

 
 Legal Sidebari  
Testing, Testing, (Phase) 1-2-3: 
Legal Considerations for Clinical Trials 
of Potential COVID-19 Vaccines 
June 2, 2020 
In the race to develop a Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, several pharmaceutical 
companies, governments, and educational institutions around the world have begun testing their potential 
COVID-19 vaccines in clinical trials. Clinical  trials are used to assess whether a new pharmaceutical 
product, such as a vaccine, is safe for humans and effective in achieving its intended purpose. Companies 
must general y test new pharmaceutical products on humans through clinical trials to obtain U.S. Food 
and Drug Administration (FDA) approval to market the product. But using human subjects to test these 
novel products exposes them to unknown health and safety risks, raising ethical considerations for FDA 
and for the sponsors and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) overseeing the investigations. These 
stakeholders—sponsors, IRBs, and FDA—aim to balance the need to ensure that the product is safe and 
effective against the desire to bring the product to market quickly, tensions that are heightened during a 
worldwide pandemic. Existing law requires FDA and IRBs to weigh these considerations when evaluating 
proposed clinical trial designs for COVID-19 vaccines. 
This Sidebar describes the legal and regulatory framework that governs clinical trials for pharmaceutical 
products, such as vaccines, and some avenues researchers and Congress may consider for accelerating 
that process during the COVID-19 pandemic. (For ease of reference, this Sidebar uses the term drugs 
includes both traditional drugs and biological products, including vaccines.) 
Clinical Trials of Investigational New Drugs  
Sponsors use clinical trials to generate the data needed to obtain FDA approval to market their products. 
Because clinical trials expose human subjects to unapproved pharmaceutical products, they risk causing 
unanticipated serious adverse side effects in the participants. To manage these risks, the Federal Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) and FDA regulations have imposed procedural requirements on 
clinical trials, such as advance and ongoing scientific and ethical review, to help protect the participants 
by minimizing  risks, requiring informed consent, and ensuring that the studies col ect the data needed to 
determine whether to approve the product.  
Congressional Research Service 
https://crsreports.congress.gov 
LSB10483 
CRS Legal Sidebar 
Prepared for Members and  
 Committees of Congress 
 
  
 
Congressional Research Service 
2 
Using Clinical Trials to Collect Substantial Evidence 
Sponsors must submit “substantial evidence” to FDA that their products are safe and effective (or safe, 
potent, and pure) to obtain FDA approval. Section 505(d) of the FD&C Act defines substantial evidence 
to mean adequately and wel -controlled investigations on the basis of which qualified scientific experts 
could fairly and responsible conclude that the product has the purported effect. FDA assesses both the 
quality and quantity of the data provided when determining whether a product meets this standard.  
Quality refers to the strength of the evidence and the amount of certainty it provides as to the product’s 
safety and effectiveness—i.e., whether the investigation is “adequate” and “wel -controlled.” The quality 
of the evidence depends on how the clinical trial  is designed and how the study is conducted. Under FDA 
regulations, the design must al ow for a valid comparison of the product to a control, such as a placebo, an 
existing therapy, or no treatment. FDA also evaluates whether the study’s method for selecting 
participants and assigning them to groups is adequate to ensure that meaningful data are collected. The 
methodology must also include a wel -defined and reliable  means of assessing the participants’ responses 
and explain  the analytical and statistical methods used to assess the results. Final y, sponsors must provide 
a clear statement of the investigation’s objectives and take adequate measures to minimize bias in the 
study. FDA may, however, waive any of these criteria for a specific investigation if the sponsor can show 
that the criteria is not reasonably applicable to the study and an alternative approach yields substantial 
evidence of effectiveness. FDA guidance further clarifies how sponsors should select their clinical trial 
design, endpoints, and statistical methods.  
As for quantity, FDA general y requires that sponsors complete two “adequate and wel -controlled clinical 
investigations” to meet the substantial evidence standard. FDA notes in its guidance that two studies, 
particularly those that are designed and conducted differently, reduces the likelihood of a design flaw, 
bias, or other issue or anomaly that could result in erroneous conclusions. However, under the Food and 
Drug Modernization Act of 1997, FDA may al ow sponsors to rely on one large multi-center adequate and 
wel -controlled clinical investigation supported by another form of additional data, such as data regarding 
the effectiveness of other drugs in the same pharmacological class. In deciding whether to al ow a sponsor 
to rely on a single study, FDA states that it considers, among other factors, the seriousness of the disease, 
whether there is an unmet medical need, and whether additional trials would be ethical and practicable. 
Given the flexibility  afforded sponsors in designing and conducting their clinical trials, FDA uses written 
guidance and individual  meetings to help sponsors ensure that their investigations wil  generate the 
substantial evidence needed for approval. Sponsors that obtain fast track product or breakthrough therapy 
designation for their products are entitled to additional assistance from and communication with FDA 
staff to craft efficient and effective clinical trial designs.  
Submitting an Investigational New Drug Application to FDA 
New drugs and biological products that are being tested in clinical trials are referred to as investigational 
new drugs. Section 505(i) of the FD&C Act, Section 351(a)(3) of the Public Health Service Act, and their 
implementing regulations al ow investigational  new drugs to be used for research before they are 
approved. To conduct clinical trials of investigational  new drugs, the company developing the product 
(i.e., sponsor) must general y receive FDA approval for the investigation and comply with regulatory 
requirements for human subjects research.  
Sponsors obtain FDA approval to test an investigational new drug on human subjects through an 
investigational  new drug application (IND). The IND gives FDA an opportunity to ensure that the study 
wil   protect the safety and rights of its human subjects and gather scientific data that adequately shows the 
product’s safety and effectiveness. The sponsor may begin its clinical trials 30 days after submitting an 
IND unless FDA notifies the sponsor that it is either (1) authorizing the IND and the study can begin 
  
