Videos
Browse videos by topic
All Videos
Showing 769-771 of 771 videos
eTMF Demo
Srinivas alagandula
/@alagandulaseenu
Dec 4, 2012
This video provides an in-depth demonstration of FRA's eTMF (electronic Trial Master File) management software, an intuitive system designed to streamline the management of documents within clinical trials. The presentation walks viewers through the core functionalities of the platform, emphasizing its user-friendly interface and comprehensive features for organizing, tracking, and controlling critical documentation throughout the clinical trial lifecycle. The primary objective of the software, as highlighted by the speaker, is to simplify document-related challenges faced by organizations involved in clinical research, ensuring efficiency and compliance. The demonstration begins with the login process, leading into a central dashboard that offers both graphical and summary views of document statuses. Key themes explored include the entire document lifecycle, from initial check-in to review, approval, and ultimate publication. The system facilitates robust document organization through "doc groups" – specific sets of documents related to a particular subject – and the assignment of documents to multiple folders. A significant focus is placed on metadata management, allowing users to define custom fields with various data types (e.g., desktop text, date picker, drop-down lists) to enhance document searchability and categorization. The progression of the demo showcases the system's capabilities from document ingestion to workflow management. Users can add single or bulk documents, assign them to relevant groups and folders, and crucially, define workflow users such as authors, reviewers, approvers, publishers, and readers. This granular control over user roles ensures that each document progresses through the necessary stages with appropriate oversight. The video further details the robust version control system, where documents are automatically versioned upon check-out and check-in, maintaining a clear history of changes. The ability to move documents through different modes (review, approve, publish) and add comments at each stage underscores the collaborative and auditable nature of the platform, culminating in a comprehensive solution for managing the complex documentation demands of clinical trials. Key Takeaways: * **Centralized eTMF System:** The FRA eTMF software provides a single, easy-to-use system for managing all documents related to clinical trials, serving as a central repository for critical information. * **Comprehensive Document Lifecycle Management:** The platform supports the entire document lifecycle, including check-in, check-out, review, approval, and publishing, ensuring a structured approach to document progression. * **Intuitive Dashboard and Quick Links:** A dual-representation dashboard (graphical and summary) offers quick insights into document status and counts, complemented by quick links for adding users, documents, doc groups, and folders. * **Flexible Document Organization:** Documents can be grouped into "doc groups" based on subject matter and assigned to single or multiple folders, allowing for highly organized and context-specific document structuring. * **Customizable Metadata Management:** The system allows for the creation of custom metadata fields with various types (e.g., text, date picker, drop-down list), significantly enhancing document searchability and data integrity. * **Efficient Document Ingestion:** Users can add single documents or perform bulk uploads, providing flexibility for different scales of document management needs. * **Granular Workflow Assignment:** The ability to assign specific users to roles such as author, reviewer, approver, publisher, and reader for each document ensures clear accountability and controlled progression through the workflow. * **Robust Version Control:** Documents are automatically versioned (e.g., 0.1, 0.2) upon check-out and check-in, providing an immutable history of changes crucial for regulatory compliance and audit trails. * **Controlled Document Status Transitions:** Documents can be moved systematically from review mode to approve mode, and then to publish mode, with associated comment functionality for reviewer feedback. * **Detailed Document Properties and History:** Each document features a central dashboard displaying properties like assigned workflow users, folder assignments, and a snapshot of its version history. * **User and Permission Management:** The system includes features for managing users and assigning specific permissions, which is vital for maintaining data security and controlling access to sensitive clinical trial documents. * **Support for Regulatory Compliance:** While not explicitly stated, the features demonstrated (version control, audit trails, defined workflows, user permissions) are foundational for meeting regulatory requirements such as GxP and 21 CFR Part 11 for electronic records in clinical research. Tools/Resources Mentioned: * FRA's ETMF management software Key Concepts: * **eTMF (Electronic Trial Master File):** A system for managing and storing essential documents from clinical trials in an electronic format, crucial for regulatory compliance and trial oversight. * **Document Workflow:** The defined sequence of tasks, roles, and statuses that a document progresses through from creation to final approval and publication. * **Version Control:** A system that manages changes to documents over time, allowing users to track revisions, revert to previous versions, and maintain an accurate history. * **Metadata:** Data that provides information about other data, used here to describe and categorize documents for improved searchability and organization. * **Doc Groups:** Specific collections of documents organized around a particular subject or theme within the eTMF system. * **Clinical Trials:** Research studies conducted on human volunteers to evaluate the safety and efficacy of new drugs, medical devices, or interventions.
