Before research can begin, sponsors and host institutions must have appropriate agreements. Considerable time and effort may be required to develop different versions of these agreements for different research scenarios. To simplify this process, UKCRC partners and stakeholders have developed a series of agreement models that can be used « from the bar » without modification. The revised models for February 2018 of the Clinical Trial Agreement (mCTA) and the Clinical Research Organisation model Clinical Trial Agreement (CRO-mCTA) are designed to be used without modification for industry-sponsored studies of patients with NHS/HSC in hospitals across the UK health service. Before a clinical trial can begin, it is important to have an agreement between the parties defining the responsibilities and commitments. In the United Kingdom, where the clinical trial is conducted in the NHS, different types of agreements, including MTIIs, have been developed in the form of a standard form contract, accepted by both the pharmaceutical industry and NHS bodies. The goal is to simplify and accelerate the launch of studies on NHS patients in NHS hospitals. Models must be used without modification, with the exception of test-specific information. In practice, MCCs are considered standard models and it is difficult for the industry to propose changes without significantly increasing costs. The NHS and HSC NSCs should be established through a subcontracting agreement with participating NHS and HSC organizations. Appropriate data processing provisions should be put in place using the appropriate framework of agreement: a surprising and worrying element of the agreement concerns the essential principles of transparency and accountability in the field of research.
Instead of integrating and maintaining the new and widely supported 7 for an open research culture 10, The Clinical Trials Agreement has incorporated an older and more problematic industrial standard.w11 MCTA is concluded by the sponsor and the institution (i.e. the participating organization), while cro-mCTA will be used if, alongside these two parties, sponsorship contracts are concluded with a CRO responsible for the management of field studies. The role assigned to the parties continues to reflect the position of HRA and the business community, which considers the sponsor to be responsible for personal data and the organization of the participants and the CRO as a subcontractor acting on behalf of the sponsor for the purposes of the clinical trial (clauses 6.2.1 mCTA and CRO-mCTA). The press release included benchmarks from industry and academy leaders for what Health Minister Andy Burnham called « faster access to effective drugs and treatments. » The benefits are evident when many elements of clinical trial agreements do not need to be renegotiated for each sponsor, study and centre. However, before we adopt this agreement with open arms, we should look at what it really says and what profound consequences it might have. For HRA-authorized studies, HRA`s initial evaluation letter (and HRA authorization letter) specifies the corresponding agreement for each type of site in a study.