Congressional Research Service 
3 
immediately or (2) imposing a clinical hold due to concerns about the study. If FDA imposes a clinical 
hold, the study cannot begin (or resume, for ongoing investigations) pending further notification.  
FDA regulations prescribe the information that sponsors must include in an IND. The IND must contain 
information about the product, such as the substance and formulation; existing data on use in animals or 
humans if available;  and anticipated risks and side effects. The IND also contains a general 
investigational plan, which explains why the sponsor is undertaking the study and includes, among other 
things, the indications being studied, the sponsor’s approach to evaluating the product, the kinds of 
clinical trials being conducted, the anticipated number of participants, and any anticipated risks. Along 
with the general investigational plan, the IND must include specific protocols for each clinical trial  phase. 
The sponsor must also general y certify that an institutional review board (IRB) wil  provide initial  and 
continuing review of each study, including the proposed protocols and any subsequent changes to the 
study. FDA may, however, waive any IRB requirements, including the requirement of IRB review itself.  
Institutional Review Board Review and Approval 
An IRB is a group convened by an institution to review and approve biomedical research involving 
humans. IRBs evaluate the initial  clinical study design and protocols, along with any changes 
implemented during the investigation, in an effort to ensure that the rights and wel -being of the human 
subjects are protected. To that end, IRBs assess whether risks to the participants are minimized and 
reasonable in relation to the anticipated benefits, both to the participants directly and from the knowledge 
expected to be gained through the study. IRBs also aim to ensure that the researchers wil  obtain adequate 
informed consent from al  participants (unless an exemption applies) and that selection of the participants 
wil  be equitable.  IRBs may also require (as appropriate) that the research plan provide for monitoring of 
the collected data to protect the participants’ safety and privacy. To the extent the study may include 
participants from populations that may be vulnerable to coercion or undue influence (e.g., children, 
prisoners), IRBs must ensure that sufficient safeguards are in place to protect these populations in 
participant selection and during the clinical trials.  
IRBs review clinical trial plans and protocols from various standpoints, including ensuring that the study 
complies with legal, ethical, and professional standards; is scientifical y sound; and is free from il icit 
discrimination. Accordingly, to ensure adequate and independent review, IRBs must have at least five 
members from multiple backgrounds, including at least one member with a scientific background and at 
least one with a nonscientific background. At least one member must be independent from the institution 
running the clinical trials, and the IRB members cannot have any financial or other conflicting interests in 
the project. IRB review must comply with any other requirements relating to IRBs and human subject 
research found in Parts 50 and 56 of Chapter 21 of the Code of Federal Regulation.  
Clinical Trial Phases 
Clinical  trials for a new pharmaceutical product general y proceed in three phases, transitioning from 
smal er trials focused on initial safety early on to larger trials assessing safety and effectiveness to inform 
approval and labeling.  The size, duration, and specific purpose of each clinical trial phase varies from 
product to product depending on such factors as the type of product (e.g., a vaccine, treatment, or 
preventative medication), how the product works, and the relevant underlying patient population. 
However, as defined by FDA regulations, a clinical investigation general y proceeds as follows: 
  Phase 1 Trials. Phase 1 trials are the first time the product is introduced in human 
subjects. These carefully controlled trials typical y involve  20 to 80 patients or volunteer 
subjects, though the exact numbers may vary depending on the product. Phase 1 trials 
general y assess how the product acts in the body and evaluate initial  safety (i.e., side 
effects). They may also be used to determine the dosing levels to use in phase 2 (e.g., the 
  
