Compared with the draft version of the guidance, the final version:
- Reinforces, even strengthens, its support of RBM
- Suggests “more intensive monitoring” does not necessarily indicate on-site monitoring
- Provides specific examples of critical/non-critical data and tasks that could be accomplished remotely
- Emphasizes the importance of protocol and CRF design
- Notes that, under RBM, delegating monitoring obligations to a CRO requires more clarity, communication, and evaluation than traditional monitoring