Regulatory, scientific, and ethical issues arising from institutional activity in one of the 90 Italian Research Ethics Committees
-
Published:2021-04-07
Issue:1
Volume:22
Page:
-
ISSN:1472-6939
-
Container-title:BMC Medical Ethics
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:BMC Med Ethics
Author:
Benfatto G., Longo Laura, Mansueto Silvana, Gozzo Lucia, Vitale Daniela C., Amato Salvatore, Basile Francesco, Blanco Adele, Borzì Vito, Cavallaro Patrizia, Cilia Sonia, Conti Mario, Cristaudo Concetto, Daidone Letterio D., Di Fazzio Salvatore, Di Mauro Maurizio, Garozzo Rosaria, Giardina Gaetano, Gulino Antonio, Iachelli Liliana, La Bella Maria L., La Rosa Agata, Lazzara Antonio, Leonardi Francesco, Monaco Francesca Lo, Malatino Lorenzo, Mattina Teresa, Negro Matteo, Palermo Filippo, Puleo Stefano, Raciti Rosa, Ruggieri Martino, Sapuppo Antonio, Scillieri Renato, Squatrito Sebastiano, Tanasi Francesco, Drago F.ORCID, ,
Abstract
Abstract
Background
This paper highlights the issues that one of the 90 Italian Research Ethics Committees (RECs) might encounter during the approval phase of a clinical trial to identify corrective and preventive actions for promoting a more efficient review process and ensuring review quality. Publications on the subject from Italy and the rest of Europe are limited; encouraging constructive debate can improve RECs’ service to the subject of the clinical trial.
Methods
We retrospectively reviewed a cohort of 822 clinical trial protocols, initially reviewed by REC, from June 2014 to December 2018. Data collected for each protocol were type of trial, sample size, use of placebo, number and kind of revisions requested by the REC before approval, and time taken for approval. Data for each protocol were collected by a trained clinical research assistant using the REC’s files and electronic archives.
Results
Almost 45% of the reviewed studies (374/822) required clarifications, significant changes to the documentation, or minor changes before final approval.
Conclusions
Preventive measures are needed to reduce the number of requested corrections and thus also the time required for approval, while maintaining review quality. All critical points and proposals presented in this paper require harmonization through updates to European regulations, as regulatory harmonization produces better compliance with rules and reduces the number of changes required before the trials’ final approval. Such updates include the development of standardized formats for informed consent, the verification of any evidence in favor of using off-label treatments over placebo as comparators, using multidisciplinary staff in clinical trials with children and adolescents, improving the legal definition of RECs to assign responsibilities and ensure independence, and providing guidance for RECs to engage clinical research assistants in internal audits.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Health Policy,Health(social science),Issues, ethics and legal aspects
Reference38 articles.
1. Legislative Decree No. 211 of 24 June 2003. Transposition of Directive 2001/20/EC relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for clinical use. Official Gazette no. 184 dated Aug. 9, 2003. Ordinary Supplement no. 130. 2003. http://www.agenziafarmaco.gov.it/sites/default/files/decreto_24062003_inglese.pdf. Accessed 27 Dec 2020. 2. Integrated addendum to ICH E6(R1): Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R2). U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2018. https://www.fda.gov/files/drugs/published/E6%28R2%29-Good-Clinical-Practice--Integrated-Addendum-to-ICH-E6%28R1%29.pdf. Accessed 21 Mar 2021. 3. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Policy and Global Affairs; Committee on Science, Engineering, Medicine, and Public Policy; Committee on Responsible Science. Fostering integrity in research. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2017. https://doi.org/10.17226/21896 4. Abbott L, Grady C. A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: what we know and what we still need to learn. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2011;6(1):3–19. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2011.6.1.3. 5. Lynch HF. Opening closed doors: promoting IRB transparency. JL Med Ethics. 2018;6(1):145–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073110518766028.
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|