• SKIP TO CONTENT
  • SKIP NAVIGATION
  • Patient Resources
    • COVID-19 Patient Resource Center
    • Clinical Trial Listings
    • What is Clinical Research?
    • Volunteering for a Clinical Trial
    • Understanding Informed Consent
    • Useful Resources
    • FDA Approved Drugs
  • Professional Resources
    • Research Center Profiles
    • Market Research
    • Benchmark Reports
    • FDA Approved Drugs
    • Training Guides
    • Books
    • eLearning
    • Events
    • Newsletters
    • White Papers
    • SOPs
    • eCFR and Guidances
  • White Papers
  • Clinical Trial Listings
  • Advertise
  • COVID-19
  • Sign In
  • Create Account
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
Home » Anesthesiologist Warned for IND, Informed Consent Issues in Anesthesia Trial

Anesthesiologist Warned for IND, Informed Consent Issues in Anesthesia Trial

March 20, 2023

The FDA has issued a warning letter to a Houston, Texas-based anesthesiologist for failing to submit an investigational new drug application (IND) and obtain informed consent as required in an anesthesia trial.

The warning letter cites Maggie Jeffries, owner of Avanti Anesthesiology and a specialist in ophthalmic anesthesia, for a lack of regulatory compliance during a trial involving oral drug combinations for anesthesia that she led as sponsor-investigator. Specifically, the FDA determined that the protocol had no IND in effect despite requiring one. An IND was necessary, the agency said, because the protocol involved administering diazepam, tramadol, ondansetron and MKO Melt (midazolam, ketamine and ondansetron) to assess and compare their efficacy for anesthesia in patients having cataract surgery.

Jeffries’ August 2021 response to the prior Form 483 issued contended that an IND wasn’t needed for several reasons: first, that MKO Melt has been in use for years, is not an investigational drug and is often used for sedation during cataract surgery; second, that the drugs in MKO Melt are well-known and frequently used in anesthesia practice; and lastly, that the study met the criteria for IND exemption.

The FDA, however, disagreed on these points, explaining its reasoning in the warning letter.

“[The protocol] required administration of specific drugs, depending on a randomization schedule; assessment and documentation of subjects’ answers to questions before discharge and the following day; and comparison of treatment arms to see how many subjects did not need extra medications during surgery,” the agency said. “The fact that the drugs individually can be part of a standard of care does not render these drugs non-interventions in a study setting, as was the case here, where the protocols prespecified the drug intervention to be administered.”

The protocol also failed to meet all criteria needed to be exempt from an IND, the agency determined, specifically that the investigation meets all informed consent/institutional review requirements and doesn’t involve a route of administration, dosage level, use in a population or other factor that significantly increases the risks, or decreases acceptability of risks, associated with use of the trial drugs.

The trial’s population — patients undergoing cataract surgery — significantly increased the risks associated with using tramadol alone and with diazepam. Despite this, safety measures, such as safety monitoring before, during and after surgery, adverse event monitoring, study stopping criteria and exclusion criteria, were not established, the FDA found.

In addition, the tramadol dosage level significantly increased the risks of its use, and the use of diazepam and tramadol together created the risk of profound sedation, respiratory depression, coma and death, as tramadol is an opioid agonist and diazepam is a benzodiazepine, the agency said.

With all this in mind, the FDA found that Jeffries also neglected to properly obtain informed consent by failing to identify experimental procedures and describe reasonably foreseeable risks to patients. According to the agency, the informed consent form read: “There are no additional risks or side effects associated with participation in the study. The risks of anesthesia are in the anesthesia consent and do not differ from what you would experience should you not participate in the study.”

In addition, a laminated copy of the consent form was given to patients while they waited for surgery, with personal copies only provided upon request.

Avanti Anesthesiology did not respond to a request for comment by deadline.

Read the full warning letter here: https://bit.ly/3Ft8GcJ.

 

To view more CenterWatch Weekly stories, click here.

Upcoming Events

  • 06Jun

    Gene & Cell Therapy Regulation: Comparability and Other New Developments

  • 07Jun

    Developing World-Class SOPs: Optimizing Quality and Compliance

  • 08Jun

    Implementing ICH E8 R1 Recommendations Increases Site and Participant Relationship Scoring Measures

Featured Products

  • Spreadsheet Validation: Tools and Techniques to Make Data in Excel Compliant

    Spreadsheet Validation: Tools and Techniques to Make Data in Excel Compliant

  • Surviving an FDA GCP Inspection

    Surviving an FDA GCP Inspection: Resources for Investigators, Sponsors, CROs and IRBs

Featured Stories

  • MAGI East 2023

    MAGI East 2023 Preview: Janssen Reports on Environmental Impact of Trials

  • Complexity-360x240.png

    Phase 3 Trials Significantly Rising in Complexity, Says CSDD

  • Quality Level Scale

    Build Quality into Trials Like You’d Build a House, Says FDA’s BIMO Director

  • DE&I

    Trust-Building, Community Connection Still Essential to DE&I Efforts, Experts Say

Standard Operating Procedures for Risk-Based Monitoring of Clinical Trials

The information you need to adapt your monitoring plan to changing times.

Learn More Here
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Do Not Sell or Share My Data

Footer Logo

300 N. Washington St., Suite 200, Falls Church, VA 22046, USA

Phone 703.538.7600 – Toll free 888.838.5578

Copyright © 2023. All Rights Reserved. Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing