Malaysia, the host of APEC 2020, has announced the postponement of the upcoming Second Senior Officials’ Meeting, the 2020 APEC Tourism Ministerial Meeting, and the 2020 APEC Ministers Responsible of Trade Meeting, which were scheduled for April this year.

Business leaders from the Asia-Pacific region called for APEC leadership and cooperation to combat the grave challenges to health and economies posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Regional cooperation key to containment and rebound

Medical supplies and personal protective products are facing barriers worldwide

Trade Ministers agree to work together towards a healthy, resilient and inclusive Asia-Pacific community.

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
Thank you Dinar! ------------------------------ MARIA GUDIEL Brea CA United States ------------------------------

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
Thank you Richard! ------------------------------ MARIA GUDIEL Brea CA United States ------------------------------

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
The short answer is "yes" provided that the development cell bank was the source for the GMP bank and is comparable in terms of performance. However, the devil is in details and you need to evaluate "comparability" carefully between the development bank and the GMP bank with respect to the characterization data you plan to use for, e.g., to support GMP bank for production, etc. Two ICH guidance documents are useful to look at, Q7 Table 1 and Q5D. The US FDA generally follows ICH guidance but EMA [More]

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
Hi everyone, As currently drafted,  the 2020 Chinese Pharmacopeia, the benchmark publication on the safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals legally available in China, includes 319 new entries. The publication includes more than 5,500 traditional Chinese and Western medicines. The official compendium of the standards of purity, description, test, dosage, precaution, storage, and the strength for each drug legally marketed in China is published by the Chinese Pharmacopoeia Commission. It is designed [More]

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
Hello, If there is a significant change to an accessory cleared under a 510(k) of a product, are we supposed to file a significant change to the FDA for the original 510(k) for the accessory? ------------------------------ Shikha Malik Regulatory Affairs Specialist II Dallas TX United States ------------------------------

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
Hello Shikha, This depends on whether the form, function, and operation of the medical device is affected by the change to the accessory.  Without knowing the device, the accessory, or the type of change, it is hard to say, but I refer you to the FDA Guidance document for when to complete a 510(k) for an existing device.  If you go through the flowchart and read the descriptors for each there is the item B.5 and then the sub-boxes 1 through 4.  There is the question whether a change to accessory [More]

By Laurie Meehan

“I can’t get the IWRS to assign a kit number.”

“My ECG reports take forever to come back from the Core Lab.”

“The eCRF won’t let me create a new subject.”

“This stupid machine is blinking an error code again.”

Sound familiar?  Sprinkle in some colorful adjectives and it probably does -- these problems are common enough at clinical research sites.  Equipment and systems have become increasingly technical and specialized, and study site staff has had to contend with more technology than ever before.  And because of the proliferation of niche vendors who provide the new tech, sites have had to deal with more vendors than ever before, too.  



And how are problems like these typically resolved?  Someone at the study site works his/her way through a list of maybe 20 or more vendor contact numbers, places a call, navigates a series of menu options, and hopefully gets directed to someone who can help.  And that assumes the site calls the right company; with tightly integrated systems, it’s not always obvious in which vendor’s system the problem lies.  This is frustrating for sites.  It takes time.  It costs money (since “vendor wrangling” is seldom sufficiently covered in the budget).  And it keeps study staff from doing what study staff does best – run the study, work with the study volunteers, and keep them safe.

So what’s the solution? 

Hint: It’s Not Training
Calm down.  Of course, adequate training on equipment and systems is important. But training doesn’t solve every problem.  Training doesn’t keep equipment from malfunctioning.  Training doesn’t ensure vendors deliver what and when they’ve promised.  Training can’t anticipate every situation nor address an unusual site circumstance.  And training doesn’t turn people into infallible little machines; we make mistakes.  And so, in all these cases, we’re back to site personnel interacting with perhaps scores of vendors, by phone or email, all over the world.

The Solution: a Single Point of Contact
Q: How do you help sites interact with dozens of vendors?
A:  You don’t.  You do it for them.  Establish a single point of contact within the Sponsor* organization for a site to call when vendor issues arise. 

Why is this a good idea when the expertise to resolve the issue lies with the vendor?  Why is this a good idea when the introduction of a middleman may result in some inefficiencies?

Excellent questions.  Here are our responses. 

