Dataset Information

Ethics of Safety Reporting of a Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT: Clinical trial related injury and serious adverse events (SAE) are a major area of concern. In all such scenarios the investigator is responsible for medical care of the trial participant and also ethically bound to report the event to all the stakeholders of the clinical trial. The trial sponsor is responsible for ongoing safety evaluation of the investigational product, reporting and compensating the participant in case of any SAE. The Ethics Committee and regulatory body of the country are to uphold the ethical principles of beneficence, justice, non-maleficence in such cases. Any unwanted and noxious effect of a drug when used in recommended doses is an adverse drug reaction (ADR) whereas if causal association is not yet established it is termed adverse event (AE). An AE or ADR that is associated with death, in-patient hospitalization, prolongation of hospitalization, persistent or significant disability or incapacity, a congenital anomaly, or is otherwise life threatening is termed as an SAE. The principal investigator reports the event to the licensing authority (DCGI), sponsor and Chairperson of the Ethics Committee (EC) within 24 hours of occurrence of the SAE. This report is furthered by a detailed report by both the investigator and the EC and given to the DCGI who then gives a final decision on the amount of compensation to be given by the sponsor or the sponsor's representative to the grieving party.

SUBMITTER: Sil A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5527719 | biostudies-other | 2017 Jul-Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Many authors choose to work with professional medical writers when reporting the results of clinical trials. We conducted a systematic review to examine the relationship between professional medical writing support (PMWS) and the quality, ethics and timeliness of publications reporting clinical trials. Methods:Using terms related to 'medical writer' and 'observational study', we searched MEDLINE and Embase (no date limits), as well as abstracts and posters from meetings of the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP; 2014-2018). We also hand-searched the journals Medical Writing and The Write Stuff (2014-2018) and the bibliographies of studies identified in the electronic searches. We screened the results to identify studies that compared the quality, ethics and timeliness of clinical trial publications written with and without declared PMWS. Results:Our searches identified 97 potentially relevant studies, of which 89 were excluded during screening and full paper review. The remaining eight studies compared 849 publications with PMWS with 2073 articles developed without such support. In these eight studies, PMWS was shown to be associated with increased adherence to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines (in 3/3 studies in which this was assessed), publication in journals with an impact factor (one study), a higher quality of written English (one study), and a lower likelihood of reporting non-pre-specified outcomes (one study). PMWS was not associated with increased adherence to CONSORT for Abstracts guidelines (one study) or with the impact of published articles (mean number of citations per year, mean number of article views per year and Altmetric score; one study). In studies that assessed timeliness of publication, PMWS was associated with a reduced time from last patient visit in clinical trials to primary publication (one study), whereas time from submission to acceptance showed inconsistent results (two studies). Conclusions:This systematic review of eight observational studies suggests that PMWS is positively associated with measures of overall quality of reporting of clinical trials and may improve the timeliness of publication.

Project description:End points and adverse events (AEs) are collected separately in clinical trials, yet regulatory requirements for serious AE reporting vary across regions, so classifying end points according to seriousness criteria can be useful in global trials. In the Apixaban for Prevention of Acute Ischemic Events 2 (APPRAISE-2) trial, patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome were randomized to apixaban or placebo for the prevention of recurrent ischemic events. Suspected end points (myocardial infarction, stroke, or bleeding) were adjudicated by an independent clinical events classification committee. Safety criteria were collected for suspected end points and AEs. Patient-level event rates per 100 patient-days of follow-up, modeled using Poisson regression, explored the influence of region and patient characteristics on event reporting. Overall, 13 909 events were reported by 858 sites in 39 countries; 8.4% (n=1166) were suspected end points, and 91.6% (n=12 743) were AEs. Overall, 66.0% of suspected end points were confirmed by the clinical events classification committee. Most clinical events classification committee-confirmed end points met criteria to be classified as serious (94.0%); many clinical events classification committee-negated end points also did (63.2%), but fewer AEs met seriousness criteria (17.9%). The most common seriousness criterion was hospitalization (79.9%, n=2594). Region explained 28.7% of end point- and 26.4% of serious AE-reporting variation, and patient characteristics explained an additional 25.4% of end point and 13.4% of serious AE variation. Nonserious AE-reporting variation was not explained by adjustment. An integrated collection of end points and serious AEs is feasible in a multinational trial and illustrates the shared characteristics of events. Tailoring event collection to fit the phase and purpose of the trial is achievable and informative. URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00831441.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:The general purpose for ethics consultations is to deliberate on issues on medical and scientific research and act towards the safeguard of the patient's rights and dignity. With the implementation of European Union (EU) Regulation 536/2014 on clinical trials and cost and time-optimization, the nature of consultations and the bodies they are carried out might be to some extent affected. Accordingly, we sought to gain an updated perspective on the current role and current practices of ethics consultations nationwide in both clinical and research settings. METHODS:The study was carried forth by a three-step mixed-method approach: i) review of policies/regulations for ethics committee (EC) nationwide; ii) a structured survey on ethics consultation activity completed by each EC during 2016; iii) incorporated into the third part, a qualitative assessment with a selected sample of 8 key-informants for a semi-structured interview, discussing EC history, the ethics consultation function, and the professional experience of consultants. RESULTS:Review of the policies/regulations promoted by ECs showed that 72,6% (n = 69) of all the ECs (N = 95) being actually capable of providing ethics consultation service by policy. 71 ECs (74.7%) responded to the survey on ethics consultation requests; among them, 48 (67.6%) provided ethics consultations of which 23 (23/48) actually received requests for this service in the year 2016. Many ECs did not have a structured database in place to provide precise figures of requests received in the last year nor of their contents. CONCLUSION:To date, ethics consultation in clinical and research practice is largely underappreciated and not well understood by users. The consultants themselves lack a comprehensive vision of work carried out in their field, and bioethics training programs to keep them updated. Despite clinical ethics consultation services should not necessarily be mandatory, following the recent EU Regulation on clinical trials, institutional ethics consultation bodies should be re-evaluated.

Dataset Information

Ethics of Safety Reporting of a Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets