Valensa International announced Non-GMO Project has been awarded to Valensa’s Organic Spirulina, Chlorella and Microalgae products.

New Legal Motion Challenges Tony Huge’s Supposed Unpaid Role in Enhanced Athlete

Bergstrom Nutrition, manufacturer of OptiMSM®, a branded form of methylsulfonylmethane (MSM), recently published an article detailing how the small intestine absorbs MSM, particularly in relation to sulfur.

ChromaDex Corp. announced NIAGEN® nicotinamide riboside prevented neurological damage and improved cognitive and physical function in a new mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease.

It is "inconceivable" that immunity will not remain high on the list of health priorities when this pandemic ends and now is the time to create more "convincing experiences" to ensure trial turns into adoption, according to food and drink research and branding experts.

Older adults who consumed large amounts of flavonoid-rich foods were two to four times less likely to develop Alzheimer's disease and related dementias over 20 years compared with people whose intake was low, in a study of 2,800 people.

Rousselot, the collagen-based ingredients producer, has revealed a new study which it says provides important answers surrounding the bioavailability of collagen peptides and the modifications they undergo during digestion.

As a sponsor or CRO, you understand the importance of a thorough site selection process. A site needs to be able to meet enrollment targets and time frames, protect the rights and safety of study participants, execute the protocol, deliver quality data, and maintain GCP compliance. That’s what your site feasibility surveys and pre-study visits are designed to evaluate. And as you’re assessing a site’s abilities, the site is conducting its own feasibility process. They’re mining their patient database and assessing inclusion/exclusion criteria. They’re reviewing staff credentials and ensuring they have adequate resources to manage the number of subject visits and collect the data the protocol requires.

But when we conduct GCP audits, we find there’s one perspective that is sometimes overlooked by both sides: the needs of the study drug itself.




Study Drug Attributes Affecting Site Selection Process

IP Environment.  Aside from needing sufficient storage space, many drugs have special storage requirements. Does the site have the equipment and resources needed to maintain and adequately monitor and record environmental conditions such as temperature or humidity? Do they have agreements with their vendors that guarantee a specific response time for repairing or replacing faulty equipment? If they lose electricity, do they have back up power, or at least provisions to move the IP off-site? (This is a common auditor question in hurricane-prone areas.)


Preparation of Study Drug.  Does your investigational product need to be reconstituted in a liquid? Do doses need to be compounded in different concentrations? Does the protocol require that an IV solution be prepared, filtered, and sterilized? These activities take time, specially trained personnel, and sometimes specialized equipment such as ventilation hoods. If your protocol demands an involved IP prep, your feasibility survey must include questions that allow you to assess these site capabilities and your pre-study visit should definitely include some time in the pharmacy. 

Drug Administration. Handing over a bottle of capsules to a study participant is one thing; inserting a butterfly catheter into an antecubital vein is something else again. If drug administration is very invasive, you’ll want to verify that the site has taken this into account when providing you enrollment projections. During subject visits, staff members may have to calculate doses, give intramuscular injections, perform infusions, or conduct sterilization procedures. You’ll want to verify that site staff has this expertise if required. Some clinical trials require a blinded dispenser who cannot be involved in any other study procedure or activities. If so, does the site have the resources for this?

Site Selection: it’s not just the PI, it’s the IP too
The study success and patient safety are jeopardized when a site can’t meet its enrollment target or doesn’t have the resources to execute the protocol. IP requirements can affect a site’s ability to do both. It’s critical that your site selection process – both your feasibility questionnaire and your pre-study visit – evaluate how well the site can meet the storage, preparation, and administration requirements of the study drug.

__________________________________________________________________________
A version of this article originally appeared in InSite, the Journal of the Society for Clinical Research Sites.

Photo Credit: By Harmid (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Developing safe and effective drugs requires a coordinated effort across a diverse set of disciplines. This is easier to observe at some points in the process than at others. Once a product is well into human trials, it can be easy to forget that developments on the manufacturing side of the house can affect the clinicians who are conducting the studies.




Trialed Drug vs Marketed Drug


Once researchers are satisfied that animal studies show that an Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) is effective and nontoxic at initial doses, there’s an urgency to get it into the clinic and begin human studies as soon as possible. Though the ultimate product may be marketed in one form, a different form may take less time to manufacture, and so would be the form given to human volunteers in earlier clinical trials.

