Tag Archive | Medidata

Oracle Argus Safety and Adverse Event Reconciliation

Adverse Events / Adverse Drug Reactions are imperative to all interventional therapies, be it drugs, devices, vaccines or biologics. The frequency, seriousness, breadth etc. may vary from drug to drug, person to person. We have made a lot of progress in ensuring that all the adverse events are identified, processed and reported to regulators. However there are still a lot of challenges in ensuring consistency, of how this is done across organizations, in terms of people, process and technology.

Oracle’s Argus Safety Suite is a leading drug safety system in the market. It is a very good application with rich features. However, there are still certain functions, the industry needs, that needs to mature and some others that are still evolving. I would like to write about one such features i.e. Adverse Event Reconciliation. The module in Argus Suite that provides this functionality is “Argus Reconciliation”. The datasheet lists the benefits of reconciliation and the ability of this module to make it easy, to reconcile the AE data between Argus and other Clinical Data Management systems.

What is reconciliation?

Reconciliation is typically the process of identifying any discrepancies in the data captured for the Adverse Events in Clinical Data Management system and Safety System.

Why do they have similar data in two systems?

Adverse event data is captured in CDM systems as part of the clinical trial data collection process. This data is also entered in Safety Systems in order to capture, process and report it to regulators. Sponsors should ensure that the data that is submitted to regulators during the course of the trial and the data that is submitted as part of the overall submission are consistent. Hence, reconciliation of data is essential. Ideally this situation should not arise if the data is collected electronically and the systems are integrated so the information flows bi-directionally. However, that is not the case in real world.

For customers that have Argus Safety there are essentially three options for reconciliation:

  1. Manual
  2. Automated  (COTS) and
  3. Automated (Custom)

Manual: This method, to a large extent is self-explanatory. One has to extract the AE records from the Safety and CDM systems and compare the data elements line item-by-line item. Any discrepancies identified may lead to a) change to the data in CDM system or b) change to the data in Safety system

Automated (COTS): This method can be used in case a commercially available integration exists between the CDM system and Argus. If we look at some of the popular CDM systems in the market, InForm (Oracle), Oracle Clinical and Rave (Medidata) two are from Oracle. The following information outlines the integration in case of each CDM system:

1)      In case of Oracle Clinical, the reconciliation is available through the Argus Reconciliation module. Customers have to buy licenses to this module as part of the Safety Suite in order to leverage this functionality.

2)      For Inform to Argus integration, Oracle has released a Process Integration Pack (PIP) that is part of their Application Integration Architecture (AIA), which in turn is part of their Fusion Middleware strategy. This essentially requires customers to install an AIA foundation pack and then purchase the PIP (Oracle® Health Sciences Adverse Event Integration Pack for Oracle Health Sciences InForm and Oracle Argus Safety) and install/configure it.

3)      Medidata Rave’s Safety Gateway product can be leveraged for integration between Rave and Argus Safety. This is basically an E2B based integration.

Automated (Custom): In cases where the volume of cases is very high, which eliminates the manual option, and a COTS integration does not exist, customers may have to rely on a custom integration. This can be accomplished in multiple ways. However, an E2B based integration is recommended.

Hope this post helps you get basic knowledge about AE reconciliation and options available for reconciliation between Argus Safety and three popular Clinical Data Management systems. As always, your feedback will be very valuable and welcome.

Risk based monitoring and SDV – Increased adoption of ECM

It is universal fact that the escalating costs of discovering new medicinal products are driving sponsors and CROs to scrutinize every dollar spent in the process. The situation is escalating fast as pressure mounts with the blockbusters of yester years come off patents. This means that there is a need for all the stakeholders in the value chain to revisit their approach to existing processes and come up with innovative ways to save costs.

