Pharmaceutical trials in general practice: the first 100 protocols. An audit by the clinical research ethics committee of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the outcome of 100 general practice based, multicentre research projects submitted to the ethics committee of the Royal College of General Practitioners by pharmaceutical companies or their agents between 1984 and 1989. DESIGN: Analysis of consecutive submitted protocols for stated objectives, study design, and outcomes; detailed review of committee minutes and correspondence in relation to amendment and approval; assessment of final reports submitted at conclusion of studies. SUBJECTS: 82 finally approved protocols, embracing 34,523 proposed trial subjects and 1195 proposed general practice investigators. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Success at enrolling subjects and investigators; commencement and completion data; validity of final report''s assessment of efficacy, safety, tolerability, and acceptability; and method of use and dissemination of findings. RESULTS: 18 studies were not approved and 45 had to be amended. Randomised controlled trials comprised 46 of the original submissions. Remuneration considerations, inadequate information or consent sheets, pregnancy safety, the need to discontinue existing therapy, and suboptimal scientific content were major reasons for rejecting studies or asking for amendments. Of the 82 approved studies 8 were not started. Shortfalls of investigators (of 39%) and trial subjects (of 37%) and an overall 23% withdrawal rate were responsible for a significant incidence of inconclusive results. Within the six year follow up interval, only 19 of the studies had been formally published. CONCLUSIONS: This audit identified substantial ethical concerns in the process of approving multicentre general practice pharmaceutical research.     

Publication: an ethical imperative.

Publication of medical research is both a monitor of the researcher''s ethics and an audit of the local or regional ethics committee that approved it. Selectivity of publication or of the intention to publish lessens this audit. Opinions differ about what is ethically allowable in clinical and benchtop medical research. Ethical permission and ethical monitoring of medical research are subject to a hierarchy of pyramidal controls, starting in hospital and ending with the local, institutional, or regional ethics committee. Currently, such committees function with widely varying degrees of efficiency and quality of output, and with differing viewpoints on many ethical issues. Without an a priori insistence by institutional ethics committees that there be an intention to publish all medical research involving human subjects, ethics committees cannot routinely be subject to the scrutiny or audit which they themselves demand of researchers.     

Review by a local medical research ethics committee of the conduct of approved research projects,by examination of patients' case notes,consent forms,and research records and by interview.

OBJECTIVE: To monitor the conduct of medical research projects that have already been approved by the local medical research ethics committee. DESIGN: Follow up study of ethically approved studies (randomly selected from all the studies approved in the previous year) by examination of patients'' case notes, consent forms, and research records and by interview of the researchers at their workplace. SETTING: Tayside, Scotland (mixed rural and urban population). SUBJECTS: 30 research projects approved by Tayside local medical research ethics committee. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adherence to the agreed protocol, particularly for recruitment (obtaining and recording informed consent) and for specific requirements of the ethics committee, including notification of changes to the protocol and of adverse events. RESULTS: In one project only oral consent had been obtained, and in a quarter of the studies one or more consent forms were incorrectly completed. Inadequate filing of case notes in five studies and of consent forms in six made them unavailable for scrutiny. Adverse events were reported, but there was a general failure to report the abandoning or non-starting of projects in two studies the investigators failed to notify a change in the responsible researcher. CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring of medical research by local medical research ethics committees promotes and preserves ethical standards, protects subjects and researchers, discourages fraud, and has the support of investigators. We recommend that 10% of projects should undergo on-site review, with all others monitored by questionnaire. This would require about six person hours of time and a salary bill of 120 pounds per study monitored.     

Extent of Non-Publication in Cohorts of Studies Approved by Research Ethics Committees or Included in Trial Registries

Background

The synthesis of published research in systematic reviews is essential when providing evidence to inform clinical and health policy decision-making. However, the validity of systematic reviews is threatened if journal publications represent a biased selection of all studies that have been conducted (dissemination bias). To investigate the extent of dissemination bias we conducted a systematic review that determined the proportion of studies published as peer-reviewed journal articles and investigated factors associated with full publication in cohorts of studies (i) approved by research ethics committees (RECs) or (ii) included in trial registries.