A tablet, for example, is much harder to manufacture than a 2-piece hard shell capsule because determining the appropriate compression for a tablet takes time. (Tablets that aren’t sufficiently compressed will break apart in the bottle; tablets compressed too tightly may not dissolve as they should, earning themselves the entertainingly accurate moniker “bedpan bullets.”) Rather than wait until a tablet form of the drug can be fully developed, to save time, sponsors would likely begin human studies using a hard shell capsule version.*

To ensure that clinical trial data for the Investigational Product (IP) are applicable to the ultimately marketed product, clinicians run bioequivalence for dosage form studies. These small pharmacokinetics studies may result in changes, such as dosage amount or frequency, if people do not metabolize the studied formulation and the final formulation the same way.


Stability Test Failures

When we hear of a pharmaceutical company having to “pull its product,” we typically think of a recall scenario that involves consumers, distributers, and retailers.  Recall procedures fall under the GMP umbrella, and are spelled out in great detail in 21 CFR Part 211. However, similar procedures may very well be required of clinical site staff, long before the product ever sees its first drugstore.


Before any clinical trials begin on a drug, manufacturers would have been conducting stability tests for months. But stability testing may continue for years after the start of human trials, and analysts could detect a variety of troubling conditions in the course of their work. Product can change color or break apart. Capsules can crack and leak. Microbes could begin to grow, especially in moister product. The container closure system itself could be problematic; it could leech contaminating material into the product, introducing impurities, or it could extract material from the product, diminishing its potency. Any of these finding could mean that study drug would need to be pulled from clinical sites.

No one expects site staff to have detailed quarantining and recall procedures; the Sponsor will tell site staff exactly what they need to do. But what would this look like?

(1) Adulterated product that cannot be dispensed will need to be moved to a separate, secure area so it won’t be confused with good product. It might need to be stored there for a period of time or shipped back to the Sponsor.

(2) For certain, a site’s drug accountability procedures will be center stage. The only way a site can successfully recall bad product is if it has -- all along -- closely tracked the amount of IP it has received, dispensed, and still has on hand.

(3) Study participants who have any quantity of the bad product will need to be contacted, told not to use it, and told how to return it. (Note that this pertains to participants on the placebo arm as well, otherwise the blind will be broken.) Phone calls may not be sufficient; sites may need to invoke lost-to-follow-up procedures, such as sending registered letters. Remote, virtual trials, which often ship IP to participants, need to be designed to allow for the tracking and retrieval of bad product.

(4) What should be done if it turns out some participants have already used the bad product? Unfortunately, that’s one SOP you can’t write in advance; it would completely depend on the nature of the IP and the problem it has, the vulnerability of the patient population, the protocol, the participant’s proximity to the site, etc. Perhaps a careful case review to look for AEs associated with affected participants would suffice. More critical situations may require participants to undergo physical examinations or special testing. In many cases, study data associated with the use of the tainted IP would need to be identified and removed from the efficacy analysis.

(5) These quarantining and recall activities must be carefully recorded. IRBs and regulators will want written proof that all suspect IP has been accounted for. Sponsors might consider sending a CRA to ensure adequate documentation.


Re-labeling

Stability tests don’t have to fail to trigger action for clinical staff. Should a chemist discover a condition that requires a labeling modification -- a new expiry date**, for example – all the labels on existing product held at clinical study sites would need to be replaced. In these situations, the Sponsor may dispatch CRAs to replace the labels themselves, or negotiate with individual site staffs to do it instead. 


No GxP is an Island…

GMP professionals manufacture, package, and label biopharmaceutical products. GCP professionals conduct clinical trials on those same products. These roles are very different from each other, yet they don’t work in isolation. Formulation changes, stability testing, and re-labeling requirements represent three examples in which activities performed by GMP folks impact their GCP counterparts. Have you experienced any additional examples? Feel free to share them in the Comments section.

In case you missed it, our last post was about how attributes of the Study Drug influence the Site Selection and Feasibility process.

___________________________________________________________

* “By the time clinical trials start, they know what ingredients go in the cookie, they just don’t know how the cookie is going to turn out yet.”
       - Rosanne Sylvia-Heeter, Polaris Director of GMP Compliance and phenomenal cook

** Expiry dates are not required but are sometimes included on IP labels.

When I was a teenager, my grandfather would invite my new boyfriends to run short, pointless errands with him, just so he could watch them drive. He said he could tell a lot about a boy’s character simply by observing his actions behind the wheel. Did he stay under the speed limit? Did he use his signal when he was switching lanes? Did he slow down when children were playing near the road? If so, it was a good sign that the boy was generally a careful and attentive fellow. If not, it was an early indication of reckless tendencies, and I would do well to be on my guard.

