Clinical trial agreements and insurance policies – role of the EC

Ghooi, Ravindra Bhaskar

doi:10.4103/picr.picr_271_21

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…I would further agree with Ghooi that RECs/IRBs ought to "read the documents carefully before approving them", i.e. the insurance sections of the research protocol (Ghooi, 2022). However, relevant to postapproval obligations would be for RECs/IRBs to play a part during continuing review on behalf of participants by checking on the number and type of harm experienced by participants.…”

Section: Reparationmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…The duty of reparation would be a relevant consideration for the disabled participant or family. Ghooi notes that a lack of consistency in requiring insurance for trial participants creates confusion (Ghooi, 2022). European countries generally require insurance.…”

Section: Reparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…European countries generally require insurance. However, this requirement's associated costs deter sponsors who may be inclined to go elsewhere to conduct trials (Avilés, 2014;Ghooi, 2022;Ghooi & Divekar, 2014). Insurance should not be optional as risks and uncertainty increase for research participants due to more complex technological interventions.…”

Section: Reparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The role of research ethics committees after the approval of clinical trial protocols in the EU and the USA: a descriptive content analysis of international and regional normative documents

Cox

Solbakk

Bernabe

2021

Current Medical Research and Opinion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundFor approximately six decades, Research Ethics Committees (RECs), also known as Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), have played an integral part in the identification of ethical issues before the commencement of clinical research globally. The importance and relevance of the REC/IRB prospective review are widely acknowledged, admired, and critiqued. In many jurisdictions, legislative and policy frameworks are in place to prevent clinical research from taking place without prior review and approval by a REC/IRB. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that research with a favorable opinion of a REC/IRB is ethically sound and scientifically appropriate. There is evidence, however, that researchers may deviate from the approved protocols. Many of these deviations are ethically relevant yet remain unaddressed. These unaddressed deviations form the basis for this interrogative thesis into the post-approval role of RECs/IRBs. It employs the sociological frame of role theory to illuminate concepts such as role expectations, identity, and behavior concerning REC/IRBs in the post-approval oversight of clinical trials. MethodsQualitative research methods were employed to explore the main objectives. The research approach includes hermeneutic content analysis combined with thematic analysis to guide data extraction, reading, interpretation, and reporting. The primary data sources were regional and international normative documents related to clinical research and REC/IRBs in Europe and the USA and US Academic health center IRBs' web page content. Stakeholder engagement included REC representatives in Europe using the European Network for Research Ethics Committee (EUREC) member list. ResultsThe general post-approval role expectations of REC/IRBs are 1) to review significant protocol amendments and issue opinions or approval on these amendments, 2) to receive notification of safety and adverse events reports, and 3) to receive notification of the end of a trial and a final report. There is disagreement between regions on whether RECs ought to conduct continuing reviews. Within the EU and allied countries, continuing review is considered a form of active monitoring delegated to the regulatory authorities. Contrariwise, the law mandates continuing review within the USA, which is also distinguished from active monitoring. There are challenges with the use of and interpretation of clinical trial nomenclature. The authority of US IRBs to suspend and terminate trials is not commonplace in the EU. Conclusion/RecommendationsThe overarching role expectation of REC/IRBs after the approval of clinical trial protocols is to protect research participants. This may be achieved through post-approval activities such as continuing review, active monitoring, ethics support and education to researchers, and the issuance of an opinion on the final reports at the end of clinical trials. There may be hesitancy in European countries to conduct active follow-up of approved trials due to a lack of supporting legislation/policy, types of org...

show abstract

Section: Reparationmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Reparationmentioning

confidence: 99%