Skip to main content

Main Components of an Informed Consent

BayBiotech.NET
Dear All,

Happy 2010!

I plan to focus on the main components of an informed consent in this blog. Enjoy!

Informed consent (21 CFR 50.20, 21 CFR 50.25(a), and 21 CFR 50.25(b))
is a document prepared for the subjects who may be benefited from a clinical trial and provides the key facts about a clinical trial before deciding whether or not to participate.
In order to help someone decide whether or not to participate, the doctors and nurses involved in the trial explain the details of the study. If the participant's native language is not English, translation assistance can be provided for them.
Main component of an informed consent document are the key details about the study, such as its purpose, duration, required procedures, key contacts as well as risks and potential benefits associated with it. The participant then decides whether or not to sign the consent and participate in the study.
Informed consent is not a contract, and the participant may withdraw from the trial at any time.
Main components of an informed consent forms are:
 Information about the sponsor conducting the research.
 The main objective of the study.
 During the study how the research team will monitor the health and safety of the participants.
 As a participant the requirements for the follow-ups and the duration of the study.
 Possible benefits and risks associated.
 Other treatments those are available for the particular disease or condition.
 How the privacy of the medical records will be protected for the participating patients.
 Compensations if any for the participant’s time.
 The study staff also provides the participants a consent form, an agreement that he /she will sign if he /she decide to join the trial.

Mostly IRBs develop standard formats for informed consents as per FDA regulations and wherever changes are needed from the standard paragraphs or format; the investigators have to satisfy local IRB's concerns by explaining in the submission to the IRB why the changes are necessary.

To find out more about the regulations around Informed Consents follow the link:
http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm126431.htm

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Harmonization by Doing (HBD): Japan & U.S. Collaboration

BayBiotech.NET HBD is an international cooperative effort by Japan and US for regulatory convergence for Medical Devices. The efforts are focused on to develop global clinical trials and address regulatory barriers for timely device approvals. To address the needs for additional evaluation, the HBD initiative is a pilot project launched jointly by FDA and MHLW-PMDA for the premarket review of device cardiovascular technology. Instead of taking a theoretical approach to harmonization, HBD is focused on Proof of concept by utilizing parallel development, application submissions and review of actual medical device projects. HBD Study intends to collect and analyze regulatory submission data from multiple applications in the U.S. and Japan. The purpose of the study is to further understand differences that may exist with format and content, to define best practices and to improve globally harmonized processes. To read more about the HBD program, follow the link: http://www.fda.gov/M...
Post a Comment
Read more

Amendments for High Risk Device Type Regulatory Pathway

BayBiotech.NET Government Accounting Office (“GAO”) has issued a long-awaited report evaluating the use of the 510(k) process by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA” or the “Agency”) in the January of 2009. Report mainly focused on Preamendment class III devices. Although most high-risk class III medical devices are subject to the demanding premarket approval (“PMA”) process, preamendment class III devices may be cleared through the 510(k) pathway until FDA issues regulations requiring a PMA. Under the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990, FDA was required either to reclassify preamendment class III devices into class I or II, or (2) issue regulations requiring PMA approval for the devices, GAO noted that 20 preamendment class III device types have not yet been addressed by the Agency. GAO has urged FDA to take required steps to address the remaining class III devices that continue to be eligible for 510(k) review. As a result of the report, FDA has committed to address al...
Post a Comment
Read more

Risk Based Clinical Monitoring

BayBiotech.NET FDA's recommendation of Risk Based Monitoring of Clinical Trials , as published in their Draft Guidance in August 2011. For the first time, FDA provided guidance on monitoring of clinical investigations in 1988 which was recently withdrawn, stated that the “most effective way” to monitor an investigation was to “maintain personal contact between the monitor and the investigator throughout the clinical investigation.” At the time the guidance was issued, sponsors had only limited ways to effect meaningful communication with investigators other than through on-site visits.   This guidance recommends an assessment by the sponsor for the need of 100% on-site monitoring. Such an assessment may be based on the complexity of the study protocol and not be generally applicable to all trial types. It explains the importance of remote monitoring facilitated by the use of electronic data capture system (EDC) and also emphasizes the need of the identifying crit...
1 comment
Read more