It’s a simple question. Actually…no it isn’t.
The EU defines a non-interventional study as a “clinical study other than a clinical trial” 😳 [ref 1]. Whereas the US FDA talks about “non-interventional (observational) studies”[ref 2].
So…let’s simplify things…for the sake of your sanity and mine.
In Europe, by definition [ref 1], a non-interventional study must involve a drug. If your clinical study does not involve a drug…then by regulatory definition it cannot be a non-interventional study. Meaning? Any other type of study with a non-interventional design will be an observational study…which may or may not be defined at the local level.
The EMA list of metadata for the Real World Data catalogues (which go live in February 2024) [ref 3] define the drug study types as ‘clinical trial’ or ‘non-interventional study’. The non-interventional study, study designs are defined as: cohort| case-control| case-only| cross-sectional| ecological| cluster design| systematic review and meta-analysis. Note the absence of ‘observational’.
In the USA, the terms ‘non-interventional study’ and observational study are used interchangeably:
A non-interventional study (also referred to as an observational study) is a type of study in which patients received the marketed drug of interest during routine medical practice and are not assigned to an intervention according to a protocol (as per Section II of the FDA Guidance) [ref 2].
However, the FDA definition implies that a non-interventional study must involve a drug.
In summary, in both Europe and America, a non-interventional study must involve a drug. If your clinical study does not involve a (marketed) drug…then by regulatory definition it cannot be a non-interventional study.
References:
[1] Article 2.2(4) of Regulation EU/536/2014: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2014/536
[2] Section II of the FDA Guidance – Considerations for the Use of Real-World Data and Real-World Evidence to Support Regulatory Decision-Making for Drug and Biological Products (August 2023): https://www.fda.gov/media/171667/download
[3] Section 2.2(II) of the EMA List of Metadata for Real World Data Catalogues (May 2022): https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/other/list-metadata-real-world-data-catalogues_en.pdf
In essence, definitions lay the groundwork for accurate, consistent, and meaningful research, especially in areas where the data and its sources are as diverse and complex as in RWD and RWE.
Share this story...
Real World Evidence (RWE) 201 – Beyond Clinical Trials: Health Canada’s Commitment to Real World Evidence
RWE 201 - Beyond Clinical Trials: Health Canada's Commitment to Real World Evidence Health Canada is dedicated to enhancing drug accessibility, affordability, and correct usage within the country. To [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 201 – A Tale of Two Regulatory Paths: Non-Interventional Studies in the USA
RWE 201 - A Tale of Two Regulatory Paths: Non-Interventional Studies in the USA Non-interventional studies are different from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Instead of actively intervening in a [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 201 – FDA’s Advancing RWE Program
RWE 201 - FDA's Advancing RWE Program Real-world evidence is transforming the regulatory landscape, enabling the FDA to make informed decisions based on robust data from real-world settings. [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 201 – FDA’s RWE Considerations Draft Guidance
RWE 201 - FDA's RWE Considerations Draft Guidance The 21st Century Cures Act, signed into law in 2016, mandated the FDA to establish a framework for the evaluation of [...]
Real World Evidence 201 – FDAs RWE Framework
RWE 201 - FDAs RWE Framework Real World Evidence (RWE) 201 – FDAs RWE Framework RWE 201: https://rwr-regs.com/rwe-201/ The FDA's Real-World Evidence (RWE) Program framework, established under the [...]
Real World Evidence 201 – The 21st Century Cures Act
RWE 201 - The 21st Century Cures Act The 21st Century Cures Act (CURES 1.0), signed into law in the U.S. in December 2016, aimed to accelerate [...]







