Cargando…
It is time to revise the international Good Clinical Practices guidelines: recommendations from non-commercial North–South collaborative trials
The Good Clinical Practices (GCP) codes of the WHO and the International Conference of Harmonization set international standards for clinical research. But critics argue that they were written without consideration for the challenges faced in low and middle income countries (LMICs). Based on our fie...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5321366/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28588969 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2016-000122 |
_version_ | 1782509682263326720 |
---|---|
author | Ravinetto, Raffaella Tinto, Halidou Diro, Ermias Okebe, Joseph Mahendradhata, Yodi Rijal, Suman Gotuzzo, Eduardo Lutumba, Pascal Nahum, Alain De Nys, Katelijne Casteels, Minne Boelaert, Marleen |
author_facet | Ravinetto, Raffaella Tinto, Halidou Diro, Ermias Okebe, Joseph Mahendradhata, Yodi Rijal, Suman Gotuzzo, Eduardo Lutumba, Pascal Nahum, Alain De Nys, Katelijne Casteels, Minne Boelaert, Marleen |
author_sort | Ravinetto, Raffaella |
collection | PubMed |
description | The Good Clinical Practices (GCP) codes of the WHO and the International Conference of Harmonization set international standards for clinical research. But critics argue that they were written without consideration for the challenges faced in low and middle income countries (LMICs). Based on our field experience in LMICs, we developed a non-exhaustive set of recommendations for the improvement of GCP. These cover 3 domains: ethical, legal and operational, and 8 specific issues: the double ethical review of ‘externally sponsored’ trials; the informed consent procedure in minors and in illiterate people; post-trial access to newly-developed products for the trial communities; the role of communities as key research actors; the definition of sponsor; and the guidance for contractual agreements, laboratory quality management systems, and quality assurance of investigational medicinal products. Issues not covered in our analysis include among others biobanking, standard of care, and study designs. The international GCP codes de facto guide national legislators and funding agencies, so the current shortcomings may weaken the regulatory oversight of international research. In addition, activities neglected by GCP are less likely to be implemented or funded. If GCP are meant to serve the interests of global society, a comprehensive revision is needed. The revised guidelines should be strongly rooted in ethics, sensitive to different sociocultural perspectives, and allow consideration for trial-specific and context-specific challenges. This can be only achieved if all stakeholders, including researchers, sponsors, regulators, ethical reviewers and patients' representatives from LMICs, as well as non-commercial researchers and sponsors from affluent countries, are transparently involved in the revision process. We hope that our limited analysis would foster advocacy for a broad and inclusive revision of the international GCP codes, to make them at the same time ‘global’, ‘context centred’ and ‘patient centred’. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5321366 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-53213662017-06-06 It is time to revise the international Good Clinical Practices guidelines: recommendations from non-commercial North–South collaborative trials Ravinetto, Raffaella Tinto, Halidou Diro, Ermias Okebe, Joseph Mahendradhata, Yodi Rijal, Suman Gotuzzo, Eduardo Lutumba, Pascal Nahum, Alain De Nys, Katelijne Casteels, Minne Boelaert, Marleen BMJ Glob Health Analysis The Good Clinical Practices (GCP) codes of the WHO and the International Conference of Harmonization set international standards for clinical research. But critics argue that they were written without consideration for the challenges faced in low and middle income countries (LMICs). Based on our field experience in LMICs, we developed a non-exhaustive set of recommendations for the improvement of GCP. These cover 3 domains: ethical, legal and operational, and 8 specific issues: the double ethical review of ‘externally sponsored’ trials; the informed consent procedure in minors and in illiterate people; post-trial access to newly-developed products for the trial communities; the role of communities as key research actors; the definition of sponsor; and the guidance for contractual agreements, laboratory quality management systems, and quality assurance of investigational medicinal