Abstract
Background
Contract negotiations between academic sites and pharmaceutical companies, which often include contentious issues such as publication rights and indemnification, are perceived to be delaying the initiation of clinical research to the detriment of academic sites and patients. Given the need to improve the contract process in Ontario, the Council of Academic Hospitals of Ontario (CAHO) led an initiative that developed a set of standard principles that Ontario hospitals are recommended to follow when negotiating clinical trial agreements with industry sponsors.
Methods
A committee comprising members from academic hospitals and organizations across Ontario was formed. This CAHO Steering Committee on Harmonizing Clinical Trial Agreements set up a working group to draft a principles document based largely on preexisting principles. The draft principles went through several iterations of review and revision by the committee and by the member hospitals. A mechanism to ensure keeping it a live and up-to-date document was developed.
Results
The initial hope of the committee was to develop a standard clinical trial agreement for use by all sites and all companies; however, the committee felt that this was unlikely given the diverse interests and head offices of the pharmaceutical companies. As such the committee developed a standard set of principles to be used for contract negotiation; this document started with a superior set of principles, and then addressed a number of issues including publication rights, intellectual property issues, confidentiality, privacy, and indemnification. This document is currently being used widely by Ontario hospitals, and may be useful for other jurisdictions.
Interpretation
Publication of the standards for clinical trial agreements increases consistency in the standards applied by teaching hospitals and allows companies to develop or refine their templates to address the principles thought to be important by all Ontario teaching hospitals. Company templates that are in line with these principles are expected to require far less negotiation, if any at all.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Gambrill S. Can standardization help the contract quagmire? CenterWatch Monthly. 2004;11(1):1.
Mello MM, Clarridge BR, Studdert DM. Academic medical centers’ standards for clinical-trial agreements with industry. N Engl J Med. 2005; 352:2202–2210.
UK Clinical Research Collaboration. Revised model Clinical Trial Agreement. 2005, https://doi.org/www.ukcrc.org/activities/regulationandgovernance/modelclinicaltrialagreement.aspx. Accessed December 3, 2008.
US Model Agreement Group Initiative (MAGI). 2004–2008. Model Clinical Trial Agreement. 2006. https://doi.org/www.1stclinical.com/magi/. Accessed December 3, 2008.
Medicines Australia. Standard clinical trial research agreement. October 2008. https://doi.org/www.medicinesaustralia.com.au/pages/page39.asp. Accessed December 3, 2008.
Naylor CD. Early Toronto experience with new standards for industry-sponsored clinical research: a progress report. CMAJ. 2002;166: 453.
Giroux S, Kerr MH, Moldofsky M. Contract negotiations: Canadian challenges and made-in-Canada solutions. Panel at Insight’s Clinical Trials in Canada: Creating Greater Competitive Advantage in Today’s Global Market, Toronto. October 20–21, 2008.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
On behalf of the CAHO Steering Committee on Harmonizing Clinical Trial Agreements
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Moldofsky, M., Arts, K. & Slutsky, A.S. Development of Clinical Trial Agreement Principles. Ther Innov Regul Sci 44, 111–117 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1177/009286151004400202
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/009286151004400202