• Better Vendor Oversight.  When sites filter their vendor issues through the Sponsor, the Sponsor can more easily track vendor performance.  Are there vendors that provide low-quality solutions, are repeatedly late, or difficult to deal with?  At best, these vendors are wasting time and money, and aren’t good for business (let alone site relations).  At worst, these vendors are jeopardizing subject safety or study data integrity, and require immediate Sponsor intervention.

• Better Site Oversight.  When sites filter their vendor issues through the Sponsor, the Sponsor can more easily track site performance.  Are there sites that routinely use equipment and computer systems incorrectly?  (Yes, now’s the time for that training.)  Are there high-performing sites that are able to work independently?  This information has always been important, but in an RBM paradigm, it’s essential.  Adaptive monitoring plans rely on on-going site performance measurements so Sponsors can adjust resources accordingly.  A reduction in monitoring visits means less opportunity to assess a site’s comfort level with study technology.  The corollary of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is “if you don’t know it’s broke, you can’t fix it.”

• Ability to Identify Pervasive Problems. After the third or fourth site reports the same problem, it’s clear that this is not an isolated occurrence.  Knowing that, the Sponsor can work with the vendor to resolve the problem before other sites experience the same troubles.

• Better Functioning Sites.  We have a saying: “The Site Comes First."™  In our experience, all things being equal, Sponsors that put their sites first -- make things as easy as possible for the study coordinators -- get the best results.  They also build the good relationships that keep the best sites coming back to work on future studies.

• Better Functioning Vendors.  The efficiencies for the vendor here are clear.  Who wouldn’t rather interact with a single point of contact than field individual calls from multiple study sites?  Plus, with far fewer players, miscommunicating both problem descriptions and problem solutions is less likely to occur.  The Sponsor contact and the vendor contacts will eventually settle into common terminology and build a history regarding past issues and resolutions.

What Do You Think?
We know that not everyone espouses this idea, and we recognize there are probably other effective processes out there.  Sponsors, how do you help your sites deal with multiple vendors?  Sites, do you have experiences and/or suggestions you can share?  (Be kind, anonymize!)  Leave a comment here, visit our website, or send us an email.




____________________
*When we use the term “Sponsors” in this post, we’re including CROs that take on Vendor Management responsibilities on behalf of Sponsors.

What if your favorite movie quotes were written for QA professionals? Would they be as memorable? We think so, but we’ll let you decide.

In the fall of 2015, the internet was rife with tweets sporting the hashtag #ScienceMovieQuotes.  Creative scientists repurposed their favorite movie quotes, gleefully infusing them with nerdy humor for the entertainment of their colleagues.  Such a great idea was just asking to be stolen.  And who are we to resist the siren call of piracy?  So here’s our best attempt at making #QAmovieQuotes go viral.*

…And because the rhymes were just too good, we couldn’t resist…




If you’re feeling creative, here are the American Film Institute’s 100 greatest movie quotes of all time.  Please share your humor!  (Fair warning – we took all the good ones.)

By Laurie Meehan

________________________________________________
* Thanks to Robyn Barnes of MasterControl for this fun idea.

Photo credits

Brando: User:Aggiorna / CC BY-SA-3.0, changes made
Badge: User:Dandvsp / Wikipedia Commons / CC BY-SA-3.0
Nicholson: User:Nikita~commonswiki / CC BY-SA-2.5, changes made
Shawn: Sam Felder / CC BY-SA-2.5, changes made
Leigh: Trailer Screenshot, A Streetcar Names Desire,1951, Public domain
Freeman: User:FRZ / CC BY-SA-2.5, changes made
Aladdin Chocolates: Hans Lindqvist, 2009, Public domain
Flower: Walt Disney, Bambi, 1942, Public Domain
Doune Castle: Keith Salveson / CC BY-SA-2.0
Bogart: Trailer Screenshot, Casablanca,1942, Public domain
Newman: Warner Bros. Entertainment, Cool Hand Luke, 1967, Public Domain

Anx·i·ety (noun)
The state of uneasiness caused by apprehension of possible misfortune.

Yep.  That’s the word that comes to mind whenever anyone mentions FDA inspections.

But anxiety often stems from a lack of control, and in a regulatory inspection, you have more control than you might think.  There are many steps you can take -- before, during, and even after an inspection is over -- that can give you a fair degree of control over the outcome.   Here, Polaris auditors Lauren Kelley and Michele Commins share some of those steps with you.



