Five IRT Assists for Clinical Project Managers

Case Studies

Challenge:

You’re a Clinical Project Manager (CPM) given a study halfway through enrollment and you need to get up to speed on study status FAST! How can your IRT help?

Solution:

Fortunately, you’re using Veracity Logic’s Interactive Response Technology system, VLIRT®. Here are five key features geared toward CPMs who find themselves in just this predicament.

User Power: Managing Cohorts

Case Studies

The Problem:

The management of multiple cohorts is a standard offering of most IRTs. In the common sequential model, when Cohort 1 reaches a pre-designated limit the cohort is closed by the system and subjects can no longer be enrolled into that cohort. Problem: The design of your study is such that the maximum number of subjects in each of your four planned cohorts cannot be fixed at study startup, and more than one cohort can, in certain circumstances, be open simultaneously. How should the IRT be set up to provide this kind of adaptability?

The Veracity Logic Solution:

A typical approach to achieving flexible cohort functionality is to assign the task to the system development team. Programmers and configuration managers would modify code or system configurations during the trial as needed to adjust cohort parameters. Additional costs, time delays, and the need to produce change orders and approval documents for interparty communication, are three notable downsides to this approach.

Veracity Logic’s IRT platform supports an alternate strategy. In addition to system controls, we offer a user-friendly, manual approach that puts the power of change directly into the hands of authorized users. Cohort parameters are configurable, no coding changes required. Cohort limits can easily be modified and re-modified with the click of a button. Likewise, cohorts can be manually opened and closed, re-opened and re-closed on demand, all by the users themselves, and in the users’ own timeframes.

Handling Data Corrections…

Case Studies

Problem:

There are many options for processing manual data changes in an IRT system. Some vendors make all data changes for the clinical site users. Others have electronic systems where users can request and approve changes, while still others require ‘wet’ signatures. What’s the best option for achieving the two key goals of change control, i.e., documenting user approval while streamlining the process so it doesn’t take days to make a change?
Solution:

At Veracity Logic, we put our emphasis on enabling and training authorized end-users to handle most manual data corrections themselves, just as they do in their EDC systems. The range of edit permissions varies based on the needs of each project.

We’ve found that most users not only don’t mind having the power to make many of the data corrections within the IRT, they actually prefer it to having to generate paper requests and factor in vendor response time (not to mention the increased cost of PM and Help Desk involvement).

For changes that technologically require vendor action, we make the change for them using a documented paper/signature trail. We don’t require the document contain a ‘wet’ signature, a faxed or PDF’d copy is sufficient.

Regardless of the method used, a proper audit trail must be kept whenever changes are made to clinical data by authorized users and it needs to include a justification/reason for the change. That said, when such capabilities (proper authorization, a full audit trail and requirement for recording the reason for a data change) are included in an IRT system, tied with the ability to ‘attach’ notes to records within the database, the additional time/effort of a laborious paper-based process is unnecessary.

We’re midway through the study and the protocol has changed…but only for some sites. Arghh…!

Case Studies

Problem:

The IRT was originally configured to accept eligible subjects with a maximum age of 75. Midway through the trial, the maximum age was increased to 80…but only for sites whose IRBs had approved the increased age! What to do?
Solution:

Veracity Logic configures a flag on the IRT Site Information page that allows Clinical Project Managers to designate which protocol amendment each site is authorized to use. The system adjusts accordingly, using either the 75 or the 80 age limit, for new subjects at each site. No need for one-size-fits-all! And Biostatisticians have the protocol information readily at their fingertips when it comes time for analysis.

Flexibility in accommodating changes … one of the most important aspects of vetting your IRT!

Can Your IRT System React to Surprise Protocol Changes?

Newsletter Archive

If you’re on a dark ocean and spot an iceberg ahead, do you really want to be on board the Titanic? Clinical trials have hidden challenges that surprise sponsors and vendors alike. So using a vendor that reacts quickly is critical to saving time and costs for sponsors.

Large companies are typically unable to quickly steer their ships …

They may seem like a ‘safe choice’ because they’re large but their size can work against them rendering them less nimble to deal with sudden change. Your upcoming trial is critical to moving your company forward. Will your IRT vendor’s inability to react quickly put the trial at risk?