Veeva Systems - DIA 2012 Editor's Take Video
PharmaVOICE Videos
/@pharmalinxvideo
Jul 17, 2012
This video, filmed at the 2012 DIA annual meeting, features an interview with Jennifer Goldsmith, then Vice President of Veeva Vault, discussing how cloud technology and Software as a Service (SaaS) were transforming the life sciences industry. The conversation, hosted by Taran Gro of PharmaVOICE, provides a foundational understanding of the shifts occurring in the pharmaceutical and biotech sectors and how cloud solutions were emerging as critical enablers for agility, efficiency, and compliance. Goldsmith highlights the significant challenges faced by the industry due to globalization, evolving regulatory landscapes, and the increasing complexity of collaboration ecosystems, positioning cloud as the technological answer to these demands. Goldsmith elaborates on the fundamental shifts observed in the 15 years leading up to 2012, including the globalization of processes, the rapid expansion of regulatory and business requirements, and the transformation of collaboration from simple in-office interactions to vast networks involving partners, co-marketing entities, co-development partners, and trusted vendors like Clinical Research Organizations (CROs) and Contract Manufacturing Organizations (CMOs). She emphasizes that these changes placed immense pressure on life sciences companies to be agile and flexible. Cloud and SaaS, in particular, were presented as key technology enablers for rapid change, offering solutions to overcome the traditional hurdles of on-premise systems. Two primary examples illustrate the power of cloud technology. First, in enabling external partner collaboration, SaaS dramatically reduced the time required to bring partners like CROs into a system, transforming a process that once took weeks or months to get behind a firewall and learn a system into a matter of minutes. Second, for managing rapid changes in R&D regulatory requirements and documentation, SaaS applications, with their frequent release cycles (typically 3-4 times a year), allowed for much quicker implementation of changes (3-9 months) compared to the lengthy 18-36 month cycles of traditional on-premise systems. This accelerated response time allows organizations to remain compliant and focus more on innovation rather than being bogged down by outdated technology. The discussion further delves into the efficiencies, cost savings, and process improvements brought by cloud-based products. A significant transition highlighted is the move away from extensive customization, prevalent in traditional systems, towards configuration using best practices embedded within SaaS applications. This approach not only reduces deployment time and costs associated with maintaining customizations but also allows companies to leverage industry-standard workflows. Furthermore, SaaS implementations foster greater end-user fidelity, as users are involved from day one, leading to smoother User Acceptance Testing (UAT) processes (days instead of weeks or months) and higher overall satisfaction. Goldsmith concludes by describing SaaS as an "appreciating asset" that continuously consumes enhanced capabilities, contrasting it with traditional on-premise systems that become "depreciating assets" the moment they go live, requiring costly and time-consuming upgrades every few years. This continuous currency allows life sciences companies to stay current with evolving business and regulatory requirements, exemplified by end-to-end promotional materials management processes that incorporate medical, legal, and regulatory review, with vendors handling updates for specific regulatory changes like the UK self-certification process. Key Takeaways: * **Cloud as an Agility Enabler:** Cloud and Software as a Service (SaaS) are crucial technologies for enabling agility and flexibility within the life sciences industry, addressing the demands of globalization, rapid regulatory changes, and complex collaboration ecosystems. * **Accelerated External Collaboration:** SaaS significantly reduces the time required to onboard and enable external partners, such as CROs, in R&D submission systems, transforming a process that traditionally took weeks or months into a matter of minutes. * **Rapid Regulatory Response:** Unlike on-premise systems with lengthy 