOW. For example, Part 4.7 mentions the ‘FDA personnel or a vendor on behalf of FDA may conduct site visits’. We presume this to mean that another entity (not the awarded contractor) would be doing some form of CRA/Site Monitoring – please confirm.
Answer 04:
a. The primary goal of CTP study monitoring is to ensure adherence to the study protocol and informed consent procedures as well as compliance with:
i. Federal and State regulations governing research
ii. Standard Operating Procedures of the FDA IRB and
iii. Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines.
b. The CTP Study Monitor will conduct study monitoring requests at approximately 25%, 75% and 100% of recruitment to ensure that we are audit ready. The requested materials will include:
i. IRB-approved protocol and amendments
ii. IRB approval letters
iii. Protocol Deviations
iv. Informed Consent Form and other materials provided to the participants, including recruitment materials and resources
v. Screening and Enrollment Logs
vi. Case report forms and any other source documents
vii. Medical histories, physical exams
viii. Delegation Log(s), including clearly outlined roles and responsibilities
ix. Logs for study test articles, supplies, and equipment (where applicable)
x. Investigational product accountability log(s), including product storage, dispensing and disposition information (if applicable)
xi. Investigator’s study files, including all regulatory documents and electronic records
xii. Adverse experiences/ unanticipated events reporting and tracking procedures and reports
xiii. Randomization logs/blinding data
c. Part 4.7 of the RTOP speaks to the ability for the FDA-CTP Quality Assurance and Quality Improvement team to audit this study at any point until the contract is complete. This formal audit could occur at any point during participant recruitment or once recruitment is complete. The office who performs study audits, the Office of Compliance and Enforcement, resides in a different part of the Center and works independently with their own contractors to perform random audits of CTP funded research.
Question 05:
Task 6: the RFP notes that multiple review rounds (“iterations”) are expected, with no limit on the times or timelines. Please confirm/clarify whether there would be similar limits for Task 6, as those noted for Task 5 (e.g., “maximum 4 rounds of edits”).
| Answer 05: | Task 6 is similar to Task 5, requiring multiple iterations of the protocol until it is deemed final/acceptable to the Government. Task 6 should not exceed 4 rounds of edits as well and it would be reasonable for the Contractor to assume the Government will require 2 weeks for review of the first iteration, and then 1 week for each subsequent round of review. |
| Question 06: | The RFP in Task 11 states that Contractor needs to complete HSP Training “appropriate” to the study. Can VRC clarify if there is a preferred course/curriculum for this training? |
| Answer 06: | The Contractor staff should complete human subject protections training specific to biomedical research. We recommend the CITI (Biomedical Basic) research training but are open to other options such as NIH human subjects research training. |
| Question 07: | Is the Coding Book referred to in Task 16 related to coding of adverse events (i.e., MedDRA coding conventions)? |
| Answer 07: | In Task 16, “coding procedures” and the “Coding Book” refer to documentation by study staff, and sometimes by the study statistician, about how response variables on survey outcome measures and results from other outcome-related assessments, including clinical/laboratory tests, are categorized and coded prior to statistical analyses. |
| Question 08: | Part 4.8: Please describe the responsibilities of the Senior Scientist, which is listed as key personnel. |
| Answer 08: | A Senior Scientist oversees the laboratory and clinical protocols as well as the statistical analysis plan for the study. Specifically, they provide guidance to study staff in the scientific and clinical implementation of the study, including recruitment, clinical and laboratory study procedures, supervision of the project team, and preparation of contract-specified deliverables. This position requires a Ph.D. and experience as lead scientist on at least 3 clinical research projects. |
| Question 09: | Part 6.1: The page limitation is provided, and Past Experience and Key Personnel is noted as unlimited. But, under 6.3, there is mention that Key Personnel resumes are limited to 3 pages. Please clarify any page limitations. |
| Answer 09: | Please limit all key personnel resumes to 3 pages per resume. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .