From access to capital to dispute resolution.

In scenic Puerto Varas, APEC delegates engaged in constructive dialogue about how to adopt to a changing world.

We need it for inclusive policymaking

Equal pay, migrant workers, and maternal health are the issues highlighted by the finalists of the inaugural APEC Healthy Women, Healthy Economies Research Prize.

A comprehensive study on the health needs of Filipino migrant workers has won the inaugural APEC Healthy Women Healthy Economies award.

APEC officials announced this year’s winners for the annual APEC Business Efficiency and Success Target Awards, or BEST Awards - a collection of some of the best women-led businesses in the Asia-Pacific region.

Policies impacting women’s economic advancement have improved in some areas, but more reforms are needed to enable women to fully thrive, reports the newly updated APEC Women and the Economy Dashboard 2019.

Ministers in charge of women’s economic participation in the APEC region issued a joint statement following their meeting in La Serena, Chile, on 4 October 2019.

APEC member economies launched the APEC Women in STEM Principles and Actions, a set of suggested principles and actions for encouraging women’s participation in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, commonly referred to as STEM.

Media registration is open for the APEC Concluding Senior Officials’ Meeting to take place on 7 December 2019 at the APEC Secretariat in Singapore.

Structural reforms can counter slower economic growth in the Asia-Pacific region, says a new report by the APEC Policy Support Unit.

Members of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) will continue to work together towards more inclusive and sustainable growth, pledged APEC Senior Officials at the concluding event for Chile’s host year of APEC.

The winner of the APEC Photo Contest 2019 has also won the most votes for the Popular Choice Award, announced the APEC Secretariat.

Chinese Taipei has voluntarily contributed USD 550,000 in funding to support APEC initiatives that advance regional economic integration and inclusive sustainable growth across the Asia-Pacific.

A duo of innovative programmers from Malaysia are the winners of the 2019 APEC Digital Prosperity Award, announced on the sidelines of the APEC Informal Senior Officials’ Meeting in Langkawi.

Media registration is open for the First APEC Senior Officials’ Meeting (SOM1) and related meetings in Putrajaya, Malaysia from 3 February to 22 February 2020.

APEC’s 21 member economies will finalize in 2020 a new vision for the forum’s next phase, said the APEC Secretariat’s Executive Director Dr Rebecca Sta Maria.

The impact of corruption is far-reaching and devastating, especially for women.

Research Promoting Women’s Health to Receive $20,000 Prize

The challenge: Innovative mobile apps and platforms that empower the aging society

La Serena Roadmap for Women and Inclusive Growth to bolster progress

Reflecting the discussions of the Health Working Group which met at the First APEC Senior Officials Meeting, 7-8 February 2020, Putrajaya, Malaysia

Medical supplies and personal protective products are facing barriers worldwide

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
Hello Anon, In the version, I usually put the last year or the year generally recognised, e.g. ISO 14971 being 2007.  Then for the publication date, I do put the latest version when published so would be April 2010.  Because of the way standards are amended and revised, it can be quite difficult to determine what to put on the cover sheet.  I would also rely a bit on the Recognized Standards list the FDA publishes:  https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfStandards/search.cfm  to list [More]

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
Great! Thanks Anna --------------------------------- Anna Alonzi MD Sr. Regulatory Associate Newtown PA United States ---------------------------------

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
Hi Annie, I knew before that I wouldn't be able to attend to the webcast, so I did not register for it. But I am very curious on Dr. Akras insights. Is it possible to view a recording of it? Thanks, Britta ------------------------------ Britta Cyron Bochum Germany ------------------------------

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
This message was posted by a user wishing to remain anonymous Have you looked into PRA Health Sciences?

