Suppr超能文献

西班牙研究伦理委员会对多中心试验的审查流程:在实施新的欧洲法规之前,它们处于什么状况?

Multicentre trials review process by research ethics committees in Spain: where do they stand before implementing the new European regulation?

作者信息

Dal-Ré R, Ortega R, Morejón E

机构信息

Medical Department, GlaxoSmithKline, Parque Tecnológico de Madrid, C/ Severo Ochoa, 2, 28760 Tres Cantos, Madrid, Spain.

出版信息

J Med Ethics. 2005 Jun;31(6):344-50. doi: 10.1136/jme.2003.007492.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To review the performance of research ethics committees (RECs) in Spain in assessing multicentre clinical trial (MCT) drug protocols, and to evaluate if they would comply with the requirements of the new EU Directive to be implemented by May 2004.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Prospective study of applications of MCT submitted to RECs.

MAIN MEASUREMENTS

Protocol related features and evaluation process dynamics.

RESULTS

187 applications (24 protocols, 18 study drugs) to be performed in 114 centres, were reviewed by 62 RECs. RECs had a median number of 14 members, of which three were lay members. All applications were approved except four which were however approved by the other RECs involved. The median times from submission to approval and from submission to reception at the sponsor's offices were 48 and 62 days, respectively. In 55% (101/183) of all applications approved, 41 RECs raised 307 queries, 40% of these were protocol related issues, and 38% related to the patients' information sheets. RECs charging an evaluation fee in advance and applications with no queries raised were statistically significantly associated with shorter evaluation times. However, there is a gap of at least 1.5 weeks between the date of the meeting and the reception of the approval letter in the sponsor's office.

CONCLUSIONS

Evaluating MCT protocols by RECs is a time consuming process. Needing 1.5 weeks for communicating the decision taken by RECs to the sponsor suggests serious administrative shortcomings within most RECs. By significantly reducing the time for communication of their decisions, the majority of RECs would comply with the Directive requirement of a maximum 60 day period for the assessment of MCT.

摘要

目的

回顾西班牙研究伦理委员会(RECs)在评估多中心临床试验(MCT)药物方案方面的表现,并评估它们是否符合将于2004年5月实施的欧盟新指令的要求。

设计与背景

对提交给RECs的MCT申请进行前瞻性研究。

主要测量指标

方案相关特征和评估过程动态。

结果

62个RECs审查了114个中心进行的187项申请(24个方案,18种研究药物)。RECs的成员中位数为14名,其中3名是外行成员。所有申请均获批准,只有4项除外,但这些申请后来被其他相关RECs批准。从提交到批准以及从提交到主办方办公室收到批准的中位时间分别为48天和62天。在所有获批准的申请中,55%(101/183)的申请中,41个RECs提出了307个问题,其中40%与方案相关问题有关,38%与患者信息表有关。预先收取评估费用的RECs以及未提出问题的申请在统计学上与较短的评估时间显著相关。然而,在会议日期与主办方办公室收到批准信之间至少有1.5周的间隔。

结论

RECs评估MCT方案是一个耗时的过程。需要1.5周时间将RECs做出的决定传达给主办方,这表明大多数RECs存在严重的行政缺陷。通过大幅减少决策传达时间,大多数RECs将符合指令中对MCT评估最长60天期限的要求。

相似文献

10
Lessons learned from independent central review.独立中央审查的经验教训。
Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jan;45(2):268-74. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.031.

本文引用的文献

5
[Unified report from committes on Ethics and Clinical Investigations in multicenter trials].
Med Clin (Barc). 2003 Feb 15;120(5):180-8. doi: 10.1016/s0025-7753(03)73643-4.
6
Research ethics committees--time for change?研究伦理委员会——变革的时候到了?
Clin Med (Lond). 2002 Nov-Dec;2(6):534-8. doi: 10.7861/clinmedicine.2-6-534.
10
Another look at LREC annual reports.
Bull Med Ethics. 2001 Sep(171):13-21.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验