var _paq = window._paq = window._paq || []; /* tracker methods like "setCustomDimension" should be called before "trackPageView" */ _paq.push(['trackPageView']); _paq.push(['enableLinkTracking']); (function() { var u="https://rwrregs.matomo.cloud/"; _paq.push(['setTrackerUrl', u+'matomo.php']); _paq.push(['setSiteId', '1']); var d=document, g=d.createElement('script'), s=d.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; g.async=true; g.data-privacy-src='//cdn.matomo.cloud/rwrregs.matomo.cloud/matomo.js'; s.parentNode.insertBefore(g,s); })();

#9 Practical RWE – Connecting the Dots: How to Identify Country-Specific Requirements for Non-Interventional Studies (NIS)

#9 Practical RWE – Connecting the Dots: How to Identify Country-Specific Requirements for Non-Interventional Studies (NIS)

 

Psstt…this is a secret…so please don’t tell anybody! 😳 🤔 😂

How do we identify the country-specific requirements for non-interventional studies? Much of our work with non-interventional studies involves determining what is NOT applicable.

We start with clinical trials…and run through this series of questions:

  1. What are the Requirements for Clinical Trials?
  2. Are NIS Covered in the Clinical Trial Regulations?
  3. Are There Specific Regulations for NIS?
  4. Are There Specific Regulations for Biomedical Research?
  5. Is There Local Guidance for Biomedical Research?

The answers to these questions help us to build our country-specific regulatory compliance roadmaps. Part of the process includes contacting competent supervisory authorities (e.g., IEC/IRB) to confirm (verify) NIS requirements.

Simple!

Share this story...

#9 Practical RWE – Connecting the Dots: How to Identify Country-Specific Requirements for Non-Interventional Studies (NIS)2024-02-01T15:14:59+00:00

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 patient’s healthcare, researchers just observe and record what happens naturally during the patients normal (routine) healthcare journey. The data from these studies is useful because it helps generate ideas for further research, flag potential safety concerns, or even provide additional evidence for regulatory decisions, like updating product labels or expanding the use of approved medical products.

Now, if you’re thinking of submitting this data to the FDA, there are certain regulations (rules) you must follow. In the U.S., there are two main pathways:

[1] For studies that will be submitted to the FDA: There’s a ‘checklist’ to follow, such as complying with certain sections of the Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR 11, 21 CFR 50, 21 CFR 56, etc.) and listing your study on public databases like clinicaltrials.gov.

[2] For studies that won’t be submitted to the FDA: The requirements are a bit different, focusing more on the Common Rule (45 CFR 46), but still following similar safety rules, such as 21 CFR 314 (drugs) and 21 CFR 600 (biologics).

Despite the differences, there are common themes between the two. Both need ethical green lights in the form of Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals, and participant informed consent is a must. With health data involved, ensuring privacy is non-negotiable, meaning regulations like HIPAA come into play. And regardless of the regulatory pathway, the study should be well-designed and use rigorous methodology to ensure data quality, integrity, and reliability. This includes clear definitions of exposures, outcomes, confounders, and other variables.

Because it’s hard to predict if non-interventional study’s results (RWE) might be submitted to the FDA, it’s a good idea to play it safe and align with FDA regulatory requirements and guidelines from the start.

In both cases, it’s essential to follow good epidemiological and statistical practices to ensure that the findings are robust, valid, and interpretable. Non-interventional studies, by their nature, are more susceptible to confounding and bias than RCTs, so it’s crucial to apply methods that address or mitigate these potential pitfalls.

Share this story...

Real World Evidence (RWE) 201 – A Tale of Two Regulatory Paths: Non-Interventional Studies in the USA2023-08-20T15:40:46+00:00

Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Observational Study vs Non-Interventional Study

RWE 101 – Observational Study vs Non-Interventional Study

In the context of real-world evidence (RWE), the terms “observational study” and “non-interventional study” are often used interchangeably to refer to studies that collect data outside the controlled environment of a clinical trial. However, it’s worth noting that some subtle differences can exist based on the specific context or regulatory guidelines. Here’s an overview:

[1] Observational Study: An observational study is a research design where researchers observe and collect data on participants without intervening or administering any specific treatment. Observational studies aim to analyze associations, correlations, or patterns in real-world settings. They can be prospective (following participants over time) or retrospective (analyzing existing data or medical records).

[2] Non-interventional Study: A non-interventional study is a study type (EU and US regulatory definition)  that does not involve any healthcare or treatment interventions imposed by researchers. It is often used as an umbrella term for studies that collect data in real-world settings, without manipulating variables. Non-interventional studies are primarily focused on describing, analyzing, or assessing outcomes, exposure, or associations.

It’s important to note that regulatory guidelines and definitions may vary across different regions and agencies. For instance, the US FDA’s guidance on RWE refers to “real-world studies”, “observational Studies”, and “non-interventional (observational) studies”, while the European Union Clinical Trials Regulation (Regulation EU/536/2014) uses the term “non-interventional studies.” However, in practice, the intent of these studies—collecting data without actively intervening—is often similar.

In the context of RWE, both observational studies and non-interventional studies typically leverage real-world data sources such as electronic health records, claims databases, registries, surveys, or patient-reported outcomes. They aim to generate evidence (real world evidence) on treatment outcomes, comparative effectiveness, safety profiles, and other healthcare-related factors.

Ultimately, the precise terminology used may vary, but the fundamental principle is that observational studies and non-interventional studies within the context of RWE both involve the collection and analysis of real-world data without actively imposing healthcare or treatment interventions on participants.

Share this story...

Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Observational Study vs Non-Interventional Study2023-08-07T13:29:05+00:00

USA | Draft FDA Guidance: Considerations for the Use of Real-World Data and Real-World Evidence To Support Regulatory Decision-Making for Drug and Biological Products 

Please login to view this page.

USA | Draft FDA Guidance: Considerations for the Use of Real-World Data and Real-World Evidence To Support Regulatory Decision-Making for Drug and Biological Products 2022-08-07T16:57:47+00:00
Go to Top