DOCSLIB.ORG

Confirmatory Clinical Trials: Analysis of Categorical Efficacy Data

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Confirmatory Clinical Trials: Analysis of Categorical Efficacy Data 10 Confirmatory clinical trials: Analysis of categorical efficacy data 10.1 Introduction: Regulatory views of advance and evaluated. As a rule, confirmatory substantial evidence trials are necessary to provide firm evidence of efficacy or safety. In such trials the key hypoth- esis of interest follows directly from the trial’s When thinking about the use of statistics in clin- primary objective, is always pre-defined, and is ical trials, the first thing that comes to mind for the hypothesis that is subsequently tested when many people is the process of hypothesis testing the trial is complete. In a confirmatory trial it is and the associated use of p values. This is very equally important to estimate with due precision reasonable, because the role of a chance outcome the size of the effects attributable to the treat- is of utmost importance in study design and the ment of interest and to relate these effects to interpretation of results from a study. A sponsor’s their clinical significance. objective is to develop an effective therapy that It is common practice to use earlier phase can be marketed to patients with a certain disease studies such as therapeutic exploratory studies or condition. From a public health perspective, to characterize the size of the treatment effect, the benefits of a new treatment cannot be sepa- while acknowledging that the effect size found rated from the risks that are tied to it. Regulatory in these studies is associated with a certain agencies must protect public health by ensuring amount of error. As noted earlier, confidence that a new treatment has “definitively” been intervals can be helpful for planning confirma- demonstrated to have a beneficial effect. The tory studies. The knowledge and experience meaning of the word “definitively” as used here gained in these earlier studies can lead to is rather broad, but we discuss what it means in hypotheses that we wish to test (and hopefully this context – that is, we operationally define the confirm) in a therapeutic confirmatory trial, for term “definitively” as it applies to study design, example, the mean reduction in systolic blood data analysis, and interpretation in new drug pressure (SBP) for the test treatment is 20 mmHg development. greater than the mean reduction in SBP for Most of this chapter is devoted to describing placebo. As we have seen, a positive result from various types of data and the corresponding a single earlier trial could be a type I error, so a analytical strategies that can be used to demon- second study is useful in substantiating that strate that an investigational drug, or test result. treatment, is efficacious. First, however, it is The description of a confirmatory study in informative to discuss the international stand- ICH Guidance E9 (1998) also illustrates the ards for demonstrating efficacy of a new product, importance of the study design employed. The and examine how regulatory agencies have study should be designed with several important interpreted these guidelines. ICH Guidance E9 characteristics: (1998, p 4) addresses therapeutic confirmatory studies and provides the following definition: • It should test a specific hypothesis. • It should be appropriately sized. A confirmatory trial is an adequately controlled • It should be able to differentiate treatment trial in which the hypotheses are stated in effects from other sources of variation (for 128 Chapter 10 • Confirmatory clinical trials: Analysis of categorical efficacy data example, time trends, regression to the mean, The terms “firm evidence” and “robust” do bias). not have explicit definitions. However, as clin- • The size of the treatment effect that is being ical trials have been conducted and reported in confirmed should be clinically relevant. recent years, some practical (operational) defini- tions have emerged, and these are discussed The clinical relevance, or clinical significance, of shortly. a treatment effect is an extremely important In its guidance document Providing Clinical consideration. The size of a treatment effect that Evidence of Effectiveness for Human Drug and is deemed clinically relevant is best defined by Biological Products, the US Food and Drug medical, clinical, and regulatory specialists. Administration (US Department of Health and Precise description of the study design and Human Services, FDA, 1998) describes the adherence to the study procedures detailed in introduction of an effectiveness requirement the study protocol are particularly important for according to a standard of “substantial evidence” confirmatory studies. Quoting again from ICH in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Guidance E9 (1998, p 4): (the FDC Act) of 1962: Confirmatory trials are intended to provide firm Substantial evidence was defined in section 505(d) evidence in support of claims and hence adher- of the Act as “evidence consisting of adequate ence to protocols and standard operating proce- and well-controlled investigations, including dures is particularly important; unavoidable clinical investigations, by experts qualified by changes should be explained and documented, scientific training and experience to evaluate the and their effect examined. A justification of the effectiveness of the drug involved, on the basis design of each such trial, and of other important of which it could fairly and responsibly be statistical aspects such as the principal features concluded by such experts that the drug will of the planned analysis, should be set out in have the effect it purports or is represented to the protocol. Each trial should address only a have under the conditions of use prescribed, limited number of questions. recommended, or suggested in the labeling or proposed labeling thereof.” Confirmatory studies should also provide quantitative evidence that substantiates claims US Department of Health and in the product label (for example, the package Human Services, FDA (1998, p 3) insert) as they relate to an appropriate popula- The