18-36 month update cycles, SaaS applications typically release new features and regulatory updates 3-4 times a year, allowing life sciences organizations to respond to changing requirements within 3-9 months. * **Shift from Customization to Configuration:** Cloud-based solutions promote a move from extensive, costly customization to leveraging best practices through configuration, which accelerates deployment, reduces maintenance costs, and ensures adherence to industry standards. * **Enhanced End-User Engagement and Satisfaction:** SaaS implementation methodologies encourage end-user participation from day one, leading to smoother User Acceptance Testing (UAT) processes (reduced from weeks/months to days) and higher overall user satisfaction. * **Software as an Appreciating Asset:** SaaS platforms are described as "appreciating assets" because they continuously provide enhanced capabilities through regular updates, ensuring users always have access to current features and regulatory compliance. * **On-Premise Systems as Depreciating Assets:** In contrast, traditional on-premise systems are considered "depreciating assets" as they begin losing currency to business requirements the day they go live, requiring significant time and money for major upgrades every 18-48 months. * **Focus on Core Innovation:** By offloading the burden of infrastructure maintenance and software updates to SaaS vendors, life sciences companies can redirect their focus and resources towards their core business of innovation and product development. * **End-to-End Process Management:** SaaS applications offer comprehensive, out-of-the-box solutions for complex processes like promotional materials management, covering everything from concept and strategy to medical, legal, and regulatory review, distribution, and withdrawal. * **Automated Compliance Updates:** SaaS vendors proactively incorporate regulatory changes (e.g., UK self-certification processes) into their platforms, ensuring all users automatically gain access to updated capabilities without individual effort. * **Veeva's Pioneering Role:** Veeva Systems, particularly with its Veeva Vault product, is highlighted as a pioneer in providing SaaS and cloud-based solutions tailored for the regulated content management needs of the life sciences industry. Tools/Resources Mentioned: * Veeva Vault * Veeva Systems * Software as a Service (SaaS) * Cloud technology Key Concepts: * **Globalization of Processing:** The shift from local to global operations within the life sciences industry. * **Collaboration Ecosystems:** The vast network of partners, co-marketing entities, co-development partners, and trusted vendors (e.g., CROs, CMOs, sales organizations) that life sciences companies engage with. * **Agility and Flexibility:** The ability of an organization to rapidly respond to changing business and regulatory requirements. * **Customization vs. Configuration:** Customization involves altering source code to meet specific needs, while configuration involves setting up existing features to meet requirements without changing the core code, often leveraging best practices. * **Appreciating vs. Depreciating Assets:** SaaS is an appreciating asset due to continuous updates, while on-premise software is a depreciating asset due to its static nature post-deployment. * **User Acceptance Testing (UAT):** The final phase of software testing where end-users verify that the system meets their requirements. * **Promotional Materials Management:** The end-to-end process of creating, reviewing (Medical, Legal, Regulatory - MLR), distributing, monitoring, and withdrawing promotional content in a compliant manner. Examples/Case Studies: * **External Partner Collaboration:** Bringing Clinical Research Organizations (CROs) behind a firewall for R&D submission systems, reduced from weeks/months to minutes with cloud. * **Regulatory Change Implementation:** The contrast between 18-36 month cycles for on-premise systems to implement regulatory changes versus 3-9 months for SaaS applications with 3-4 annual releases. * **Promotional Materials Management Process:** An end-to-end process from concept to distribution and withdrawal, including Medical, Legal, and Regulatory (MLR) review, with examples like changes to the UK self-certification process being handled by the SaaS vendor.
