Dataset Information

Comparison of COVID-19 studies registered in the clinical trial platforms: A research ethics analysis perspective.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) treatment must be based on scientific methods such as clinical trials. Trials involving human subjects and those requiring a risk-benefit analysis may occasionally face challenges owing to the time limitations in the pandemic.

Methodology

This study analyses the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and clinicaltrials.gov, where most COVID-19 clinical trials are registered, according to ethical criteria including study design, conflicts of interest, enrollment of healthcare workers, study locations, site-, design-, and participant-related issues. The discussion is based on three aspects: the quality of the information to be produced, the relevance to significant health problems, and the creation or evaluation of interventions, policies, or practices that promote individual or public health.

Results

There were significant differences between the two platforms regarding the investigational medicinal product (IMP), the comparator, ethics committee/institutional review board approval, plan to share individual participant data, study phase, site, IMP, and design-related issues. Conflict of interest, sponsor information, and management of vulnerable groups were the main areas wherein both platforms lacked sufficient information.

Conclusion

With this analysis, we aimed to define a minimum set of ethical criteria for clinical trial platforms to obtain standardization between these two platforms.

SUBMITTER: Buruk B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8653301 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundResearch has been an essential part of the COVID-19 pandemic response, including in Latin American (LA) countries. However, implementing research in emergency settings poses the challenge of producing valuable knowledge rapidly while upholding research ethical standards. Research ethics committees (RECs) therefore must conduct timely and rigorous ethics reviews and oversight of COVID-19 research. In the LA region, there is limited knowledge on how countries have responded to this need. To address this gap, the objective of our project is to explore if LA countries developed policies to streamline ethics review and oversight of research in response to the pandemic while ensuring its adherence to ethical standards, and to analyze to what extent these governance frameworks are in accordance with international guidance.MethodsWe conducted a descriptive and exploratory study assessing the COVID-19 research ethics governance frameworks of 19 LA countries, considering 4 dimensions based on international COVID-19 ethics guidance documents: (i) ethics review organizational model adopted, (ii) measures to coordinate between RECs and other research stakeholders, (iii) operational guidance for RECs, and (iv) key ethical issues for review and oversight of COVID-19 research.Results10 out of 19 LA countries have some policy to streamline ethics review of COVID-19 research. Of these countries only 6 issued comprehensive documents following international guidance that contemplate strategies with recommendations for concrete actions for a timely and rigorous review.ConclusionLA countries adopted partial strategies and operational guidance that may demonstrate a lack of a comprehensive view of research ethics for the review and oversight of COVID-19 research. Continuing efforts should be directed to strengthen LA countries' research capacity to respond timely and ethically to future health emergencies. Past lessons and the ones from this pandemic should be the basis to develop international standards and operational guidelines for ethics review and oversight of any research for public health emergencies.

Project description:BackgroundDuring the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic there was an urgent need for accelerated review of COVID-19 research by Medical Research Ethics Committees (MRECs). In the Netherlands this led to the implementation of so-called 'fast-track-review-procedures' (FTRPs) to enable a swift start of urgent and relevant research. The objective of this study is to evaluate FTRPs of MRECs in the Netherlands during the COVID-19 pandemic and to compare them with the regular review procedures (RRPs).Methods and findingsAn explanatory sequential mixed method study was conducted. Online questionnaires and four group interviews were conducted among MREC representatives and investigators of COVID-19 research. In addition, data from a national research registration system was requested. Main outcome measures are differences in timelines, quality of the review and satisfaction between FTRPs and RRPs. The total number of review days was shorter in FTRP (median 10.5) compared to RRPs (median 98.0). Review days attributable to the MRECs also declined in FTRPs (median 8.0 versus 50.0). This shortening can be explained by installing ad hoc (sub)committees, full priority given to COVID-19 research, regular research put on hold, online review meetings and administrative leniency. The shorter timelines did not affect the perceived quality of the review and ethical and legal aspects were not weighted differently. Both MREC representatives and investigators were generally satisfied with the review of COVID-19 research. Weaknesses identified were the lack of overview of COVID-19 research and central collaboration and coordination, the delay of review of regular research, and limited reachability of secretariats.ConclusionsThis study shows that accelerated review is feasible during emergency situations. We did not find evidence that review quality was compromised and both investigators and MRECs were content with the FTRP. To improve future medical ethical review during pandemic situations and beyond, distinguishing main and side issues, working digitally, and (inter)national collaboration and coordination are important.

Project description:BackgroundIn the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, the biomedical research community's attempt to focus the attention on fighting COVID-19, led to several challenges within the field of research ethics. However, we know little about the practical relevance of these challenges for Research Ethics Committees (RECs).MethodsWe conducted a qualitative survey across all 52 German RECs on the challenges and potential solutions with reviewing proposals for COVID-19 studies. We de-identified the answers and applied thematic text analysis for the extraction and synthesis of challenges and potential solutions that we grouped under established principles for clinical research ethics.ResultsWe received an overall response rate of 42%. The 22 responding RECs reported that they had assessed a total of 441 study proposals on COVID-19 until 21 April 2020. For the review of these proposals the RECs indicated a broad spectrum of challenges regarding (1) social value (e.g. lack of coordination), (2) scientific validity (e.g. provisional study planning), (3) favourable risk-benefit ratio (e.g. difficult benefit assessment), (4) informed consent (e.g. strict isolation measures), (5) independent review (e.g. lack of time), (6) fair selection of trial participants (e.g. inclusion of vulnerable groups), and (7) respect for study participants (e.g. data security). Mentioned solutions ranged from improved local/national coordination, over guidance on modified consent procedures, to priority setting across clinical studies.ConclusionsRECs are facing a broad spectrum of pressing challenges in reviewing COVID-19 studies. Some challenges for consent procedures are well known from research in intensive care settings but are further aggravated by infection measures. Other challenges such as reviewing several clinical studies at the same time that potentially compete for the recruitment of in-house COVID-19 patients are unique to the current situation. For some of the challenges the proposed solutions in our survey could relatively easy be translated into practice. Others need further conceptual and empirical research. Our findings together with the increasing body of literature on COVID-19 research ethics, and further stakeholder engagement should inform the development of hands-on guidance for researchers, funders, RECs, and further oversight bodies.