Cargando…

Regulatory, scientific, and ethical issues arising from institutional activity in one of the 90 Italian Research Ethics Committees

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. Publication...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Benfatto, G., Drago, F.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8028767/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33827541
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00605-7
_version_ 1783676002586591232
author Benfatto, G.
Drago, F.
author_facet Benfatto, G.
Drago, F.
author_sort Benfatto, G.
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8028767
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80287672021-04-08 Regulatory, scientific, and ethical issues arising from institutional activity in one of the 90 Italian Research Ethics Committees Benfatto, G. Drago, F. BMC Med Ethics Research Article 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. BioMed Central 2021-04-07 /pmc/articles/PMC8028767/ /pubmed/33827541 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00605-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Benfatto, G.
Drago, F.
Regulatory, scientific, and ethical issues arising from institutional activity in one of the 90 Italian Research Ethics Committees
title Regulatory, scientific, and ethical issues arising from institutional activity in one of the 90 Italian Research Ethics Committees
title_full Regulatory, scientific, and ethical issues arising from institutional activity in one of the 90 Italian Research Ethics Committees
title_fullStr Regulatory, scientific, and ethical issues arising from institutional activity in one of the 90 Italian Research Ethics Committees
title_full_unstemmed Regulatory, scientific, and ethical issues arising from institutional activity in one of the 90 Italian Research Ethics Committees
title_short Regulatory, scientific, and ethical issues arising from institutional activity in one of the 90 Italian Research Ethics Committees
title_sort regulatory, scientific, and ethical issues arising from institutional activity in one of the 90 italian research ethics committees
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8028767/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33827541
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00605-7
work_keys_str_mv AT benfattog regulatoryscientificandethicalissuesarisingfrominstitutionalactivityinoneofthe90italianresearchethicscommittees
AT regulatoryscientificandethicalissuesarisingfrominstitutionalactivityinoneofthe90italianresearchethicscommittees
AT regulatoryscientificandethicalissuesarisingfrominstitutionalactivityinoneofthe90italianresearchethicscommittees
AT dragof regulatoryscientificandethicalissuesarisingfrominstitutionalactivityinoneofthe90italianresearchethicscommittees