← Drug Development Suite Pharmacovigilance · Vitalis Therapeutics Inc.

Safety Reporting Plan

Download Word

Vitalis Therapeutics Inc. — Pharmacovigilance and expedited safety reporting for the VitaFlow (VTX-401) program: the four-part test, the 7-day and 15-day regulatory clocks under 21 CFR 312.32, case flow, signal detection, and the compliance position at 15 October 2026.

214
SAEs reported
44
Expedited reports
100%
Within window
19 hr
Median notification
Contents
  1. Why This Sits Outside Program Governance
  2. The Four-Part Test
  3. Expedited Reporting Obligations
  4. Case Flow
  5. Signal Detection
  6. Compliance Position
  7. Responsibilities

1. Why This Sits Outside Program Governance

Almost everything in this suite describes decisions the program makes. This document describes obligations the program has, whether or not it finds them convenient.

Safety reporting runs on a regulatory clock, not a program schedule. Constraint C-04 in the RAID Log records it, and §9 of the Development Committee Charter names it as one of four matters outside Committee authority entirely.

No gate can defer a 15-day report. No contingency draw buys an extension. The Development Committee cannot vote to delay one, and a Program Director who allowed schedule pressure to slow a submission would have committed a regulatory violation, not a governance error.

For a program manager arriving from an industry with a single chain of command, this is the mental adjustment that matters most: some clocks are not yours. The job is to build a process that meets them without heroics, and then to leave it alone.

2. The Four-Part Test

The vocabulary here is precise and the words do not mean what everyday usage suggests. An event must clear all four of these tests before an expedited report is required.

ConceptAbbr.DefinitionWhat it actually means
Adverse eventAEAny untoward medical occurrence in a participant administered a drug, whether or not considered drug related.Broadest category. Collected on every participant at every visit.
SeriousSAEResults in death, is life-threatening, requires or prolongs inpatient hospitalization, causes persistent or significant disability, is a congenital anomaly, or requires intervention to prevent one of the above.A regulatory definition, not a clinical severity judgment. A severe headache is not serious; an overnight admission for observation is.
UnexpectedNot listed in the Investigator Brochure, or not listed at the observed specificity or severity.Assessed against the current IB, which changes as the safety database grows. An event unexpected in 2025 may be expected in 2027.
Suspected adverse reactionSARThere is evidence suggesting a causal relationship between the drug and the event.The narrowing test. Mere temporal association is not evidence of causality.
“Serious” is a regulatory classification, not a severity judgment. This is the single most common misunderstanding. A migraine that leaves a participant unable to work for two days is severe and not serious. An overnight hospital admission for observation after a fainting episode is serious regardless of how minor it turns out to be.

Severity describes how bad the event felt. Seriousness describes whether it met one of six defined outcomes. Only the second one starts a clock.

The narrowing is substantial. Every participant generates adverse events; a minority are serious; of those a minority are unexpected against the current Investigator Brochure; and of those only the ones with evidence suggesting causality are suspected adverse reactions. In this program, 214 serious adverse events have been reported and 44 required expedited submission.

Note the moving target in the third test. Expectedness is assessed against the current Investigator Brochure, and the IB is updated as the safety database grows — this program is on version 4. An event that was unexpected in 2025 may be expected in 2027, and the reporting obligation changes with it. That makes IB currency a compliance matter rather than documentation housekeeping.

3. Expedited Reporting Obligations

TriggerDeadlineClock starts atActionReference
Unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction7 calendar daysSponsor's initial receipt of the informationNotification to FDA. Written report follows.312.32(c)(2)
Suspected adverse reaction that is both serious and unexpected15 calendar daysSponsor's determination that it qualifies for reportingIND Safety Report to FDA and all participating investigators, Form FDA 3500A.312.32(c)(1)(i)
Findings from other studies, animal or in vitro testing suggesting significant human risk15 calendar daysDetermination that it qualifiesIND Safety Report. Applies to non-clinical findings too.312.32(c)(1)(ii)-(iii)
Clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction15 calendar daysDetermination that it qualifiesRate change against the protocol or Investigator Brochure.312.32(c)(1)(iv)
Additional information requested by FDA15 calendar daysReceipt of the requestAs specified by the agency.312.32(c)(1)(v)
Event initially assessed as non-reportable, later determined reportable15 calendar daysThe determinationFollow-up investigation obligation.312.32(d)(3)
The two clocks start from different events, and this is the detail worth knowing cold.

The 7-day clock — unexpected fatal or life-threatening — runs from the sponsor's initial receipt of the information. It starts the moment the information arrives, before anyone has assessed anything.

The 15-day clock — serious and unexpected suspected adverse reaction — runs from the sponsor's determination that the information qualifies for reporting. Assessment time sits inside the process rather than inside the clock.

The practical consequence: for a fatal or life-threatening case there is no assessment grace period at all. Seven days from the phone call, not seven days from working out what happened. That asymmetry is why the internal SAE reporting obligation at §4 is set at 24 hours — tighter than any regulation requires.

