DOCSLIB.ORG

Reviewing Clinical Trials: a Guide for the Ethics Committee

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reviewing Clinical Trials: a Guide for the Ethics Committee Reviewing Clinical Trials: A Guide for the Ethics Committee Editors Johan PE Karlberg and Marjorie A Speers Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Hong Kong Hong Kong SAR, PR China Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs, Inc. Washington, DC, USA iii Reviewing Clinical Trials: A Guide for the Ethics Committee Editors Johan PE Karlberg and Marjorie A Speers Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Hong Kong Hong Kong SAR, PR China Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs, Inc. Washington, DC, USA Reviewing Clinical Trials: A Guide for the Ethics Committee Printed in Hong Kong, PR China, March 2010 Publisher: Karlberg, Johan Petter Einar E-mail: [email protected] Copyright © 2010 Karlberg, Johan Petter Einar ISBN 978-988-19041-1-9 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without prior written permission. 1 Table of Contents Table of Contents __________________________________________________________ 1 Preface ___________________________________________________________________ 5 Contributors ______________________________________________________________ 7 Comments from the Contributors ____________________________________________ 8 Terms of Use _____________________________________________________________ 11 Abbreviations ____________________________________________________________ 13 Chapter 1. Introduction ___________________________________________________ 15 1.1 Ethics and Bioethics _______________________________________________________ 15 Ethical Codes – The Declaration of Helsinki _______________________________________________ 15 Ethical Codes – The ICH GCP Guideline ___________________________________________________ 16 Ethical Codes – Ethics Committee _______________________________________________________ 17 No Universal Ethical Code for Ethics Committees __________________________________________ 17 Ethics Committee Definition ____________________________________________________________ 18 1.2 Clinical Trials in the Context of Biomedical Research _________________________ 19 Clinical Trials on Medicinal Products ____________________________________________________ 19 Low and High Risk Clinical Trials _______________________________________________________ 20 Sponsors of Clinical Trials______________________________________________________________ 22 1.3 Clinical Trial Players and Their Responsibilities _____________________________ 23 Drug Regulatory Authority _____________________________________________________________ 23 Sponsor _____________________________________________________________________________ 24 Investigator _________________________________________________________________________ 24 Ethics Committee _____________________________________________________________________ 25 Trial Participant ______________________________________________________________________ 26 Clinical Trial Services Provider _________________________________________________________ 26 Site Supporting Organisation ___________________________________________________________ 27 Data Safety and Monitoring Committee __________________________________________________ 27 Chapter 2. Features of Clinical Trials _______________________________________ 29 2.1 Objectives of Clinical Trials ________________________________________________ 29 2.2 Clinical Trial Design _______________________________________________________ 30 The Importance of Clinical Trial Design __________________________________________________ 30 Clinical Equipoise _____________________________________________________________________ 32 Superiority, Non-inferiority and Equivalence Clinical Trials _________________________________ 32 Types of Clinical Trial Designs __________________________________________________________ 32 Adaptive Clinical Trial Design __________________________________________________________ 34 2.3 Controls of Clinical Trials __________________________________________________ 35 Placebo Treatment ____________________________________________________________________ 36 2.4 Clinical Trial Outcome/Endpoint ___________________________________________ 38 Defining Clinical Trial Outcome/Endpoint ________________________________________________ 38 Primary and Secondary Outcome/Endpoint ______________________________________________ 39 Surrogate or Clinical Outcome/Endpoint _________________________________________________ 40 Disadvantages of Using Surrogate Outcome/Endpoint ______________________________________ 42 2 Example: Surrogate Outcome/Endpoint in the Cardiovascular Area __________________________ 42 2.5 Randomisation ___________________________________________________________ 43 2.6 Blinding _________________________________________________________________ 44 2.7 Sample Size ______________________________________________________________ 46 2.8 Trial Phases ______________________________________________________________ 47 Drug Development at Large ____________________________________________________________ 47 The Basics of Trial Phases ______________________________________________________________ 48 Phase 0 Trials ________________________________________________________________________ 50 Human Pharmacology/Phase I Clinical Trials _____________________________________________ 51 Risk Assessment/Management of Human Pharmacology/Phase I Trials _______________________ 52 Therapeutic Exploratory/Phase II Clinical Trials __________________________________________ 53 Therapeutic Confirmatory/Phase III Clinical Trials ________________________________________ 54 Therapeutic Use/Phase IV Clinical Trials _________________________________________________ 55 2.9 Multicentre Trials ________________________________________________________ 56 Uninterrupted Globalisation of Industry-Sponsored Clinical Trials ___________________________ 58 Chapter 3. Science, Ethics and Quality Assurance of Clinical Trials ______________ 61 3.1 Research in Humans ______________________________________________________ 61 Essential Clinical Trial EC Review Topics _________________________________________________ 62 Human Research Protection Assurance __________________________________________________ 63 Clinical Trials of Today – Only One Standard ______________________________________________ 63 3.2 Science of Clinical Trials ___________________________________________________ 64 3.3 Issues of Ethics of Clinical Trials ____________________________________________ 65 Risk-Benefit Balance __________________________________________________________________ 65 Scientific Evaluation of a Clinical Trial Protocol ___________________________________________ 66 Informed Consent Process _____________________________________________________________ 70 Secondary Analysis of Clinical Database __________________________________________________ 74 Vulnerable Participants________________________________________________________________ 74 Privacy and Confidentiality ____________________________________________________________ 75 Safety Monitoring ____________________________________________________________________ 75 Participant Recruitment Procedures _____________________________________________________ 77 Qualification of Investigator and Research Staff ___________________________________________ 79 Financial Conflict of Interest____________________________________________________________ 80 Clinical Trial Insurance and Indemnity ___________________________________________________ 81 Essential Clinical Trial Documents ______________________________________________________ 82 Clinical Trial Registration ______________________________________________________________ 83 Dissemination of Trial Results __________________________________________________________ 84 Operation of an EC ____________________________________________________________________ 85 3.4 Issues of EC Procedures ___________________________________________________ 86 Local Laws and Institutional Guidelines __________________________________________________ 86 Proportionate EC Review: Expedited/Full ________________________________________________ 86 Acceptability of Trial __________________________________________________________________ 87 Continuing Review ____________________________________________________________________ 88 Trial Amendments ____________________________________________________________________ 88 Adverse Event Reporting ______________________________________________________________ 89 Unanticipated Problems _______________________________________________________________ 90 Complaints __________________________________________________________________________ 90 Appeals _____________________________________________________________________________ 90 3 Non-compliance ______________________________________________________________________ 91 Suspension or Termination of a Trial ____________________________________________________ 91 3.5 Quality Assurance of Clinical Trials _________________________________________ 92 Quality Assurance Guidance and Legal Enforcements ______________________________________ 92 Assurance at Large____________________________________________________________________ 93 Pre-clinical and Clinical Quality Assurance _______________________________________________ 94 Monitoring of Site Performance _________________________________________________________ 96 3.6 Human Research Protection Programme Accreditation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Report on the 2014 National Summit of Investigator-Initiated Clinical Trials Networks
    REPORT ON THE 2014 NATIONAL SUMMIT OF INVESTIGATOR-INITIATED CLINICAL TRIALS NETWORKS 28 – 29 MARCH 2014 Supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council Acknowledgements The National Summit of Investigator-Initiated Clinical Trials Networks (ACTA Summit) held 28–29 March 2014, Melbourne, was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council. ACTA gratefully acknowledges the generous support received from Bellberry Limited, major sponsor of the ACTA Summit 2014. Thank you to all members of the faculty and to everyone who attended and participated in the ACTA Summit. Summit Organising Committee Professor Steve Webb (Convenor) Immediate Past Chair, ANZICS Clinical Trials Group Professor Andrew Davidson Chair, Paediatric Trials Network Australia Professor Tony Keech Deputy Director, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre Ms Imelda Lynch Director, Bellberry Limited Dr Gordon McGurk ISBN 978-0-9941667-0-8 Director, Strategic Policy Group, NHMRC Dr Clive Morris, © Copyright Australian Clinical Trials Alliance Limited (ABN 60 168 693 972), September 2014. Head, Strategic Policy Group, NHMRC This work is subject to copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Professor John Simes Copyright Act, no part may be reproduced without the permission of Australian Director, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre Clinical Trials Alliance Limited (ACTA). Opinions expressed in this report are not necessarily those of ACTA. ACTA cannot accept responsibility for any errors Ms Rhiannon Tate and omissions. Executive Officer, ACTA This publication
    [Show full text]
  • Office for Research Procedure
