If your registry protocol reads like a ‘clinical trial’ then it’s likely to be seen as a clinical trial by ethics committees (EC) and rejected. You may be restricted by SOP-mandated use of clinical trial protocol templates, which is a common challenge. However, there are red flags that can be avoided, even within these limitations – Refer to Table 1.
Context: |
Product Registry Studies, Non-Interventional Studies |
Focus of the Research: |
Collection of patient-related data in a real-world environment (real-world data) and obtaining clinical evidence (real-world evidence) of the value and potential benefits or risks of the medical products through analysis. |
Impact of study-inclusion on the Patient: |
None/minimal – the treatment and care of the patient remains the responsibility of their treating Physician and is unaffected by the patient’s ‘participation’ in the study |
Regional Focus: |
Europe |
Examples of Red Flags
Table 1: Examples (based on our experience) of red flags in protocols that have resulted in approval delays due to EC questions and/or rejections.
Red Flags Include: |
Why? | Solution |
Ambiguity of protocol language gives perception that the decision to prescribe medicinal product taken after inclusion of patients in the proposed study |
|
Use specific and explicit in language about the fact that patients will either be receiving the product prior to inclusion on study, or the decision to prescribe the product was taken prior to inclusion in the study. The latter statement may be needed when studying oncology products. |
Reference to investigational medicinal products (IMPs) |
|
Remove all references to IMP |
Inclusion of information and/or guidance on how to use IMPs |
|
Do not include information on how to use the medicinal product |
Extensive inclusion and exclusion criteria |
|
Limit inclusion and exclusion criteria to essentials only e.g., able to provide informed consent, treated with product of interest |
Randomisation of patients to treatment groups |
|
Ensure that the study design does not involve treatment interventions such as randomisation to treatments |
Resources that may be of interest:
- EMA – Guidance for the Format and Content of the Protocol of Non-Interventional Post-Authorisation Safety Studies– September 2012
- EMA – Guidance for the Format and Content of the Final Study Report of Non-Interventional Post-Authorisation Safety Studies– July 2013
> Download the Bite-Sized Insight…‘Red Flags for Regstries’