What Is a Financial Disclosure Form in Clinical Trials

2. Where the certification covers less than all the clinical data covered by the application, the applicant shall attach to the certification a list of the studies covered by that certification. Section 54.1 Purpose.54.2 Definitions. 54.3 Scope. 54.4 Certification and Disclosure Obligations. 54.5 Assessment of financial interests by the Agency. 54.6 Record Keeping and Record Keeping. The FDA amends 21 CFR 814.112 to require humanitarian device exemption (HDE) applicants to submit certification or disclosure statements. The HRE Regulation was adopted following the publication of the proposal on the publication of the financial situation. This amendment is in line with other compliant amendments requiring financial disclosure information for applications for pre-marketing authorisation. Because data supporting data is required in a reclassification application to meet the requirements for a determination of the safety and efficacy of a product, the FDA amends 21 CFR 860.123 to require any sponsor who submits clinical data as part of a reclassification request to include certification or disclosure statements, or both, as required by the new Part 54. The FDA believes that it is important for public health to ensure, as much as possible, that the safety and efficacy data submitted to the agency in support of marketing applications are free from the effects of any bias that may result from the financial interests of researchers.

The information obtained as part of the final rule reporting obligations helps the agency determine the reliability of the data submitted in marketing requests. In addition, reporting requirements will help sponsors of covered studies to consider potentially problematic financial arrangements and interests in the early stages of product development and, where appropriate, to consider how best to minimize these potential sources of bias in their clinical trials. Sponsors of the covered studies shall be required to keep a complete record of remuneration agreements with all remuneration paid to non-employed clinical investigators, including information demonstrating the financial interests of the clinical investigator, for a period of 2 years from the date of approval of the application. This period is in line with current record-keeping requirements for other information on applications for the marketing of medicinal products for human use, biologics and medical devices. The FDA found the additional costs associated with this new activity to be negligible because companies already maintain compensation records as standard business practice, and the required records of investigators` financial interests typically consist of only one additional piece of paper per auditor. Currently, sponsors of affected trials are required to maintain numerous records related to clinical investigators, including protocol agreements and investigators` resumes or resumes, and the inclusion of information required under these regulations would not add much to this record burden. The FDA estimates that it takes an average of 15 minutes for each recorder to add this record to clinical investigators` records. Description: This final rule requires the sponsor of a drug (including a biologic) or product marketing application to certify the absence of certain financial interests of clinical investigators and/or disclose such financial interests as necessary when covered clinical trials are submitted to the FDA to support the commercialization of the product. I am not aware of any statements about NTF bias in the context of clinical trials.

Compliance with financial disclosure rules for IND studies seems appropriate in most cases. But I guess things could get difficult if an investigator was an inventor of the product being studied, or a business unit executive who is the owner of the IND or the sponsor of the test, or had a personal interest in the success of the product. In this case, the study leader or observer may find it important to ensure that the relationship is documented in the TMF. The FDA recognizes that clinical investigators may provide false financial information to applicants. The FDA does not expect to sue an applicant who takes appropriate steps to obtain accurate information and, through no fault of his or her own, unknowingly submits to the FDA erroneous financial information provided to the applicant by the clinical investigator. There is no solid basis for estimating the frequency of disclosure by notifying parties. The FDA estimates that 1-10% of applicants should file a disclosure for one or more clinical investigators. In estimating the total number of charging hours for this activity, the FDA assumed a rate of 10%, which is the maximum number of estimated applicants to be disclosed each year. The agency believes that, in all likelihood, this number will be smaller, perhaps even significantly.

The FDA disagrees with these comments and believes there is a factual justification for requiring the collection of this information. In recent years, the FDA has received information about potentially problematic payment systems from many sources, including: published newspaper articles, congressional reports, a Government Accounting Office report, congressional investigations, and public testimony and commentary. Although the FDA learned from these sources that there are problematic interests and financial arrangements, the FDA had no formal mechanism to collect this information from applicants. The FDA recognizes that other potential sources of bias exist and could influence a clinical investigator`s judgment or behavior. B for example a quest for prestige in the scientific community, a preference for the confirmation of a personal hypothesis or a desire for future contracts with the sponsor of a study. Such potential biases are difficult to assess and minimize, but the reliability of evaluating and minimizing all biases does not militate against solving some potential sources of bias. Certain types of payment arrangements for clinical trials would result in a higher payment or financial gain from a particular outcome (i.e., a “successful” study rather than a study that did not demonstrate the effectiveness of the treatment) and give the investigator a potential “interest” in that outcome […].

Comments are closed.