Non-interventional studies (NIS) have become increasingly important in the continuous benefit-risk assessment of medicines. However, the diversity in study designs and in requirements necessitates a careful planning of NIS. In view of a changing regulatory environment, a company-internal online survey was initiated to gather information on existing standards, definitions, and requirements for NIS and to draw advice for the future conduct of multinational NIS. Answers from 45 countries worldwide depicted a global picture of variability in terms of legal and regulatory requirements for NIS. Definitions and terminology are lacking harmonization, and different good practice standards are concurrently in use. Variations in terms of applicable standards and requirements were observed within most geographic regions. The methodological variety in terms of study designs and the divergent perspectives on NIS constitute communicative barriers. Because of the absence of one worldwide applicable good practice standard, differences in semantics and regulatory systems contribute to system disparities.
DecosterGBuyseM. Clinical research after drug approval: what is needed and what is not. Drug Inf J. 1999;33:627–634.
4.
GlasserSPSalasMDelzellE. Importance and challenges of studying marketed drugs: what is a phase IV study? Common clinical research designs, registries, and self-reporting systems. J Clin Pharmacol. 2007;47:1074–1086.
5.
DreyerNATunisSRBergerM. Why observational studies should be among the tools used in comparative effectiveness research. Health Aff. 2010;29:1–8.
6.
National Pharmaceutical Council. Making informed decisions: assessing the strengths and weaknesses of study designs and analytic methods for comparative effectiveness research. February 2012. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hsrinfo/cer.html.
Accessed December 11, 2012.
7.
Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products. Official Journal of the European Communities. 1.5.2001;L121:24–44.
ZarinDATseTWilliamsRJ. The ClinicalTrials.gov results database—update and key issues. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:852–860.
11.
EU Directive 2010/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 amending, as regards pharmacovigilance, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use. Official Journal of the European Communities. 31.12.2010;L348:74–99.
12.
EU Regulation (EU) No 1235/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 amending, as regards pharmacovigilance of medicinal products for human use, Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency, and Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 on advanced therapy medicinal products. Official Journal of the European Communities. 31.12.2010;L348:1–16.
FadenLBMilneCP. Pharmacovigilance activities in the United States, European Union and Japan: harmonic convergence or convergent evolution?FoodDrug Law J. 2008;63:683–700.
15.
KirtonJ.Coexistence, cooperation, competition: G summits. Aspenia. 2009;43-44:156–162.
16.
HartmannM. Impact assessment of the European Clinical Trials Directive: a longitudinal, prospective, observational study analyzing patterns and trends in clinical drug trial applications submitted since 2001 to regulatory agencies in six EU countries. Trials. 2012;13:53.
Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development. FDA requested postmarketing studies in 73% of recent new drug approvals. Tufts CSDD Impact Report. 2004;6:1–4.
23.
KarlbergJSpeersMA. Reviewing clinical trials: A guide for the ethics committee. Hong Kong: Johan Petter Einar; 2010.
24.
Council for International Organisations of Medical Science. International Ethical Guidelines for Epidemiological Studies. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2009.
SavitzDA. Registration of observational studies does not enhance validity. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;90:646–648.
30.
ChaversSFifeDWacholtzMStangPBerlinJ. Registration of observational studies: perspectives from an industry-based epidemiology group. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011;20:1009–1013.
31.
BernabeRDvan ThielGJvan DeldenJJRaaijmakersJA. Informed consent and phase IV non-interventional drug research. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011;27:513–518.
32.
LuCY. Observational studies: a review of study designs, challenges and strategies to reduce confounding. Int J Clin Pract. 2009;63:691–697.
33.
HartmannMHartmann-VareillesF. Recent developments in European Pharmaceutical law 2004: a legal point of view. Drug Inf J. 2005;39:193–207.
34.
GrimesDASchulzKF. An overview of clinical research: the lay of the land. Lancet. 2002;359:57–61.
35.
GiezenTJMantel-TeeuwisseAKStrausSM. Evaluation of post-authorization safety studies in the first cohort of EU Risk Management Plans at time of regulatory approval. Drug Saf. 2009;32:1175–1187.
36.
BernabeRDvan ThielGJRaaijmakersJAvan DeldenJJ. Is informed consent necessary for randomized Phase IV “observational” drug studies?Drug Discov Today. 2011;16:751–754.
37.
ClaudotFAllaFFressonJCalvezTCoudaneHBonaïti-PelliéC. Ethics and observational studies in medical research: various rules in a common framework. Int J Epidemiol. 2009;38:1104–1108.
38.
CuttiniMSaracciR. Commentary: can we facilitate the ethical approval of international observational studies?Int J Epidemiol. 2009;38:1108–1109.
39.
LamasEFerrerMMolinaA. A comparative analysis of biomedical research ethics regulation systems in Europe and Latin America with regard to the protection of human subjects. J Med Ethics. 2010;36:750–753.
40.
LondonAJKimmelmanJCarlisleB.Research ethics. Rethinking research ethics: the case of postmarketing trials. Science. 2012;336:544–545.
41.
van ThielGJvan DeldenJJ. Phase IV research: innovation in need of ethics. J Med Ethics. 2008;34:415–416.
42.
Di Tillio-GonzalezDFischbachRL. Harmonizing regulations for biomedical research: a critical analysis of the US and Venezuelan systems. Dev World Bioeth. 2008;8:167–177.
43.
HasfordJLamprechtT. Company observational post-marketing studies: drug risk assessment and drug research in special populations—a study-based analysis. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1998;53:369–371.
44.
LemaireFRavoireSGolinelliD. Non-interventional research and usual care: definition, regulatory aspects, difficulties and recommendations. Therapie. 2008;63:97–101.
45.
WilliamsRJTseTHarlanWRZarinDA. Registration of observational studies: is it time?CMAJ. 2010;182:1638–1642.
46.
BlackN. Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ. 1996;312:1215–1218.
47.
VandenbrouckeJP. Observational research, randomised trials, and two views of medical science. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e67.
48.
Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development. Postmarketing studies are becoming the norm in U.S., Europe and Japan. Tufts CSDD Impact Report. 2008;10:1–4.
49.
BlakeKVDevriesCSArlettPKurzXFittH; for the European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance. Increasing scientific standards, independence and transparency in post-authorisation studies: the role of the European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21:690–696.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