Pre-inspection Preparation
For-cause inspections may be unannounced, but routine FDA inspections of submission data are scheduled in advance*.  That means most inspections are not pop quizzes; they’re final exams.
Remember how happy you were when a teacher gave you access to a prior year’s exam to study from?  You knew the type of questions that would be asked.  You knew how to prepare.

So this is the first tip we’d like to share.  FDA has, indeed, given you a copy of their exam in advance, in the form of its Compliance Program Guidance Manual, CPGM 7348.811.  This is the document all FDA field investigators use to conduct inspections at clinical sites.  It outlines in great detail what documents investigators will review, what dates they’re going to verify, what processes they’ll evaluate, what data they’ll collect, and what records they’re going to compare.  Despite its rather uninspired title, this is your copy of the final exam.

You know cramming is a risky strategy, so the earlier you get familiar with the CPGM the better.  Inspection readiness is a state of preparedness more than it is a laundry list of activities; it takes some time to get there.

When the Inspector’s in the House
According to the CPGM, one of the first pieces of information the FDA investigator will obtain is a list of all of the studies performed by the clinical investigator, including protocol number, sponsor, and study dates.  So even though FDA has scheduled its inspection with you, and has told you what study the investigator is coming to inspect, any study is fair game.  An FDA investigator can look at any document she wants, or talk to any staff member he chooses, whether related to the “assigned” study or not.

Most of your preparation will have been study-specific; questions about other studies will catch your staff off-guard, and a review of records for other studies may find them less than inspection-ready.  So here’s our second tip.   Avoid anything that might pique the investigator’s curiosity about a study that is not the original subject of the inspection.  Make sure the room you reserve as your investigator’s “home base” is free of any documents, reports, notes, phone lists, and post-its.  Make sure you tidy up offices, workspaces, and facilities site-wide, and keep extraneous chatter in check.

After the Visit
If your FDA inspection resulted in zero observations, then stop reading, thank your awesome staff members, and go celebrate.  If, however, you did receive a Form FDA 483, it’s probably not the end of the world, but you do have some work to do.  Our third tip is this:  remember that the sponsor/CRO is your ally here.  They have as much invested in FDA’s assessment of your study data as you do, and they have the regulatory, QA, even legal resources that you might not.   You’re not required to formally respond to 483s, but if you do, you’re likely to receive a more favorable Establishment Inspection Report (EIR) in the end.  Let your sponsor/CRO help you with your response.

Tips Do Not a Plan Make
Tips are helpful, but you’ll need more than that to ensure a successful FDA site inspection.  You need an inspection readiness plan -- a plan that you document and keep current.  All site staff members need to train on the inspection procedures and the individual roles they will play.  (Fourth tip: don’t forget to train your temporary employees; an office temp working at the receptionist desk could be the first person your FDA investigator speaks with.)

A Last Thought
Inspections are stress-inducing events, and nervous people make mistakes.  Investigators know this, and expertly exercise the “pregnant pause,” knowing how difficult it is for people to withstand an excruciating silence without volunteering unsolicited information.

So one last tip:  conduct a mock inspection before the FDA comes to visit.  It will stress test your procedures and identify improvements you need to implement.  A thorough mock inspection will give staff members an opportunity to rehearse their roles and interview techniques so they can execute your plan and speak to the FDA investigator with confidence.

_______________________________
* For-cause inspections are also known as Investigator-oriented, and routine inspections are also known as study-oriented.

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

Q: If Notes to File can be regulatory red flags, should we quit using them?
A: No, and here's why...

Regulatory inspections are often conducted long after the conclusion of the study. When an FDA investigator asks you a question about an anomaly five years after it’s happened, will anyone recall the circumstances well enough to satisfy the regulator’s concerns? You’ll be doing yourself a huge favor if you write NTFs that answer the questions regulators might one day be asking you.



NTFs can be used to effectively explain an irregularity, locate a document, or note a change in procedures. While there are no regulations or guidances that govern NTFs per se, ICH E6(R2) 2.10 states “All clinical trial information should be recorded, handled, and stored in a way that allows its accurate reporting, interpretation and verification.” A well-written NTF will not only describe an event, but will document who made the notation and when, why the problem occurred, what was done to fix it, and what changes were made to keep it from happening in the future. That’s a lot, so it’s a good idea to develop an NTF template to remind authors to include these elements.