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
Hi @Britta Cyron , Thanks for your question. Let me connect with m​y RAPS colleagues on this to get you an answer and then I will follow-up with you directly. Best, Annie ------------------------------ Annie O'Brien Community Manager Regulatory Affairs Professional Society regex@raps.org ------------------------------

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
Annie: Thank you for sharing this news.  I am curious whether the Board considers this a limited exception or a potential new normal option going forward? Scott ------------------------------ Scott Bishop Houston TX United States ------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- Original Message: Sent: 04-May-2020 08:50 From: Annie O'Brien Subject: New: Take the RAC Exams Online this Summer! The RAC board has been working hard to find solutions offering more flexibility [More]

From : Communities>>Regulatory Open Forum
Thank you for posting this here Annie as the webcast was excellent (as would be expected from Dr. Akra haha) - but really it was great to have this publicly available as there was nice information about the EU MDR conveyed. ------------------------------ Richard Vincins RAC Vice President Global Regulatory Affairs ------------------------------

By Laurie Meehan

SOP revision. It falls somewhere between income tax prep and colonoscopy prep on the likability scale.  So why would you want to read about it?  Maybe you’re hoping someone’s figured out a way to make the process more efficient and less painful.  Maybe we have.

The SWAT Technique

Last month, we worked with a company to revise a set of SOPs using a technique we call SWAT.  (Any edgy appeal that name might have otherwise had will be immediately dulled by its acronym expansion: “SOP Working Analysis Team.”  It’s the best we could do.  Don’t judge.)

The goal of the SWAT technique is to revise the most documents in the least time, while preserving friendships, sobriety, and original hair color.  The heart of SWAT is an immersive, multi-day working session in which participants discuss SOP revisions and incorporate them in real time.  Careful planning, thorough preparation, and commitment from management and participants are keys to keeping the SWAT session productive.

It’s Not For Everyone

Up front, we need to say that SWAT won’t work for every organization.  While the size of the company may not be important, the size of the working team needs to be fairly small.  Also SWAT won’t work for every set of SOPs.  The documents need to be part of a natural grouping – a set of similar procedures – and not a random collection.

But in the right situations, SWAT works very well.  Last month, we conducted a 2-day SWAT session with a client’s QA department to revise a set of 10 auditing SOPs.  We’ve also successfully used the technique with ClinOps teams, for example, to revise sets of monitoring SOPs.

SWAT Planning and Preparation

The SWAT process begins with central planning.  A coordination team selects a logical grouping of SOPs to revise, and assembles a list of specific revisions to be made.  Where it’s not possible to provide specific revisions, instructions and guidelines are developed, such as “remove audit report distribution details” or “update to reflect new file safeguarding practices.”

Each SWAT participant is assigned an SOP from the revision set.  The participant doesn’t need to be the author of record, but must be knowledgeable enough to “represent” the SOP – to learn the document well and understand how it’s similar to the other SOPs in the revision set and in what ways it’s unique.  Based on this understanding, prior to the SWAT session, participants make applicable revisions to their individual documents using the information received from the coordination team.  Participants should also note questions and any open issues appropriate for SWAT discussion using inline comments. 

SWAT Session

The result of the SWAT session is a set of approval-ready SOPs.  The precise structure of the SWAT session to get you there depends on a variety of factors, such as how similar or dissimilar the SOPs are, the extent and complexity of the revisions, and whether subject matter expertise is concentrated or distributed among the group.  But all successful SWAT sessions we’ve conducted share these attributes:

• Duration of 2 to 3 days.  Just long enough to accomplish the aggressive goal, just short enough to keep everyone from diving out the window.
• Real-time revision.  The “SOP of the hour” is projected on a screen while participants sit in front of PCs and update their assigned SOPs accordingly.
• Rigorous facilitation. It’s natural for discussions about company procedures to morph into other topics, such as business strategy or staffing requirements.  Discussion *will* get off topic.  When it does, the facilitator must act quickly to table it.  You can maintain a list of tangent topics on a flip chart, schedule a meeting to discuss the most pressing items, ring a cowbell, blow an air horn, or drop a quarter in the “Diversion Jar” and move on, but keep those conversations out of your SWAT session.  Save the war stories for dinner.
• Commitment to the process.  Scheduling the session is one thing, but remaining dedicated to the session is an act of will. It’s so ridiculously easy for outside work to creep in.  Management and participants must be committed to carving out the time and keeping the barbarians at the gate.
• Of course: Plenty of caffeine and yummy treats.

