Medical information response letters with a source behind every sentence, for a specialist to sign
Every question from a healthcare professional answered in a signed letter where each sentence links to its source.
See one case, screen by screen ↓An unsolicited question from a healthcare professional rarely asks one thing. A dermatologist asks about pregnancy, breastfeeding and a dosing interval the label does not cover — three parts, two on-label and one off-label, and no single standard response that answers all of them. The specialist has to find the current version of each standard response, the right label section for the requester’s country, the data on file and the literature, then write the letter and reference every claim.
Every step carries a risk. A sentence reused from last spring’s letter can follow a standard response that has since been retired. A remark about a flare in week 4 is a possible lack of effect that Patient Safety needs inside one business day. And an off-label section without the disclosure and the balancing data should never leave the department. So letters are checked line by line, by hand, against sources — and the queue waits.
Estimated split for a typical multi-part custom letter, in days, by hand and with the solution.
Six specialist agents read, screen, find, write and check every answer and keep the library current; a medical information specialist edits and signs.
A dermatologist in Portland asks about a patient on Veltrimab who is planning a pregnancy. Here is what happens next, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Priya opens the response desk: 48 questions today, 31 answered and 17 open; 4 letters ready for her, 1 needing a decision; 3 safety hand-offs. The signature tray shows each drafted letter with its citation count, and the clocks list what is due today and this week.
“Dr. Helena Marsh’s letter is drafted — 11 sentences cited, 1 to decide.”
MI-24817 came through the web portal from Dr. Helena Marsh, a dermatologist at Cascade Dermatology Partners. The inquiry reader verified her as an HCP and split the question: pregnancy data and stopping before conception (on-label), breastfeeding (on-label), and dosing every 2 weeks (off-label). Route: custom letter — no single standard response covers all parts — on the US custom letter v7, due Oct 9.
Off-label status is set per part, never per question.
Buried in the question is a line the safety screen does not let pass: “Her disease flares in week 4 of each cycle.” It is handed to Patient Safety as special situation PS-26-08841 at 14:12, with the HCP’s exact words, to Lena Ortiz — inside 1 business day. Then the evidence finder pulls 18 passages from 8 sources, the letter writer drafts 11 sentences in 3 sections, and the citation checker reads them all.
When in doubt, hand off — and a hand-off cannot be withdrawn by an agent.
Priya clicks the registry sentence in section 1. The evidence panel opens the Veltrimab Pregnancy Exposure Registry, Interim Report 3, data cut June 30, 2026, with both passages highlighted — and confirms every number: 212 pregnancies enrolled, 3 of 141 live births (2.1%) with a major birth defect, against a background of about 3%.
“Supported by 2 passages · numbers match the source: 212, 141, 3, 2.1%, 3%.”
Sentence 5 says Northwind Bio suggests considering stopping Veltrimab 15 weeks before a planned conception. The letter writer reused it from a letter signed in March 2026, which followed SRD-VLT-014 v4. Version 4 was retired on Jun 12, 2026; v5 removed the 15-week advice because the Prescribing Information sets no period for stopping before conception. The checker offers the current wording and three choices.
Use the current wording · Keep with a note · Compare the two versions
She compares v4 and v5 side by side, then uses the current wording: the label does not specify a stopping period, the decision weighs disease control against potential fetal exposure, and the mean half-life is about 26 days — cited to SRD-VLT-014 v5 and the Prescribing Information. The ring in the header turns from 10 of 11 to 11 of 11 cited.
Dosing every 2 weeks opens with the approved dosing — 150 mg at Week 0 and Week 4, then every 4 weeks — and a plain statement that every-2-week dosing is not approved and its safety and effectiveness are not established. Then the data: in the VLT-302 extension, 50 of 86 patients (58%) regained PASI 75 at Week 16. Then the limits: open-label, no control arm, infections 21% after the switch against 18% before.
Off-label disclosure · Balancing data · No promotional words
The sign dialog lists what was checked — 11 of 11 sentences cited, disclosure and balancing data present, no promotional words, safety hand-off sent — and the meaning of the signature. Priya enters her password. Because section 3 is off-label, the letter goes to Omar Haddad, MD, for a second signature before it can be sent.
“I reviewed this response and approve it as accurate, balanced and specific to the question asked.”
Omar reviews section 3 against five checks: specific to the question asked, disclosure, balance, references and label (5 references, label enclosed), and kept apart from promotion — sent privately to the requester only. He signs as medical reviewer.
The letter is built as a PDF with 5 references and the Prescribing Information enclosed, sent by secure email, and the case is closed in the MI case system. The letter, its sources, the decisions and both signatures are archived. The library keeper counts 3 similar pregnancy-planning letters this quarter and suggests an update to SRD-VLT-014.
The same letter, seen by the five people who touch it — what their week looked like, and what it looks like now.
Six specialist agents read, screen, find, write and check every answer and keep the library current; a medical information specialist edits and signs.
Reads each new question from the portal, email, call log, field medical or chat; checks the requester is a healthcare professional; splits the question into parts; sets product, indication, topic, country and on-label or off-label for each part, and chooses the route.