phrase “adequate and well-controlled inves- tion of patients. In the following quote from tigations” has typically been interpreted as at ICH Guidance E9 (1998, p 4), the elements of least two studies that clearly demonstrated that statistical and clinical inference can be seen: the drug has the effect claimed by the sponsor Firm evidence in support of claims requires that submitting a marketing approval. Furthermore, a the results of the confirmatory trials demonstrate type I error of 0.05 has typically been adopted as that the investigational product under test has a reasonable standard upon which data from clinical benefits. The confirmatory trials should clinical studies are judged. That is, it was widely therefore be sufficient to answer each key clinical believed that the intent of the FDC Act of 1962 question relevant to the efficacy or safety claim was to state that a drug could be concluded to be clearly and definitively. In addition, it is impor- effective if the treatment effect was clinically tant that the basis for generalisation . to the relevant and statistically significant at the a ϭ intended patient population is understood and 0.05 level in two independent studies. explained; this may also influence the number The ICH Guidance E8 (1998, p 4) clarified this and type (e.g. specialist or general practitioner) of issue: centres and/or trials needed. The results of the confirmatory trial(s) should be robust. In some The usual requirement for more than one circumstances the weight of evidence from a adequate and well-controlled investigation single confirmatory trial may be sufficient. reflects the need for independent substantiation Introduction: Regulatory views of substantial evidence 129 of experimental results. A single clinical experi- substantiation of experimental results addresses mental finding of efficacy, unsupported by other such problems by providing consistency across independent evidence, has not usually been more than one study, thus greatly reducing the considered adequate scientific support for a possibility that a biased, chance, site-specific, or conclusion of effectiveness. The reasons for this fraudulent result will lead to an erroneous include the following: conclusion that a drug is effective. • Any clinical trial may be subject to unantici- This guidance further clarified that the need for pated, undetected, systematic biases. These substantiation does not necessarily require two biases may operate despite the best intentions or more identically designed trials: of sponsors and investigators, and may lead Precise replication of a trial is only one of a to flawed conclusions. In addition, some number of possible means of obtaining indepen- investigators may bring conscious biases to dent substantiation of a clinical finding and, at evaluations. times, can be less than optimal as it could leave • The inherent variability in biological systems the conclusions vulnerable to any systematic may produce a positive trial result by chance biases inherent to the particular study design. alone. This possibility is acknowledged, and Results that are obtained from studies that are quantified to some extent, in the statistical of different design and independent in execu- evaluation of the result of a single efficacy tion, perhaps evaluating different populations, trial. It should be noted, however, that endpoints, or dosage forms, may provide hundreds of randomized clinical efficacy trials support for a conclusion of effectiveness that is are conducted each year with the intent of as convincing as, or more convincing than, a submitting favorable results to the FDA. Even repetition of the same study. if all drugs tested in such trials were ineffec- tive, one would expect one in forty of those ICH Guidance E8 (1998, p 5) trials to “demonstrate” efficacy by chance Regulatory agencies have traditionally accepted alone at conventional levels of statistical significance. It is probable, therefore, that only two-sided hypotheses because, theoreti- false positive findings (that is, the chance cally, one could not rule out harm (as opposed to appearance of efficacy with an ineffective simply no effect) associated with the test treat- drug) will occur and be submitted to FDA as ment.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Observational Clinical Research
    E REVIEW ARTICLE Clinical Research Methodology 2: Observational Clinical Research Daniel I. Sessler, MD, and Peter B. Imrey, PhD * † Case-control and cohort studies are invaluable research tools and provide the strongest fea- sible research designs for addressing some questions. Case-control studies usually involve retrospective data collection. Cohort studies can involve retrospective, ambidirectional, or prospective data collection. Observational studies are subject to errors attributable to selec- tion bias, confounding, measurement bias, and reverse causation—in addition to errors of chance. Confounding can be statistically controlled to the extent that potential factors are known and accurately measured, but, in practice, bias and unknown confounders usually remain additional potential sources of error, often of unknown magnitude and clinical impact. Causality—the most clinically useful relation between exposure and outcome—can rarely be defnitively determined from observational studies because intentional, controlled manipu- lations of exposures are not involved. In this article, we review several types of observa- tional clinical research: case series, comparative case-control and cohort studies, and hybrid designs in which case-control analyses are performed on selected members of cohorts. We also discuss the analytic issues that arise when groups to be compared in an observational study, such as patients receiving different therapies, are not comparable in other respects. (Anesth Analg 2015;121:1043–51) bservational clinical studies are attractive because Group, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists they are relatively inexpensive and, perhaps more Anesthesia Quality Institute. importantly, can be performed quickly if the required Recent retrospective perioperative studies include data O 1,2 data are already available.