Example of a poorly written NTF:
Informed Consent for study BH-90210 was revised by the IRB 01/7/2017. Subject 867-5309 was not re-consented at her next study visit, as per IRB instructions.

This NTF does nothing more than document the deficiency.

Improved NTF:
Informed Consent for study BH-90210 was revised by the IRB 01/07/2017 to include lab procedures on Visit 5. IRB instructions required a re-consent for all enrolled subjects at next study visit. Subject 867-5309 was not re-consented at her next (2nd) study visit, but was re-consented at her 3rd visit.

This version of the NTF gives us a little more context and lets us know that the subject was re-consented before the new lab procedures were performed. The oversight was corrected in time to preserve Jenny’s* rights, but we still don’t know why it happened; there’s not enough information to satisfy a regulator that failure to re-consent was not a pervasive problem. What were the site’s re-consenting procedures at the time of this study? Were they being followed? Who do we ask?


Complete NTF Using Template



Since the subject was consented before the additional lab procedures were performed, there was no violation of informed consent regulations. This was an oversight with no ill-effects, not a significant break with procedures. Discussing it at the departmental meeting is an appropriate, proportional response. (Note that if the subject had not been re-consented before the new lab procedures were performed, the site would have been in violation of consent regulations and an NTF would not have been sufficient. Both the IRB and the sponsor would have needed to be informed of the failure to consent.)

A poorly written NTF – one that doesn’t provide enough information, one that identifies a problem but no solution, one that is inadequately standing in for proper record keeping – won’t satisfy a regulator’s concerns. These are the sorts of NTFs that can actually do more harm than good. A well-written NTF, on the other hand, is something your future self will thank you for.

In case you missed it, our last post was about how GMP activities affect GCP study procedures.
___________________________________________________________________

* If you know why Subject 867-5309 goes by “Jenny," one of your friends wore a pink tux with shoulder pads to prom.

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

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

True or False:

(1) eSource in clinical trials means eliminating the possibility for transcription errors.

(2) Data collected in Electronic Data Capture (EDC) systems is eSource.

Strictly speaking, both statements are false. If that surprises you, it’s probably because many casual uses of the term “eSource” actually differ from the formal definition laid out by FDA. If the participants in any discussion share the same interpretation of “eSource”, or if it’s clear from context how “eSource” is being used, then no harm, no foul. (Contemporary translation: “Meh.”) BUT…and you know where we’re going with this…when a term can be interpreted in multiple ways, there’s always a possibility for miscommunication and cross talk.



FDA Guidance on eSource in Clinical Investigations
FDA defines eSource as *any* data initially recorded in electronic format. That’s a broad definition, one that includes:
     a) equipment-generated data, such as digital imaging and labs
     b) electronic Patient Reported Outcome (ePRO) transmissions
     c) data streams from mobile health devices, such as Apple ResearchKit
     d) data entered directly into an EDC, known as Direct-Data-Entry (DDE) solutions
     e) data entered into an Electronic Health Record (EHR) or electronic Medical Record (EMR) system


Discussion of Direct-Data-Entry (DDE)
DDE systems allow research staff members to use portable devices to enter study data directly into an EDC system. DDEs have been garnering a lot of industry attention of late, and a number of companies offer solutions that offer a DDE data flow. As independent 3rd party auditors, we don’t want to play favorites by mentioning specific systems as examples, but if your company sells or uses a DDE system that you want to highlight, feel free to add a comment below to give it a shout out.

Discussion of EMR/EDC Integration
Not long after finalizing its e-Source guidance, FDA hosted a webinar that encouraged companies to explore direct EMR/EDC integration. While a few industry players have taken up the effort, movement has been slow. One difficulty: generally EMRs are built with healthcare in mind, not clinical research. Secondly, with so many EMR and EDC vendors, ensuring that EMR data from one system is mapped to appropriate EDC fields in another system relies heavily on data standards that are still being defined and need to be implemented on both sides. 

Source Data Verification (SDV)
If data is transmitted directly from the source system to an Electronic Data Collection (EDC) system, SDV is not required, since the source data isn’t being transcribed manually. (Note: other types of Source Data Review (SDR) activities are still necessary, even if SDV isn’t. SDR must be conducted to verify ALCOA-C data principles such as attribution, originality, accuracy, completeness, etc.) Direct transmission from source system to EDC system is the typical pathway for items (a) – (d) above, and so SDV is not required for these types of eSource.


