Onsite serious adverse events reporting: Seven-year experience of the institutional ethics committee of a tertiary care hospital

Abstract

Abstract Background: Over the years, Indian regulations have undergone numerous amendments, including stringent reporting deadlines, relatedness requirements, and compensation obligations for serious adverse event (SAE). A historic change, new drugs and trial rules-2019, was proposed on March 19, 2019. The purpose of the study was to ascertain whether various stakeholders were reporting in accordance with the evolving SAE criteria. Materials and Methods: Data were retrieved after the Ethics Committee’s approval between August 2014 and December 2021. Data gathered before March 19, 2019, were categorized as “BEFORE” data, while the remaining data were categorized as “AFTER.” Utilizing causality, on-site SAE reporting, and the ethics committee review procedure, we evaluated the compliance. The data were evaluated using descriptive statistics, and the Chi-square or Mann–Whitney tests were used to compare the “BEFORE” and “AFTER” groups. Results: A total of 77 SAEs were reported in 26 clinical trials, where most clinical trials were phase III. Endocrine projects made up 9/26 (34.61%). In the cardiology studies, the greatest SAE distribution was 21 SAEs/89 participants (23.59%) with approximately 48% of these being vascular. The “AFTER” group noticed a decrease in the total number and length of SAE subcommittee meetings. In the “AFTER” group, there was a significantly higher median number of agenda items/meetings (8 [4.5–10.75]) (P < 0.0001). The median interval between the onset of SAE and the first reporting date, however, was just 1 day (interquartile range: 1–5 days). In nondeath SAEs, there was no significant difference in the compensation paid. In the “AFTER” group, there were no discrepancies in reporting SAE. Conclusion: There is acceptable adherence to SAE reporting criteria.