What does this have to do with PI oversight?



As Sponsors and CROs, you’re sometimes forced to make site selection decisions based on a limited set of criteria that you deem to be – hope to be – reflective of the site as a whole. In a short space of time, you need to assess a PI’s commitment to study oversight. On what should your pre-study “test drive” focus to help you gauge the level of care and attention a prospective PI will devote to your study?

We have some suggestions.


Assessing Attention to Detail
Any GCP-compliant site can produce a set of current CVs, job descriptions, and training records; they’re essential documents. But the most attentive sites are able to show you more than a collection of records during your pre-study visit with them. These sites keep a complete, organized set of uniform records and can describe their tight system for maintaining it. All documents for each staff member are found in dedicated tabs inside a records binder, or are equally well-organized in an electronic records system. All CVs are in a standard format so Sponsors can easily compare qualifications across individuals. Every document is current; CVs are up to date, and there’s a system in place to track which medical licenses are expiring when. Training records are comprehensive and include training on GCP regulations, site SOPs, and EMRs.

This is not sexy stuff. That’s why it’s a good indicator of PI oversight.  A site that is disciplined enough to keep such tight control over its personnel records is likely to carry that control into all aspects of trial execution.

Assessing Commitment to Protocol Compliance
During site initiation visits, Sponsor/CRO staff is on site to conduct protocol training; all study sites start off the same in this respect. But protocol amendments are inevitable, and sometimes – though nobody’s happy about it – frequent. You need assurances that a site’s response to each amendment will be swift, well-coordinated, and deliberate. Ask the prospective PI, “What procedures does your site follow for managing protocol amendments?”

The A answer:
“When a protocol amendment arrives, we convene a special team meeting to review the changes and discuss their effects. For example, if additional safety tests are required, the team discusses who shall be delegated to perform them? Do we have adequate time scheduled into the visit for any additional procedures the amendment requires? How will I be demonstrating oversight of any new test results? Once we’ve asked and answered these kinds of questions, we document attendance at the meeting, record assignments of delegated duties, and publish meeting minutes.”

The F answer:
“I email the amendment out to my team. I assume they’re all adults and know how to read.” (#TrueStory)

Just Ask
After reviewing essential documents and protocol amendment procedures, you should ask about other PI oversight mechanisms the site has in place. A good prospective site might tell you the PI holds biweekly meetings to review the items raised during monitoring visits. A PI may block out time at regular intervals to review adverse events and other study documents, and sign off on labs. A PI who values staff excellence may actively encourage and support Study Coordinator certification; some may even require it after an initial period of employment. In the past, we’ve worked with sites that have established internal Quality Control procedures, some maintain CAPA programs, and others conduct mock inspections.

There’s a wide variety of responses that can give you confidence a prospective PI is committed to running your study in a constant state of control. Whatever oversight measures are discussed, remember to ask how they will be documented, so during the study you’ll be able to verify that each activity is being consistently carried out.

Epilogue
After running an errand with a boy I met at college, my grandfather happily reported back to me, “He didn’t roll through a single stop sign coming down Green Hill Road. He’s all right, that one.”

My grandfather, a retired police detective for the city of Pittsburgh, knew how to read a person. That boy and I celebrated our 30th anniversary last month.

I was a child bride.

If you found this article helpful, you might also like:
Anticipating Tensions Between Clinical Care and Study Protocol
Avoiding Protocol Deviations

Sites frequently want to know how they can stand out to Sponsors and CROs to win more studies.
Our advice: Implement internal QC procedures.

Sponsors and CROs we work with consider a tight quality control program to be evidence that a site can be counted on to produce reliable data. It shows that managing quality at your site is a continual process, and doesn’t wait for monitors to arrive. In a risk-based monitoring environment, this is an increasingly compelling attribute.

Where to Start: The Usual Suspects
It makes sense for you to focus your QC efforts on those areas where you’ve historically had the most problems. If the phrase “trend analysis” makes you want to jump through a window -- it's okay -- you can climb back inside. You don't have to do a trend analysis. We've identified 3 areas in which audit findings are common and how you can avoid them.



