All content copyright, Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0
Unported, with the attribution: "The Lead CRA Blog", and a link to the post.

Saturday, January 14, 2012

Lead CRA Q&A: Consenting Subjects Before IMP is On-site

Anonymous commented in... "Pre-Study Visits and Site Initiation Visits":
Post SIV, can a site share the Informed Consent Form (ICF) with pre-identified subjects prior to Investigational Medicinal Product (IMP) receipt at the site? -November 26, 2010


NadiaBoBadia responds...


Hi and thanks for your question. In one of my previous trials, all of our sites consented and screened subjects prior to receipt of Investigational Product. First shipment was only triggered after a second qualifying screening visit (4 week screening window with up to 40% screen failure rate).
Investigational Medicinal Product can only
be released to a site once all of the required
regulatory paperwork is in place.

In order to consent, our SOP required that the site be authorized for drug shipment, rather than requiring that drug was actually physically on site. In order to authorize drug shipment the site must have 1) completed the SIV 2) received IRB approval for protocol, ICF, Investigator's Brochure (IB), and all PRO instruments 3) Submitted complete regulatory document package to sponsor (1572, signed/dated w/i 1 year CVs for all personnel on 1572, Financial disclosures, Protocol signature page, IB signature page, etc. (some of this package goes to the FDA before the trial is initiated at the site) 4) fully executed contract and budget 5) written activation letter from sponsor. At that point the sites were allowed to begin distributing ICFs for review and signature.

Reader questions may have been edited for spelling or grammar, for reasons of anonymity, truncated, or edited in other ways although the main content remains unchanged.

You may also like...from The Lead CRA archives:

3 comments:

Soichiro said...

I love your blog!
I can learn some practical tips and global standard practice on the blog. In addition, it is useful for learining english for clinical trial.

I have a question regarding source document and I believe it is a good topic for the blog.

Some page on EDC needs doctor's diagnosis or judgement.(e.g. relationship between AE and IMP, reason for use of concomitant medication)But they aren't written on medical chart in common. So we used to ask them to write it on the workbook or other record specified for study as source document.Is it an typical procedure in U.S as well?
I believe it might be OK to enter some data into EDC directly. In this situation, original data is EDC data and source document is electric. Hence they should print the EDC screen out immediately and sign on it as certified copies and retain it for SDV. How do you think about it?

NadiaBoBadia said...

Soichiro, thanks for a great question. I agree it is a good blog topic. You rightly point out that some clinical data we capture in clinical trial databases are not captured in a normal clinical chart or outpatient card. I have worked on trials with electronic medical records, and trials with electric diaries or other electronic data capture instruments, but I don't have experience working on a trial were the EDC system itself was source. I would insist on original source rather than accepting a screenshot. If the site did not want to provide source I would have them document this electronic procedure in a file not and I would have my company Quality Assurance team and the Project Manager review.

Anonymous said...

How can we get meta data "Rave" training if we dont work in the industry?

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.