Methods and Findings

Four bibliographic databases were searched for methodological research projects (MRPs) without limitations for publication year, language or study location. The searches were supplemented by handsearching the references of included MRPs. We estimated the proportion of studies published using prediction intervals (PI) and a random effects meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios (OR) were used to express associations between study characteristics and journal publication. Seventeen MRPs (23 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies approved by RECs; the proportion of published studies had a PI between 22% and 72% and the weighted pooled proportion when combining estimates would be 46.2% (95% CI 40.2%–52.4%, I² = 94.4%). Twenty-two MRPs (22 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies included in trial registries; the PI of the proportion published ranged from 13% to 90% and the weighted pooled proportion would be 54.2% (95% CI 42.0%–65.9%, I² = 98.9%). REC-approved studies with statistically significant results (compared with those without statistically significant results) were more likely to be published (pooled OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.2–3.5). Phase-III trials were also more likely to be published than phase II trials (pooled OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.6–2.5). The probability of publication within two years after study completion ranged from 7% to 30%.

Conclusions

A substantial part of the studies approved by RECs or included in trial registries remains unpublished. Due to the large heterogeneity a prediction of the publication probability for a future study is very uncertain. Non-publication of research is not a random process, e.g., it is associated with the direction of study findings. Our findings suggest that the dissemination of research findings is biased.     

Inadequate Dissemination of Phase I Trials: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

Drug development is ideally a logical sequence in which information from small early studies (Phase I) is subsequently used to inform and plan larger, more definitive studies (Phases II–IV). Phase I trials are unique because they generally provide the first evaluation of new drugs in humans. The conduct and dissemination of Phase I trials have not previously been empirically evaluated. Our objective was to describe the initiation, completion, and publication of Phase I trials in comparison with Phase II–IV trials.

Methods and Findings

We reviewed a cohort of all protocols approved by a sample of ethics committees in France from January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1994. The comparison of 140 Phase I trials with 304 Phase II–IV trials, showed that Phase I studies were more likely to be initiated (133/140 [95%] versus 269/304 [88%]), more likely to be completed (127/133 [95%] versus 218/269 [81%]), and more likely to produce confirmatory results (71/83 [86%] versus 125/175 [71%]) than Phase II–IV trials. Publication was less frequent for Phase I studies (21/127 [17%] versus 93/218 [43%]), even if only accounting for studies providing confirmatory results (18/71 [25%] versus 79/125 [63%]).

Conclusions

The initiation, completion, and publications of Phase I trials are different from those of other studies. Moreover, the results of these trials should be published in order to ensure the integrity of the overall body of scientific knowledge, and ultimately the safety of future trial participants and patients.     

Assessment of the ethical review process in Sudan

The ethical review process is an important component of contemporary health research worldwide. Sudan started an ethical review process rather late in comparison with other countries. In this study, we evaluate the structure and functions of existing ethics review committees. We also explore the knowledge and attitudes of Sudanese researchers toward the ethical review process and their experience with existing ethics review committees. There are four ethics review committees in the country; these committees have no institutional regulations to govern their functions. Furthermore, Sudan also lacks national guidelines. Ethical reviews are carried out primarily for studies seeking international funding and are almost always governed by the funding agencies' requirements. Nearly half of respondents (46.3%) knew about the existence of research ethics committees in Sudan. Researchers reported a variety of experiences with the ethical review process; most of them were unable to define 'ethics committee'.     

The new system of review by multicentre research ethics committees: prospective study

ObjectiveTo assess the function of the new system of review by multicentre research ethics committees and to highlight areas where improvement is still needed.DesignProspectively collected data from a multicentre study was examined with respect to the ethics review process. Administrative, financial, and time elements of the review process were audited.SettingA single multicentre research ethics committee and 125 local ethics committees from six regions of England.ResultsOnly 40% of local ethics committees considered our study in the manner specified in the 1998 directive. Less than a third of committees replied within the 21 day period stipulated, although committees acting by executive subcommittee replied more quickly than those not acting by executive subcommittee. There was a tendency for executive subcommittees to approve studies in a shorter time. Local ethics committees asked for a large number of non-local changes to the application. The financial cost of applying to multiple ethics committees remains high, mainly because multiple copies of research applications are being requested.ConclusionsThe new system of approval by multicentre research ethics committee for multicentre studies was introduced to reduce administrative costs, speed up the process of reviews by multiple research ethics committees, and standardise the conclusions of the local research ethics committees. Since its introduction an improvement has been seen, but the system is not yet universally functioning as intended. Ethics review still remains a hindrance to the financial resources and commencement of national studies. We strongly support the structure of review by multicentre research ethics committees but suggest that the system has yet to achieve its aims.     

