FDA Warning Letter Breakdown: When Pediatric Dosing Protocols Are Optional—and What Every Clinical Site Should Learn
How a pediatric dosing error sparked an FDA warning letter, and lessons for clinical sites.
This breakdown is available for all subscribers. Only paid subscribers get regular full access to our breakdowns and other analyses. If you’re not already a paid subscriber, you can upgrade here. Want to stay out of our warning letter breakdowns? Contact us to access our global network of 3,250+ consultants and 250+ former FDA employees. We run audits, mock inspections, and remediation for 17 of the top 25 life science firms.
Most FDA warning letters that get issued to clinical investigators include a laundry list of record-keeping lapses.
A recently posted letter focuses on a single but profound failure: two pediatric subjects were given double the protocol-specified daily dose of an investigational autism therapy for more than two weeks.
One mistake can unravel a study’s scientific integrity, trigger ethical concerns, and jeopardize every future submission that cites those data. If you sponsor, monitor, or run trials—especially in vulnerable populations—this letter is a must-read.
Here’s a quick distillation, with some thoughts from us.
The overdosing event that triggered the FDA’s scrutiny
The protocol called for a cautious, step-wise titration: children aged 5-9 were to start at 0.5 mg/day, rise to 0.75 mg/day on day 5, and optionally reach a maximum of 1.5 mg/day by day 8.
Instead, two nine-year-olds were dispensed 3 mg/day—twice the ceiling—continuously for 16 and 22 days. The investigator became aware of these events in September 2023, according to the warning letter.
The responsible physician blamed a 'misinterpretation of the study protocol and the unspecified dosing amounts provided within the protocol.' The protocol clearly specified that 1.5 mg/day was the maximum allowed dose for this age group.The FDA’s assessment is blunt: the deviation “exposed them to an increased risk of adverse events.”
Ask yourself:
Could anyone on your team misread a dose-escalation table, especially if units switch between mg and mL?
Do you require a second person (or an electronic check) to verify every pediatric dose calculation?
How quickly would you detect if the electronic drug accountability log contains an out-of-range dispense?
Oversight gaps: protocol adherence isn’t a delegation exercise!
The clinical investigator's written response stated that site staff were retrained on dosing specifications, that site staff will contact the sponsor for guidance on protocol details that are vague or unspecified, and that additional pharmacy staff will be present when dosing to double-check the dose amount.
The FDA called this inadequate because the response 'did not include sufficient details regarding the training or procedures implemented at your site to prevent similar violations in the future' and lacked 'sufficient details about how you, as the clinical investigator, will ensure adequate oversight of study procedures.'
In other words, ad-hoc training sessions and good intentions do not substitute for a repeatable, documented verification system led by the principal investigator.
A few key signals of weak oversight highlighted by the FDA here:
No evidence that the investigator personally reviewed dose calculations before drug administration.
No documented plan for real-time reconciliation between dispensing records and protocol-defined limits.
Vague descriptions of staff retraining—no curriculum, no competency check, no date stamps.
Ask yourself:
Does your delegation log clearly separate mechanical tasks (e.g., syringe prep) from judgment tasks (dose escalation decisions)?
When an electronic CRF captures a dose outside protocol limits, does the system fire an alert before—or after—the dose reaches the patient?
Can you point to a monthly site-PI audit where a sample of records is cross-checked against the protocol?
CAPA without evidence: why regulators remain unconvinced
The site’s corrective action plan promises retraining, better sponsor communication, and an extra pair of eyes in the pharmacy.
The FDA’s core objection: no proof.
The agency wants to see signed training logs, updated SOPs, a dosing-verification checklist, and documentation that the principal investigator has instituted real-time oversight. Until those artifacts exist, the risk of repeat violations is, in the FDA’s eyes, unchanged.
The FDA specifically requested 'follow-up documentation regarding the training and procedures implemented at your site to ensure compliance with study protocol dosing procedures,' noting that without this information, they cannot determine if the corrective action plan is adequate.
Ask yourself:
Do your CAPA templates require attaching the revised SOP and proof of staff competency before the action can close?
Have you run a CAPA effectiveness check—for example, a mock dispense—since implementing new controls?
