The EU has launched a public consultation on balancing the transparency of study information with confidentiality concerns.
How much of your structured data do you want to see published when you submit a clinical trial authorization request in the EU? And just as pertinently, how much information from other trials do you think you should be allowed to see?
It's a live question. The EU’s 2014 Clinical Trials Regulation has brought in unprecedented levels of transparency and accessibility to clinical trials information, and the boundaries of exactly what should be in the public domain, and when, are now being drawn. And this requires a very refined balancing act. As the EU admits as it tries to set the limits, even while "delivering high levels of transparency, the disclosure rules must ensure that personal data are protected… and sponsors’ legitimate economic interests are protected by avoiding disclosure of information considered commercially confidential."
Access to some information might seem uncontroversial—trial title; trial population; maybe trial design information, including inclusion/exclusion criteria; even endpoints. The same might be assumed to apply to details of the products used, the active substance, strength, pharmaceutical form, and posology. Similarly, information about trial status (start, restart, end of trial) or recruitment status (start, restart, end of recruitment), or even the principal investigator's contact details might not be considered to be setting the bar for access too low.
What about details of the trial sponsor, including sponsor contact point and third parties involved? Or of requests for information (and responses) raised as intermediate steps in the evaluation of a clinical trial application? And should there be any limits on outsiders learning about temporary halts, including when they are safety related. Should information on serious breaches be off-limits or not? The same question applies to when urgent safety measures are necessary, or when unexpected events, or when assessments are carried out by regulatory authorities on notifications. And should the same candor apply to inspection reports relating to non-EU countries inspection reports?
In an attempt to head off accusations of excessive secrecy or excessive openness, the EU is asking everyone for their views. It has launched a public consultation with a series of specific questions relating to these data fields—and also to how far people think it should be providing access to documents too.1 What it has in mind here range from the banality of the cover letter of an application to the more delicate issue of clinical study reports or Intermediate data analysis results, with in between such documents as the sponsor statement of data regulation compliance, the protocol, any scientific advice, the investigator's brochure, details of the trial products safety and efficacy, the informed consent form, and the suitability of investigators and of the trial facilities.
Everyone can take part in the survey and give a yes/no answer relating to each of the fields and each of the documents. The EU wants to get it right. It says access to this sort ofinformation is important "to enable candor of patients in clinical trials, to build public trust, and to share knowledge on trial design, conduct, and results [that] should invigorate clinical research in the European Union and facilitate access to medicines to patients." The broad outlines in the clinical trials regulation now have to be given a clearer focus, it says, since the legislation's disclosure rules for the database where information to the public will be provided define only "high level principles."
Based on experience using the EU's new clinical trial information system (CTIS), "or your perspective as a clinical trial stakeholder, please express your views," says the survey. "Of the structured data and documents provided in CTIS for publication, which ones would you consider critically important for publication at the time of decision of a trial application and during the trial life cycle"—followed by an extensive list of options.
But everyone who wants to give their views will have to move fast. The survey opened only in May, and will close at the end of June.
Reference
1. https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/TransparencyRulesPublicConsultationCTIS
Phase III Trial Data Show Subcutaneous Pembrolizumab as Noninferior to IV Keytruda
March 31st 2025Subcutaneous administration of pembrolizumab with chemotherapy demonstrated a nearly 50% reduction in patient chair and treatment room time while maintaining efficacy and safety endpoints compared to intravenous Keytruda.
Behind the Buzz: Why Clinical Research Leaders Flock to SCOPE Summit
February 7th 2025In this episode, we meet with Micah Lieberman, Executive Conference Director for SCOPE Summit (Summit for Clinical Ops Executives) at Cambridge Innovation Institute. We will dive deep into the critical role of collaboration within the clinical research ecosystem. How do we bring together diverse stakeholders—sponsors, CROs, clinical trial tech innovators, suppliers, patients, sites, advocacy organizations, investors, and non-profits—to share best practices in trial design, program planning, innovation, and clinical operations? We’ll explore why it’s vital for thought leaders to step beyond their own organizations and learn from others, exchanging ideas that drive advancements in clinical research. Additionally, we’ll discuss the pivotal role of scientific conferences like SCOPE Summit in fostering these essential connections and collaborations, helping shape the future of clinical trials. Join us as we uncover how collective wisdom and cross-industry partnerships are transforming the landscape of clinical research.
Reaching Diverse Patient Populations With Personalized Treatment Methods
January 20th 2025Daejin Abidoye, head of solid tumors, oncology development, AbbVie, discusses a number of topics around diversity in clinical research including industry’s greatest challenges in reaching diverse patient populations, personalized treatment methods, recruitment strategies, and more.
FOCUS Trial Results Show Solriamfetol Significantly Reduces ADHD Symptoms, Severity in Adults
March 27th 2025Solriamfetol achieved the primary and key secondary endpoint of the Phase III FOCUS trial by significantly lowering attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms and disease severity in adults compared to placebo, with a favorable safety and tolerability profile.