If you’ve ever worked on SOPs, you know there’s a big difference between done and almost done.  To help ensure you emerge from the SWAT session with the former, time must be allotted for participants to format, polish, and conduct a quality review.  If it’s possible to scare up some on-site administrative support, that could help expedite the process.

SWAT Benefits

When you look on your team’s Outlook calendar and see 3 entire days blocked out, it can seem like an awful lot of time devoted to SOP revision.  But SWAT really doesn’t take any longer than the usual process, it’s just more obvious.  Does SWAT take significantly *less* time?  Mmmm, not sure, but SWAT brings with it other benefits.

SWAT produces a more consistent set of SOPs.  Since every document is compared to every other, it’s easy to notice and correct incidental differences.

SWAT is a cross-training opportunity.  Participants enter SWAT knowing their own SOP very well.  They leave knowing the whole SOP revision set very well.

SWAT gets it done.  Auditors, how many times have you cited facilities for failure to revise their SOPs within the specified window?  It’s not because there’s a willful disregard for SOP procedures.  It’s because, in the real world of work, revising SOPs is seldom prioritized highly enough to get on anyone’s schedule until the end of the revision window encroaches or – oops – has passed.  But schedule a SWAT and they will come. (And because the effort is so visible and so obviously resource-intensive, no one wants to be the one to drop the ball.  Participants come prepared and the resulting documents are the better for it.)

SWAT is a lot more fun.  Revising SOPs on your own is really boring.  Revising them in immersive sessions with colleagues is significantly more enjoyable.  Gallows humor reigns supreme.  Copious amounts of chocolate are consumed.  Air horns are blown in celebration.  Friendships, sobriety, and hair color remain intact.  Participants live to write another day.



_______________________________________________________________________
Photo Credit:  Tenaciousme CoffeeArt, under Creative Commons License

Impossible to write a love song about FDA warehousing regulations, you say?
Challenge accepted.

(Sung to the tune of Billy Joel's "She's Always A Woman.")

While patients are consumers of healthcare services, they can’t be considered customers in the traditional sense. The same is true of students. Over many years of teaching, I’ve noticed this parallel between the healthcare and education professions; both require significantly more “customer participation” to achieve desired outcomes than other industries do. That’s one reason it’s difficult to measure the quality of these institutions and the skills of their practitioners. That’s also why both industries focus so intently on engaging our communities; we simply can’t be successful unless we do.

“Can You Hear Me Now?”
As the old joke goes, there are 3 types of people in this world: those who are good at math and those who aren’t. Many students believe themselves to be permanent denizens of the 2nd camp. They find mathematical concepts confusing and the terminology inscrutable, so they tend not to ask questions. They’re afraid they’re being judged, so they’re not always truthful. Tests and exams fill them with anxiety, and sometimes even panic (no doubt waking to nightmares of trains leaving stations at varying rates of speed). These are the students who need my help the most. Our success in overcoming these challenges together will depend heavily on the student/teacher connection we can establish, yet few students are actually able to choose the teacher with whom they are asked to connect. Sound like healthcare yet?



So it’s no surprise that trends toward greater patient engagement in healthcare, and patient-centricity in clinical research, emphasize clear and compassionate communication. Doctors, like instructors, need to explain concepts in relatable terms, encourage and address questions, assuage unwarranted anxiety, and establish trust. Until that happens, a meaningful partnership isn’t even possible.

When the Cat’s Away, Will the Mice Make Good Choices?
You may remember that old college rule of thumb: 1 hour of class requires 3 hours of study. This means instructors have just 25% of their students’ time to inspire the behaviors and habits that will make a success of the other 75%. “Don’t be the Sage on the Stage,” the mantra goes, “be the Guide on the Side.” If you’ve ever taught in an academic setting, you know how challenging that can be. The role of lecturer is fairly obvious, but the role of coach is nuanced; it evolves over time and it’s different for everyone.