Key Trends:

Risk Based Site Monitoring:

US FDA has also recognized this fact and come out with a “Guidance for Industry Oversight of Clinical Trial Investigations – A Risk Based Approach to Monitoring”. As per this guidance the objective of the guidance is “to assist sponsors of clinical investigations in developing risk-based monitoring strategies and plans for investigational studies of medical products, including human drug and biological products, medical devices, and combinations thereof”. As per the document its overarching goal is to “enhance human subject protection and the quality of clinical trial data”. However, it clarifies on the strict interpretation that the industry has assumed long back and has spent billions in monitoring the sites. While this is draft guidance it is more than likely that this will end up in establishing the guiding principles for central monitoring of clinical trials, as such is the intent.

Risk Based Source Document Verification:

Primary activity of site monitoring is the source document verification and as was the case in site monitoring, industry has been mostly using the strict interpretation of source document verification. This resulted in 100% of source documents (patient eCRFs) being verified by the site monitors. However, the industry has realized that “law of diminishing returns” applies to this process as well and has been reducing the percentage of documents verified by the monitors. Medidata’s Insights “Targeted Site Monitoring Trend Snapshot” published in Applied Clinical Trials website confirms this trend.  According to this report the SDV percentage has reduced from 85% in 2007 to 67% in 2010.

Virtual Clinical Trials:

Another key trend that is slowly evolving in this context is complete virtualization of clinical trials. Pfizer is taking the lead in this space. While Pfizer’s REMOTE program is ongoing, an interim feedback from the program is provided by Mr. Craig Lipset, Head of Clinical Innovation at Pfizer is provided by Applied Clinical Trials in their article titled “Pfizer’s REMOTE Virtual Experience”. As highlighted in the article, they are going through the roadblocks of an early adopter.

Adoption of Enterprise Collaboration and Content Management:

Electronic communication and collaboration:

The above trends indicate that it is just a matter of time that total virtualization of clinical trials is accomplished. The key question that needs to be addressed is “How will the human interactions be virtualized?” The answer is “to adopt electronic communication and collaboration channels”. The channels can range from adopting systems to capture and manage clinical data, electronic source document verification to seamless communication and collaboration tools. The unique constraint with respect to clinical trials though is to ensure that the tools used adhere to “Good Clinical Practices” as well as other regulatory requirements like 21 CFR Part 11, HIPAA etc.

Enterprise Collaboration and Content Management Systems:

Systems for Electronic data capture (EDC), Clinical Data Management (CDM), Clinical Trial Management System (CTM), Adverse Event Management etc. are already available in the market. The key tool that would make it easier to seamlessly transition from human interactions to virtual interactions, in my view, is an Enterprise Collaboration and Content Management tool. Tools like Microsoft’s SharePoint, as highlighted in one of my previous blog posts, will help organizations make this transition fast and cost-effective. While it is always easier said than done, from real world experiences that we already have, it is relatively easy to adopt these tools in a GxP environment, meet all the regulatory compliance requirements and also accomplish the degree of flexibility required to easily communicate and collaborate.

Social Media and Mobility:

A couple more initiatives that could complement in the process are Social Media and Mobility. The need for a social media outreach program to increase the patient recruitment is highlighted by the channels Pfizer’s REMOTE program has adopted.  On similar lines, social media “like” features can be enabled on the collaboration and communication platform to be adopted. This can increase the accessibility and improve the response times from the patients. On similar lines, if the collaboration and communication platform can be made available over mobile devices like smart phones, tablets etc. the patient compliance and response times will improve considerably. Tools like Microsoft SharePoint make it easy to enable the social features and also deliver content to mobile devices.

Conclusion

Overall the ability of a sponsor or CRO organization increases tremendously to virtualize their clinical trial process by leveraging collaboration and content management tools. The overall “Risk-Based” approach to site monitoring and source document verification will also be “made easy” through these tools.  As noted in my previous posts, leveraging a tool like SharePoint for such purpose will improve the Return on Investment (ROI) and reduce the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) of these tools.

As always, your feedback and comments are welcome.

Update, 20-Mar-2012:

This post has been picked up by www.AppliedClinicalTrialsOnline.com and published on their website.

%d bloggers like this: