Centre for Bioethics in Eastern and Southern Africa (CEBESA), Kamuzu University of Health Sciences, Malawi.
Centre for Medical Ethics and Law (CMEL), Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.
Malawi Med J. 2022 Sep;34(3):213-219. doi: 10.4314/mmj.v34i3.12.
Pragmatic clinical trials generally rely on real world data and have the potential to generate real world evidence. This approach arose from concerns that many trial results did not adequately inform real world practice. However, maintaining the real world setting during the conduct of a trial and ensuring adequate protection for research participants can be challenging. Best practices in research oversight for pragmatic clinical trials are nascent and underdeveloped, especially in developing countries.
We use the PRECIS-2 tool to present a case study from Lilongwe in Malawi to describe ethical and regulatory challenges encountered during the conduct of a pragmatic trial and suggest possible solutions.
In this article, we highlight the following six issues: (1) one public facility hosting several pragmatic trials within the same period; (2) research participants refusing financial incentives; (3) inadequate infrastructure and high workload to conduct research; (4) silos among partner organisations involved in delivery of health care; (5) individuals influencing the implementation of revised national guidelines; (6) difficulties with access to electronic medical records.
Multiple stakeholder engagement is critical to the conduct of pragmatic trials, and even with careful stakeholder engagement, continuous monitoring by gatekeepers is essential. In the Malawian context, active engagement of the district research committees can complement the work of the research ethics committees (RECs).
实用临床试验通常依赖真实世界的数据,并有可能产生真实世界的证据。这种方法源于人们对许多试验结果不能充分为实际实践提供信息的担忧。然而,在试验进行过程中保持真实世界的环境,并确保研究参与者得到充分的保护可能具有挑战性。实用临床试验的研究监督最佳实践尚处于萌芽和欠发达阶段,尤其是在发展中国家。
我们使用 PRECIS-2 工具,以马拉维利隆圭的一个案例研究为例,描述在进行实用试验时遇到的伦理和监管挑战,并提出可能的解决方案。
在本文中,我们强调了以下六个问题:(1)同一时期一个公共设施内举办多个实用试验;(2)研究参与者拒绝经济激励;(3)基础设施不足且工作量大,难以进行研究;(4)参与提供医疗保健的伙伴组织之间存在隔阂;(5)个人对修订后的国家指南的实施产生影响;(6)获取电子病历的困难。
多利益相关者的参与对于实用试验的进行至关重要,即使进行了仔细的利益相关者参与,把关者的持续监测也是必不可少的。在马拉维的背景下,地区研究委员会的积极参与可以补充研究伦理委员会(RECs)的工作。