Running a clinical study is complicated. From a regulatory compliance…perspective you need to know what type of study it is. This drives the direction of ‘what you need to do’ (regulatory compliance) versus what you ‘should’ do (best practice considerations).
As discussed previously, definitions, or more correctly ‘regulatory definitions’, are very important. These definitions (e.g., non-interventional study) describe the boundaries of the study (what the study is and is not) and direct researchers to the applicable regulations and guidelines (hopefully).
When you intend to conduct of clinical study to answer a research question, it is important that you understand what the clinical study is. Is it…(1) a clinical trial, (2) a non-interventional (drug) study, or (3) an observational study (e.g., natural history study)?
Why are these questions important? Each of these three clinical study types are regulated differently…and to make matters worse…the regulatory framework for non-interventional (drug) studies and observational (disease) studies is different…in every country…globally.
For example, regulatory compliance considerations include:
[1] Clinical Trials = Clinical trial regulations + compliance with ICH GCP (very similar requirements globally)
[2] Non-Interventional Study = Local biomedical research regulations + pharmacovigilance requirements + consideration of/ compliance with best practices (e.g., ISPE GPP, ENCePP Guide on Methodological Standards in Pharmacoepidemiology etc )
[3] Observational Study = Local biomedical research regulations
As you can see, the regulatory requirements for clinical trials are very different to those for non-interventional (drug) studies and observational (not drug) studies. Knowing what type of clinical study (regulatory classification) you intend to run is key to understanding what your regulatory obligations are, who you need to get approvals from, who you need to notify, what you need to notify…and what you need to tell patients so that they are adequately informed before they make the decision to participate in your research.
In summary, recognizing (correctly classifying) the study type is crucial for fulfilling regulatory obligations, obtaining necessary approvals, notifying relevant parties, and ensuring informed patient participation.
Share this story...
Real World Evidence (RWE) 201 – France – CNIL Regulatory Sandbox: Digital Health
RWE 201 - France – CNIL Regulatory Sandbox: Digital Health The French Data Protection Agency (CNIL) has been actively supporting digital health technology innovators through its regulatory "sandbox." These [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 201 – France – CNIL Reference Methodologies: Facilitating Access to Real World Data
RWE 201 - France – CNIL Reference Methodologies: Facilitating Access to Real World Data The CNIL (Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés) is the French [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 201 – France – Health Data Hub: Facilitating Access to Real World Data
RWE 201 - France – Health Data Hub: Facilitating Access to Real World Data The purpose of France's Health Data Hub (HDH) is to facilitate the [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 201 – Canada – Health Canada’s position on the CADTH Guidance for Reporting RWE to Support Decision-making
RWE 201 - Canada – Health Canada’s position on the CADTH Guidance for Reporting RWE to Support Decision-making Health Canada released its position (May 2023) on [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 201 – Canada – Methods and Guidelines for Reporting Real World Evidence
RWE 201 - Canada – Methods and Guidelines for Reporting Real World Evidence Guidance for Reporting Real-World Evidence (RWE) [published May 2023] is a comprehensive document developed by the [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 201 – Health Canada’s 15 Key Elements for Protocol Development
RWE 201 - Health Canada's 15 Key Elements for Protocol Development Health Canada acknowledges that RWE can be particularly useful in areas where conducting controlled clinical trials is challenging [...]