Regulatory Guidelines in Reviewing Human Subjects Research by Phil Cola, MA
UH Medicine
/@UHMedicine
Feb 16, 2011
This video provides an in-depth exploration of the regulatory guidelines governing human subjects research, tracing their historical evolution and detailing their practical application by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). Phil Cola, MA, a research psychologist and Vice President for Research, presents this complex topic with a focus on ensuring that regulations facilitate, rather than impede, the advancement of research programs. He frames the discussion around the imperative to grow research ethically and efficiently, drawing on his extensive experience in navigating these frameworks within academic medical centers. The presentation delves into the pivotal historical events that shaped modern research ethics. It begins with the post-World War II Nuremberg Doctor's Trial, which fundamentally established the principle of informed consent. Cola then discusses the tragic consequences of the Thalidomide drug in the 1950s and 60s, highlighting the critical need for robust information flow and drug safety oversight. A significant portion is dedicated to the Tuskegee syphilis study, an egregious ethical failure that underscored the dangers of exploitation and the withholding of treatment. These historical lessons culminated in the 1979 Belmont Report, which articulated three core ethical principles: Respect for Persons (autonomy and informed consent), Beneficence (risk-benefit assessment), and Justice (equitable subject selection). These principles subsequently formed the basis for federal regulations, including 45 CFR Part 46 (the "Common Rule") and specific FDA regulations. Cola meticulously outlines the structure and responsibilities of IRBs, defining them as crucial entities that safeguard human subjects through rigorous scientific and ethical review, with the institution ultimately held accountable. He explains the oversight roles of the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) and the FDA, and how institutions commit to these standards through a "Federal Wide Assurance." The speaker details the IRB's daily operational scope, which directly mirrors the Belmont Report's principles, encompassing risk minimization, ensuring reasonable risk-benefit ratios, prompt communication of study findings, equitable subject selection, and proper informed consent. He also clarifies the essential distinction between "research" (a systematic investigation for generalizable knowledge) and "quality assurance," emphasizing when IRB review becomes a mandatory requirement. Furthermore, the presentation addresses the practicalities of IRB review, categorizing submissions into Exempt, Expedited (for minimal risk), and Full Board (for greater than minimal risk) reviews, and discussing their respective timelines. Cola underscores the comprehensive responsibilities of principal investigators, which span protocol adherence, fiscal oversight, staff training, conflict of interest disclosure, and adverse event reporting. He highlights the pervasive "therapeutic misconception," where research participants often confuse research with clinical care, necessitating diligent education. The discussion concludes with the significant impact of the HIPAA Privacy (2003) and Security (2011) Rules on research, detailing the need for "Privacy Boards" to manage protected health information (PHI), approve waivers of authorization for certain research types, and implement stringent data security measures like encryption and Business Associate Agreements to ensure compliance while enabling vital research. **Key Takeaways:** * **Historical Foundation of Research Ethics:** Modern human subject research regulations are a direct response to historical ethical breaches, including the Nuremberg Doctor's Trial (establishing informed consent), the Thalidomide tragedy (highlighting drug safety and information dissemination), and the Tuskegee syphilis study (demonstrating the severe consequences of exploitation and untreated disease). * **Belmont Report's Core Principles:** The 1979 Belmont Report provides the ethical bedrock for human subject research, articulating three principles: Respect for Persons (autonomy, informed consent), Beneficence (favorable risk-benefit assessment), and Justice (equitable subject selection). These principles guide all IRB decisions. * **Function and Accountability of IRBs:** Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are the primary mechanism for protecting human subjects' rights and welfare through scientific and ethical review. Institutions are ultimately accountable for research conduct, formalized through a Federal Wide Assurance. * **Regulatory Oversight and Compliance:** Key oversight bodies include the Department of Health and Human Services (via 45 CFR Part 46, the "Common Rule") and the Food and Drug Administration (for drugs, devices, biologics). The Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) enforces compliance, with accreditation from entities like AAHRPP signifying adherence to high standards. * **Comprehensive Investigator Responsibilities:** Principal investigators are responsible for all aspects of a study, including protocol adherence, fiscal management, staff training, conflict of interest disclosure, and accurate reporting. A deep understanding of the protocol and regulatory requirements is crucial. * **Defining Research for IRB Review:** IRB review is mandated for "research," defined as a systematic investigation designed to contribute to generalizable knowledge, involving a "human subject" (a living individual about whom data is obtained or an intervention is performed). Proactively structuring projects as research, even if initially for quality improvement, can prevent future regulatory hurdles. * **IRB Review Categories:** Protocols are reviewed as Exempt (specific low-risk categories), Expedited (for minimal risk activities like chart reviews or blood draws), or Full Board (for greater than