Reports go to FDA and to every participating investigator on the IND, not only to the site that reported the event. An investigator at a different site is entitled to know what has been seen elsewhere, because it changes what they tell their own participants.

4. Case Flow

StepTimingOwnerDetail
Site identifies eventImmediateInvestigatorRecorded in the eCRF. Seriousness and causality assessed by the investigator.
SAE reported to sponsor safety24 hours of site awarenessInvestigator / siteContractual and protocol obligation, tighter than the regulatory clock so the sponsor has time to assess before its own deadline starts.
Triage and case processingSame business dayPharmacovigilanceSeriousness, expectedness against the current IB, and sponsor causality assessment.
Medical reviewWithin 48 hoursMedical monitorSponsor causality assessment. Where sponsor and investigator disagree, the more conservative assessment governs.
Regulatory submissionPer the clocks aboveRegulatory operationsForm FDA 3500A to the CDER review division; copy to all participating investigators.
Investigator notificationWith the submissionPharmacovigilanceEvery investigator on the IND, not only the reporting site.
IRB notificationPer local IRB requirementSiteSite obligation, but tracked centrally because failure is a site-level GCP finding.
The 24-hour site-to-sponsor obligation is deliberately tighter than the regulation. No rule requires a site to notify the sponsor within 24 hours. But the sponsor's 7-day clock starts when the sponsor receives the information, so every hour a site holds a case is an hour subtracted from assessment, medical review, case processing and submission.

Building the internal deadline inside the regulatory one is how a process meets its obligations without heroics. Current median site-to-sponsor time on this program is 19 hours.

Where the investigator and the sponsor's medical monitor disagree on causality, the more conservative assessment governs. If either party considers the event drug-related, it is treated as a suspected adverse reaction. A sponsor that resolved causality disputes in its own favor would be deciding its own reporting obligations.

5. Signal Detection

Individual case reporting is a legal obligation. Signal detection is the analytical work that finds a pattern no single case reveals.

ActivityFrequencyPurpose
Aggregate rate reviewMonthlyBlinded pooled rates by system organ class against the Investigator Brochure.
Targeted event monitoringContinuousGI events, hepatic events and MACE are followed individually against pre-specified thresholds — these are the class and program exposures (R-02).
DMC unblinded reviewEvery 16 weeksThe only unblinded look. See the DMC Charter.
DSURAnnuallyDevelopment Safety Update Report — the cumulative safety picture, submitted to regulators on the IND anniversary.
Investigator Brochure updateAs requiredWhen an event becomes expected, the reporting obligation for future occurrences changes. IB currency is therefore a compliance matter, not documentation housekeeping.
Signal detection on a blinded trial is genuinely hard, and this is where the DMC earns its existence. The sponsor sees pooled rates with treatment assignment concealed. A gastrointestinal discontinuation rate of 6% across the pooled population is uninterpretable — it could be 11% on drug and 1% on placebo, or 6% on both.

Only the Data Monitoring Committee can see the split. The sponsor's role is to surface the pattern; the committee's role is to look at it unblinded and decide whether it matters.

Three areas are followed individually rather than through aggregate review: gastrointestinal events, because tolerability is the program's differentiation claim and its principal clinical risk (R-02); hepatic events, because any case meeting Hy's Law criteria triggers an ad hoc DMC review within five working days; and adjudicated cardiovascular events in the CR-02 sub-study.

6. Compliance Position at 15 October 2026

MeasureValueNote
Serious adverse events reported214Cumulative across the program
7-day expedited reports3Unexpected fatal or life-threatening
15-day expedited reports41Serious and unexpected SARs
Submitted within the regulatory window100%The only acceptable value. A single late report is a finding at inspection.
Median site-to-sponsor notification19 hoursAgainst a 24-hour internal obligation
Investigator Brochure versionv4Expectedness assessed against this
DSURs submitted2Annual, on the IND anniversary
Why the on-time figure has no tolerance band. Every other metric in this suite has a target with acceptable variance — budget ±5%, gates within four weeks, enrolment against a curve. This one does not.

There is no acceptable rate of late safety reporting, because the failure mode is not a variance against plan — it is a regulator, or a participant's family, discovering that the sponsor knew something and did not say so on time. Programs recover from budget overruns and schedule slips. This is the category where a single instance can end a filing.

7. Responsibilities

ActivityMeridian (CRO)Vitalis (sponsor)
SAE collection from sitesExecutesSets the 24-hour obligation
Case processing and codingExecutesApproves conventions
Seriousness assessmentApplies the definitionAdjudicates disputes
Expectedness assessmentRetained — requires IB judgment
Sponsor causality assessmentRetained — medical monitor
Regulatory submissionPreparesRetained — sponsor is the IND holder
Investigator notificationDistributesApproves content
Signal detectionSupplies aggregate dataRetained
DSUR authorshipContributesRetained
IB maintenanceRetained

The retained column is longer here than anywhere else in the program, including the Site Management Plan. That is not a preference. The sponsor holds the IND, and every reporting obligation in §3 attaches to the IND holder. Execution can be contracted; the obligation cannot.