Adverse Events (AEs) and Concomitant Medications (ConMeds). Often two sides of the same coin, AE and ConMed documentation needs to tell a consistent story. If source documents indicate a study participant had a sinus infection, it must be documented on an AE page, and any associated medications documented on the ConMeds page. A medication noted on the AE page must have a corresponding notation on the ConMed page. And all start and end dates must match across the source, AE, and ConMeds pages.

Drug Accountability Records. Calculating compliance percentages and counting pills are positively uninteresting tasks, easy to mess up, and involve math (which for some people triggers terrifying flashbacks of word problems about trains leaving stations). Is it any wonder that drug accountability records are frequent sources of error? Do some spot-checking: verify that the number of returned tablets matches the tallies recorded for them and recheck compliance calculations.

Essential Documents. Maintaining a complete, organized, uniform set of essential documents is an important, yet decidedly unsexy task. That’s why it’s a good indicator of your commitment to quality; a site that is disciplined enough to keep tight control over its essential documents is likely to carry that control into all aspects of trial execution. Make sure to file all documents associated with protocol amendments, such as IRB approvals and revised informed consent forms -- our auditors find these are the items most frequently missing from the essential document set. 

Write It All Down
Document your QC procedures in an SOP. It will serve as training material for site staff and a repository for worksheets and checklists.

There’s no magic organization for this QC SOP. A general set of instructions could outline how reviewers can verify that all documents follow ALCOA principles. For example, on (paper) source documents, are all pages and required signatures present? Are entries legible? Are corrections initialed, dated, and explained? Does the data make sense and lie within expected ranges? Have all data elements been populated? (Tip: turn the paper upside down to catch missing data.)

Checklists that are focused on particular types of documents should be as specific as possible. For example, QC reviews of source documents for screening visits would verify that the correct informed consent form was used, administration of consent was documented, medical release forms were sent if required, demographics were correct, all labs were received, reviewed and signed, all protocol assessments were completed, and all inclusion/exclusion criteria were met and documented.

A Virtuous Cycle
While designed to control quality, performing QC over time may actually improve quality. Results of QC reviews often suggest revisions you should make to your tools and operations to reduce error in the future.

Okay, you can climb back through the window again -- no one said CAPA. (But wouldn't that be impressive?)


Showcasing Site QC Processes
Does implementing a QC program require resources and time? Yes, and that’s the point. It’s evidence to Sponsors and CROs of your commitment to running a quality study. Not only that, but it demonstrates a proper respect for your study participants by ensuring their data can be used.

Oh, and make sure you highlight your QC program on feasibility questionnaires. It’s something to brag about.

________________________________________________________________________
A version of this article originally appeared in InSite, the Journal of the Society for Clinical Research Sites

Trying to comply with the GDPR got you down?
Maybe our parody will cheer you up.

(Sung to the tune of Lennon-McCartney's "Back in the U.S.S.R.")

Vertex Pharmaceuticals announced a plan late Tuesday to begin trials before the end of the year of the third in its so-called “triple combo” of pills designed to treat as much as 90 percent of the 75,000 patients worldwide who suffer from cystic fibrosis. That news, announced in conjunction with the Boston-based drugmaker’s third-quarter financial results last night, spurred a 6 percent stock increase after hours, implying the company’s market cap could increase by about half a billion dollars…

- Libtayo decreased the risk of death by 32.4% compared to chemotherapy

Objective responses seen in 29% of patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma (BCC)

J&J agrees a manufacturing partnership with Emergent, as it looks to hit its target of one billion doses.

As the industry shifts gears to combat the novel coronavirus, a number of leadership changes have taken place.

Catalent announces partnership with J&J to manufacture lead COVID-19 vaccine candidate, plans to hire 300 staff and manufacture 24/7.

Posted by Roger Bate My op-ed with Dinesh Thakur in The Hill today highlights the recent recommendation by Europe's chief drug regulator to suspend 700 generic drugs whose approvals were based on flawed – or forged – clinical studies conducted by GVK Bio, an Indian contract research organization. We urge U.S. Federal regulators to follow Europe’s lead and move to rescind market approval for these drugs while conducting their own investigation. You can read the op-ed here [...]

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought to the fore some issues of ad-promo for FDA-regulated products. I'm posting here to highlight some developments and correct some of the discussion.

Snake Oil & Enforcement

Off-Label Promotion & Outbreaks

Pharmacies dispensed approximately 35% more prescriptions in March 2020, compared with the previous month, according to a survey by the National Pharmacy Association.

To read the whole article click on the headline

Supplies of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, sertraline, are returning to stock after manufacturers reported “industry-wide” supply challenges, exacerbated by export bans and border closures implemented as a result of COVID-19. 

