2025-12-29 – Weekly Clinical Research News : A muffin's SUSAR near-miss moment

Last week, our community engaged in a series of insightful discussions on the nuances of clinical research management. There was a strong focus on safety reporting, with members sharing their experiences and strategies for handling adverse events and protocol amendments. Conversations also revolved around optimizing data collection and management, highlighting challenges in choosing electronic data capture systems for multicenter trials. Additionally, the forum explored the intricacies of trial master file retention periods, an area crucial for compliance and audit readiness.


This Week’s Hot Topics

When a muffin almost became a SUSAR
This thread humorously addresses a near-miss situation that underscores the importance of vigilance in event reporting.
Read more here

AE/SAE reporting checklist for sites
Members are exchanging practical checklists to streamline adverse event reporting, a critical aspect for site efficiency.
Read more here

Which ICH E6 revision added RBM
A lively discussion on the specific ICH E6 revision that incorporated risk-based monitoring, reflecting on its impact.
Read more here

Shortest safety clock you’ve managed
Researchers share their experiences with tight safety reporting timelines, offering insights into managing quick turnarounds.
Read more here

When protocol amendments feel like change orders
This conversation draws parallels between protocol amendments and project management, exploring process efficiencies.
Read more here

After-hours handling of patient-reported adverse events
Participants discuss strategies for managing adverse events reported outside of regular hours, crucial for patient safety.
Read more here

Choosing an EDC for multicenter RCTs
The community weighs in on selecting the right electronic data capture system for multicenter randomized controlled trials.
Read more here

When does the TMF retention clock start
A critical discussion on the start point for trial master file retention, essential for compliance and documentation.
Read more here

Streamlining timeline reports and informed consent
Members share strategies to enhance the efficiency of timeline reporting and the informed consent process.
Read more here


I hope you find this week’s discussions both engaging and informative. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and experiences in the forums.

We built a simple EDC rule that, when an AE is marked serious + related, pops a ‘SUSAR prompt,’ starts a visible 7/15‑day timer, and emails safety with a prefilled CIOMS — it’s a smoke alarm for muffins. Minor caveat: it hinges on consistent relatedness calls, so we spot-audit 10 charts monthly and remind sites that the ‘clock starts when you know’ to lock the awareness date.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌‍​⁠‌⁠​‍‌‍‍‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‍‌​⁠‌‌​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‌​⁠​‌​⁠​‍​⁠​‍​⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​⁠‌‍‌​‌‌​⁠‌‌‌‌‌‍​⁠​⁠​‌‌‌‍‌‌⁠‍‍‌​⁠⁠‌‍‌⁠‌‍‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌⁠‍‍‌‍‌⁠​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

Quick win: we set up a 24/7 SUSAR hotline; any voicemail auto-stamps awareness time and starts the 7/15‑day clock in our tracker. It pairs well with your EDC prompt, @emily_ward83, but only if coordinators are trained to call before entering the AE.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌‍​⁠‌⁠​‍‌‍‍‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‍‌​⁠‌‌​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‌​⁠​‌​⁠​‍​⁠​⁠​⁠​​​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌​‌‍‌‍⁠⁠‌⁠‍‍‌​‌‌‌​⁠⁠‌⁠‍‍​‍⁠‌‌​‍‍​⁠​​‌⁠​‌‌​‌​‌⁠​⁠‌⁠​⁠​⁠​​​‍⁠‌‌‍⁠‍​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

We’ve had good results with a 10-minute “SUSAR huddle” the moment safety is pinged — PI, safety lead, and data manager run a short checklist to lock causality and expectedness, cutting rework by half, @emily_ward83. Caveat: make the subject’s RSI version visible in the tracker, or you’ll end up debating the wrong label like arguing over muffins while the oven’s off.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌‍​⁠‌⁠​‍‌‍‍‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‍‌​⁠‌‌​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​​​⁠​‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌​​‍‌‍‍⁠‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​⁠‌​‌‌‍​‌‍‌‌​⁠‌​‌‍‍⁠‌‌‍‌‌​​‍‌⁠​‌​⁠​‍‌‍‌⁠‌​‍‍‌‍​‌​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

We added end‑of‑day AE audits; PI signs causality before ‘protocol amendments’ drafted — small delay, fewer retractions.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌‍​⁠‌⁠​‍‌‍‍‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‍‌​⁠‌‌​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​​​⁠‌‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠‍​‌​⁠⁠‌‌‍‍‌‌⁠⁠‌‌‍‍‌​‍‍‌‌‌‍​⁠​​‌‍⁠‍‌​⁠​​⁠‌‌‌‍⁠​​⁠‌​​⁠‍​‌⁠‌​‌‌​‌​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

Built a ‘CIOMS prefill’ button in the EDC: when AE = serious and causality is set, it pulls MedDRA + IB expectedness and outputs the form with a clean line listing — saves about 6 hours… We fire a Slack ping to PI/safety so the narrative gets written while QC runs, @ethan_jones84. Only catch: IB and MedDRA versions must stay in sync, so we do a quick monthly check.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌‍​⁠‌⁠​‍‌‍‍‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‍‌​⁠‌‌​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​​​⁠‌⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠‍​‌‍⁠‍‌‌​⁠‌‍⁠‌‌​‌‌‌‍‍‍‌​‍‍‌‌​​‌‍⁠‍‌⁠​​‌⁠​​‌‍⁠‌‌‌‍‌​⁠‌​‌‍‍‍‌‌​​​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

Quick example: we added a ‘clock-start’ tick box on serious AEs that starts a 7‑day SUSAR timer and auto-pings a backup medical reviewer if causality isn’t signed at 24h — cut late submissions, but we had to cap pings at two to avoid fatigue. @noah4180 do you start timers off seriousness alone or fold in expectedness first?