And if a college instructor has just 3 hours of face time a week, a physician is lucky to have 3 hours of face time a year. That’s not much time to persuade, convince, and encourage the lifestyle choices and medication adherence essential to maintaining good health. And when you consider that a good part of each office visit is spent performing examinations and assessments, it’s easy to understand the excitement surrounding mobile health technologies. Beyond delivering real-time, real-world data, smartphone apps can send patients important reminders, make complying with diet and exercise recommendations easier, and make progress toward fitness goals visible.

“And the Survey Says…?”
Most service industries are rightly concerned with customer satisfaction – how to achieve it, how to measure it, and how to improve it. So last year, an article entitled “The Problem with Satisfied Patients” caught my eye. The Atlantic article concluded that higher hospital satisfaction ratings don’t necessarily correlate with better healthcare. A five-star student course evaluation can be similarly misleading. Pleasing a student is not the same thing as teaching a student, just as making people happy doesn’t make them well. That’s not to say that hospitals and colleges shouldn’t solicit feedback; of course they need to understand the perspective of the communities they serve. But healthcare facilities and schools should give satisfaction surveys their proper weight or they risk implementing changes that consume resources but do nothing to improve a patient’s health or increase a student’s proficiency.

Outcomes-based Evaluation
So if outcomes are paramount in both medicine and academia, it follows that the quality of care and education would be best measured by evaluating those outcomes. Right?  Well, it’s a good place to start, but since patients and students share responsibility for success with their doctors and teachers, an individual outcome may be misleading. An instructor can influence, but can’t control, whether a student works on practice problems, studies for tests, asks questions, or even pays attention. A doctor can’t control whether a patient takes a prescription, follows medical advice, or reports relevant symptoms. There isn’t always a straight line between quality of service and success rate.


College instructors try to keep their students engaged by tailoring their coaching styles, offering a mix of delivery methods, seeking out fresh ideas to make the concepts relevant, and maintaining convenient office hours. Looking to improve patient engagement, healthcare systems have found that many people face situations that prevent them from keeping appointments and following medical advice. Some organizations are now providing copay assistance, arranging transportation, and employing patient care coordinators to place routine monitoring calls. None of these services are free, but they can be considerably less expensive than eating the costs associated with hospital readmissions.

The Partnership Starts Here
Teachers want their students to learn and healthcare providers want their patients to be well, but students and patients must actively participate in order to meet those goals. Handing out easy A’s and offering gourmet hospital menu items in response to survey responses won’t cut it.

Success begins with clear, compassionate communication – communication designed to explain complex concepts, to build trust, and to encourage the behaviors that lead to positive results. Understanding the challenges students and patients face enables educators and medical professionals to offer practical, meaningful solutions that can actually improve outcomes.

[In case you missed it, our last blog post was about the most common site inspection finding every year for the last decade: Protocol Deviations and How to Avoid Them.]

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.

You know you need a computer systems audit, but that’s literally the extent of what you know.
Has this ever been you?

Yes, you use computers on a daily basis, and you may even use the system that needs to be audited. But you don’t spend your day thinking about where all the system components are located, how services and software are combined, and what Part 11 requirements apply. Terms like “cloud computing” make you feel slightly queasy. You’d rather get a root canal than discuss “distributed processing.” Your expertise is in manufacturing. Or clinical research. Or non-clinical lab operations. And somehow it’s your job to make sure an effective and properly-sized system audit is conducted. Great.



Yet your Quality Assurance colleagues -- whether they’re from your internal QA department or an external compliance company -- need your input. They need to understand what software is being purchased, what services are being contracted, how and where components of the system are being implemented, and how the system will be used.

The good news is that the QA auditors can help you. They know that FDA favors a risk-based approach to validation and Part 11 implementation, and they even know what that means. They love to talk about configuration management and change procedures. They love gathering evidence that demonstrates your system works correctly and is in a state of control, and they know what rocks they should look under to find and fix vulnerabilities.

What follows are examples of the types of information you need to convey to QA – and that they should be asking you about – to properly size and scope an audit.

How do You Plan to Use the System?