minimal risk research, requiring a full committee meeting). Thorough initial submissions can significantly expedite the review process. * **Importance of Data and Safety Monitoring:** IRBs require robust plans not only for monitoring the safety of subjects but also for continuously monitoring the data being collected. This ensures the data remains relevant to the research question and maintains the study's scientific integrity. * **Safeguards for Vulnerable Populations:** Special regulatory subparts and heightened IRB scrutiny are applied when research involves vulnerable populations such, as employees, students, pregnant women, children, prisoners, or individuals with cognitive impairments, to ensure their enhanced protection. * **HIPAA's Impact on Research Data:** The HIPAA Privacy Rule (2003) and Security Rule (2011) significantly influence research by mandating the protection of subject privacy and data confidentiality. This often necessitates the establishment of "Privacy Boards" to approve waivers of authorization for certain research types (e.g., chart reviews) and requires strict data security measures like encryption and Business Associate Agreements for data sharing. * **Protocol and Informed Consent Development:** A well-structured protocol serves as a strong foundation for a scientific publication. The informed consent document, while derived from the protocol, must simplify complex scientific concepts to an accessible reading level (e.g., 8th grade) to ensure genuine understanding and voluntary participation by subjects. * **Understanding IRB Decision Outcomes:** IRBs can approve protocols (rarely outright), require modifications (most common, allowing administrative approval after changes), defer or table (requiring substantial additional information and re-review by the full board, which can extend timelines), or disapprove (very rare, indicating irreconcilable ethical or methodological flaws). * **Addressing the Therapeutic Misconception:** A significant challenge in human subjects research is the "therapeutic misconception," where participants believe the primary goal of research is their individual therapeutic benefit rather than generating generalizable knowledge. Investigators must actively educate participants to clarify this distinction. **Key Concepts:** * **Institutional Review Board (IRB):** An administrative body established to protect the rights and welfare of human research subjects. * **Informed Consent:** A process by which a subject voluntarily confirms their willingness to participate in a particular trial, after having been informed of all aspects of the trial relevant to their decision. * **Belmont Report Principles:** * **Respect for Persons:** Acknowledging individuals' autonomy and protecting those with diminished autonomy. * **Beneficence:** Maximizing benefits and minimizing harms. * **Justice:** Ensuring equitable distribution of research benefits and burdens. * **Common Rule (45 CFR Part 46):** Federal policy for the protection of human subjects in research, adopted by numerous U.S. federal departments and agencies. * **Federal Wide Assurance (FWA):** A formal commitment by an institution to the federal government that it will comply with the Common Rule. * **Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP):** The primary federal agency responsible for protecting human subjects in research conducted or supported by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. * **Minimal Risk:** The probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research are not greater than those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during routine examinations. * **Vulnerable Populations:** Groups of individuals who may be more susceptible to coercion or undue influence or have diminished autonomy (e.g., children, prisoners, pregnant women, cognitively impaired individuals). * **Therapeutic Misconception:** The belief by research participants that the primary purpose of a clinical trial is to provide them with therapeutic benefit rather than to generate scientific knowledge. * **HIPAA Privacy Rule (2003) & Security Rule (2011):** Federal regulations that establish national standards to protect individuals' medical records and other personal health information. * **Privacy Board:** An entity, often integrated with an IRB, responsible for reviewing research involving Protected Health Information (PHI) to ensure HIPAA compliance. * **Business Associate Agreement (BAA):** A contract between a HIPAA covered entity and a business associate that outlines how the business associate will protect PHI. **Examples/Case Studies:** * **Nuremberg Doctor's Trial (post-WWII):** A trial of Nazi doctors for war crimes, which led to the Nuremberg Code, emphasizing voluntary informed consent. * **Thalidomide Tragedy (late 1950s/early 1960s):** A sedative drug that caused severe birth defects, highlighting the critical need for rigorous drug testing and information dissemination. * **Tuskegee Syphilis Study (1932-1972):** An unethical study by the U.S. Public Health Service that observed the natural progression of untreated syphilis in African American men, withholding penicillin even after it became available. * **Schizophrenia Research at Case Western Reserve University (1980s):** Illustrates the ethical debate around obtaining informed consent from individuals with acute schizophrenia, which ultimately led to advancements in atypical antipsychotic medications. * **OHRP Actions against Major Academic Medical Centers (1990s-2000s):** Instances where OHRP temporarily halted human subject research at institutions like Duke, Johns Hopkins, and the University of Pennsylvania due to non-compliance, underscoring the importance of robust human research protection programs. * **Dr. Kodes' Pediatric Oncology Studies:** Research demonstrating the persistent "therapeutic misconception" among parents of children participating in leukemia trials, despite extensive efforts to educate them about the research nature of their children's treatment.