    [Show full text]
  • NIH Definition of a Clinical Trial
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTIONS PROGRAM NIH Definition of a Clinical Trial The NIH has recently changed their definition of clinical trial. This Fact Sheet provides information regarding this change and what it means to investigators. NIH guidelines include the following: “Correctly identifying whether a study is considered to by NIH to be a clinical trial is crucial to how [the investigator] will: Select the right NIH funding opportunity announcement for [the investigator’s] research…Write the research strategy and human subjects section of the [investigator’s] grant application and contact proposal…Comply with appropriate policies and regulations, including registration and reporting in ClinicalTrials.gov.” NIH defines a clinical trial as “A research study in which one or more human subjects are prospectively assigned to one or more interventions (which may include placebo or other control) to evaluate the effects of those interventions on health-related biomedical or behavioral outcomes.” NIH notes, “The term “prospectively assigned” refers to a pre-defined process (e.g., randomization) specified in an approved protocol that stipulates the assignment of research subjects (individually or in clusters) to one or more arms (e.g., intervention, placebo, or other control) of a clinical trial. And, “An ‘intervention’ is defined as a manipulation of the subject or subject’s environment for the purpose of modifying one or more health-related biomedical or behavioral processes and/or endpoints. Examples include:
    [Show full text]
  • E 8 General Considerations for Clinical Trials
    European Medicines Agency March 1998 CPMP/ICH/291/95 ICH Topic E 8 General Considerations for Clinical Trials Step 5 NOTE FOR GUIDANCE ON GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR CLINICAL TRIALS (CPMP/ICH/291/95) TRANSMISSION TO CPMP November 1996 TRANSMISSION TO INTERESTED PARTIES November 1996 DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS May 1997 FINAL APPROVAL BY CPMP September 1997 DATE FOR COMING INTO OPERATION March 1998 7 Westferry Circus, Canary Wharf, London, E14 4HB, UK Tel. (44-20) 74 18 85 75 Fax (44-20) 75 23 70 40 E-mail: [email protected] http://www.emea.eu.int EMEA 2006 Reproduction and/or distribution of this document is authorised for non commercial purposes only provided the EMEA is acknowledged GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR CLINICAL TRIALS ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline Table of Contents 1. OBJECTIVES OF THIS DOCUMENT.............................................................................3 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES...................................................................................................3 2.1 Protection of clinical trial subjects.............................................................................3 2.2 Scientific approach in design and analysis.................................................................3 3. DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY...............................................................................6 3.1 Considerations for the Development Plan..................................................................6 3.1.1 Non-Clinical Studies ........................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Double Blind Trials Workshop
    Double Blind Trials Workshop Introduction These activities demonstrate how double blind trials are run, explaining what a placebo is and how the placebo effect works, how bias is removed as far as possible and how participants and trial medicines are randomised. Curriculum Links KS3: Science SQA Access, Intermediate and KS4: Biology Higher: Biology Keywords Double-blind trials randomisation observer bias clinical trials placebo effect designing a fair trial placebo Contents Activities Materials Activity 1 Placebo Effect Activity Activity 2 Observer Bias Activity 3 Double Blind Trial Role Cards for the Double Blind Trial Activity Testing Layout Background Information Medicines undergo a number of trials before they are declared fit for use (see classroom activity on Clinical Research for details). In the trial in the second activity, pupils compare two potential new sunscreens. This type of trial is done with healthy volunteers to see if the there are any side effects and to provide data to suggest the dosage needed. If there were no current best treatment then this sort of trial would also be done with patients to test for the effectiveness of the new medicine. How do scientists make sure that medicines are tested fairly? One thing they need to do is to find out if their tests are free of bias. Are the medicines really working, or do they just appear to be working? One difficulty in designing fair tests for medicines is the placebo effect. When patients are prescribed a treatment, especially by a doctor or expert they trust, the patient’s own belief in the treatment can cause the patient to produce a response.
