Hey, Do You Guys Do Many Phase 3’s?

IRT Essentials

We’ve recently had a few prospective clients ask us to add to our company’s introductory materials a couple of additional details about the project structure and client base of our Interactive Response Technology (IRT/IWR/IVR) – specifically, client type and project phase.

To that end, we’ve drawn together two key metrics that will let customers know at a glance the total project experience landscape here at Veracity Logic. We thought we’d share these today with you, our website/blog/newsletter readers!


Client Base: About 50/50 split between CROs and Sponsors, on average. Company sizes range from small to large.
Project Types over the past decade of global IRT systems deployment:
52% Phase 3-4
48% Phase 1-2b
Veracity Logic is known in the industry to be a solid, economical option for smaller studies, and a user-friendly, flexible, robust environment (still economical!) for big studies. And, in a recent survey, many of our clients went out of their way to give major kudos to the VL project team for responsiveness, knowledge, and ability to adapt.

A Cautionary Tale: Configurability and Real Life

IRT Essentials

“Configurable” is a much bandied term these days when folks in the clinical trials industry get together to talk about technological support systems like IRT (IWR/IVR).

A configurable system is taken to mean “a state of being that is the opposite of custom-coded”. In other words, faster, cheaper, easier to adapt; changes that can be made with the click of a button rather than requiring two days of coding. In its most honest form, a system designed with an eye toward configurability is a must-have leap forward from a custom-coded system. It should be the first cut on any procurement checklist for vetting an IRT.

But, realistically, that’s where the wish list stops.

What a ‘configured system’ is not is a one-size-fits-all magic bullet. And yet all too often that’s the expectation… and the cause of inevitable frustration.

Just Say No to One-Kit Shipments

Case Studies

The Challenge:

Striking a balance between effective study drug inventory control and efficient management of shipping costs is not always easy when faced with the real-life complexities of clinical trials.

Automated predictive resupply algorithms that help reduce drug waste at clinical sites are now the order of the day for most IRT (IWR/IVR) systems, albeit with varying degrees of effectiveness when it comes to optimizing shipment efficiencies. Even ‘static’ algorithms – e.g., setting a baseline resupply requirement in the system and using alert levels to dictate when to trigger a new shipment—can present complexities with regard to good shipment management.