The life sciences industry and academic world seem to produce incredible scientific breakthroughs on a daily, if not hourly, basis these days. The pace of scientific breakthrough is mesmerizing, as a dazzling variety of technologies and studies have helped humans understand the underlying causes of disease. Whether those causes are genetic, environmental, or behavioral, it seems that we have an arsenal of tools to understand much more than ever how we can meet unmet human health needs.
Many people in our industry have had root cause analysis (RCA) training. It is aimed at helping people understand an issue and the underlying reasons it happened. Once you have those reasons (the “root causes”), you can act on them. This is the most effective way of trying to stop the same issue from recurring. And RCA is now a requirement for serious issues per ICH E6 (R2).
Technology plays a critical role in drug development and the R&D value chain by revolutionizing clinical trials and decreasing the failure rate. Though the supply of technology has been increasing and regulation of innovative methods is easing, pharmaceutical companies have been slow to use the emerging technologies, due to the ambiguity prevailing around this space and a highly fragmented supply market. This article outlines the key technologies that have a high impact across trial phases.
Health authority inspections are one of the most stress-inducing experiences a sponsor, CRO, or site will go through. The mere mention of inspections is enough to throw some people into full on panic-mode. While preparing for an inspection will never be a care- and stress-free process, there are appropriate ways to get your organization ready for one without adding another layer of stress and frustration.
In response to the increasing opacity of the trial master file (TMF), clinical trial decision makers have embraced quantitative metrics as a way of characterizing and understanding the health of a TMF. Quantitative metrics are easily generated through the reporting functionality of a modern electronic TMF (eTMF) and appear to add value by leveraging the data passively generated through modern clinical applications. Although helpful to address specific concerns, especially those related to completeness, these metrics are often unintuitive and do not readily describe the aspects of a clinical trial most instrumental for TMF health.
Historically, patient involvement has been vital in the design and execution of clinical trials, but in recent years there has been an increased desire to engage patients from start to finish during the drug development process. Today, patients are empowered by technological advances that have given them access to more information than ever before, especially regarding diseases and drug development.
Pharmaceutical and device manufacturing companies often outsource their pharmacovigilance (PV) activities to vendors and consultants to meet their safety, medical information, and regulatory needs. When doing so, these companies have a regulatory obligation to oversee the activities and quality of their vendors. However, vendor audits conducted by these companies can yield a wide range of results due to differences in auditors, scope, and understanding of PV principles and operations.
This is the first article in a two-part series addressing real-world evidence (RWE) for life sciences leaders who may be struggling to make sense of the rules.
Part one of this series is intended to give readers a glimpse into what RWE is today, with its potential to utilize staggering volumes of data, digital health technologies, and mobile applications.
Our global digital population — people around the world that are active internet users — has grown to 4.3 billion as of July 2019, representing roughly 56 percent of the global population. Of this global digital population, almost 4 billion are accessing the internet using mobile devices, with non-tablet mobile devices contributing nearly half of web page views worldwide.
Have you ever put off doing something you knew needed to be done, even though you had the ability and money for it? Think exercising, getting a will or going to the dentist (hopefully you have dealt with at least the latter). In the same way, many study sponsors put off aggregating and utilizing key intelligence on their previously used investigator sites for use in future strategic site selections. At times, there will be unique reasons for engaging with a certain investigator site or the need to use research-naive sites. However, if previously used sites will be considered for a new study, it is vital to review some key information for a truly strategic site selection process. Let’s take a look at some of these key, yet often forgotten, areas.