Clarifying Ownership of IRT Data in Clinical Trials: Distinguishing Investigator-Controlled Data from Sponsor Operational Data

Abstract

Interactive Response Technology (IRT) systems have become integral to clinical trial operations, managing patient randomization, drug assignment, and investigational product (IP) inventory. However, ambiguity persists regarding data ownership—specifically, which data within IRT falls under investigator control (requiring site authorization) and which is sponsor-managed operational data. This lack of clarity has led to inconsistent practices across the industry, raising compliance and inspection risks.

This article examines current regulatory expectations under ICH GCP E6(R2 and R3), EU Clinical Trial Regulation (CTR 536/2014), FDA guidance, and MHRA inspectorate perspectives. It provides a practical framework to differentiate site-entered data from sponsor operational data, emphasizing that changes to kit status (e.g., from available to quarantined) constitute sponsor-level quality actions rather than modifications of investigator data. The article concludes with best practices for documentation, system design, and communication that ensure GCP compliance while maintaining efficient trial conduct.

Introduction

Interactive response technology (IRT)—encompassing both interactive web response (IWR) and interactive voice response (IVR) systems—plays a central role in modern clinical trial execution.

IRT platforms manage a range of activities, including subject randomization, treatment allocation, drug dispensation, shipment tracking, and inventory management across the supply chain.

Despite their widespread use, the ownership and authorization of IRT data remain poorly defined in the pharmaceutical industry.

Key questions frequently arise:

• When is IRT data considered site data under investigator control?
• Which data points fall within the sponsor’s operational responsibilities?
• Do changes made by the sponsor (e.g., kit quarantining, blocking due to quality events) require investigator authorization?

The absence of explicit regulatory language addressing these nuances has led to variable interpretations. Some organizations treat nearly all IRT data as site-controlled, while others delegate full control to the sponsor. Both extremes risk non-compliance: either by undermining the investigator’s oversight of clinical data, or by inappropriately modifying data that falls within the investigator’s records.

This article aims to clarify this boundary, synthesizing available regulatory guidance and providing a structured approach for IRT data classification and control.

Regulatory framework and context

1. ICH GCP E6(R2): Investigator responsibility for data integrity

ICH E6(R2) establishes that the investigator is responsible for the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of data reported to the sponsor (Section 4.9). Specifically, Section 4.9.3 states:

“Any change or correction to a CRF should be dated, initialed, and explained (if necessary) and should not obscure the original entry.”

This requirement affirms that once data has been entered or confirmed by the investigator, the sponsor cannot alter it without authorization.

However, it implicitly applies to case report form (CRF) data, meaning protocol-required, subject-level information used to evaluate trial endpoints—not operational or system-generated logistics data.

Therefore, the first step is to delineate which IRT data elements are clinical in nature and which are operational.

Additionally, under ICH E6(R3), the delineation between sponsor and investigator responsibilities is more explicitly addressed. Section 3 emphasizes that the sponsor retains oversight of any systems managing trial data, including those related to investigational product handling. Meanwhile, Section 4.2 confines the investigator’s responsibility to clinical and subject-level data, ensuring accurate recording within source documents and CRFs.

2. MHRA blog (2021): “Is your e-System actually an eCRF?”

The UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) GCP Inspectorate addressed this ambiguity directly in its 2021 blog post, “Is your eSystem actually an eCRF?”

Key excerpts include:

“An eCRF is a document to record protocol-required information. If a system does this, it is also a CRF and needs eCRF functionality.”

and

“There has been increasing use of IRT systems collecting trial data such as height, weight, stratification factors and other protocol-specified data which is then integrated into either the main eCRF… Depending on the process used, a number of issues can arise where the data integrity aspects and investigator’s control of the data have not been adequately assessed.”

These statements confirm that when IRT captures protocol-required data (e.g., randomization stratification factors, dosing cohort information), it functions as an extension of the eCRF. Such data falls under investigator ownership and must meet GCP data integrity requirements, including audit trails, change controls, and site authorization for corrections.

Conversely, data generated purely for operational or supply purposes, such as kit status changes, expiry management, or temperature excursions, does not constitute investigator-entered clinical data and can be managed under sponsor oversight.

3. FDA guidance (2007): Computerized systems in clinical investigations

The U.S. FDA’s 2007 guidance, “Computerized Systems Used in Clinical Investigations” clarifies that:

Data that are entered directly by site personnel for clinical evaluation fall under the investigator’s responsibility. Administrative or system-generated data used for trial conduct and logistics can remain under the sponsor’s control.

This distinction provides the foundation for treating IRT’s logistical and quality control elements as sponsor-owned operational data, provided there is full audit trail transparency and documented notification to sites when relevant.

4. EU clinical trial regulation (CTR No. 536/2014)

The EU CTR reinforces sponsor accountability for IMP quality and supply chain management.

Article 51 explicitly states:

The sponsor shall ensure that the investigational medicinal products are manufactured, handled, and stored in accordance with the applicable good manufacturing practice and good distribution practice to ensure their quality.

Therefore, actions such as kit quarantining, blocking, or unblinding due to quality events clearly fall under the sponsor’s responsibility. These are part of IMP management obligations rather than investigator data entry activities.

