Suppr超能文献

致力于保护临床试验参与者的安全。

Toward protecting the safety of participants in clinical trials.

作者信息

Califf Robert M, Morse Michael A, Wittes Janet, Goodman Steven N, Nelson Daniel K, DeMets David L, Iafrate R Peter, Sugarman Jeremy

机构信息

Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, PO Box 17969, Durham, NC 27715, USA.

出版信息

Control Clin Trials. 2003 Jun;24(3):256-71. doi: 10.1016/s0197-2456(03)00005-9.

Abstract

It is a widely held belief that the current system of oversight of clinical research, particularly the means of assessing risks and minimizing harms to participants in clinical trials, could be improved. In particular, the system is inefficient with overemphasis on the monitoring ability of some groups such as research ethics review boards and investigators, underemphasis on others such as data monitoring committees (DMCs) and sponsors, confusion about responsibilities for safety and imperfect communication between these different groups. Research ethics review boards are not able to perform safety monitoring by review of individual adverse events and are often burdened by duplicative reviews of large multicenter studies. There are no standards for DMCs to ensure they can reliably identify safety issues. Sponsors may be overreliant on data audits and slow to disseminate safety data in a coherent summary. Investigators, their staffs and clinical sites may not fully appreciate all the nuances of good clinical practice or may be inattentive to the daily conduct of studies. Regulators, particularly those in the United States, have failed to completely harmonize their policies with each other or with international regulatory agencies. We recommend well-designed monitoring plans for all studies that are appropriate to their scope and risk, more centralized review of large multisite studies and closer local scrutiny of single-institution studies. In addition, sponsors should pay greater attention to monitoring adverse events and keeping up-to-date databases or investigator's brochures emphasizing safety issues. A minimal standard of education or expertise in good clinical practice should be established for investigators, their staffs and research ethics review board members. DMC composition and functions should be standardized and regulations should be harmonized nationally and internationally. Finally, there should be a concerted effort to study the efficacy of various components of the system.

摘要

人们普遍认为,当前临床研究监督体系,尤其是评估临床试验参与者风险并将危害降至最低的方式,还有改进的空间。具体而言,该体系效率低下,过度强调某些群体(如研究伦理审查委员会和研究者)的监测能力,而对其他群体(如数据监测委员会和申办者)重视不足,在安全责任方面存在混淆,且这些不同群体之间的沟通也不完善。研究伦理审查委员会无法通过审查个别不良事件来进行安全监测,并且常常因对大型多中心研究的重复审查而负担过重。数据监测委员会没有确保其能可靠识别安全问题的标准。申办者可能过度依赖数据审计,且在以连贯摘要形式传播安全数据方面行动迟缓。研究者、其工作人员和临床场所可能并未充分理解良好临床实践的所有细微差别,或者可能对研究的日常开展不够关注。监管机构,尤其是美国的监管机构,未能使其政策彼此之间或与国际监管机构完全协调一致。我们建议针对所有研究制定与其范围和风险相适应的精心设计的监测计划,对大型多中心研究进行更集中的审查,对单机构研究进行更严格的本地审查。此外,申办者应更加重视监测不良事件,并维护最新的数据库或研究者手册,突出安全问题。应为研究者、其工作人员和研究伦理审查委员会成员设定良好临床实践方面的最低教育或专业标准。数据监测委员会的组成和职能应标准化,法规应在国内和国际上实现协调统一。最后,应齐心协力研究该体系各组成部分的功效。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验