Could you provide the sponsor and FDA with a time-stamped audit trail showing every verification step for the next subject?
A few broader lessons for sponsors, CROs, and investigators
Four things we’d like to point out here:
Protocol clarity is critical. The FDA emphasized that as the clinical investigator, it’s the physician's responsibility to ensure that studies are conducted in accordance with the investigational plan.
Electronic guardrails beat human memory. Dose calculators embedded in eSource, with hard stops for out-of-range entries, prevent errors before they reach patients.
PI oversight must be visible. Regulators judge what they can see: documented review, signed checklists, audit trails. Enthusiastic email assurances count for little.
CAPA evidence closes the loop. Every promised fix needs physical proof—training rosters, updated SOP versions, initialed worksheets, and system validation reports.
A few key takeaways and overall lessons
Let’s distill this down into a few lessons.
Dose-calculation guardrails must be built into the system, not the memory of a busy coordinator. For pediatric trials especially, embed a dose calculator directly in the eSource or eCRF that requires the child’s weight or age and auto-populates the permitted range. Make the field read-only once saved. Any out-of-range entry should trigger a hard stop, not a soft query.
Double-verification is non-negotiable whenever vulnerable subjects are dosed. Create a “two-signature” worksheet—one clinical, one pharmacy—for every dose change. The form should cite the exact protocol limit and include a tick box for “verified against latest protocol amendment.” (One pediatric oncology network we audited uses laminated dosing cards signed by both the PI and research pharmacist. The monitors scan the card into the EHR as the source. The FDA has repeatedly praised the visibility of PI oversight here.)
Protocol granularity beats “elegance”—spell out every unit conversion. If the protocol lists doses in milligrams but the vial label shows concentration in mg/mL, add an appendix with worked examples: “1.5 mg = 0.75 mL of 2 mg/mL solution.” Treat it as part of the essential study documents, not a slide deck buried in a kickoff meeting.
PI oversight must be documented, not assumed! Schedule a monthly “PI audit hour” where the investigator initials a log confirming that all dispensations during the prior month match the protocol limits. Attach the log in the TMF.
CAPAs should close only when proof is attached. Retraining claims must list attendees, trainer credentials, and dates. New SOPs should appear in the controlled-document portal with revision numbers and training acknowledgments. Also, before a CAPA status flips to “Effectiveness Verified,” run a mock dispense. If the calculator blocks an overdose and both signatures appear, the CAPA passes.
A few final thoughts
One pediatric overdose is an error; repeat dosing over weeks is a systemic failure. In the current era of decentralized trials, eSource, and tight enrollment timelines, it is easy to assume that software and SOPs will catch everything. This warning letter shows that without deliberate, documented, investigator-level oversight, vulnerable subjects remain at risk and the data they generate risk becoming unusable.
Could you prove—within five minutes—that every dose given today matched the protocol by design, calculation, and verification?
If not, the time to tighten your controls is now—before FDA writes the next letter.
Need audit, mock inspection, remediation, or warning letter/483 response support? Let’s talk.
Contact us to access our exclusive pool of over 3,250 global consultants, including 250 former FDA officials. If we haven't yet partnered on project support, we provide end-to-end audit support and intensive, comprehensive mock FDA inspections that not only mirror real inspections but also delve deeper, providing the insights, corrections, and readiness you need before the FDA visits your facility.
With a staff of thousands of resources worldwide, we're the partner firms work with when they want deep domain expertise and the peace of mind that comes with a partner whose commitment to quality and integrity reflects their own.
Whether you need a complete audit program design, full execution, or specific audit support, we're here to help. Drop us a line to start the conversation.
Who is The FDA Group?
The FDA Group helps life science organizations rapidly access the industry's best consultants, contractors, and candidates. Our resources assist in every stage of the product lifecycle, from clinical development to commercialization, with a focus on Quality Assurance, Regulatory Affairs, and Clinical Operations.
With thousands of resources worldwide, hundreds of whom are former FDA, we meet your precise resourcing needs through a fast, convenient talent selection process supported by a Total Quality Guarantee. Learn more and schedule a call with us to see if we’re a fit to help you access specialized professionals and execute your projects on time and on budget.