The rise of research ethics committees in Western Europe: some concomitant problems

The rise of research ethics committees in Western Europe has accelerated since 1975 when the World Medical Association recommended that protocols for experiments involving human subjects be submitted to independent committees for consideration, comment, and guidance. This article describes the numbers, types, composition, function, authority, and problems of institutional, regional, and national research ethics committees in the Netherlands, Great Britain, West Germany, France, Switzerland, and Sweden. Among the problems are lack of authority to require ethical review, underrepresentation of nonmedical members, inconsistencies in definitions of and standards for human experimentation, and nonconsideration of the rights of investigators as well as subjects. The author urges legislation to strengthen the self regulating mechanism of research ethics committees.     

Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the extent to which publication is influenced by study outcome. DESIGN: A cohort of studies submitted to a hospital ethics committee over 10 years were examined retrospectively by reviewing the protocols and by questionnaire. The primary method of analysis was Cox''s proportional hazards model. SETTING: University hospital, Sydney, Australia. STUDIES: 748 eligible studies submitted to Royal Prince Alfred Hospital Ethics Committee between 1979 and 1988. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time to publication. RESULTS: Response to the questionnaire was received for 520 (70%) of the eligible studies. Of the 218 studies analysed with tests of significance, those with positive results (P < 0.05) were much more likely to be published than those with negative results (P > or = 0.10) (hazard ratio 2.32 (95% confidence interval 1.47 to 3.66), P = 0.0003), with a significantly shorter time to publication (median 4.8 v 8.0 years). This finding was even stronger for the group of 130 clinical trials (hazard ratio 3.13 (1.76 to 5.58). P = 0.0001), with median times to publication of 4.7 and 8.0 years respectively. These results were not materially changed after adjusting for other significant predictors of publication. Studies with indefinite conclusions (0.05 < or = P < 0.10) tended to have an even lower publication rate and longer time to publication than studies with negative results (hazard ratio 0.39 (0.13 to 1.12), P = 0.08). For the 103 studies in which outcome was rated qualitatively, there was no clear cut evidence of publication bias, although the number of studies in this group was not large. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the evidence of publication bias found in other studies and identifies delay in publication as an additional important factor. The study results support the need for prospective registration of trials to avoid publication bias and also support restricting the selection of trials to those started before a common date in undertaking systematic reviews.     

On the Alleged Right to Participate in High‐Risk Research

Reigning regulatory frameworks for biomedical research impose on researchers and research ethics committees an obligation to protect research participants from risks that are unnecessary, disproportionate to potential research benefits, and non‐minimized. Where the research has no potential to produce results of direct benefit to the subjects and the subjects are unable to give consent, these requirements are strengthened by an additional condition, that risks should not exceed a certain minimal threshold. In this article, I address the question of whether there should be limits of permissible risks in non‐therapeutic research involving competent and healthy subjects. Some commentators argue that competent and informed individuals should have a right to participate even in extremely risky research and that research ethics committees should never reject studies because they are too dangerous. To use David Shaw's expression, competent volunteers should have ‘a right to participate in high‐risk research’. I argue that this idea is ill‐founded, as it does not take into account the social mission and complex collaborative nature of research practice as well as the inequity of power between researchers and subjects. Imposition of limits on permissible risks for healthy volunteers is justified by the need to protect research enterprise and the need to protect the weaker party, namely the subjects. Also, I suggest that the best way to set boundaries on research risks is to leave the judgment of risk acceptability to research ethics committees.     

The refining influence of ethics committees on animal experimentation in Sweden

Mandatory scrutiny of projects by animal ethics committees was introduced in Sweden in 1979. The present study investigated the minutes of meetings held between 1989 and 2000 at which consideration of applications for experimental work in animals resulted in requests for modification (n = 3607). 18.1% of the applications received were approved only after modifications. The majority of the changes requested may be classified as 'Refinement'. The most common requests were for improvement of project design, euthanasia method and housing and husbandry. There was a relative increase in modifications requested by the committees related to anaesthesia, choice of licensed supervisor and the need for licenses or informed consent from animal owners during the period investigated. There was a relative decrease in modifications related to euthanasia, housing and husbandry, and general endpoint assertions. The results suggest that the work of the committees may be perceived as an ongoing process, since several of the applications for which modification was requested were projects that had been approved on a previous occasion but were now up for renewal. In order to have maximal influence on the refinement of scientific protocols it is important that the scientists in the committees are continuously updated on developments in laboratory animal science.     

