Skip to main content
Log in

Management of Clinical Trial Agreements

Current Practices of Investigators in the United States

  • Clinical Trials
  • Published:
Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The clinical trial agreement (CTA) is a key but often underappreciated document governing the relationship between a study site and a sponsor. Previous anecdotal materials have suggested that investigators may not often be involved in the review or negotiation of the CTA and may attach little importance to it. To provide more systematic current information, survey methods were used to explore the level of engagement, knowledge, and perceptions of investigators in the United States. The survey was distributed to more than 700 investigators—university affiliated and nonaffiliated—and/or related study staff, of whom 167 responded. Most respondents identified that they did not manage the clinical trial agreement process but were actively engaged in its review. Most were encouraged by their institutions to participate. However, some respondents expressed concerns with regard to their satisfaction with the content of the CTA, particularly with respect to issues such as financial negotiations and payments, indemnification, and subject injury language. The majority of investigators either strongly agreed or agreed that it was important for the investigator to be actively involved in the CTA process. Data from this survey provide the first systematic look at the current practices of US investigators, possible issues, and areas for improvement from the investigator’s point of view.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Webb T. A checklist for clinical trial agreements. Journal of Clinical Research Best Practices. 2006;2(2):1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  2. DuVal G. Institutional ethics review of clinical study agreements. J Med Ethics. 2003;30:30–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Drazen J. Institutions, contracts, and academic freedom. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1362–1363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Goldfarb N. Winning contracts. http://firstclinical.com/resources/articles/WinningContracts.pdf. Published 2004. Accessed July 9, 2012.

  5. Goldfarb N. Laws, regulations and clinical trial agreements. http://www.firstclinical.com/resources/articles/Laws.pdf. Published 2004. Accessed October 25, 2013.

  6. Pfeiffer J. Clinical Trial Agreements: Negotiation and Management. Saarbrücken, Germany: Scholars’ Press; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Schulman K, Seils D, Timbie J, et al. A national survey of provisions in clinical trial agreements between medical schools and industry sponsors. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1335–1341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rijswijk-Trompert M. Clinical trial agreements: there are opportunities to make the negotiation process more efficient and reduce timelines. http://www.appliedclinicaltrialsonline.com/appliedclinicaltrials/CRO%2FSponsor/Clinical-Trial-Agreement-Negotiations/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/776904. Published June 1, 2012.

  9. Mello M, Phil M, Clarridge B, Studdert D. Academic medical centers standards for clinical Trial agreements with industry. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:2202–2210.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bodenheimer T. Uneasy alliance: clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1539–1544.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Davidoff F, DeAngelis C, Drazen J, et al. Sponsorship, authorship and accountability. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:825–826.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Baer I, Feiler M, Regulski A, Switzer S. Clinical Trial Contracts: A Discussion of Four Selected Provisions. Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Leibowitz K, Sheckler V. Negotiating clinical trial agreements. http://www.regulatoryfocus.org. Published 2012. Accessed September 12, 2013.

  14. Goldfarb N, Regulski A. 18 subject injury and indemnification CTA loopholes. Journal of Clinical Research Best Practices. 2008;4(1):1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bradford J. Clinical trial research in hospitals. http://www.acegroup.com. Published 2012. Accessed September 11, 2013.

  16. World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/. Accessed September 2014.

  17. Goldfarb N. Master clinical trial agreements. Journal of Clinical Research Best Practices. 2006;2(7):1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Atkinson R, Flint J. Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations: snowball research strategies. Social Research Update. 2001;33:1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sadler G, Lee H, Lim R, Fullerton J. Recruitment of hard-to-reach research population subgroups via adaptations. Nurs Health Sci. 2010;12:369–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hulley S, Cummings S, Browner W, Grady D, Hearst N, Newman T. Designing Clinical Research. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Heckathorn D. Snowball versus respondent-driven sampling. Sociol Methodol. 2012;41:355–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. US Geological Services. Online surveys. http://www.usgs.gov. Published 2013. Accessed August 10, 2013.

  23. Rosenstock I, Strecher V, Becker M. Social learning theory and the health belief model. Health Educ Q. 1988;15:175–183.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Bronfenbrenner U. The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1979.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to JoAnn P. Pfeiffer DRSc.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pfeiffer, J.P., Richmond, F.J. Management of Clinical Trial Agreements. Ther Innov Regul Sci 49, 139–145 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479014551645

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479014551645

Keywords

Navigation