Life Science Compliance Update

September 19, 2016

New Rule and Guidance Issued on Clinical Trials


Clinical trials are one of the most visible components of the biomedical research field, in part due to the way they directly engage human participants. Clinical trials have done a lot of good, providing advances in diagnosis, treatment, and prevention, but there are still large challenges. As such, changes are always needed to reflect science and society’s movement to increase efficiency, accountability, and transparency in clinical research.

Health and Human Services Final Rule

In an effort to make information about clinical trials more widely available to the public, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a final rule that specifies requirements for registering certain clinical trials and submitting results information to The final rule expands the legal requirements for submitting registration and results information for clinical trials that involve drug, biological, and device products regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The requirements found within the rule generally apply to the “responsible party,” typically the sponsor of the clinical trial or designated principal investigator. The rule lays out a process for determining who the rule applies to, and which studies are considered “applicable clinical trials.”

Requirements under the final rule apply to most interventional studies of drug, biological and device products that are regulated by the FDA. The requirements do not apply to phase 1 trials of drug and biological products, or small feasibility studies of device products. The final rule also specifies how and when information collected in a clinical trial must be submitted to It does not, however, dictate how clinical trials should be designed or conducted, or what data must be collected.

Responsible parties must register their trial within twenty-one days of enrolling the first participant. The rule includes specific data elements that are to be submitted upon registration. Additionally, if the product studied is available via expanded access (when a product is used outside of a clinical trial, before it is FDA approved), the responsible party shall submit information about how patients can get access to that product.

Results information from applicable clinical trials shall generally be submitted within one year after the trial’s primary completion date. Submission of results information may be delayed, in certain circumstances, for up to two additional years for trials of products regulated by the FDA that are unapproved, unlicensed, or uncleared.

The type of information submitted will consist of “tables of information summarizing: 1) participant flow information, 2) demographics and baseline characteristics of the enrolled participants, 3) primary and secondary outcomes, including results of any scientifically appropriate statistical tests, and 4) adverse events.” As part of adverse events information there will be a table for all-cause mortality. The information will be submitted in aggregate, with no personally identifiable information. The rule requires responsible parties to update the information annually.

The final rule will be effective January 18, 2017. As of that date, will allow responsible parties to comply with the rule; there is a ninety-day grace period for responsible parties to come into compliance with the requirements of the rule.

National Institutes of Health Policy Guidance

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is the largest public funder of clinical trials in the United States. With such investment comes great responsibility. As such, NIH must work to ensure supported trials: investigate a mission-relevant question of high priority, do not duplicate previously conducted trials that do not need replication, and have the highest likelihood to advance knowledge and improve health.

NIH has launched a new effort to improve the quality and efficiency of clinical trials. These initiatives will reengineer the process by which clinical investigators develop ideas for new trials, how NIH reviews and selects clinical trials for support and oversees the progress of the research, and how results and aggregate data are shared broadly and rapidly.  

As part of the aforementioned initiatives, NIH issued a policy on the same day as the HHS final rule, in an attempt to promote broad and responsible dissemination of information from NIH-funded clinical trials through The policy establishes the expectation that investigators that conduct clinical trials funded at all by NIH will ensure that the trials are properly registered and that results information of the trials are submitted to

The policy, similar to the rule, requires applicable clinical trials to be registered in no later than twenty-one calendar days after the enrollment of the first participant.

Applicants and offerors seeking NIH funding will be required to submit a plan for the dissemination of NIH-funded clinical trial information that will address how expectations contained within the policy will be met.

The new NIH policy applies to all NIH-funded trials, including phase 1 clinical trials of FDA-regulated products and small feasibility device trials, as well as products that are not regulated by the FDA, such as behavioral interventions.

The policy will take effect January 18, 2017. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the policy may result in enforcement actions, including termination.

FDA and NIH Comments

“When people participate in clinical trials, they are volunteering to create generalizable knowledge to help others in the future and we want their participation honored by ensuring that the existence of trials and their results are available to all patients and their healthcare providers, as well as researchers,” said FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, M.D. “The FDA will help ensure compliance with these new requirements so that patients and providers can have confidence in and access to significantly more clinical trial information, and researchers can improve clinical trial focus and design.”

“Access to more information about clinical trials is good for patients, the public and science,” said NIH Director Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D. “The final rule and NIH policy we have issued today will help maximize the value of clinical trials, whether publicly or privately supported, and help us honor our commitments to trial participants, who do so much to help society advance knowledge and improve health.”

A summary table of both the final rule and new guidelines can be found here.

March 11, 2016

Biogen Joins the Center for Therapeutic Target Validation

The Center for Therapeutic Target Validation (CTTV) has a new member to boast about, helping them improve the success rate for discovering new medicines: Biogen. The CTTV, originally formed by GlaxoSmithKline, the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, and the European Bioinformatics Institute, works to foster deep, ongoing interactions between academic and industry members to develop open, transformative approaches to selecting and validating novel targets in drug development.

The CTTV covers all aspects of human health and disease and has an agreement between collaborators that experimental data and other information gathered within the CTTV will be shared to benefit the broader scientific community, but only after it has gone through basic quality control checks to ensure consistency and compliance with data sharing guidelines of both involved institutes.

Target validation, an exercise that CTTV focuses on, clearly defines the role that a biological process plays in a disease and is an important phase in drug discovery. Currently, it is estimated that ninety percent of compounds that enter clinical trials do not demonstrate the necessary efficacy and safety requirements, and therefore never actually reach patients as life-saving medicines. Oftentimes, this is because the biological target chosen is not completely understood.