Congressional Research Service 
4 
maximum safe dose or what dose is required to have an effect). Depending on the 
product, phase 1 trials may also provide some initial  indication as to whether the product 
may be effective. In the case of vaccines specifical y, phase 1 trials also assess their 
ability  to provoke an immune response in the body (i.e., immunogenicity).  
  Phase 2 Trials. Phase 2 trials continue to assess safety but also evaluate the product’s 
effectiveness and common short-term side effects or other risks associated with the 
product. Phase 2 trials are also used to determine the optimal dose of the product. For 
vaccines, phase 2 assesses how much of the vaccine to administer and on what dosing 
schedule (e.g., whether a boost is needed to maximize its effectiveness or whether the 
vaccine must be administered on a regular schedule to maintain immunity). As with phase 
1 studies, phase 2 studies are carefully controlled. However, phase 2 involves a larger 
(though stil  relatively  limited) number of volunteer subjects—general y no more than a 
few hundred participants.   
  Phase 3 Trials. Phase 3 trials involve an expanded number of participants—from several 
hundred to thousands—and are used to assess the product’s safety and effectiveness 
across a wide range of patient categories through controlled and uncontrolled studies. 
These trials are intended to present a clearer picture of expected risks and benefits under 
real-world conditions. The information obtained from phase 3 trials also forms the basis 
for the product’s labeling.   
Sponsors must general y complete al  three phases to obtain FDA approval unless they obtain accelerated 
approval, in which case FDA requires post-approval trials to confirm the expected clinical benefit. FDA 
may also require, at its discretion, additional clinical trials after approval (i.e., phase 4 trials) for any 
approved product to continue assessing the product’s safety and effectiveness once on the market.   
Considerations for Congress 
The current legal framework seeks to balance various competing interests, which may be amplified in the 
current crisis. The FD&C Act and implementing regulations provide standards and factors to consider but 
otherwise give FDA and IRBs discretion to evaluate investigational  plans and clinical trial protocols for 
investigational new drugs. FDA may also waive requirements relating to IRB review and clinical trial 
design. To the extent Congress may seek to direct how FDA and IRBs exercise that discretion with 
respect to any potential COVID-19 vaccine, Congress could consider implementing legislation  that 
provides more specific direction on how to approach clinical trials either specifical y for the current 
COVID-19 pandemic or in epidemic, pandemic, or other emergency situations more general y. For 
example, courts have determined that Congress can cabin FDA’s discretion by imposing mandatory (e.g., 
“shal ”) rather than permissive (e.g., “may”) language in a statute. 
In light of the multiple companies involved in developing potential  COVID-19 vaccines, Congress could 
also consider facilitating the coordination of any clinical trials or appointing a neutral scientific body to 
consider the ethical and scientific considerations and generate guidelines or a master protocol. The World 
Health Organization (WHO) employed this approach to facilitate development of an Ebola vaccine 
following the 2014 to 2016 Ebola epidemic. Congress could also direct or fund increased global 
collaboration between regulators to promote information sharing, which could potential y result in more 
streamlined clinical investigations with fewer participants being exposed to investigational vaccines. 
Congress could also consider providing additional  funding or other resources to facilitate the clinical trials 
themselves or any research directed toward understanding the SARS-CoV-2 virus or COVID-19 disease 
to al ow for improved risk minimization  in future clinical trials. 
  
Congressional Research Service 
5 
Author Information 
 
Erin H. Ward 
   
Legislative Attorney 
 
 
 
 
Disclaimer 
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff 
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of 
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of 
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. 
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United 
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, 
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the 
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material. 
 
LSB10483 · VERSION 1 · NEW