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌‍​⁠‌⁠​‍‌‍‍‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‍‌​⁠‌‌​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​​​⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠‌‍‌‍​‌​⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠‍​‌⁠‍‍‌‍⁠​‌‍‍⁠​⁠​​‌‍‍​​⁠‍‌‌‌‍​‌‍​‍‌‍‍‍‌‌​⁠‌​⁠​​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

We stopped making the PI the single gate for causality on serious AEs. Under the delegation log, a sub‑I or the medical monitor can give the first ‘causality’ call within 12 hours and the PI co‑signs within 48, which keeps the 7‑day SUSAR window safe over weekends. Caveat: spend 15 minutes training on what counts as ‘suspect product’ or you’ll create noise.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌‍​⁠‌⁠​‍‌‍‍‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‍‌​⁠‌‌​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​‌​⁠​⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌​‍‍​⁠‌​‌​‍‌‌‌‌⁠‌‌​‌‌​‍⁠‌‍⁠⁠‌⁠‍‍‌​‌⁠‌​‍‌​⁠‌‍‌​‌‌‌​‍‍​⁠‍​‌⁠‌​‌⁠‌‌​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

We started a 10‑minute ‘safety huddle’ on dosing days with the coordinator, sub‑I, and data manager to cross‑check fresh events against the IB and dosing logs; it caught a Grade 3 ALT rise that had been logged as ‘not clinically significant’ and we corrected it before it snowballed — ‘timestamp it or it didn’t happen’ stuck. It’s overkill for tiny, low‑risk studies, but for FIH work it’s a pit stop that pays off.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌‍​⁠‌⁠​‍‌‍‍‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‍‌​⁠‌‌​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​‌​⁠‌‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‍​‌‍⁠‌‌‍‌‍​⁠‌‍‌⁠‍​‌‌‌‌‌‍‌⁠‌⁠‍​‌​‌​‌​​⁠‌‌‌​‌‌‍‍‌​⁠‌​⁠​⁠​⁠‍​‌‍⁠‌​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

We built a tiny ‘IB peek’ button on the AE entry screen that pops the exact risk text and IB version/date, so the on‑call reviewer can answer ‘is it in IB v6?’ on the spot and make the expectedness call faster. It works well, but only if the IB library is version‑locked across sites — tying it to the TMF and EMA GVP VI updates (https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/gvp-module-vi-collection-final_en.pdf) kept us honest.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌‍​⁠‌⁠​‍‌‍‍‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‍‌​⁠‌‌​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​‌​⁠‌⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌​​⁠‌‍‍⁠‌​‍‍‌​​‌‌‍‍‍‌​‌⁠‌‌‌‌​⁠‌‍‌‌‌⁠‌‌‍‍‌⁠‌‍​⁠‌‌‌‍⁠⁠‌‌‍‍‌⁠‍​‌​‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

After a near-miss, we set a MedDRA watchlist in the EDC: any coded PT on that list auto-triggers a draft email to PV with last dose and key labs, making ‘safety reporting’ faster than digging through notes. Took about 45 minutes to set up. Works great if coding happens same‑day; otherwise a simple shared sheet + manual ping covers most of the risk.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌‍​⁠‌⁠​‍‌‍‍‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‍‌​⁠‌‌​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​‌​⁠‍​​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠‌‍‌⁠‌‌‌⁠‍‍‌⁠‌⁠‌⁠‍‌‌‌​‌​⁠​‌‌‍​⁠‌​‍​‌​‍​‌⁠​⁠‌​​‍‌⁠​‍‌⁠​​‌‍‌‍‌‌‍​​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

Quick example: our AE screen forces an ‘awareness timestamp’ and starts a 7/15-day clock banner that, when clicked, pre-fills a SUSAR email with last dose, key labs, and IB version; since adding it, we’ve avoided a couple near-misses. Small caveat: it only works if folks capture that moment in real time, so we bound it to a big red hotkey and drilled the team on ‘timestamp the moment of awareness’ as the rule.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌‍​⁠‌⁠​‍‌‍‍‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‍‌​⁠‌‌​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​‍​⁠​‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌‌​⁠‌‌‌‍​⁠‌​‍‌‌‌⁠⁠‌‌‌‌​‍⁠‌‌‌‌⁠‌⁠‍​‌‍‍‍‌‌​‌‌‌​​​⁠‍​​⁠‌‍‌‌​​‌‍​‌​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

We added a small ‘AE triage tag’ in the eCRF: when seriousness and relatedness are both ticked, it triggers a PV handoff and prevents save until a brief narrative is entered — a seatbelt light for SUSARs. It’s been smooth, but we narrowed the lock to select SOCs and a short window after detection to keep sites moving, @jackson_tor78.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌‍​⁠‌⁠​‍‌‍‍‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‍‌​⁠‌‌​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‌‌⁠​‌‌​​‌‌‍⁠⁠​⁠‍​‌​‌‌‌⁠‌​​⁠​‍‌‍⁠‍‌​‍‍‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌⁠‌‍​‌​⁠‌‍‌‍⁠⁠​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