Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The FDA's New Guidelines on Financial Disclosure by Clinical Investigators

By Christiana C. Jacxsens and Jessica C. Cabral
January 31, 2012

There has been a growing number of claims in medical device and pharmaceutical product liability actions based on purported conflicts of interest of clinical investigators conducting medical device or pharmaceutical clinical studies. Financial interests of clinical investigators can be a potential source of bias in clinical study data used to support the application for FDA approval of a new drug or a new medical device. In particular, a clinical trial investigator may have a financial interest in the outcome of the study, due to payment arrangements or equity interests in the sponsors of clinical studies. While the FDA does not prohibit a clinical trial investigator from having a purported financial interest, it does regulate the disclosure of that information. The financial disclosure requirements of clinical investigators are governed by 21 Code of Federal Regulations Part 54, which came into effect in 1999. Generally, FDA regulations require that medical device and pharmaceutical manufacturers submit financial interest disclosures with their applications for a new drug or a new device. On March 20, 2001, the FDA issued its original Guidance on Financial Disclosure By Clinical Investigators to assist pharmaceutical and medical device companies, as well as clinical investigators in interpreting and complying with the federal regulations governing financial interest disclosures.

In recent years, there has been an increased public interest concerning the regulation of conflicts of interests for clinical investigators. In 2009, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), Department of Health and Human Services published its report, The Food and Drug Administration's Oversight of Clinical Investigators' Financial Information, which raised concerns regarding the FDA's monitoring of conflict of interests to ensure the integrity of clinical research. In response, the FDA has recently updated its Guidance for Industry: Financial Disclosure of Clinical Investigators for the first time since 2001. The revised Guidance addresses issues raised in the OIG's report as well as frequently asked questions from the industry and public. This article briefly examines the key changes to the revised Guidance and the practical implications of the new guidelines in product liability cases.

Background

FDA regulations require applicants submitting a marketing application for drugs, biological products, or devices to disclose financial information relating to the compensation, financial interests and arrangements of clinical investigators conducting clinical studies. 21 C.F.R. ' 54. The regulation applies to clinical studies submitted in a marketing application that either the FDA or the applicant relies on to establish that a product is effective, and any study where a single investigator makes a significant contribution to the demonstration of safety. 21 C.F.R. ' 54.2. The applicant collects financial disclosure forms from the clinical investigators. Based upon those forms, the applicants then are required to do one of the following: certify that no financial interest exists; disclose the nature of the financial interests and steps taken to minimize any potential bias; or certify that the applicant acted in due diligence but was unable to obtain the financial information. 21 C.F.R. ' 54.4. The FDA uses this information, along with information about the design and purpose of the study and information from on-site inspections, to determine the reliability of the data from the study. If the FDA has concerns about the integrity of the data based on the financial disclosure information, the FDA can take actions, including audits, requesting further analyses of the data, requesting additional studies, and rejecting the data as support for the new drug or device marketing application.

Under the regulations, the following are considered to be disclosable financial arrangements:

  • A. Compensation made to the investigator in which the value of compensation could be affected by study outcome. This requirement applies to all covered studies, whether ongoing or completed, as of Feb. 2, 1999.
  • B. A proprietary interest to the tested product, including, but not limited to, a patent, trademark, copyright or licensing agreement. This requirement applies to all covered studies, whether ongoing or completed as of Feb. 2, 1999.
  • C. Any equity interest in the sponsor of a covered study, i.e., any ownership interest, stock options, or other financial interest whose value cannot be readily determined through reference to public prices. This requirement applies to all covered studies, whether ongoing or completed.
  • D. Any equity interest in a publicly held company that exceeds $50,000 in value. These must be disclosed only for covered clinical studies that are ongoing on or after Feb. 2, 1999. The requirement applies to interests held during the time the clinical investigator is carrying out the study and for one year following completion of the study; and
  • E. Significant payments of other sorts (SPOOS), which are payments that have a cumulative monetary value of $25,000 or more made by the sponsor of a covered study to the investigator or the investigators' institution to support activities of the investigator exclusive of the costs of conducting the clinical study or other clinical studies, (e.g., a grant to fund ongoing research, compensation in the form of equipment or retainers for ongoing consultation or honoraria) during the time the clinical investigator is carrying out the study and for one year following completion of the study. This requirement applies to payments made on or after Feb. 2, 1999.

The FDA's 2001 Financial Disclosure of Clinical Investigators Guidance provided answers to 31 questions that the FDA had received in response to the financial disclosure regulations. The questions generally related to the purpose of the financial disclosure regulations, the requirements and obligations for applicants, sponsors, and investigators, and the FDA's definitions and explanation of terms used in the regulations. The FDA also provided further clarification of the categories of disclosable financial interests.

The New Guidelines

As compared with the 2001 Guidance, the revised Guidance for Industry: Financial Disclosure of Clinical Investigators (the New Guidelines) addresses issues raised in the OIG's report and provides answers to 51 frequently asked questions. This article does not cover each change or addition made in the New Guidelines, but rather provides a summary of some of the key points and distinctions made in the New Guidelines.

Due Diligence. The revised Guidance defines what the FDA considers “due diligence” in the context of financial disclosure for clinical investigators. The New Guidelines specifically state that the FDA expects applicants to be able to obtain the required financial information because IND (Investigational New Drug)/IDE (Investigational Device Exemption) sponsors are responsible for obtaining such information from clinical investigators before allowing them to participate in the clinical study. However, if the financial information is not available from the sponsor, the FDA advises that an applicant should make “appropriate efforts” to gain the information by other means. The FDA recommends the following efforts be made to obtain the information:

  • Contact the clinical investigator directly;
  • Try to locate the clinical investigator by making at least two phone calls;
  • Make written documentation of each call and any telephone conversation;
  • Follow up the phone calls in writing;
  • Send at least two certified letters in an effort to locate the clinical investigator;
  • Request contact information from the institution where the study was conducted or where the investigator is affiliated;
  • Contact professional associations with which the investigator may have been affiliated;
  • Conduct Internet searches; and
  • Try to obtain the information from other “readily available sources,” such as those that are publically available.

The New Guidelines also stress that applicants must exercise due diligence in covered clinical studies conducted in both foreign and domestic sites.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.