In the context of health research, both observational studies and clinical trials are crucial for understanding disease processes, patient outcomes, and the safety and efficacy of treatments. However, due to varying regulatory requirements and standards, the archiving requirements for these types of studies are distinct. Here are some of the key differences:
[1] Regulations and Guidelines: Clinical trials as governed by a global set of ethical and scientific standards, such as ICH GCP. These standards are then adopted into law in different regions, say for instance, through the Regulation EU/536/2014, and 21 CFR 312 in the US. These rules are clear about how to manage, store, and archive data and require specific documents to prove the integrity of the trial data. They also set out how long these crucial documents should be kept (e.g., at least 25 years).
On the flip side, observational studies aren’t governed by such unified requirements when it comes to document retention and archiving. They still follow ethical guidelines and good practice principles like the Declaration of Helsinki, ISPE GPP, and STROBE guidelines, but these may not give you exact retention times or archiving mechanisms.
[2] Data Collection and Confidentiality: Clinical trials are data-rich; they collect a large amount of confidential and sensitive patient data. Regular sponsor audits and regulatory inspections mean they need to keep robust records. Observational studies, while they also handle sensitive data, usually don’t interact with patients as much and don’t face as many regulatory inspections. So, they’ve traditionally not had to maintain as meticulous records.
[3] Data Accessibility: Clinical trial data is often more restricted in terms of who can access it and how it can be shared. This is due to both regulatory needs and commercial interests. Observational data, though, is often used for big-picture disease studies, and it’s usually designed to be more shareable – as long as it’s anonymized and ethical procedures are followed.
It’s important to remember that what I’ve explained are general patterns. The exact requirements can change based on region, the type of data you’re dealing with, and even who’s funding your work. If you need specific guidance, don’t hesitate to reach out to an expert or regulatory authority in your area.
Share this story...
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – ICH GCP (R3) – Real World Evidence Context
RWE 101 - ICH GCP (R3) - Real World Evidence Context Revision 2 of ICH GCP caused confusion to those of us who work with non-interventional studies. The glossary [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Non-Interventional Studies vs Market Health Research
RWE 101 - Non-Interventional Studies vs Market Health Research Key differences between a non-interventional study (NIS) and market health research include:1. Research Objective: NIS are conducted to examine real-world [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Audits vs Inspections
RWE 101 - Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 - Audits vs Inspections In the context of regulatory compliance for Real-World Evidence (RWE), both audits and inspections play crucial roles, [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – A Career of Many Pathways
RWE 101 - A Career of Many Pathways Real-world evidence (RWE) refers to the information on health care that is derived from analysis of real-world data (RWD). RWE [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Evolution of Regulatory Affairs
RWE 101 - Evolution of Regulatory Affairs Real-world evidence (RWE) and real-world data (RWD) are increasingly influencing regulatory affairs in the biopharmaceutical and healthcare industry. This change has been [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Project Managers
RWE 101 - Project Managers Real-World Evidence (RWE) observational studies and clinical trials are both key elements of medical research, but they involve very different methodologies, aims, and requirements. [...]