| Course | HCR 350 Introduction to Clinical Research |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 2 |
| Paper type | Enforcement case analysis |
| Length | About 522 words, 4 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Arizona State University |
| Program | BS in Health Care Compliance and Regulations |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HCR 350 Module 2
When an Investigator Invents Patients: The Ketek Trial Fraud and the Limits of Disqualification
Student Name
BS in Health Care Compliance and Regulations, Arizona State University
HCR 350: Introduction to Clinical Research
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
When an Investigator Invents Patients: The Ketek Trial Fraud and the Limits of Disqualification
The Case
Telithromycin, sold as Ketek, was an antibiotic reviewed by the FDA in the early 2000s. To answer safety questions, the sponsor ran a large trial, Study 3014, in more than 24,000 patients. One site, run by an Alabama family physician, enrolled more than 400 patients, an implausibly large share of her town's adults. FDA inspectors found evidence that many records were fabricated, including consent forms and patient data, and the physician was later prosecuted and sentenced to federal prison for fraud (Ross, 2007).
Violations and Their Effects
The study was designed to detect rare but serious side effects, including liver injury. Fabricated data from a large site dilute or distort the very signals such a trial is meant to find. According to Ross (2007), a former FDA reviewer, problems with the integrity of Study 3014 were known within the agency, yet the drug was approved, and serious liver toxicity cases were later reported. The case shows how one site's fraud can compromise an entire safety database.
| Violation | Effect on the trial |
|---|---|
| Enrolling patients who were not eligible or did not exist | Safety and efficacy data no longer reflected real patients |
| Falsified informed consent | Participants' rights violated; data unusable |
| Fabricated case report forms | Adverse events could be missed or invented |
| Failure to follow the protocol | Results could not be compared across sites |
The FDA's Enforcement Tools
Under its regulations, the FDA can issue warning letters to investigators, inspect sites and, when an investigator has repeatedly or deliberately violated requirements or submitted false information, begin proceedings to disqualify the investigator from receiving investigational products (21 C.F.R. § 312.70). Separate debarment can bar individuals from working on drug applications, and criminal prosecution is possible for fraud.
Is Disqualification Adequate?
Disqualification protects future trials by removing an investigator who cannot be trusted. But as punishment it is limited. It does not undo harm to participants, correct the published record or recover the costs to sponsors and the public. A review of FDA inspection documents found 57 published trials in which inspectors had found significant problems such as falsification, protocol violations or failures to protect participants, yet only 3 of 78 resulting publications mentioned those problems, and no corrections or retractions followed (Seife, 2015). Disqualification without transparency leaves flawed data in the literature that clinicians continue to rely on.
In this case, criminal prosecution supplied the punishment that disqualification could not. For less extreme cases, I argue that adequate response requires disqualification plus three things: public reporting of inspection findings linked to the affected trials, sponsor responsibility for monitoring high-enrolling sites and institutional consequences, such as loss of research privileges and referral to licensing boards.
Lessons for Compliance Professionals
Unusually high enrollment, perfect data and identical signatures are warning signs that monitors and institutions should investigate early. Compliance programs should support monitors who raise concerns and ensure that findings reach regulators.
Conclusion
The Ketek fraud shows that one investigator's violations can corrupt a trial's safety evidence. Disqualification is necessary but not sufficient; accountability also requires transparency and, in serious cases, prosecution.
References
Disqualification of a clinical investigator, 21 C.F.R. § 312.70 (2024).
Ross, D. B. (2007). The FDA and the case of Ketek. New England Journal of Medicine, 356(16), 1601-1604. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp078032
Seife, C. (2015). Research misconduct identified by the US Food and Drug Administration: Out of sight, out of mind. JAMA Internal Medicine, 175(4), 567-577. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.7774
What the HCR 350 Module 2 instructions ask for
For Paper 2, the syllabus asks students to select an investigator who faced FDA enforcement, explain the violations that compromised the trial's safety and efficacy and decide whether disqualification is adequate punishment. The FDA publishes warning letters to clinical investigators, a list of disqualified or restricted investigators and debarment lists, all useful places to find a case, while journalism and peer-reviewed commentary supply context. The last part of the prompt calls for an argument, so take a clear position and defend it. Keep the account of the case strictly factual and cite a source for every statement about what the investigator did.
How this HCR 350 Module 2 example is built
The sample summarizes a well-documented fraud case using a peer-reviewed account by a former FDA reviewer, then lays out the violations in a table linking every violation to what it did to on the trial's data. It explains why fabricated records are especially damaging in a study designed to detect rare side effects and outlines the FDA's enforcement options, citing the disqualification regulation. The argument draws on a study of FDA inspection findings to show that disqualification without transparency leaves flawed results in the literature, and it proposes further responses. A short list of warning signs for compliance staff precedes the conclusion. The tone stays factual throughout, letting documented details carry the argument.
Reading the HCR 350 Module 2 grading rubric
Enforcement papers are graded on a Canvas rubric within the 300 points set aside for papers. They usually earn credit for choosing a case with solid public documentation, describing violations accurately with citations, explaining how those violations affected safety and efficacy data, distinguishing the FDA's enforcement tools correctly, taking a reasoned position on whether disqualification is enough and writing professionally in APA style. They lose credit for uncited or speculative claims about a named person, for listing violations without consequences and for answering the adequacy question without reasons. Papers that suggest practical safeguards a sponsor or institution could add, such as monitoring triggers for unusually high enrollment, often earn extra credit for applying the case to compliance practice.
HCR 350 Module 2 help: mistakes that cost marks
Start with the FDA's published lists of disqualified and restricted investigators and its warning letters to clinical investigators, then read the underlying letter or inspection report wherever possible. Keep warning letters, disqualification, debarment and criminal prosecution distinct, since they differ in scope and consequence. Back your position with evidence, such as research on how misconduct affects published findings. Write only what the documents support about any named individual. If you struggle to find a case with enough public detail, the desk can help you search. Keep the tone measured even when the facts are disturbing; compliance writing persuades through evidence, not outrage. Cite the regulation when you name the FDA's tools.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Arizona State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More HCR 350 and BS in Health Care Compliance and Regulations sample papers
- HCR 350 Module 1: Paper 1: The NIH Website and the Clinical Research Field
- HCR 350 Module 3: Paper 3: A Topic in the Drug Development Process
- HCR 350 Module 4: Paper 4: Integrating Research Compliance Into the Corporate Compliance Program
- HCR 264 Module 7: Case Study Paper: A HIPAA Resolution Agreement
- HCR 262 Module 1: Writing Assignment 1: Licensure Scenario and Work Plan
- HCR 363 Module 6: Assignment 6: Risk Root Cause Analysis (Five Whys)
HCR 350 Module 2 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HCR 350 Module 2 sample paper?
The full HCR 350 Module 2 sample is above: an FDA enforcement paper on the Ketek trial fraud and whether disqualification is adequate punishment.
What is clinical investigator disqualification?
An FDA action under 21 C.F.R. 312.70 that bars an investigator who repeatedly or deliberately violated requirements, or submitted false information, from receiving investigational products.
What happened in the Ketek trial fraud?
One investigator in a large safety study enrolled hundreds of patients with fabricated records and was later sentenced to prison for fraud.
Do FDA inspection findings appear in published trials?
Rarely; one study found only 3 of 78 publications from trials with significant FDA findings mentioned the problems.
How is disqualification different from debarment?
Disqualification bars an investigator from receiving investigational products; debarment bars a person from providing services related to drug applications.