Title: | Experiences with low-intervention clinical trials—the new category under the European Union Clinical Trials Regulation |
Author: |
|
Date: | 2025 |
Language: | English |
Scope: | 406499 |
Series: | Clinical Trials; () |
ISSN: | 1740-7745 |
DOI: | 10.1177/17407745241309293 |
Subject: | European Clinical Trials regulation; investigator-initiated trials; low-intervention clinical trials; pragmatic trials; regulatory science; risk-based approach; Pharmacology |
URI: | https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11815/5439 |
Citation:de Jong, A J, Gardarsdottir, H, Santa-Ana-Tellez, Y, de Boer, A & Zuidgeest, M G P 2025, 'Experiences with low-intervention clinical trials—the new category under the European Union Clinical Trials Regulation', Clinical Trials. https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745241309293
|
|
Abstract:Background/Aims: Low-intervention clinical trials have been established under the European Union Clinical Trials Regulation (EU 536/2014) which aims to simplify the conduct of clinical trials with authorized medicinal products. There is limited experience with conducting low-intervention trials. Therefore, this study aims to report on experiences and perceived (dis)advantages of low-intervention trials. Methods: We surveyed representatives of all individual clinical trials registered on the public website of the European Union Clinical Trials Information System between 31 January 2022 and 1 December 2023 that evaluated authorized investigational medicinal products and had at least one investigative site in the European Union. These representatives were approached between June 2023 and January 2024. Results: We received 70 responses (response rate 21%). Of the respondents, 31 represented a trial registered as low-intervention trial, and 39 represented a trial not registered as a low-intervention trial (hereafter “regular trials”). Simplified clinical trial monitoring and an easier regulatory approval process were perceived as the main advantages of low-intervention trials, with respectively 44% and 34% of the respondents indicating this to be an advantage in low-intervention trials. However, the respondents experienced that stringent and unclear regulatory requirements impeded the conduct of low-intervention trials. Respondents involved with regular trials indicated that 39% of the regular trials met the criteria of a low-intervention trial but were not registered as such, among others due to unfamiliarity with this trial category. Conclusions: We argue that the simplified procedures for low-intervention trials should be more detailed—for example in regulatory guidance—in the future to further simplify the conduct of clinical trials with authorized investigational medicinal products.
|
|
Description:Publisher Copyright: © The Author(s) 2025.
|