    OFFICE FOR RESEARCH PROCEDURE INFORMED CONSENT PROCEDURES & WRITING PARTICIPANT INFORMATION AND CONSENT FORMS FOR RESEARCH Purpose: To describe the procedures related to informed consent procedures and writing patient information consent forms (PICF). To ensure that Austin Health adheres to the legal and ethical responsibility of obtaining a valid and informed consent for research participants. Scope: All phases of clinical investigation of medicinal products, medical devices, diagnostics and therapeutic interventions and research studies. Staff this document applies to: Principal Investigators, Associate Investigators, Clinical Research Coordinators, other staff involved in research-related activities. State any related Austin Health policies, procedures or guidelines: Austin Health Clinical Policy – (Informed) Consent (To Diagnosis & Treatment) Policy Document No: 2179 Policy Overview: A valid and informed consent will be obtained and documented prior to Austin Health research commencing. Emergency research procedures will be undertaken in compliance with the Guardianship and Administration Act 1986. Summary: For consent to be valid, it must be: freely given; specific to the proposed research and/or intervention; given by a person who is legally able to consent. 1. Elements of Consent: A consent is valid if it is: a) Freely given. b) Specific to the proposed research and/or intervention; c) Given by a person who is legally able to consent. AH VMIA SOP No. 006 Disclaimer: This Document has been developed for Austin Health use and has been specifically designed for Austin Health circumstances. Printed versions can only be considered up-to-date for a period of one month from the printing date after which, the latest version should be downloaded from ePPIC.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Scientific Self-Experimentation: Ethics History, Regulation, Scenarios, and Views Among Ethics Committees and Prominent Scientists
    Rejuvenation Research Page 1 of 41 © Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/rej.2018.2059 1 Review of Scientific Self-experimentation: ethics history, regulation, scenarios, and views among ethics committees and prominent scientists. Brian Hanley, Butterfly Sciences, POBox 2363, Davis, CA 95616, USA. [email protected] William Bains, Rufus Scientific Ltd. 37 The Moor, Melbourn, Royston, Hertsfordshire, SG8 nt scientists. (DOI: 10.1089/rej.2018.2059) 10.1089/rej.2018.2059) scientists. nt (DOI: 6ED, UK. [email protected] nal published version may fromdiffer this proof. George Church, Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. Word count: 5,969 Address for correspondence and reprints: [email protected] Keywords: ethics, research history, human research, medical ethics; self-experimentation, n-of-1 Abbreviated title: Review of Scientific Self-experimentation Rejuvenation Research lation, scenarios, and views among ethics committees and promine Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA from www.liebertpub.com at 06/25/18. For personal use only. Review of Scientific Self-experimentation: regu ethics history, This paper has been peer-reviewed and accepted publication,for but has yet to copyediting undergo correction. and proof The fi Page 2 of 41 2 Abstract We examine self-experimentation ethics history and practice, related law, use scenarios in universities and industry, and attitudes. We show through analysis of the historical development of medical ethics and regulation, from Hippocrates through Good Clinical Practice that there are no ethical barriers to self-experimentation. When the self- experimenter is a true investigator, there is no other party to be protected from unethical behavior.
    [Show full text]
  • Alex John London, Ph.D. Clara L
    Alex John London, Ph.D. Clara L. West Professor of Ethics and Philosophy Carnegie Mellon University Curriculum Vitae Department of Philosophy & 4/24/20 Work: 412-268-4938 Center for Ethics and Policy Fax: 412-268-1440 Carnegie Mellon University [email protected] Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6450-0309 https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=7005248959 EDUCATION Ph.D. Philosophy, The University of Virginia, May 1999. Dissertation: Virtue, Wisdom, and the Art of Ruling in Plato. M.A. Philosophy, The University of Virginia, May 1996. B.A. Philosophy and Literature, Bard College, May 1994. AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION AREAS OF COMPETENCE Bioethics, Ethical Theory, Ancient Philosophy, Conflict Resolution AI Ethics, Political Philosophy Wittgenstein, Criminal Justice Ethics FACULTY APPOINTMENTS 2017—Clara L. West Professor of Ethics and Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon University 2015-2020 Director, Ethics History and Public Policy Major. 2012— Professor of Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon University. 2007— Director, Center for Ethics and Policy, Carnegie Mellon University. 2005-2012 Associate Professor of Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon University. 2001— Affiliate Faculty Member, University of Pittsburgh, Center for Bioethics and Health Law. 2000-2005: Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon University. 1999-2000: Post-Doctoral Fellow, Center for Bioethics, University of Minnesota 1999: Instructor in Philosophy, The University of Virginia. HONORS AND AWARDS John & Marsha Ryan Bioethicist-in-Residence, Southern Illinois University School of Law, March 20-22, 2019. Bruce E. Siegel Memorial Lecture, Mount Carmel Health System, Columbus Ohio, Nov. 14, 2018 Elliot Dunlap Smith Award for Distinguished Teaching and Educational Service, 2016 (college wide award for excellence in teaching).