Differentiating site-entered and sponsor-managed data in IRT

To operationalize these regulatory principles, it is helpful to classify IRT data elements according to purpose and origin.

This classification illustrates that not all IRT data constitute site-entered data.
When sponsors change kit status to “Quarantined” or “Blocked” due to a deviation, temperature excursion, or suspected quality defect, they are performing a GMP-linked quality action—not modifying data that the investigator has entered or is responsible for.

Practical scenario

Case example

A sponsor receives notification of a potential temperature excursion affecting specific IMP kits. To prevent risk to trial subjects, the sponsor directs the IRT system administrator to mark affected kits at all sites as “Quarantined.”

Analysis

• No site-entered data (such as dispensation records or patient randomization details) is modified.
• The status change ensures IMP quality control in compliance with ICH GCP (R2) 5.13.
• The sponsor notifies sites through a formal communication (e.g., IRT report or trial communication log).
• The change is fully traceable within the IRT audit trail.

Conclusion

Such a change does not require investigator authorization, as it pertains to sponsor-level management of investigational product quality and not to site-entered clinical data.

Inspection and compliance considerations

During regulatory inspections, authorities (MHRA, EMA, FDA) often evaluate:

1. Data integrity — whether audit trails document who performed which action, when, and why.
2. Role definition — whether the system design clearly differentiates investigator vs. sponsor permissions.
3. Documentation and communication — whether site notifications and rationale for operational changes are archived.
4. Validation and change control — ensuring that system changes follow validated procedures and maintain traceability.

A well-documented IRT system design specification (URS / SDS) should clearly map each data field to its ownership and control. This documentation becomes critical during inspection to justify sponsor actions (e.g., kit blocking) as operationally justified and GCP-compliant.

Best practices for sponsors

1. Define data ownership early
   1. During IRT system design, classify each data element as clinical or operational.
   2. Reflect these roles in user access control matrices and system validation documents.
2. Maintain full audit trail transparency
   1. Every system-triggered or sponsor-initiated change (e.g., quarantining kits) should be automatically logged with timestamp, reason, and user ID.
3. Establish SOPs and training
   1. Include procedures for when and how sponsors may change kit statuses or block shipments.
   2. Ensure training for clinical supply, data management, and monitoring teams.
4. Ensure site communication and oversight
   1. Notify sites of operational changes that affect kit availability or patient impact.
   2. Retain this communication within the trial master file (TMF).
5. Align with quality management systems (QMS)
   1. Treat such IRT status changes as quality events under GMP/GDP frameworks.
   2. Link them to deviation and CAPA processes where relevant.
6. Document rationale for actions
   1. For each IRT status change, capture justification (e.g., “Temperature excursion — IMP quarantined as precaution per QMS SOP-IMP-0XX”).
   2. This documentation supports audit readiness.

Discussion

While IRT systems are often viewed as operational tools, their increasing integration with clinical data systems blurs traditional boundaries between clinical and logistical data.

The MHRA’s 2021 publication underscores this risk, highlighting instances where IRT functions effectively as an eCRF without appropriate governance. Sponsors and vendors must therefore ensure that system design and process documentation clearly delineate data ownership responsibilities.

By contrast, treating every IRT transaction as investigator-controlled may create operational inefficiency and unnecessary administrative burdens. Requiring investigator authorization for sponsor-initiated kit quarantines, for example, could delay essential quality actions and compromise patient safety.

Thus, regulatory compliance demands a balanced approach—protecting investigator ownership of protocol-required data while empowering sponsors to act swiftly on quality and safety issues.

Conclusion

As clinical trial technology continues to evolve, distinguishing between investigator and sponsor responsibilities within IRT systems has become essential for maintaining compliance, efficiency, and patient safety.

Key takeaways include:

• Only protocol-required data elements—such as subject eligibility, stratification factors, and dispensation confirmations—are investigator-controlled.
• Operational data, such as kit inventory status, expiry, or quarantine, are sponsor-managed.
• Sponsor actions that safeguard product quality or patient safety (e.g., blocking or quarantining kits) do not require investigator authorization, provided they are fully auditable, justified, and communicated transparently.

A structured data ownership model—rooted in ICH GCP principles, supported by MHRA and FDA interpretations, and documented in validated system specifications—will enable sponsors to maintain compliance while ensuring the integrity and efficiency of clinical trial supply operations.

Mohammed Najmul Hasan, Clinical Trial Supply Manager, Novartis

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this presentation are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Novartis or any of its affiliates or officers.

References

• ICH E6(R2): Good Clinical Practice (Integrated Addendum, 2016).
• ICH E6 (R3): Good Clinical Practice adopted on 06 Jan 2025
• EU Regulation No. 536/2014 on Clinical Trials on Medicinal Products for Human Use.
• FDA Guidance: Computerized Systems Used in Clinical Investigations, 2007.
• MHRA Inspectorate Blog: Is your eSystem actually an eCRF (electronic case report form)?, May 11, 2021.
• EMA Reflection Paper on eSource Data in Clinical Trials, 2010.
• EMA GCP Inspectors Working Group: Reflection Paper on Expectations for eSystems Used in Clinical Trials, 2023.