    [Show full text]
  • Definition of Clinical Trials
    Clinical Trials A clinical trial is a prospective biomedical or behavioral research study of human subjects that is designed to answer specific questions about biomedical or behavioral interventions (vaccines, drugs, treatments, devices, or new ways of using known drugs, treatments, or devices). Clinical trials are used to determine whether new biomedical or behavioral interventions are safe, efficacious, and effective. Clinical trials include behavioral human subjects research involving an intervention to modify behavior (increasing the use of an intervention, willingness to pay for an intervention, etc.) Human subjects research to develop or evaluate clinical laboratory tests (e.g. imaging or molecular diagnostic tests) might be considered to be a clinical trial if the test will be used for medical decision-making for the subject or the test itself imposes more than minimal risk for subjects. Biomedical clinical trials of experimental drug, treatment, device or behavioral intervention may proceed through four phases: Phase I clinical trials test a new biomedical intervention in a small group of people (e.g., 20- 80) for the first time to evaluate safety (e.g., to determine a safe dosage range, and to identify side effects). Phase II clinical trials study the biomedical or behavioral intervention in a larger group of people (several hundred) to determine efficacy and to further evaluate its safety. Phase III studies investigate the efficacy of the biomedical or behavioral intervention in large groups of human subjects (from several hundred to several thousand) by comparing the intervention to other standard or experimental interventions as well as to monitor adverse effects, and to collect information that will allow the intervention to be used safely.
    [Show full text]
  • Sample Research Protocol
    Protocol REVITA 2018 April 9, 2018 A Clinical Investigation Evaluating Efficacy of a Full- Thickness Placental Allograft (Revita®) in Lumbar Microdiscectomy Outcomes Primary Investigator: Thomas Morrison III, MD Northside Hospital 1000 Johnson Ferry RD. N.E., Atlanta, GA 30342 Phone: 404-256-2633 Fax: 404-255-6532 Sponsor: StimLabs 1225 Northmeadow Parkway, Suite 104, Roswell, GA 30076 Phone: 888-346-9802 Fax: 470-719-2085 Confidential Page 1 of 19 Protocol REVITA 2018 April 9, 2018 STUDY SUMMARY A Clinical Investigation Evaluating Efficacy of a Full-Thickness Title Placental Allograft (Revita) in Lumbar Microdiscectomy Outcomes Methodology Randomized, controlled trial, blind study Estimated duration for the main protocol (e.g. from start of Study Duration screening to last subject processed and finishing the study) is approximately 2.5 years Multi-center (Polaris Spine and Neurosurgery Center, Atlanta, GA Study Center(s) and Northside Hospital, Atlanta, GA) Primary Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of Revita full thickness placental allograft in improving back and leg pain post- microdiscectomy Objectives Secondary Objectives: To evaluate post-microdiscectomy reherniation rate in patients treated with Revita Number of 182 randomized patients in two arms; Treatment and Control Subjects Inclusion Criteria - Male and female patients, 18-70 years old, in any distribution. - Symptomatic with radiating low back and leg pain for greater than 6 months prior to surgery with a clinical diagnosis of lumbar protruding disc. Diagnosis and - Consent and compliance with all aspects of the study Main Inclusion protocol, methods, providing data during follow-up contact Criteria - See methods section for full list of inclusion criteria Exclusion Criteria - Male and female patients younger than 18 years old or older than 70 years old.