    [Show full text]
  • Ethics of Clinical Research- Potential and Enrolled Subjects' Protection
    Texila International Journal of Clinical Research Volume 6, Issue 1, Aug 2019 Ethics of Clinical Research- Potential and Enrolled Subjects’ Protection Article by Alpana Razdan Head Genekart Research and Diagnostics Laboratory New Delhi E-mail: [email protected] Abstract This paper examined the ethics of Clinical Research and the protection of potential and enrolled human subjects. Clinical research is a lengthy and costly process. Subject recruitment and retention are an essential step to help lowering the cost and the length of clinical trials. Good quality research is crucial for determining the clinical and cost effectiveness of health care systems, at the same time recruitment of sufficient participants is a cornerstone for good quality research that tests hypotheses with confidence and minimizes bias. In this paper, I had the opportunity to highlight some ethical concerns and considerations that are related to recruiting human subjects in clinical research. The purpose of ethical guidelines is both to protect patient volunteers and to preserve the integrity of the science. This report serves as guidance for biomedical and behavioural researchers to find a summary of the basic ethical principles to protect human subjects basically: beneficence, justice, and respect for individuals. The existing literature on the subject was reviewed all along to contextualize the study. I have used observation during the field trips and hands on knowledge of recruiting human subjects carried in my job. The process of informed consent is crucial in achieving these principles. In order to protect human subjects, the informed consent process involves the verbal discussion with the possible subject along with the paper document.
    [Show full text]
  • Informed Consent, AI Technologies, and Public Health Emergencies
    future internet Review Trust, but Verify: Informed Consent, AI Technologies, and Public Health Emergencies Brian Pickering IT Innovation, Electronics and Computing, University of Southampton, University Road, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK; [email protected] Abstract: To use technology or engage with research or medical treatment typically requires user consent: agreeing to terms of use with technology or services, or providing informed consent for research participation, for clinical trials and medical intervention, or as one legal basis for processing personal data. Introducing AI technologies, where explainability and trustworthiness are focus items for both government guidelines and responsible technologists, imposes additional challenges. Understanding enough of the technology to be able to make an informed decision, or consent, is essential but involves an acceptance of uncertain outcomes. Further, the contribution of AI- enabled technologies not least during the COVID-19 pandemic raises ethical concerns about the governance associated with their development and deployment. Using three typical scenarios— contact tracing, big data analytics and research during public emergencies—this paper explores a trust- based alternative to consent. Unlike existing consent-based mechanisms, this approach sees consent as a typical behavioural response to perceived contextual characteristics. Decisions to engage derive from the assumption that all relevant stakeholders including research participants will negotiate on an ongoing basis. Accepting dynamic negotiation between the main stakeholders as proposed here introduces a specifically socio–psychological perspective into the debate about human responses Citation: Pickering, B. Trust, but to artificial intelligence. This trust-based consent process leads to a set of recommendations for the Verify: Informed Consent, AI ethical use of advanced technologies as well as for the ethical review of applied research projects.
    [Show full text]
  • RESEARCH STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES Documentation of Research Study Procedures in the Patients' Health Record
    DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Research Service Policy Memorandum 11-42 South Texas Veterans Health Care System San Antonio, Texas 78229-4404 October 18, 2011 RESEARCH STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES Documentation of Research Study Procedures in the Patients' Health Record 1. PURPOSE: To describe the policies and procedures for the documentation of human research activities conducted at STVHCS in a patient's health record when a participant (research subject) is involved in a human research study. 2. POLICY: A research participant's health record includes the electronic medical record and any hard copy documentation located in Medical Records, combined, and is also known as the legal health record. Research files maintained by the Principle Investigators (PIs) and/or research staff are not part of the legal health record. A research record must be created or updated, and a progress note created, in the legal medical record when informed consent is obtained, a research visit has the potential to impact medical care (i.e. the research intervention may lead to physical or psychological adverse events), when the research requires use of any clinical resources (i.e. radiology, cardiology, pharmacy), or when a participant is disenrolled or terminated from a study. 3. ACTION: a. Documentation of the informed consent process (1) The PI or designated, trained study staff initiates the informed consent process with the use of the VA Form 10-1086 (lC document). (2) The IC document must be signed by (a) The participant or the participant's legally authorized representative (b) The person obtaining the informed consent (3) The PI or designated, trained study staff must enter a "Research ConsentiEnrollment Note" in the computerized patient record system (CPRS) after informed consent is obtained.