Suppose you need to audit the supplier of a new Document Management System. The first thing an auditor would need to understand is how you plan to use the system. How mission critical are the documents you’re looking to store?  Are they covered under regulatory scope?  Maybe you plan to use the system as a collaboration environment for developing new SOPs. That would require a relatively low level of scrutiny, especially if you only plan to print out the finalized documents for wet ink signature. (As a point of comparison, if you plan to use the system to finalize SOP approval, the auditor would need to check that Part 11 requirements for electronic signatures are properly implemented.) What if the Document Management System will be housing critical GxP documents, such as Trial Master Files, Master Schedule Sheets, or Master Batch Records? In these cases, the validation would have to be far more thorough, and Part 11 electronic record features, such as audit trails and archiving functionality, would have to be implemented and verified.

Here’s another “use” example. Similar to the term “Document Management System,” the term “Analytics System” does not tell the whole story. From a business perspective, study start up (SSU) metrics may be vital for sponsors and CROs to collect and analyze. But since they have no regulatory impact, the FDA would not require an SSU analytics system to be validated. (That doesn’t necessarily mean you might not want to, though.) On the other hand, a system that performs statistical analysis on study data for regulatory submission is about as critical as it gets, and would require thorough validation and Part 11 implementation. Other analytics systems, such as dashboards that pull data from critical systems, might fall somewhere between these two extremes.

What is the Vendor Providing? And How? And Where?

If you need to audit a complex system, the questions QA will ask you will go beyond system use. The auditors will need to understand the combination of software and services the vendor is providing, and where the software and data reside.

• Does the software and data reside internally at your company or does the vendor provide a hosting service?
  If the vendor is hosting, the auditor needs to tour the facilities and review SOPs and records to evaluate physical security, staff training, environmental controls, backup procedures, disaster recovery plans, data retention, computer infrastructure, and change control.
  
  
• Does the hosting vendor own its own servers or does it, in turn, outsource that function to a 3rd party hosting company, (possibly even in the cloud)?
  If the hosting is outsourced, ideally an auditor would be able to visit the hosting site. Failing that, the auditor would ask questions about the vendor’s qualification processes and review SOPs that govern vendor selection/management procedures. If the vendor outsources other services beyond hosting, those services might need to be considered, as well.
  
  
• Is the vendor providing any other services?
  Many EDC vendors will provide study-specific services such as screen development and data entry validation edits. Auditors would need to review SOPs for providing these services and understand how the vendor tests and manages modifications to these components as the study proceeds.
  Sometimes computer systems vendors provide ancillary services, such as help desk functions and user account management. That would mean additional SOPs and training records for the auditor to look through.

Other Considerations

There are many. For example, where are you in the product life cycle? You ask different questions about a new system than you would about one that has been operating for a few years. Is the product Commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) or highly customized? COTS systems vendors often have their own validation package which auditors would review, and then ensure proper operation in the sponsor/CRO’s specific environment. A highly customized or custom-built system would require a more extensive validation process.


The Take Away

CSV/Part 11 audits will never be standardized, cookie cutter type activities; there are simply too many factors -- in too many combinations -- to consider. You want your QA efforts to be worth the money you spend and be able to answer the questions FDA says you need to be asking. If you’re unsure how to do that, that’s ok. Other people know, as long as you can help them understand how you plan to use the system, what software and services are being supplied, and how components of the system are being implemented.

In case you missed it, our previous post was Notes 2 Fix Your Notes 2 File.
_______________________________________________
Many thinks to Lisa Olson for sharing her insights with me.

Protocol trumps practice. This principle seems clear enough, but complying with it is not always as straight-forward as it sounds. Years of practicing medicine has reinforced the way a physician responds to medical situations. But do these responses run counter to the investigational plan? Can a site’s commitment to standard of care affect its ability to meet enrollment targets?


There’s a lot to consider.



What’s Your Standard of Care?
When deciding whether or not to conduct a particular study, a PI needs to verify that the protocol is aligned with practice norms. For example, an early phase trial might exclude a medication that is part of a practice’s routine therapy. Is the study placebo-controlled? Does it feature a specific comparator drug? Will it include a washout period? Any of these elements could present enrollment challenges or preclude a site from accepting a study at all. Responsible sites want to make thoughtful decisions about study suitability; they want to provide realistic enrollment estimates. Sponsors want this too, and can help sites do both these things by providing them a sufficient level of detail about protocol procedures as early as possible.