Common Confusions
SDV. Unless there is EMR/EDC integration – Item (e) above – source data from an EMR system needs to be manually transcribed. This is what makes T/F question #1 false. Just because source data originates in an EMR, it does *not* suggest SDV checks are superfluous. You could argue, as many have, that SDV is not a high-value activity and uncovers only a small percent of data error. That argument may well influence how much SDV is conducted, but whenever data is transcribed from original source into an EDC system, SDV is a relevant discussion.

EDC Data. It’s not unusual for someone to refer to data stored in EDCs as eSource. Data stored in EDCs are electronic, and may be source, but only if the EDC is the first place the data is recorded. This is what makes T/F question #2 false.

In Summary
If you’re ever in a discussion about eSource and things start going sideways, it may be time to haul out the formal definition of eSource -- in all its tedious detail -- to make sure everyone is using the term the same way. 

_____________________________________________________

Image Credit: Paradox by Brett Jordan

Last month, I scheduled one-on-one discussions with our most experienced GCP auditors to ask each of them the same question: What surprises you most about the audits you conduct?

I guess you could say that I was the one who was surprised. I’m not sure exactly what I was expecting to hear, but I thought my teammates were going to talk about things that were new. Instead, I heard a lot more about things that have been around for a long time. To a person, my colleagues said they were surprised to be observing some of the same audit findings they were observing 30 years ago...which *is* surprising when you consider most of them were mere children at the time. ;-)  It seems we have some stubbornly persistent quality and compliance issues in the biopharma industry that decades of neither experience nor technology have seemed to remedy. And the problems are not just persistent; they’re interrelated.



Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)
It’s quite common for auditors to encounter sponsors, CROs, and sites that lack an adequate set of SOPs to describe local procedures. There are several reasons for this. Sometimes it’s a lack of resources. Sometimes smaller, established organizations believe writing it all down is unnecessary, as “people know their jobs.” Sometimes newer companies are simply unaware that written procedures are required for particular operations. But when procedures are not documented, organizations are unable to demonstrate GCP compliance, cannot ensure that activities are performed correctly or consistently, and have difficulty training new staff members. (We’ll come back to training in a bit.)

Frequently missing from a good working set of SOPs are procedures for Disaster Recovery, Handling of Suspected Fraud, and Management of Regulatory Inspections. These SOPs are not used for day-to-day operations, so perhaps that’s why they don’t garner as much attention. Nevertheless, the inability to recover from a disaster, protect the organization from fraud allegations, or pass a regulatory inspection can sink a company.

A fourth SOP that is commonly absent from the set is the document that describes how to write, approve, distribute, revise, and retire SOPs. Also frequently missing from a working set of SOPs is our next topic: Training.

Training
Training can be expensive and time-consuming, and companies increasingly have to do more with less. In-person training has largely been replaced by computer-based systems, on-site training has given way to distance learning, and mentoring has gone the way of the dodo.

The good news is that study sites typically adhere to formal GCP training requirements. What’s often missing, though, is the training that connects GCP concepts to everyday activities. A trainee might correctly answer a multiple-choice question about audit trails, but without that “last mile” of coaching, use Wite-Out to correct a source document error. This is where SOPs come in. When training is conducted using well-written SOPs, it can help bridge the gap between standard GCP training and specific site operations.

It is not uncommon for study-specific training to be lacking in CROs – protocol training, device training, computer systems user training. As part of their vendor oversight procedures (also an SOP!), sponsors should be making sure that CRO staff is adequately trained. 

Trial Master Files (TMFs)
Whether paper or electronic, it’s common for TMF documents to be missing or expired. Replacements for these documents can usually be produced and filed at the time of the audit. Misfiled documents are another matter; they are already there but cannot easily be found. Locating and refiling them essentially doubles the time and cost of the original effort. For example, documents from multiple labs, such as certificates, credentials, vendor audit results, etc., are often mistakenly commingled. Documents must be sorted and refiled so that each facility listed on the 1572 has its own file or electronic folder.


Another very common mistake is treating every document on letterhead as if it’s general correspondence. Search for the word “letter” in the DIA Reference Model and you can see how many opportunities exist for misclassifying correspondence. For example, an IND safety report sent by the sponsor on letterhead should be filed under “Notification of Safety Information,” Section 8.3.18 in ICH E6(R2), not “Relevant Communications,” Section 8.3.11. In an eTMF, an IRB approval letter belongs in 04.01.02, its designated DIA Reference Model position, not 04.04.01, which is reserved for general communication.

