Cookie policy: This site uses cookies (small files stored on your computer) to simplify and improve your experience of this website. Cookies are small text files stored on the device you are using to access this website. For more information please take a look at our terms and conditions. Some parts of the site may not work properly if you choose not to accept cookies.

Join

Subscribe or Register

Existing user? Login

Clinical trials

High Court rules against Health Research Authority in clinical trial transparency case

A judicial review against the Health Research Authority, challenging the steps it took to monitor the registration of clinical trials, has been upheld by High Court judge, Justice Robert Jay (pictured)

Source: Sebastian Remme / Alamy

Mr Justice Jay (pictured) said that the Health Research Authority must be clear about what constitutes guidance and what constitutes legal obligations

A judicial review brought by a clinical research company against the Health Research Authority (HRA), challenging the steps that the clinical trials regulator took to monitor the registration of clinical trials, has been upheld by a High Court judge in a judgement published on 28 July 2015.

The dispute focused on changes made by the HRA requiring companies seeking approval for new trials to commit to publishing the results of all previous trials. In September 2013, the HRA made the registration of a clinical trial a condition of approval to run that trial. From April 2015, it has asked researchers applying to run a clinical trial to declare that all past trials have been registered, including those approved before September 2013.

Lawyers representing the pharmaceutical company Richmond Pharmacology argued that the retrospective change was unlawful. The ruling means that companies sponsoring phase I clinical trials in the UK retain control over whether and when they make public the registration of previously conducted trials, they say.

In upholding the judicial review, heard in Manchester on 16 July 2015, Mr Justice Jay said that the HRA must be clear about what constitutes guidance and what constitutes legal obligations. “A legal obligation flows from the imposition of a specific requirement of the clinical trials regulations,” he explained.

Janet Wisely, chief executive of the HRA, says it is a “matter of great regret” that there has been a challenge to research transparency in the UK. “The vast majority of our colleagues working within commercial clinical research share our ambitions and commitment to greater research transparency,” she adds. 

Citation: The Pharmaceutical Journal DOI: 10.1211/PJ.2015.20069080

Have your say

For commenting, please login or register as a user and agree to our Community Guidelines. You will be re-directed back to this page where you will have the ability to comment.

Recommended from Pharmaceutical Press

Search an extensive range of the world’s most trusted resources

Powered by MedicinesComplete
  • Print
  • Share
  • Comment
  • Save
  • Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Supplementary images

  • A judicial review against the Health Research Authority, challenging the steps it took to monitor the registration of clinical trials, has been upheld by High Court judge, Justice Robert Jay (pictured)

Jobs you might like

Newsletter Sign-up

Want to keep up with the latest news, comment and CPD articles in pharmacy and science? Subscribe to our free alerts.