products. Issues not covered in our analysis include among others biobanking, standard of care, and study designs. The international GCP codes de facto guide national legislators and funding agencies, so the current shortcomings may weaken the regulatory oversight of international research. In addition, activities neglected by GCP are less likely to be implemented or funded. If GCP are meant to serve the interests of global society, a comprehensive revision is needed. The revised guidelines should be strongly rooted in ethics, sensitive to different sociocultural perspectives, and allow consideration for trial-specific and context-specific challenges. This can be only achieved if all stakeholders, including researchers, sponsors, regulators, ethical reviewers and patients' representatives from LMICs, as well as non-commercial researchers and sponsors from affluent countries, are transparently involved in the revision process. We hope that our limited analysis would foster advocacy for a broad and inclusive revision of the international GCP codes, to make them at the same time ‘global’, ‘context centred’ and ‘patient centred’. BMJ Publishing Group 2016-11-16 /pmc/articles/PMC5321366/ /pubmed/28588969 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2016-000122 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Analysis Ravinetto, Raffaella Tinto, Halidou Diro, Ermias Okebe, Joseph Mahendradhata, Yodi Rijal, Suman Gotuzzo, Eduardo Lutumba, Pascal Nahum, Alain De Nys, Katelijne Casteels, Minne Boelaert, Marleen It is time to revise the international Good Clinical Practices guidelines: recommendations from non-commercial North–South collaborative trials |
title | It is time to revise the international Good Clinical Practices guidelines: recommendations from non-commercial North–South collaborative trials |
title_full | It is time to revise the international Good Clinical Practices guidelines: recommendations from non-commercial North–South collaborative trials |
title_fullStr | It is time to revise the international Good Clinical Practices guidelines: recommendations from non-commercial North–South collaborative trials |
title_full_unstemmed | It is time to revise the international Good Clinical Practices guidelines: recommendations from non-commercial North–South collaborative trials |
title_short | It is time to revise the international Good Clinical Practices guidelines: recommendations from non-commercial North–South collaborative trials |
title_sort | it is time to revise the international good clinical practices guidelines: recommendations from non-commercial north–south collaborative trials |
topic | Analysis |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5321366/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28588969 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2016-000122 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ravinettoraffaella itistimetorevisetheinternationalgoodclinicalpracticesguidelinesrecommendationsfromnoncommercialnorthsouthcollaborativetrials AT tintohalidou itistimetorevisetheinternationalgoodclinicalpracticesguidelinesrecommendationsfromnoncommercialnorthsouthcollaborativetrials AT diroermias itistimetorevisetheinternationalgoodclinicalpracticesguidelinesrecommendationsfromnoncommercialnorthsouthcollaborativetrials AT okebejoseph itistimetorevisetheinternationalgoodclinicalpracticesguidelinesrecommendationsfromnoncommercialnorthsouthcollaborativetrials AT mahendradhatayodi itistimetorevisetheinternationalgoodclinicalpracticesguidelinesrecommendationsfromnoncommercialnorthsouthcollaborativetrials AT rijalsuman itistimetorevisetheinternationalgoodclinicalpracticesguidelinesrecommendationsfromnoncommercialnorthsouthcollaborativetrials AT gotuzzoeduardo itistimetorevisetheinternationalgoodclinicalpracticesguidelinesrecommendationsfromnoncommercialnorthsouthcollaborativetrials AT lutumbapascal itistimetorevisetheinternationalgoodclinicalpracticesguidelinesrecommendationsfromnoncommercialnorthsouthcollaborativetrials AT nahumalain itistimetorevisetheinternationalgoodclinicalpracticesguidelinesrecommendationsfromnoncommercialnorthsouthcollaborativetrials AT denyskatelijne itistimetorevisetheinternationalgoodclinicalpracticesguidelinesrecommendationsfromnoncommercialnorthsouthcollaborativetrials AT casteelsminne itistimetorevisetheinternationalgoodclinicalpracticesguidelinesrecommendationsfromnoncommercialnorthsouthcollaborativetrials AT boelaertmarleen itistimetorevisetheinternationalgoodclinicalpracticesguidelinesrecommendationsfromnoncommercialnorthsouthcollaborativetrials |