National Institutes of Health, University of the Philippines Manila , Manila , Philippines.
Centre for Medical Ethics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo , Oslo , Norway.
Curr Med Res Opin. 2019 Nov;35(11):1849-1855. doi: 10.1080/03007995.2019.1644851. Epub 2019 Aug 27.
Ethics guidelines such as the Declaration of Helsinki and the CIOMS International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans require the sponsors, in cooperation with relevant stakeholders, to provide post-trial access (PTA) to intervention and knowledge, especially in clinical trials held in resource-poor regions. To date, we have very limited knowledge in terms of whether PTA is provided at all, and in what form. To partially address this current limitation, this study wished to explore whether, for which type of drugs and in what form PTA is provided in the Philippines. We looked at all the clinical trial protocols submitted to the University of the Philippines Manila from 2012 to 2017. A total of 193 clinical trial protocols were included in the study. To identify whether, for which drug type and in what form PTA is provided, we gathered the following information: start and end date of the trial, name of study drug, tested indication of the study drug, region the sponsor is from, type/category of the study drug, type of funding agency, provisions for PTA (yes or no) and the explanation for the provisions. PTA provisions were further described according to the form in which PTA was provided and the types of drugs that were given PTA. Of the 193 protocols, 51.81% indicated PTA, though PTA in the form identified in guidelines can be partially accounted for in only 29.5% (57). The most common form of PTA is the provision or sharing of information (40). None of the protocols provided PTA in the form of access to intervention after the trials, with the possible exemption of 10 protocols that declared future evaluation of the sponsor for PTA depending on patient need, and another seven that might offer the option to transfer to an open-label extension study after the trial. More work is needed if PTA, as stipulated in ethics guidelines, is to be reflected in reality.
伦理准则,如《赫尔辛基宣言》和《世界卫生组织国际伦理准则》,要求赞助商与相关利益攸关方合作,提供试验后获取(PTA)干预措施和知识的机会,特别是在资源匮乏地区进行的临床试验中。迄今为止,我们对是否提供了 PTA 以及以何种形式提供 PTA 知之甚少。为了部分解决这一当前的局限性,本研究旨在探讨菲律宾是否提供了 PTA,以及提供了哪些药物类型和形式的 PTA。我们查看了 2012 年至 2017 年提交给马尼拉菲律宾大学的所有临床试验方案。共有 193 项临床试验方案纳入了本研究。为了确定是否提供了 PTA、针对哪种药物类型以及以何种形式提供 PTA,我们收集了以下信息:试验的开始和结束日期、研究药物的名称、研究药物的测试适应症、赞助商所在地区、研究药物的类型/类别、资助机构的类型、PTA 的规定(是或否)以及规定的解释。根据提供 PTA 的形式和获得 PTA 的药物类型,进一步描述了 PTA 规定。在 193 项方案中,有 51.81%表示提供了 PTA,但只能部分说明符合指南中规定的 PTA 形式,仅占 29.5%(57 项)。最常见的 PTA 形式是提供或分享信息(40 项)。没有一项方案以试验后获得干预措施的形式提供 PTA,可能有 10 项方案规定根据患者需求,由赞助商未来评估提供 PTA,另有 7 项方案可能在试验后提供转为开放标签扩展研究的选择。如果要将伦理准则规定的 PTA 反映在现实中,还需要做更多的工作。