Abstract
Purpose: To obtain fundamental data on selection tools for an internal audit and develop a new guideline. We scored the indicated points from the internal audit, identified the research progress and problems that occurred, and confirmed the validity of the risk factors involved. Methods: Of the 63 internal audits conducted by Keimyung University Dongsan Hospital from 2014 to 2021, we analyzed 55 clinical trials with an inspection checklist. We excluded 8 that failed to transfer data and refused to comply with the internal audit. The statistical summary of the collected data was verified and interpreted by using frequency analysis and a chi-square test. Result: Of total 55 cases included in the internal audit, sponsor-initiated trial (SIT) was 63.6% (vs. investigator-initiated trial [IIT]), clinical trial for investigational drug was 71.0% (vs. nonclinical or clinical trial for investigational device), domestic multicenter trial was 60.0% (vs. single center or multinational multicenter trial), and trial requisition for MFDS approval was 69.1% (vs. exception for MFDS approval). The 10 areas of the clinical trial inspection checklist (reports, protection of subjects, compliance with protocols, records, management of investigational drug and/or device, delegation of duties, qualification of investigators, management of specimen, contract-agreement and approval of protocols, and preservation of recorded documents) were weighted between 2 to 5 points. The average of the total points was 16.09±13.2 and 20 clinical trials were above the average. As a result of comparing the average of the total points weighted by year, the highest score was in 2020. The 4 factors that play significant roles in determining the internal quality were (1) principal subjects that initiated the clinical trials (p=0.049), (2) type (p=0.003), (3) phase of clinical trials (p=0.024), and (4) number of registered subjects reported at the time of continuing deliberation (p=0.019). Of the 10 areas of the clinical trial inspection checklist, 'record' was the most inappropriate and insufficient. We found more indicated points; the quality of performance declined in IIT, nonclinical trials, and other clinical trials that were not in phase I1-IV4, and the study of more than 30 registered subjects at the time of continuing review. Conclusion: If an institution has an internal audit selection tool that reflects the aforementioned risk factors, it will be possible to effectively manage high-risk studies; thereby, contributing to an efficient internal audit and improving the quality of clinical trials.