Reads every question for adverse events, special situations — pregnancy exposure, lack of effect, overdose, medication error — and product quality complaints, and hands them to Patient Safety or Quality the same day with the original words.
Finds the passages that answer each part: standard response paragraphs first, then the label for the requester’s country, data on file approved for external use and peer-reviewed literature — including data that do not support an off-label use.
Writes the letter from the country template, one section per part in the order asked, linking every factual sentence to its passage, with the off-label disclosure and balancing data where needed, the references and the label enclosed.
Re-reads every sentence against its passages: is it supported, do the numbers match, is the source current, is the off-label disclosure present, is the answer balanced, are there promotional words — and offers corrected wording from current sources.
Counts the custom questions that keep coming back, drafts a new or updated standard response from the signed letters and their sources when a topic reaches 4 custom letters in 90 days, and reminds owners 30 days before a review is due.
Edits and signs. The agents propose; a named person decides.
The specialist can ask about the desk in plain words — or tell it what to change. Every answer points to its passage.
What is open on Dr. Marsh’s letter?
One sentence. Sentence A5 says to consider stopping Veltrimab 15 weeks before conception — wording reused from a letter that followed SRD-VLT-014 v4. Version 5 removed it because the label sets no stopping period. The checker offers the current wording; the other 10 sentences are cited and supported.
Why does Dr. Marsh’s letter need a second signature?
Part 3 asks about dosing every 2 weeks, which is outside the approved dosing. Your settings send every letter with off-label content to Omar Haddad, MD, for a second signature. The section opens with the disclosure, gives the extension-cohort result, then the limits and the infection rates, and the Prescribing Information is enclosed.
Flag literature older than 5 years
Done. New rule: flag any cited article published more than 5 years ago, so you can check for newer data before signing. None of the open letters cites an article older than 2024. The rule is live in Settings and recorded in the audit trail.
Draft a standard response for Corventa through a feeding tube
Six custom letters in 90 days asked this, and there is no standard response. I am drafting SRD-COR-015 v0.1 from the signed letters and their sources: the label wording, the in vitro study and its limits. It goes to Omar Haddad for review.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
Who signs, how fast, and what the agents may cite — all settings.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Custom letters signed by | Any MI specialist | Any MI specialist · MI pharmacists only |
| Second signature on off-label content | Omar Haddad, MD | Omar Haddad, MD · Dr. Maya Chen |
| Send unchanged standard responses without a second look | On | On · Off |
| Questions from patients | On — answered by the nurse line, never as an HCP letter | On · Off |
| Custom letter clock | 5 business days | Set in business days from receipt |
| Standard response letter clock | 2 business days | Set in business days from receipt |
| Safety hand-off | 1 business day · locked | Set by the safety procedure |
| Congress abstracts | Off | On, with a note that the data are not peer reviewed · Off |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample data · “target” = the design goal for this desk, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate before deployment. People, companies and products named on this page are characters and fictional products in the working solution.
Software that takes an unsolicited question from a healthcare professional from intake to a sent answer — on the call, as a standard response or as a custom letter — with the sources, decisions and signatures recorded. This solution adds agents that split the question, screen it for safety, find the current evidence, draft the letter and check every sentence.
Off-label status is set for each part of a question. An off-label section opens with the approved use and a plain statement that the asked use is not approved, then gives the data and their limits, with the label enclosed. It needs a second signature from the medical reviewer, and the letter goes privately to the requester.
Yes — first. The evidence finder takes paragraphs from your current standard responses, then the label for the requester’s country, data on file approved for external use and peer-reviewed literature. Retired versions are never cited as current, and a reused sentence that follows one is flagged.
The safety screen reads every question for adverse events, special situations and product quality complaints, and hands them to Patient Safety or Quality with the requester’s exact words on a 1-business-day clock. When in doubt it hands off, and an agent cannot withdraw a hand-off.
Yes. The agents draft; a medical information specialist accepts or rejects every checker finding, edits, and signs every letter with the meaning of the signature recorded. Letters with off-label content also need the medical reviewer’s signature.
Yes. Who signs custom letters, who gives the second signature, the custom and standard letter clocks, whether patients go to the nurse line and which sources the agents may cite are all settings, along with the letter templates for each country.
The library keeper counts questions that keep coming back. When a topic reaches 4 custom letters in 90 days with no standard response, it drafts one from the signed letters and their sources for the owner to approve, and it reminds owners 30 days before a review is due.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements — your standard responses, labels, letter templates and a sample of past questions — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on your own inquiries first.
Every claim checked against its reference page and the label before a reviewer opens it.
1-min filmInvestigator Study ReviewEvery investigator's study concept checked against our priorities, ongoing studies and its budget, and decided in half the time.
1-min filmMedical InsightsEvery field insight becomes a cited theme within days, ready for the quarterly report.
1-min filmWe’ll run the Cited Medical Information Response Agent on a sample of your own past questions and standard responses.