Whiston Hospital, Prescot, Merseyside and Department of Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Imperial College, London, UK.
BMC Med Ethics. 2019 May 7;20(1):30. doi: 10.1186/s12910-019-0370-1.
During the set-up phase of an international study of genetic influences on outcomes from sepsis, we aimed to characterise potential differences in ethics approval processes and outcomes in participating European countries.
Between 2005 and 2007 of the FP6-funded international Genetics Of Sepsis and Septic Shock (GenOSept) project, we asked national coordinators to complete a structured survey of research ethic committee (REC) approval structures and processes in their countries, and linked these data to outcomes. Survey findings were reconfirmed or modified in 2017.
Eighteen countries participated in the study, recruiting 2257 patients from 160 ICUs. National practices differed widely in terms of composition of RECs, procedures and duration of the ethics approval process. Eight (44.4%) countries used a single centralised process for approval, seven (38.9%) required approval by an ethics committee in each participating hospital, and three (16.7%) required both. Outcomes of the application process differed widely between countries because of differences in national legislation, and differed within countries because of interpretation of the ethics of conducting research in patients lacking capacity. The RECs in four countries had no lay representation. The median time from submission to final decision was 1.5 (interquartile range 1-7) months; in nine (50%) approval was received within 1 month; six took over 6 months, and in one 24 months; had all countries been able to match the most efficient approvals processes, an additional 74 months of country or institution-level recruitment would have been available. In three countries, rejection of the application by some local RECs resulted in loss of centres; and one country rejected the application outright.
The potential benefits of the single application portal offered by the European Clinical Trials Regulation will not be realised without harmonisation of research ethics committee practices as well as national legislation.
在一项关于脓毒症结局的遗传影响的国际研究的设立阶段,我们旨在描述参与欧洲国家的伦理审查批准过程和结果的潜在差异。
在 FP6 资助的国际脓毒症和脓毒性休克遗传学(GenOSept)项目期间(2005-2007 年),我们要求国家协调员完成对其国家研究伦理委员会(REC)批准结构和程序的结构化调查,并将这些数据与结果联系起来。调查结果于 2017 年再次得到确认或修改。
18 个国家参与了该研究,从 160 个 ICU 招募了 2257 名患者。国家实践在 REC 组成、程序和伦理批准过程的持续时间方面存在广泛差异。8 个国家(44.4%)采用单一集中批准程序,7 个国家(38.9%)要求在每个参与医院的伦理委员会批准,3 个国家(16.7%)两者都需要。由于国家立法的差异,申请过程的结果在国家之间存在很大差异,并且由于对无能力患者进行研究的伦理的解释不同,在国家内部也存在差异。四个国家的 REC 没有非专业人员代表。从提交到最终决定的中位时间为 1.5 个月(四分位距 1-7);9 个国家(50%)在 1 个月内获得批准;6 个国家需要超过 6 个月,1 个国家需要 24 个月;如果所有国家都能够匹配最有效的批准程序,那么将有额外的 74 个月的国家或机构级别的招募时间。在三个国家,一些地方 REC 的申请被拒绝导致中心损失;一个国家则直接拒绝了申请。
如果没有研究伦理委员会实践以及国家立法的协调,欧洲临床试验法规提供的单一申请门户的潜在好处将无法实现。