    [Show full text]
  • Study Designs, Objectives, and Hypotheses
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License. Your use of this material constitutes acceptance of that license and the conditions of use of materials on this site. Copyright 2008, The Johns Hopkins University and Mary Foulkes. All rights reserved. Use of these materials permitted only in accordance with license rights granted. Materials provided “AS IS”; no representations or warranties provided. User assumes all responsibility for use, and all liability related thereto, and must independently review all materials for accuracy and efficacy. May contain materials owned by others. User is responsible for obtaining permissions for use from third parties as needed. Study Designs, Objectives, and Hypotheses Mary Foulkes, PhD Johns Hopkins University Section A Variations in Study Designs Many Designs Available Parallel Cross-over Factorial Cluster Others 4 Categories of Trials Phases Control groups Chronic vs. short-term treatment Single vs. multiple centers Exploratory vs. confirmatory 5 Study Designs Focus on trials intended to provide primary evidence of safety and efficacy (“pivotal” trials) Regulations permit substantial flexibility (“adequate and well- controlled trials”) 6 Selecting a Study Design What are the objectives? What are the expectations? − Major advance − Modest advance − Reduction in side effects What are the practicalities? − Available population − Relevant population − Potential impact on medical practice − Ability to blind/mask 7 Parallel Groups Multiple concurrent experimental arms − Different treatments − Different doses Control arm(s) − Placebo, active control Balance/imbalanced randomization 8 Parallel Design Classical clinical trial approach Two study groups Randomized assignment Randomization Treatment A Treatment B Evaluation of Outcomes 9 Adapted from Tinmouth A, Hebert P.
    [Show full text]
  • Statistical Overview for Clinical Trials Basics of Design and Analysis of Controlled Clinical Trials
    Statistical Overview for Clinical Trials Basics of Design and Analysis of Controlled Clinical Trials Presented by: Behrang Vali M.S., CDER/OTS/OB/DB3 Special Thanks to: LaRee Tracy, Mike Welch, Ruthanna Davi, and Janice Derr 1 Disclaimer The views expressed in this presentation do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2 Common Study Designs • Case-Control Study – Retrospective Observational Study • Cohort Study – Prospective Observational Study • e.g. Natural History Studies • Controlled Clinical Trial (focus of this portion of the presentation) – Prospective Experimental Study – Best design to study causality – Utilized for design of adequate and well- controlled trials 3 Study Objective/Research Question Study Population of Interest and Design Endpoint and Measurement of Outcome Test Drug Control Drug Statistical Comparisons Interpretation Extrapolation 4 Study Objective/Research Question 5 STUDY OBJECTIVE • What do you want to show with this trial? • What is the population of interest? • What trial design will be used? • What are the specific study hypotheses? 6 What do you want to show with this trial? Efficacy • New drug is more efficacious than current standard therapy - active controlled superiority trial • New drug is more efficacious than placebo treatment - placebo controlled superiority trial • New drug is not worse (in terms of efficacy), by a pre-specified and clinically relevant amount, than the current therapy - active controlled non- inferiority trial – Note that there are no placebo
    [Show full text]
  • Clinical Trial Reporting Requirements
    Clinical Trial Reporting Requirements Deborah A. Zarin, M.D. Director, ClinicalTrials.gov November 2017 http://ClinicalTrials.gov Why Register and Report Results? • Required by most medical journals (ICMJE) – Registration for all clinical trials (all interventions) and encourage results reporting, even if not required by law • Federal law (FDAAA 801) and regulations (42 CFR Part 11) – Registration & results submission for “applicable clinical trials” – Federal law in effect since September 2007; regulations effective January 18, 2017 and compliance date April 18, 2017 • Expectation for NIH-supported clinical trials – Registration & results submission, even if not subject to FDAAA 801 – Policy effective January 18, 2017 ICMJE = International Committee of Medical Journal Editors; FDAAA 801 = Section 801 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act 2 of 2007; NIH = National Institutes of Health Public Benefits of Access to Clinical Trial Data • Meet ethical obligation to human subjects (i.e., that results will be used to help others/inform science) • Inform future research and research funding decisions • Mitigate information bias (e.g., non-publication) • Evaluate research integrity (e.g., adherence to protocol) • Prevent duplication of trials of unsafe or ineffective interventions • Provide access to data to support evidence-based medicine • Enhance patient access to enrollment in clinical trials All contribute to increased public trust in clinical research 3 Many, many “local” policies • Know your funder’s requirements! • Example: Department of Veterans Affairs – “In support of the VHA health care mission and in keeping with the Office of Research and Development's (ORD) commitment to improve veterans' access to clinical trials, all clinical trials that ORD sponsors are registered with the National Library of Medicine's (NLM) public registry, ClinicalTrials.gov.” – “VA investigators ….
