Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 10, 2025

Dynamic Lung Tumor Tracking for Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiation Therapy
Published on: June 7, 2015
Reducing Uninformative IND Safety Reports: A List of Serious Adverse Events anticipated to Occur in Patients with
Phil Bonomi1, Nina Stuccio2, C J Delgra3
1Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
Abstract:
Expedited reporting of unexpected serious adverse reactions that occur during clinical trials conducted under an IND is a critical component of the clinical trial process designed to protect patients by identifying potential safety issues with new agents. However, in recent years, the US FDA has presented extensive data about the problem of uninformative IND safety reporting. Despite published guidance documents aimed at clarifying requirements for submission of IND safety reports for individual events, there continues to be significant over-reporting of these events by many sponsors. This leads to excessive burden for the sponsors, the investigators who conduct clinical trials, and the FDA reviewers, who must evaluate each individual report submitted by the sponsor. This trend has the potential to endanger patients by obscuring true safety signals. To address this problem, LUNGevity Foundation empaneled a multi-sector working group of its Scientific and Clinical Research Roundtable (SCRT) charged with identifying ways to reduce unnecessary distribution of serious adverse events (SAEs) reports. This paper outlines the working group's activities, including a brief list of serious adverse events "anticipated" to occur within the lung cancer population that are either related to the underlying disease or condition being studied, concomitant or background therapy, or events associated with a demographic parameter such as age. These "anticipated" events, while required to be reported by investigators to sponsors, in general, should not then be individually reported by sponsors to FDA and to individual investigators in an IND safety report because these events require aggregate analysis across the development program to determine if they occur more frequently in treated versus untreated patients. This paper also includes discussion of how the use of background threshold values, generated from real-world data, could serve as one potential tool to guide sponsors in making causality assessments. If sponsors and other key stakeholders within the clinical research ecosystem embrace this type of approach and refrain from reporting "anticipated" events as single IND safety reports to the FDA staff and to each participating investigator, it could significantly reduce the amount of unnecessary reporting and serve as a model for other disease areas.
Insights
Expedited safety reporting in clinical trials is burdened by over-reporting of anticipated serious adverse events (SAEs). Focusing on aggregate analysis of these events can reduce unnecessary reporting and improve patient safety signal detection.
Area of Science:
- Clinical trial safety reporting
- Pharmacovigilance
- Regulatory science
Background:
- Expedited reporting of unexpected serious adverse reactions (SAEs) during clinical trials is crucial for patient safety.
- The US FDA has identified significant issues with uninformative IND safety reporting, leading to over-reporting by sponsors.
- This over-reporting creates an excessive burden on sponsors, investigators, and FDA reviewers, potentially obscuring true safety signals.
Purpose of the Study:
- To identify strategies for reducing unnecessary distribution of serious adverse events (SAEs) reports in clinical trials.
- To propose a framework for distinguishing between events requiring individual reporting and those needing aggregate analysis.
Main Methods:
- Convened a multi-sector working group (Scientific and Clinical Research Roundtable - SCRT) under the LUNGevity Foundation.
- Identified "anticipated" serious adverse events in the lung cancer population.
- Discussed the use of background threshold values derived from real-world data for causality assessment.
Main Results:
- Defined "anticipated" SAEs related to disease, concomitant therapy, or demographics in lung cancer trials.
- Recommended that "anticipated" events, while reported to sponsors, should generally not be individually reported to the FDA or investigators.
- Proposed that aggregate analysis of "anticipated" events is necessary to determine true safety signals.
Conclusions:
- Reducing individual reporting of "anticipated" SAEs can significantly decrease reporting burden.
- Utilizing background threshold values can aid sponsors in causality assessments.
- This approach can serve as a model for other disease areas to improve clinical trial safety reporting efficiency.
Related Concept Videos
Pharmacovigilance
This process, termed pharmacovigilance, aims to detect, evaluate, and minimize harmful effects related to medication use. The data collection for pharmacovigilance depends on spontaneous reporting systems, where healthcare professionals or patients voluntarily report suspected ADRs.
In some cases, there...
Types of Reports II: Incident or Occurrence Report
Purposes:
In the healthcare industry, reports play a crucial role in documenting incidents within an agency. The primary objective of these reports is to ensure patient safety, uphold the...
Radiological Investigation III: Pulmonary Angiogram and PET Scan
Pulmonary Angiogram
A Pulmonary Angiogram is an invasive procedure involving injecting a contrast medium through a catheter threaded into the pulmonary artery or the right side of the heart to visualize the pulmonary vasculature. Computed Tomography (CT) scans have mainly replaced this...
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Hazard Ratio
For example, in a clinical trial...
Cancer Survival Analysis