TRAINING NEEDS ASSESSMENT IN RESEARCH ETHICS EVALUATION AMONG RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEE MEMBERS IN THREE AFRICAN COUNTRIES: CAMEROON,MALI AND TANZANIA

Background: As actors with the key responsibility for the protection of human research participants, Research Ethics Committees (RECs) need to be competent and well‐resourced in order to fulfil their roles. Despite recent programs designed to strengthen RECs in Africa, much more needs to be accomplished before these committees can function optimally. Objective: To assess training needs for biomedical research ethics evaluation among targeted countries. Methods: Members of RECs operating in three targeted African countries were surveyed between August and November 2007. Before implementing the survey, ethical approvals were obtained from RECs in Switzerland, Cameroon, Mali and Tanzania. Data were collected using a semi‐structured questionnaire in English and in French. Results: A total of 74 respondents participated in the study. The participation rate was 68%. Seventy one percent of respondents reported having received some training in research ethics evaluation. This training was given by national institutions (31%) and international institutions (69%). Researchers and REC members were ranked as the top target audiences to be trained. Of 32 topics, the top five training priorities were: basic ethical principles, coverage of applicable laws and regulations, how to conduct ethics review, evaluating informed consent processes and the role of the REC. Conclusion: Although the majority of REC members in the targeted African countries had received training in ethics, they expressed a need for additional training. The results of this survey have been used to design a training program in research ethics evaluation that meets this need.     

Addressing the challenge for expedient ethical review of research in disasters and disease outbreaks

Guideline 20 of the updated International Ethics Guidelines for Health‐related Research Involving Humans (2016) by the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) provides guidance on research in disasters and disease outbreaks against the background of the need to generate knowledge quickly, overcome practical impediments to implementing such research, and the need to maintain public trust. The guideline recommends that research ethics committees could pre‐screen study protocols to expedite ethical reviews in a situation of crisis, that pre‐arrangements be made regarding data sharing and biomedical sample sharing, and that sponsors and research ethics committees seek to minimize risk to researchers conducting research during a disaster. This paper critiques these recommendations against the background of the findings of a survey of public health officials and chairs of research ethics committees in the Caribbean during 2016, which sought to determine the best template for the expeditious ethical review of research proposals in emergency and epidemic situations in the Caribbean, and whose findings can serve as a model for other low‐ and middle‐income countries.     

Inappropriate publication of trial results and potential for allegations of illegal share dealing.

There is increasing evidence of fraud in clinical research, and one aspect concerns trading in pharmaceutical company shares by people who may have confidential information about the results of clinical trials. Plainly this has implications for honest investigators, who may find themselves exposed to such allegations. In this paper Dr D S Freestone and Mr H Mitchell, QC, identify three interlinked issues which they think underlie the potential for these allegations. They are pressure for premature or inappropriate communication of research results; trading in pharmaceutical company shares by academic clinical investigators; and the possibility that clinical investigators might succumb to temptation. Dr Freestone and Mr Mitchell suggest that whenever possible results of clinical studies should be published in appropriate medical journals without prior public disclosure. This conflicts with Stock Exchange rules, which require that price sensitive information should be published at the earliest opportunity and preclude priority of publication in medical journals. Freestone and Mitchell believe that rarely rapid public disclosure is acceptable if it is to protect patients'' interests but that it must not prejudice publication in the medical or scientific press. When rapid public disclosure is needed, they say, every attempt should be made to inform prescribers before patients. Dr Freestone and Mr Mitchell warn that academic clinical investigators who have access to unpublished price sensitive information about pharmaceutical companies whose shares they trade in will almost certainly be in breach of the Company Securities (Insider Dealing) Act 1985. Furthermore, disclosing such information to third parties, they say, exposes those people also to potential criminal liability. Freestone and Mitchell advise that when potential for allegations of conflict of interest exists clinical investigators should consider declaring their position to ethics committees and any sponsoring organisations.     

A multicenter study of the awareness and attitudes of Egyptian faculty towards research ethics: a pilot study

The awareness and attitudes of faculty towards research ethics committees (RECs) and research ethics practices are largely unknown. Accordingly, we conducted a cross-sectional survey study involving various faculties (Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy, and Dentistry) from four universities in Egypt. A large majority (> 85%) held positive attitudes towards RECs, but almost a third thought that RECs would delay research. More than half had not received prior training in research or medical ethics, but more than 90% thought that this subject matter should be taught to postgraduates. A large majority recognized the need for informed consent and confidentiality protections in research, but some held attitudes regarding certain research ethics practices that were questionable. We conclude that a curriculum in research ethics should be developed for university faculty and that further qualitative studies should explore the basis of several of the attitudes regarding practices in research ethics.     