To read the whole article click on the headline

Pharmacy staff who are thought to have died as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic are to be among the healthcare workers remembered with a minute’s silence on 28 April 2020.

To read the whole article click on the headline

Community pharmacies need millions of pounds extra “to keep their heads above water” during the COVID-19 pandemic, pharmacy bodies have warned.

To read the whole article click on the headline

Wholesalers have “almost completely run out” of the personal protective equipment supplied by Public Health England for distribution to community pharmacies during the COVID-19 pandemic, the wholesaler trade body has warned.

To read the whole article click on the headline

NHS England has advised pharmacies to risk assess staff who may be particularly vulnerable to COVID-19, including those from a black, Asian or minority ethnic background.

To read the whole article click on the headline

The European Medicines Agency has begun a rolling review of data on Gilead’s remdesivir, positioning it to cut the time it takes to decide whether to approve the drug in COVID-19 patients.

Pfizer and partner BioNTech are right in the middle of one of the most important vaccine trials in the world right now, but that doesn’t mean the Big Pharma is taking its eyes off the inoculation ball elsewhere.

The successful activation of T cells is critical to the immune system's ability to clear infections. A retrospective study in China found that COVID-19 patients had remarkably low T-cell counts in their blood, while some pro-inflammatory cytokines such as IL-6—which Roche’s Actemra targets—were elevated.

Inovio Pharmaceuticals’ stock has climbed higher and higher over the past month since it said it was working on a speedy COVID-19 vaccine.

Australia’s largest biotech company CSL says it is working on a plasma-based therapy for patients with more severe forms of COVID-19.

The FDA has delayed its decision on whether to approve Bristol Myers Squibb’s CAR-T cell therapy by three months. Bristol Myers attributed the delay to its submission of additional information upon the request of the FDA.

Following in the footsteps of an increasing number of biopharmas that want to use data to get more bang for their buck in R&D, J&J has promoted Najat Khan, Ph.D., to the role of chief data science officer.

Sanofi and Regeneron’s Dupixent has become a popular treatment for atopic dermatitis and asthma. Now, a research team in Japan has discovered that IL-4 and its receptor—which Dupixent inhibits—could be promising targets for treating the eye disease age-related macular degeneration.

PTC Therapeutics is adding to its rare disease pipeline with a midstage biotech buyout with a low upfront payment tied in with stock and biobucks.

Moderna is finalizing the protocol for a phase 3 trial of its COVID-19 vaccine with a view to starting the study early in the summer. The establishment of the timeline, which follows FDA clearance to run a phase 2 trial, puts Moderna on track to win approval for its mRNA vaccine mRNA-1273 next year.

Johnson & Johnson taps Khan for chief data role; Icon poaches AstraZeneca vet Buck as CMO; Intellia signs on Lebwohl as CMO.

A recent study looking at the effects of caffeine on brief, high intensity exercise found the substance improved performance, regardless of genetic variations in how subjects metabolized caffeine.

The video has been viewed millions of times on YouTube via links that are replaced as quickly as the video-sharing service can remove them for violating its policy against "COVID-19 misinformation."

A major health agency fears a humanitarian crisis. Migrant workers are returning home from the hard-hit Dominican Republic. Medical equipment is in short supply. And social distancing is improbable.

With social distancing, many people are speaking less and their voices sound raggedy. NPR's Scott Simon talks with speech pathologist Sandy Hirsch, about keeping the voice sounding as it should.

If the worst thing that happens to me during this global pandemic is that I have to buy new pants, I will weep with gratitude.

In several states and in parts of California, black and Latino people are dying of COVID-19 at higher rates than their white and Asian counterparts.

Bill Oakley, a writer on "The Simpsons," admitted on Twitter that perhaps the animated TV show did forecast some of our troubling current events.

Andy Serkis, who plays Gollum in the "Lord of the Rings" films, announced that he will livestream a reading of J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Hobbit" on Friday.

As the economy has cratered, mortgage lenders tightened standards for people who are still interested in buying or refinancing a home.

Guns N' Roses frontman Axl Rose criticized Steven Mnuchin and Trump's coronavirus response, which irked the Treasury secretary and started a Twitter spat.

For goodness sake, if you're going to hike, wear a mask.

Until millions of Americans can be tested weekly for coronavirus, states will walk blindly into restarts. But NIH director has a plan to ramp up.