    [Show full text]
  • Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 Mrna Vaccine Clinical Trials
    medicina Perspective Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials Ronald B. Brown School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L3G1, Canada; [email protected] Abstract: Relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction measures in the evaluation of clinical trial data are poorly understood by health professionals and the public. The absence of reported absolute risk reduction in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials can lead to outcome reporting bias that affects the interpretation of vaccine efficacy. The present article uses clinical epidemiologic tools to critically appraise reports of efficacy in Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccine clinical trials. Based on data reported by the manufacturer for Pfzier/BioNTech vaccine BNT162b2, this critical appraisal shows: relative risk reduction, 95.1%; 95% CI, 90.0% to 97.6%; p = 0.016; absolute risk reduction, 0.7%; 95% CI, 0.59% to 0.83%; p < 0.000. For the Moderna vaccine mRNA-1273, the appraisal shows: relative risk reduction, 94.1%; 95% CI, 89.1% to 96.8%; p = 0.004; absolute risk reduction, 1.1%; 95% CI, 0.97% to 1.32%; p < 0.000. Unreported absolute risk reduction measures of 0.7% and 1.1% for the Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, respectively, are very much lower than the reported relative risk reduction measures. Reporting absolute risk reduction measures is essential to prevent outcome reporting bias in evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy. Keywords: mRNA vaccine; COVID-19 vaccine; vaccine efficacy; relative risk reduction; absolute risk reduction; number needed to vaccinate; outcome reporting bias; clinical epidemiology; critical appraisal; evidence-based medicine Citation: Brown, R.B.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethics of Vaccine Research
    COMMENTARY Ethics of vaccine research Christine Grady Vaccination has attracted controversy at every stage of its development and use. Ethical debates should consider its basic goal, which is to benefit the community at large rather than the individual. accines truly represent one of the mira- include value, validity, fair subject selection, the context in which it will be used and Vcles of modern science. Responsible for favorable risk/benefit ratio, independent acceptable to those who will use it. This reducing morbidity and mortality from sev- review, informed consent and respect for assessment considers details about the pub- eral formidable diseases, vaccines have made enrolled participants. Applying these princi- lic health need (such as the prevalence, bur- substantial contributions to global public ples to vaccine research allows consideration den and natural history of the disease, as health. Generally very safe and effective, vac- of some of the particular challenges inherent well as existing strategies to prevent or con- cines are also an efficient and cost-effective in testing vaccines (Box 1). trol it), the scientific data and possibilities way of preventing disease. Yet, despite their Ethically salient features of clinical vac- (preclinical and clinical data, expected brilliant successes, vaccines have always been cine research include the fact that it involves mechanism of action and immune corre- controversial. Concerns about the safety and healthy subjects, often (or ultimately) chil- lates) and the likely use of the vaccine (who untoward effects of vaccines, about disturb- dren and usually (at least when testing effi- will use and benefit from it, safety, cost, dis- ing the natural order, about compelling indi- cacy) in very large numbers.
    [Show full text]
  • Informed Consent and Refusal
    CHAPTER 3 Informed Consent and Refusal Evolution of the doctrine of informed consent Elements of informed consent and refusal The nature of informed consent Exceptions to the consent requirement Mrs. Stack is a 67- year- old woman admitted with rectal bleeding, chronic renal in- sufficiency, diabetes, and blindness. On admission, she was alert and capacitated. Two weeks later, she suffered a cardiopulmonary arrest, was resuscitated and intu- bated, and was transferred to the medical intensive care unit (MICU) in an unrespon- sive and unstable state. Consent for emergency dialysis was obtained from her son, who is also her health care agent. Dialysis was repeated two days later. During the past several years, Mrs. Stack has consistently stated to her family and her primary care doctor that she would never want to be on chronic dialysis and she has refused it numerous times when it was recommended. The physician, who has known and treated Mrs. Stack for many years, also treated her daughter who had been on chronic dialysis for some time and had died after suffering a heart attack. According to the physician and the patient’s family, Mrs. Stack’s refusal of dialysis has been based on her conviction that her daughter died as a result of the dialysis treatments. Mrs. Stack’s mental status has cleared considerably and, despite the ventilator, she is able to communicate nonverbally. Although she appears to understand the benefits of dialysis and the consequences of refusing it, including deterioration and eventual death, she has consistently and vehemently refused further treatments. Her capacity to make this decision is not now in question.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]