Request a demo specialized to your need.
Expedited safety reporting is measured in days, and the two durations are the same in the US and the EU. Under 21 CFR 312.32, a sponsor notifies FDA of an unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction no later than 7 calendar days after initial receipt of the information, and reports other serious, unexpected suspected adverse reactions no later than 15 calendar days after determining that they qualify (FDA). Article 42 of Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 sets the same 7-day and 15-day limits for SUSARs, counted from when the sponsor became aware of the reaction, and EudraVigilance receives the reports in ICH E2B(R3) format.
Inside those windows sit several steps: logging the receipt date, validating the report, coding the terms, reviewing quality, and signing off. In a manual workflow each one depends on someone remembering to do it, and a gateway rejection late in the window uses up time the clock does not give back. The five capabilities below correspond to those steps, and each comes with a way to test it during a vendor evaluation.
1. Clock tracking from the correct start date
Manual risk: The 7-day and 15-day clocks do not start from the same point. FDA's 7-day clock runs from the sponsor's initial receipt of the information, while its 15-day clock runs from the sponsor's determination that the information qualifies for reporting. A shared calendar that applies one start rule to every case can file a 7-day case late.
What to look for: A clock per case, with the start-date logic defined by regulatory framework, remaining time visible on the case, and alerts as the limit approaches.
How to test it: Enter a fatal, unexpected case whose receipt date is earlier than the date you key it in, and ask the vendor to show how the clock is set.
2. Real-time validation against E2B(R3) and gateway rules
Manual risk: Errors found at gateway rejection arrive when little of the window is left. Spreadsheet and email workflows have no structural check, so completeness depends on each reviewer's attention that day.
What to look for: Field-level checks at the point of data entry against ICH E2B(R3) structure and the business rules of the receiving gateway (for example EudraVigilance or FDA ESG), including cross-field logic.
How to test it: Submit a case with a missing mandatory field and a cross-field conflict, such as an onset date later than the outcome date, and note when and how each is flagged.
3. MedDRA code validation against the current release
Manual risk: Free-typed or carried-over terms can reference a release other than the one in force, and coding consistency varies by reviewer.
What to look for: Validation of preferred terms, lower-level terms, and higher-level terms against the current MedDRA release, with a human confirming the final code.
How to test it: Enter a lower-level term from a prior release and see what the system does with it.
4. Case quality scoring with error explanation
Manual risk: Scrutiny is uneven when time is short, and the same error types recur because nothing aggregates them.
What to look for: A completeness or quality score before gateway submission, an explanation of why each check failed with a suggested correction, and a way to see recurring error types across cases.
How to test it: Ask for a view of the most frequent validation failures across the last batch of cases.
5. Audit trail and electronic signature
Manual risk: 21 CFR 11.10(e) calls for secure, computer-generated, time-stamped audit trails that record operator entries and actions that create, modify, or delete electronic records. In a manual tool, the audit history exists only if people documented their own changes.
What to look for: An immutable, user-attributed, time-stamped history, an e-signature workflow, and role-based access.
How to test it: Change a field on a signed case and trace what the history shows.
How the five compare with a manual workflow
| Capability | Manual or spreadsheet workflow | What to look for | Test in a demo |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock tracking | One shared calendar | Per-case clock, start date by framework | Case received before it was entered |
| Real-time validation | Checks at gateway rejection | Field-level checks at entry | Missing field plus cross-field conflict |
| MedDRA validation | Reviewer recall | Check against the current release | Term from a prior release |
| Quality scoring | Uneven review under time pressure | Score before submission, error explanations | Most frequent failures across cases |
| Audit trail | Self-documented changes | Immutable, attributed, time-stamped | Edit a signed case |
Evaluation checklist
- Per-case clocks with start-date logic by framework and visible time remaining
- Validation at entry against E2B(R3) structure and gateway business rules
- MedDRA code validation against the release in force
- Quality or completeness score before submission
- Error explanations with suggested corrections, plus a view of recurring error types
- Time-stamped, user-attributed audit trail and an e-signature workflow
- Vendor demo run on your own case dates and a deliberately flawed case
How this lines up with the regulations
- 21 CFR 312.32 and EU Regulation 536/2014, Article 42: set the 7-day and 15-day limits and the points from which they are counted.
- ICH E2B(R3): the standard for electronic transmission of individual case safety reports, which EudraVigilance uses.
- 21 CFR Part 11: audit trail and electronic signature expectations for electronic records.
- ICH E6(R3): places responsibility for data governance and computerised-system controls with the sponsor, proportionate to risk.
How Cloudbyz approaches this
Cloudbyz product documentation describes AI VigiCheck as an E2B(R3) validation agent for pharmacovigilance teams. Its listed functions include field-level validation as data is entered, a rule set spanning ICH E2B(R3), EMA EVWEB, FDA ESG, and WHO-ICTRP, MedDRA preferred-term, lower-level-term, and higher-level-term validation against the current release, a completeness and quality score for each case before gateway submission, AI-assisted root cause explanations with suggested corrections, and an e-signature workflow with an immutable audit trail. These correspond to capabilities 2 through 5 above.
Platforms like Cloudbyz, among others, are generally built around catching errors at entry rather than at the gateway. How much reporting risk that removes depends on configuration, case mix, and the review procedures around the tool, and reviewers keep the decisions. Clock logic (capability 1) is worth confirming in a demo with your own case dates.
What this means by role
- QA and Compliance Directors: an audit trail and quality score that exist on every case, which gives auditors something to sample.
- Clinical Data Management professionals: coding and field checks that run before a case reaches the gateway.
- Safety and PV leads: a view of recurring error types across cases, which shows where to adjust procedures.
- Clinical Operations Managers and Directors: visibility into whether reporting limits are being met when a CRO or vendor handles case processing.
Subscribe to our Newsletter