The root cause of these misfilings? The filer does not know enough about the filing structure of the TMF and often is not familiar enough with clinical research to know the purpose of each document and where it belongs. The corrective action? Training. Training on the TMF plan, the TMF Management SOP, ICH GCP, and study operations in general.

Technology to the Rescue?
No doubt, CTMSs, eTMFs, eCRFs, ePRO, and other systems have improved clinical operations and reduced error. However, three decades of technological advances have done little to address the most common quality and compliance issues encountered by GCP auditors – and by extension regulators. Some might find that discouraging, but isn’t it also a little satisfying that the solution to our most persistent problems comes down to human communication?

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

Q: Do study site personnel need to be able to answer questions about sponsor-provided computer systems during an inspection?

A: Yes, and there’s a simple thing that sponsors and CROs can do to prepare their sites.

This excerpt was lifted from an online, interactive course entitled “Developing a Part 11 Compliance Plan in Clinical Research.” While the course mainly targeted sponsors and CROs, who have the heaviest regulatory burden in this area, sites also have Part 11 and validation concerns, as demonstrated by this question.

Presenter Lisa Olson, a CSV/Part 11 expert with Polaris Compliance Consultants, briefly described her recommendation, which is both simple and effective. (And since that is total catnip to a compliance blogger, I interviewed her after her presentation to develop the following piece.)

So here it is. Here’s what she said...

Clinical research sites rely heavily on technology to store and manage study data, so regulators are focusing on computer systems and electronic data more than ever before. Many of the systems – such as Electronic Data Collection (EDCs), Interactive Response Technology (IRTs), and e-diaries – are selected and largely controlled by sponsors, CROs, and/or third-party vendors. That doesn’t mean, however, that site staff won’t be expected to answer questions about these systems during a regulatory inspection. Quite the contrary: site personnel are responsible for the integrity of the data these systems house. They need to be able to demonstrate the knowledge required to meet their regulatory obligations.

No one is expecting site staff to be computer specialists; the expertise on these systems resides within the sponsor/CRO/vendor organizations. But the better a site can satisfy a basic, frontline inquiry into the systems it uses, the less likely it is that an inspector will pursue additional lines of questions.

So how can sponsors and CROs help?

They can provide a set of short summaries (one page per system) that answer the questions regulators are likely to ask site staff members. Filed in the Investigator Site File (ISF), ready for use, these summaries will be valuable resources.


The Basics

First, sponsors/CROs should supply identifying information: the name of the system, the vendor, the version of the system currently being used, and a few sentences that describe what the system does.
User Access and Control

To ensure both data integrity and compliance with Part 11 e-record/e-signature regulation, it’s essential that access to a system be controlled and data entry/updates be traceable to a specific person. To that end, the one-pager should describe how unique logins are assigned and how users are restricted to activities appropriate to their roles in the study. A monitor requires read-only access to an EDC system. A study coordinator needs to be able to enter and change EDC data. A Principal Investigator must be able to sign electronic Case Report Forms (CRFs). The role determines the access. Staff should also be able to briefly describe how an audit trail captures metadata that show what data were entered/altered, by whom, and when. (And someone, though not everyone, needs to be able to demonstrate how the audit trail can be used to piece together the “story of the data.” That, however, is too much to ask from our one-pager.)

Validation 101

It would be unusual for site personnel to have detailed knowledge of Computer System Validation (CSV) activities. Nevertheless, the one-pager could include a single line that confirms that the system was validated and by whom. A contact number could be included in case a regulator asks for more information or wants to see validation documents.

Where’s The Data?

Regulators will often ask where system data are stored. The answer to that question can be a simple sentence: The data are hosted by the EDC vendor at such-and-such location, or stored at the CRO, or sit on a local server within the site’s IT department.

Finally, the last line of our one-pager could be a simple statement prepared by the sponsor, CRO, or vendor, confirming that the data are protected wherever they are being stored. The data center is secure and environmentally controlled; the data are backed up to protect against loss; the system is accessed via the web through an encrypted channel -- whatever protections apply.