CURRICULUM GUIDE FOR RESEARCH ETHICS WORKSHOPS FOR COUNTRIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST

To help ensure the ethical conduct of research, many have recommended educational efforts in research ethics to investigators and members of research ethics committees (RECs). One type of education activity involves multi‐day workshops in research ethics. To be effective, such workshops should contain the appropriate content and teaching techniques geared towards the learning styles of the targeted audiences. To ensure consistency in content and quality, we describe the development of a curriculum guide, core competencies and associated learning objectives and activities to help educators organize research ethics workshops in their respective institutions. The curriculum guide is divided into modular units to enable planners to develop workshops of different lengths and choose content materials that match the needs, abilities, and prior experiences of the target audiences. The content material in the curriculum guide is relevant for audiences in the Middle East, because individuals from the Middle East who participated in a Certificate Program in research ethics selected and developed the training materials (e.g., articles, powerpoint slides, case studies, protocols). Also, many of the activities incorporate active‐learning methods, consisting of group work activities analyzing case studies and reviewing protocols. The development of such a workshop training curriculum guide represents a sustainable educational resource to enhance research ethics capacity in the Middle East.     

European Ethical Review Committee: the experience of an international ethics committee reviewing protocols for drug trials.

An international ethics review committee, founded seven years ago, has several unusual features: it selects its own members, who are independent of the drug industry; it includes members with no medical or paramedical background, such as lay people and lawyers; and it reviews protocols together with the study''s sponsor. Membership of 31 from nine European countries enables frequent meetings and there is a full meeting of the committee every year to review progress and consider policy. Of the first 294 protocols for phase I, II, or III trials reviewed, 37 were admitted outright, 243 were amended (usually during the discussion of the protocol), and 14 were rejected. It is suggested that, to overcome the problem of ethics review in smaller institutions, regional health authorities in Britain might consider establishing similar committees.     

Towards a reduction in publication bias.

Current practice results in the publication of many research studies in medical and related disciplines which may be criticised on the grounds of inadequate sample size and statistical power. Small studies continue to be carried out with little more than a blind hope of showing the desired effect. Nevertheless, papers based on such work are submitted for publication, especially if the results turn out to be statistically significant. There is confusion about what makes a result suitable for publication. Often there is a preference for statistically significant results at the peer review stage. Consequently published reports of small studies tend to contain too many false positive results and to exaggerate the true effects. The use of a criterion of a posteriori power does not eliminate the bias; a priori power is the criterion of choice. This could be implemented by peer review of study protocols at the planning stage by funding bodies and journals.     

Following 411 Cochrane protocols to completion: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Cochrane reviews are regarded as being scientifically rigorous and are increasingly used by a variety of stakeholders. However, factors predicting the publication of Cochrane reviews have never been reported. This is important because if a higher proportion of Cochrane protocols with certain characteristics (e.g., funding) are being published, this may lead to inaccurate decisions. We examined the frequency of published and unpublished Cochrane reviews and protocol factors that predict the publication of Cochrane reviews.

Methodology/Principal Findings

Retrospective cohort study of Cochrane protocols published in 2000 (Issues 2 to 4) and 2001 (Issue 1). The publication status of these reviews was followed up to Issue 1, 2008 in The Cochrane Library. Survival analysis of the time from protocol publication to the first review publication and protocol factors predicting the time to publication was conducted. There were 411 new Cochrane protocols in the cohort. After excluding 39; 71/372 (19.1%) were unpublished and 301/372 (80.9%) were published as full Cochrane reviews at the time of study analysis (January 2008). The median time to publication was 2.4 years (range: 0.15 to 8.96). Multivariate analyses revealed that shorter time to publication was associated with the review subsequently being updated (hazard ratio, HR: 1.80 [95% confidence interval, CI: 1.39 to 2.33 years]) and longer time to publication was associated with the review having two published protocols, indicating changes to the review plan (HR: 0.33 [95% CI: 0.12 to 0.90 years]).

Conclusions/Significance

Only about 80% Cochrane protocols were published as full reviews after over 8 years of follow-up. The median time to publication was 2.4 years and some reviews took much longer. Strategies to decrease time to publication should be considered, such as streamlining the review process, increased support for authors when protocol amendments occur, and better infrastructure for updating Cochrane reviews.