The Road to Deviations is Often Paved with Good Intentions
Therapeutic misconception – a well-documented phenomenon in clinical research – occurs when a study participant “fails to appreciate the distinction between the imperatives of clinical research and of ordinary treatment.”* Study participants are not alone in this. Researchers blur the distinction themselves when they conduct procedures that are consistent with clinical care but deviate from the protocol. This may be particularly true for PIs who recruit participants from their own practices. An endocrinologist might ordinarily reduce dosage for a particularly diminutive patient. A pulmonologist would often skip a scheduled chest x-ray she felt wasn’t needed to avoid exposing her patient to unnecessary radiation. An orthopedic surgeon may decide his patient needs more recovery time than usual before attempting her first walk. In a clinical care setting, these decisions are sound, made in an individual patient’s best interest. In a clinical trial, if they differ from the investigational plan and haven’t been approved by the Sponsor, they’re protocol deviations.**

It May be Par for the Course, But It's Still an AE
Specialists who have experience treating particular conditions are also familiar with the complications that ordinarily accompany them. A nephrologist, for instance, knows that a patient with end-stage renal disease frequently experiences bloat from a buildup of fluid between dialysis sessions. Though useful for a doctor treating patients, this knowledge can actually work against a doctor running a trial. How? A PI may fail to report a stomach ache as an AE because it’s so typical, so expected. “Bloat is common for renal patients. If I recorded every GI incident, I’d be recording AEs all day.” At its surface, this PI’s argument sounds reasonable, but what if the study drug itself is contributing to the participant’s discomfort? In order to assess the drug’s gastrointestinal effect, the PI must document the frequency and severity of all GI events.

Lab values that are either above or below normal range are also prime candidates for AE underreporting. “Of course the participant’s liver enzyme is high – we’re testing a cholesterol drug.”

The Importance of Study Oversight
Any GCP course worth its registration fee will discuss the distinction between standard of care and the study protocol. In practice, the distinction is not always as obvious as training sessions might suggest. This is where well-trained CRAs come in. As site monitors, CRAs are in a position to catch deviations that result from lapses into standard of care. Reading through progress notes, a monitor can ensure that any untoward medical event has been reported as an Adverse Event. They can verify that procedures conducted by the PI and site staff are compliant with the protocol. Then, by reviewing which types of data must be collected and emphasizing the importance of following certain protocol procedures, monitors can take the opportunity to re-educate study personnel and help them avoid these common pitfalls.

_______________________________________________________________________
* Lidz CW, Appelbaum PS (2002) The therapeutic misconception: problems and solutions. Med Care 40: V55-V63.

**Andrew Snyder of the HealthEast Care System wrote a thoughtful piece describing the compatibilities that do exist between clinical care and clinical research. His arguments provide a useful counterpoint to the issues we’re raising here. https://firstclinical.com/journal/2017/1707_Research_vs_Care.pdf

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

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…

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…

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.

On Thursday, Harvard University will open a 15,000-square-foot life science lab in Allston named after Steve Pagliuca, and executive at Bain Capital and co-owner of the Boston Celtics. The Pagliuca Harvard Life Lab will be the home to 20 startup ventures founded and run by Harvard faculty, alumni, students, and postdocs. The first 17 of those were revealed by the university a couple weeks ago, and they include drug and vaccine developers as well as DNA sequencing companies. Mayor Marty Walsh will…

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

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

Do we ever learn from our past mistakes? For many years we believed that technology was an inevitable force for good. It would give us instant access to a near infinite amount of information and allow us to easily and instantly connect with nearly anyone on earth. What could go wrong? The answer is that...

Click here to continue reading...

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

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, authorities in Australia and the European Union have allowed drug producers to collaborate to ensure medicine production and supply.

Biological drugs remain unaffordable for many in the US due to strategies used by pharmaceutical companies and negative messaging about biosimilars, explains a recent commentary by Dr Joel Lexchin, School of Health Policy and Management at York University, Canada [1].