Conclusion

Regulators are increasingly focused on the integrity of study-related data, and that means added scrutiny of electronic systems and records. More inspections are being conducted mid-study so regulators can evaluate and ask about live systems in current operation. It’s very difficult for sites to field these questions without help from the organizations who make the decisions and have the expertise.

It’s okay to tell an inspector, “I don’t know.” (And it’s always preferable to admit that than to improvise an answer.) But say it too many times, and it casts doubt on a site’s ability to produce and maintain reliable study data. That’s in no one’s interest.

It shouldn’t be overly burdensome to develop a one-page summary sheet for each system so site personnel can address an inspector’s questions on the spot. The Investigator Meetings or Site Initiation Visits would be a good opportunity for sites to raise this point with their sponsors/CROs.

Lisa Olson will be giving an encore presentation of “Developing a Part 11 Compliance Plan in Clinical Research,” on March 24th. She describes all the elements that regulators and clients will be expecting, and since sponsors and CROs can’t implement everything all at once, Lisa prioritizes the activities necessary for developing your plan. You can register for the online course, sponsored by the Life Science Training Institute, here. Use the promotion code olson to receive a 10% discount.

Guangping Gao, the head of the Horae Gene Therapy Center at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, will partner with Philadelphia-based Spark Therapeutics to figure out better ways to get disease-curing genes into cells. The collaboration, announced this morning, gives Spark (Nasdaq: ONCE) the option for an exclusive, world-wide license for any intellectual property to come out of it. No financial terms were disclosed. Earlier this year, Gao was featured in Newsweek magazine for seemingly…

The nation’s largest pharmacy serving elder care facilities will pay Massachusetts nearly half a million dollars to settle allegations that it got kickbacks more than eight years ago from Abbott Laboratories to promote the anti-seizure drug, Depakote. The settlement was signed by Omnicare, a pharmacy services company that was acquired by CVS Health Corporation (NYSE: CVS) in August 2015. The $476,216 payment to Massachusetts is part of a $28 million multi-state settlement that included 47 states…

Wednesday’s initial public offering for Cambridge-based Ra Pharmaceuticals marked the ninth biotech startup to go public this year, tying the number in 2013 but still less than either of the two years since. Ra (Nasdaq: RARX), which has 40 employees in one of the former Pfizer buildings in Alewife, ended up with the third-largest IPO size for any Massachusetts-based biotech in 2016, with a total of $92 million raised from the sale of 7 million shares for $13 each. That’s more than the $86 million…

On Friday, 21 emerging medical device companies will present their technologies and business plans to a group of local investors at the annual MedTech Showcase, hosted by the Massachusetts Medical Device Industry Council. More than 300 venture leaders and business leaders are expected to attend the event tomorrow, Oct. 28 from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. at the Westin Waltham, 70 Third Ave. As a main event, John McDonough, president and CEO of Lexington-based T2 Biosystems (Nasdaq: TTOO), will be interviewed…

Third Rock Ventures, the Boston-based venture capital firm behind some of the Bay State’s most prominent biotechs, has reclaimed its title as the biggest life science-focused VC firm in the state with a new $616 million round, and has also named its first female partner in eight years. With the announcement of its Fund IV today — its largest ever — the firm now has raised $1.9 billion in the nine years since it was formed. That eclipses its rival across the Charles River, Flagship Ventures,…

Today, Shire plc confirmed it won’t make any new investments from Baxalta Ventures, the short-lived venture capital arm of the drug company Shire acquired in June.

The results of a 33-patient study conducted by a Burlington biotech suggest its long-acting steroid injection for osteoarthritis of the knee may be safer for the large percentage of those patients who also have type 2 diabetes. Flexion Therapeutics (Nasdaq: FLXN) has for years been developing its lead drug candidate, Zilretta (formerly called FX006), a reformulation of a common corticosteroid that’s used with osteoarthritis patients. Flexion’s version combines the drug with a employs proprietary…

Latest innovation in quadrivalent meningococcal vaccination designed for use in persons 2 years of age and older in the U.S.

• Independent Data Monitoring Committee recommended continuing ongoing Phase 3 trial only in the more advanced “critical” group with Kevzara higher-dose versus placebo and discontinuing less advanced “severe” group

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first generic version of a commonly used inhaler, marketed as Proventil, and the anti-parasitic Daraprim, which has previously been the subject of a price gouging scandal.

Celltrion has submitted an application to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for its adalimumab biosimilar, currently known as CT-P17.