Jeffrey Barrett, the Director of the CTTV, announced the collaboration,

the CTTV is proud to announce the addition of Biogen to our collaboration to improve the process of identifying and validating targets. The pre-competitive nature of CTTV is critical: the collaboration of our members allows us to make the most of commercial R&D practice while making the data and information available to everyone. It is truly exciting to apply so many different areas of expertise, from cell biology to large scale genome analysys, to the challenge of creating better medicines.

Sally John, the Vice President of Computational Biology & Genomics at Biogen, is looking forward to being a part of this partnership, stating, "we are committed to advancing evidence-based target discovery and opening up the field for researchers to create innovative methods and tools to accelerate the development of new medicines. Being part of the CTTV helps us realize this vision and provides a practical, harmonized way to share data with the scientific community."

The Vice President of Digital Health Technology & Data Sciences at Biogen, Philip Ma, also believes this partnership will be beneficial moving forward, stating, "The importance of accessing and managing searchable, structured data is critical to sharing knowledge on target validation. We look forward to combining our expertise in data sciences with the leading capabilities of GSK, the Sanger Institute and EMBL-EBI."

Biogen's membership with the CTTV follows the launch of the new CTTV Target Validation Platform, which helps researchers identify therapeutic targets for new medicines. The platform has had over 8000 visits since its December 2015 launch.

Is This Data Socialism?

The CTTV collaboration differs from the ICMJE proposed requirements and "data socialism" we previously wrote about, in part because the CTTV collaboration is a voluntary collaboration, whereas the ICMJE proposed requirements would mandate sharing hard-earned and heavily-researched data generated by interventional clinical trials. While this collaboration has some big names behind it, only time will tell as to whether or not it serves as a benefit to industry and the American public.

February 03, 2016

ICMEJ Proposes Data Socialism – Data Utopianism Has its Cracks - Comments Due April 18

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recently put forth a proposed set of new requirements for sharing data that was generated by interventional clinical trials. The ICJME believes there is an ethical obligation to responsibly share such data because the participants in the trials put themselves at risk.

Essentially the ICMJE is proposing that as a condition of consideration for publication of a clinical trial report in their member journals, the authors must share with others the deidentified individual patient data (IPD) that is underlying the results presented in the article, including any tables, figures, appendices, and other supplementary material, no later than six months after publication. This proposed requirement will include all data underlying the results of the article's findings, as well as any necessary metadata.

As you can imagine, there are strong opinions on both sides of this proposal. Those who are arguing for it, claim, "many funders around the world – foundations, government agencies, and industry – now mandate data sharing." You know, that whole, "everyone else is doing it, we should too," mentality that our parents warned us about when we were younger.

Those who are against it have a multitude of opinions and reasons for being against it. Some go so far as to refer to those who support data sharing as "data parasites," since they latch onto research that has already been painstakingly performed and utilize it for their own purposes.


This new proposed rule may sound like a nice idea, having the ability to reexamine high-quality information for the possibility of new information being found, potentially resulting in higher patient satisfaction and longevity. However, as just about anyone who has ever managed clinical studies, performed data collection and analysis, or curated data sets knows, there are a litany of concerns over such a proposal. Dan L. Longo, M.D., and Jeffrey M. Drazen, M.D., penned an editorial laying out some of their concerns from that perspective.

One such concern is that someone who is not involved in the generation and the collection of the data will not understand the choices the researchers made in defining the parameters. Some specific questions raised by Longo and Drazen included, "How heterogeneous were the study populations? Were the eligibility criteria the same? Can it be assumed that the differences in study populations, data collection and analysis, and treatments, both protocol-specified and unspecified, can be ignored?"

A second, very valid, concern, is that an entirely new class of research person will emerge – someone who had nothing to do with the design and the execution of the study, but use another group's hard-earned data for their own ends. These "stealers of data" can then use the data to steal research productivity planned by the data gatherers, or even use the stolen data to disprove the original researchers analysis.

Data sharing may not be all bad, depending on how it is performed and what requirements are in place. Longo and Drazen posit, for example, that if data sharing were to work symbiotically, with collaborators whose collected data might be useful in assessing your hypothesis, it might be beneficial for all parties involved, including patients. Throughout the symbiotic relationship, the two (or more) teams of researchers work together to test a hypothesis and report new findings with coauthorship, acknowledging the group that proposed the new idea and the investigative group that pursued the data and allowed it to be tested.

It is interesting to note that four days after jointly submitting an editorial piece with Dan Longo, M.D., Jeffrey Drazen, M.D., walked back part of it. He clarified that the New England Journal of Medicine, the forum for the initial editorial, is "committed to data sharing in the setting of clinical trials." He went on to comment that he believes "there is a moral obligation to the people who volunteer to participate in these trials to ensure that their data are widely and responsibly used" and that "researchers who analyze data collected by others can substantially improve human health."

In the walk back, he concludes by once again bringing up data sharing through collaboration, signaling that such form of data sharing may be palatable to more than just the "data socialists" who want to take your hard-researched data a mere six months after the publication of your findings.

Saurabh Jha, a radiologist in Philadelphia, summed it up nicely,

It takes a lot of effort to generate data in biomedical sciences. To expect researchers to surrender the data for the greater good is fuzzy, and lamentably boring, adolescent naivety. If we do not recognize the self-interest of researchers, data socialism, like other forms of socialism, is condemned to failure.

If you would like to provide feedback on the ICMJE proposal, you may submit your comments and concerns to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors by April 18, 2016.

For More Background on This Controversy David Shaywitz, MD at Forbes has a great series:

Data Scientists = Research Parasites?

Biden Cancer Project: An Opportunity To Implement Data Sharing Incentives    

Do We Really Want To Separate Clinical Data Gathering And Data Analysis?






Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz


February 2017
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28