Enrollment Pressure and Eligibility Boundary in a First-in-Human Feasibility Trial
A sponsor is running a first-in-human feasibility study of an implantable neuromodulation lead under an investigational device exemption. The protocol requires participants to have failed at least two conservative therapies for chronic pain, a baseline pain score of 6 or higher on a 0-10 scale, and no prior spinal surgery at the target level. The site has enrolled 9 of a planned 12 participants with two months left in the enrollment window. The principal investigator emails the monitor that a candidate with a baseline score of 5 has been 'provisionally screened in' because the score fluctuated between 5 and 6 across three visits, and the sponsor's clinical lead verbally agreed this is acceptable. The monitor notes the candidate also had a laminectomy two levels above the target level, which the protocol does not explicitly address. The sponsor's enrollment deadline is tied to a milestone payment.
1. What eligibility determinations must be made before this candidate can be enrolled, and who holds the authority to make them?
Read the worked answer
Two distinct issues must be separated.
The pain score. The protocol sets a hard threshold of 6 or higher. Fluctuation across visits does not create eligibility; the protocol must specify which timepoint governs (e.g., baseline visit value, or a defined averaging rule). If it does not, the PI cannot invent a rule to admit a 5. The sponsor's clinical lead's verbal agreement is not a protocol amendment and cannot override the written criterion - enrollment under a verbal waiver is a protocol deviation and, in a first-in-human trial, a safety-relevant one.
The prior surgery. The criterion excludes prior spinal surgery at the target level. A laminectomy two levels above is not obviously excluded by the letter of the criterion, but the protocol is silent on adjacent-level surgery. Silence is not permission. The PI and sponsor medical monitor must jointly assess whether adjacent-level surgery affects the risk/benefit of lead placement at the target level; if it does, the protocol should be amended before any such participant is enrolled.
Authority: The PI makes the clinical eligibility determination and is accountable for it; the sponsor (through the medical monitor) owns the protocol and must approve any amendment. An IRB must approve protocol changes affecting risk or eligibility before implementation. A milestone payment is not a permissible basis for either decision.
2. The PI proceeds to enroll the candidate and the monitor discovers it at the next monitoring visit. What should the monitor do, in what order, and what documentation is required?
Read the worked answer
Sequence matters:
- Protect the participant first. Confirm whether any study procedure (device implant, assessments) has occurred. If the participant has been exposed, the priority is safety follow-up and notifying the PI of the deviation's implications.
- Document the deviation. The monitor records the finding in the monitoring report and confirms the site logs it as a protocol deviation, with root cause (screening process failure, verbal waiver) and corrective action.
- Escalate. Notify the sponsor's medical monitor and clinical/quality leadership. Because this is a first-in-human device trial, an eligibility deviation is typically reportable to the IRB and may meet the sponsor's criteria for an unanticipated problem or urgent safety measure.
- Assess the participant's continued participation. The sponsor and PI decide whether the participant may continue, with the decision and rationale documented.
- CAPA. Correct the screening workflow (e.g., second-reviewer sign-off on eligibility, written-only waivers), and verify effectiveness at a follow-up visit.
The monitor does not have authority to un-enroll the participant or to waive the criterion; the monitor's job is to surface, document, and drive correction.