An online educational course has been published by Medscape in collaboration with the Association of Diabetes Care & Education Specialist.

On 7 April 2020, China’s Center for Drug Evaluation (CDE) published draft guidance on clinical trials for the approval of bevacizumab copy biologicals. This guidance is the second specific guideline released by the CDE in April. The agency also released guidance on adalimumab on 1 April 2020 [1].

Q: Congress must act on FY 21 appropriations. What are the possible ways for Congress to address this? A: Congress must decide if they will do substantive work on the 12 appropriations bills with the goal of passing full-year funding bills before October 1. One alternative would be to fund the beginning of the fiscal year […]

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Co-Chairs of the Childhood Cancer Caucus, Reps. Michael McCaul (R-TX), Jackie Speier (D-CA), Mike Kelly (R-PA), and G. K. Butterfield (D-NC), applaud the passage of the Senate companion to their bill – S. 292, the Childhood Cancer STAR Act.

The STAR Act passed the House today by a unanimous vote.  It addresses the four major concerns facing the pediatric cancer community: Survivorship, Treatment, Access, and Research, and will elevate and prioritize the fight against childhood cancer at the National Institute of Health (NIH).

The members released the following joint statement:

"Today was a long anticipated day for the pediatric cancer community, and one to be celebrated.  This bill is the most comprehensive childhood cancer bill to ever pass Congress and will finally head to the president’s desk to be signed into law. Childhood cancer remains one of the deadliest killers of our kids and we as a Congress, and a nation, must say, ‘Enough is enough.’  As co-chairs of the Childhood Cancer Caucus, we would like to thank all those who made this possible, including the Alliance for Childhood Cancer and the entire childhood cancer advocacy community.”

Click here to watch McCaul’s floor remarks ahead of the House passage of the STAR Act.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Five lawmakers introduced a bipartisan bill giving a full range of medical services to families with children who have life-limiting illnesses and who qualify for Medicaid, which currently has gaps in such coverage.

The Children’s Program of All-Inclusive Coordinated Care (ChiPACC) Act (H.R. 6560) would let states create comprehensive care programs for these children. Its authors are the Co-Chairs of the Congressional Childhood Cancer Caucus: Representatives Michael McCaul (R-TX), Jackie Speier (D-CA), G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), and Mike Kelly (R-PA), together with Representative Diana DeGette (D-CO), a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

“Families with children facing life-limiting illnesses need all the support they can get, and they should be empowered to seek out that support,” the bill’s sponsors said in a joint statement. “We owe it to these kids and their loved ones to help ensure more compassionate care in their most trying times.”

Gaps in Medicaid coverage of hospice and palliative services have deprived many beneficiaries of the care they need because the program does not cover some of children’s unique medical needs.

Under this bill, the family of every child who qualifies for Medicaid will receive a specialized care plan covering a range of services – palliative, counseling, respite, expressive therapy and bereavement – providing them and their families greater comfort and peace of mind.

###

 

Rick Bright confirmed as having left his position as director of BARDA as the agency provides aid to develop solutions for COVID-19.

The facility will be the companyâs second facility in Carlsbad specifically for its BioReliance viral and gene therapy service.

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

Takeda in global licensing agreement with ProThera to develop plasma-based therapies for inflammatory conditions.

AskBio acquires gene therapy biotech working on treatments for neurodegenerative disorders.

The company receives approval for MenQuadfi to prevent meningococcal disease.

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.

April saw the company add new CEO, receive approval for lead ADC drug, and launch a public offering of stock.

Moderna announces it has partnered with Lonza with the aim of producing one billion doses annually.

CEO of Berkeley Lights talks about the companyâs work to identify antibodies against COVID-19 and what the long-term picture looks like.

On February 21 I published a piece on LinkedIn – Communications Considerations for Medical Manufacturers as the COVID-19 Epidemic Emerges – that provided an overview of some of the communications considerations for pharma, biotech and device manufacturers related to the … Continue reading →

With the COVID-19 impact making itself apparent on a daily basis as the numbers climb and organizations respond, the effects on the pharma and biotech sector also shifts. Yesterday FDA announced a new concentration of agency assets to be focused … Continue reading →

Virtually everyone is going virtual. Even in February, which seems like a very long time ago, many organizers began either postponing or canceling major conferences and meetings. This has included major medical meetings and given that large gatherings will be … Continue reading →