    [Show full text]
  • Adaptive Clinical Trial Designs with Surrogates: When Should We Bother?*
    Adaptive Clinical Trial Designs with Surrogates: When Should We Bother?* Arielle Anderer, Hamsa Bastani Wharton School, Operations Information and Decisions, faanderer, [email protected] John Silberholz Ross School of Business, Technology and Operations, [email protected] The success of a new drug is assessed within a clinical trial using a primary endpoint, which is typically the true outcome of interest, e.g., overall survival. However, regulators sometimes approve drugs using a surrogate outcome | an intermediate indicator that is faster or easier to measure than the true outcome of interest, e.g., progression-free survival | as the primary endpoint when there is demonstrable medical need. While using a surrogate outcome (instead of the true outcome) as the primary endpoint can substantially speed up clinical trials and lower costs, it can also result in poor drug approval decisions since the surrogate is not a perfect predictor of the true outcome. In this paper, we propose combining data from both surrogate and true outcomes to improve decision-making within a late-phase clinical trial. In contrast to broadly used clinical trial designs that rely on a single primary endpoint, we propose a Bayesian adaptive clinical trial design that simultaneously leverages both observed outcomes to inform trial decisions. We perform comparative statics on the relative benefit of our approach, illustrating the types of diseases and surrogates for which our proposed design is particularly advantageous. Finally, we illustrate our proposed design on metastatic breast cancer. We use a large-scale clinical trial database to construct a Bayesian prior, and simulate our design on a subset of clinical trials.
    [Show full text]
  • Formulating Research Questions and Designing Studies Research Series Session I January 4, 2017 Course Objectives
    Formulating Research Questions and Designing Studies Research Series Session I January 4, 2017 Course Objectives • Design a research question or problem • Differentiate between the different types of research • Formulate what methodology is used to solve a research question or problem • Describe the Research Process: Data Collection and Analysis • Identify the uses of Research What is the Definition of Research? 1: careful or diligent search 2: studious inquiry or examination; especially : investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws 3: the collecting of information about a particular subject Merriam-Webster What is the Definition of Research? • The systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions Oxford Dictionary Types of Research • Pure – Abstract and general; concerned with generating new theory, e.g., E=mc2 • Experimental – Manipulation of one variable and its effect on another in a controlled environment, e.g., psychology experiments • Clinical – Clinical setting where strict control over variables is difficult, e.g., drug trials • Applied – Designed to answer a practical question; industry R&D • Descriptive – Describing a group or situation to gain knowledge that may be applied to other groups, e.g., surveys • Laboratory – Performed under tightly controlled surrounding, e.g., basic science research
    [Show full text]
  • Clinical Trial Billing: a Tour Through the Rules (And How to Get Your Systems to Do It for You!)
    Clinical Trial Billing: A Tour through the Rules (and how to get your systems to do it for you!) HCCA Alaska Regional Conference February 2020 Cynthie Lawson, Kelly Willenberg and Associates, LLC Wendy Portier, Kelly Willenberg and Associates, LLC . 1 Objectives Understand how to apply the CMS clinical trial billing rules Conduct a mock review of hospital and professional claims using a coverage analysis Using systems to help streamline processes Copyright ©2019 Kelly Willenberg 2 1 Copyright ©2019 Kelly Willenberg 3 What is Research Billing Compliance? • Awareness and accuracy from the intake of a study, regardless of study sponsor, throughout the revenue cycle, including human subject protection, reimbursement by payer, sponsor invoicing (if applicable), payment process, claims adjudication, study funds allocation and account reconciliation. Copyright ©2019 Kelly Willenberg 4 2 Primary Goals For Clinical Trial Billing • Clinical research studies must meet federal billing compliance requirements: – No double billing – Documentation supporting coding – no more and no less – Research modifiers, diagnosis codes, condition codes and clinical trial number when study is qualifying – Transparent and consistent documentation for compliance assurance Copyright ©2019 Kelly Willenberg 5 Clinical Trial Billing Compliance - Synchronous Work Flow is Key Vetting & Feasibility Analysis Coverage Analysis & Billing Plan Budgeting, Pricing & Contracting IRB Approval Enrollment & Informed Consent Compliant Identification, Registration, Scheduling
    [Show full text]