Shortcomings of Protocols of Drug Trials in Relation to Sponsorship As Identified by Research Ethics Committees: Analysis of Comments Raised During Ethical Review

Overview

Journal BMC Med Ethics

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Medical Ethics

Date 2014 Dec 11

PMID 25490963

Citations 5

Authors

Marlies van Lent

Gerard A Rongen

Henk J Out

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Submission of study protocols to research ethics committees (RECs) constitutes one of the earliest stages at which planned trials are documented in detail. Previous studies have investigated the amendments requested from researchers by RECs, but the type of issues raised during REC review have not been compared by sponsor type. The objective of this study was to identify recurring shortcomings in protocols of drug trials based on REC comments and to assess whether these were more common among industry-sponsored or non-industry trials.

Methods: Retrospective analysis of 226 protocols of drug trials approved in 2010-2011 by three RECs affiliated to academic medical centres in The Netherlands. For each protocol, information on sponsorship, number of participating centres, participating countries, study phase, registration status of the study drug, and type and number of subjects was retrieved. REC comments were extracted from decision letters sent to investigators after review and were classified using a predefined checklist that was based on legislation and guidelines on clinical drug research and previous literature.

Results: Most protocols received comments regarding participant information and consent forms (n = 182, 80.5%), methodology and statistical analyses (n = 160, 70.8%), and supporting documentation, including trial agreements and certificates of insurance (n = 154, 68.1%). Of the submitted protocols, 122 (54.0%) were non-industry and 104 (46.0%) were industry-sponsored trials. Non-industry trials more often received comments on subject selection (n = 44, 36.1%) than industry-sponsored trials (n = 18, 17.3%; RR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.47), and on methodology and statistical analyses (n = 95, 77.9% versus n = 65, 62.5%, respectively; RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.37). Non-industry trials less often received comments on supporting documentation (n = 72, 59.0%) than industry-sponsored trials (n = 82, 78.8%; RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.95).

Conclusions: RECs identified important ethical and methodological shortcomings in protocols of both industry-sponsored and non-industry drug trials. Investigators, especially of non-industry trials, should better prepare their research protocols in order to facilitate the ethical review process.

Citing Articles

Reporting quality of clinical trial protocols: a repeated cross-sectional study about the Adherence to SPIrit Recommendations in Switzerland, CAnada and GErmany (ASPIRE-SCAGE).

Gryaznov D, von Niederhausern B, Speich B, Kasenda B, Ojeda-Ruiz E, Blumle A BMJ Open. 2022; 12(5):e053417.

PMID: 35613804 PMC: 9125701. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053417.

Considerations of sex and gender dimensions by research ethics committees: a scoping review.

Saxena A, Lasher E, Somerville C, Heidari S Int Health. 2022; 14(6):554-561.

PMID: 35043198 PMC: 9623496. DOI: 10.1093/inthealth/ihab093.

Measuring IRB Regulatory Compliance: Development, Testing, and Use of the National Cancer Institute StART Tool.

Rooney L, Covington L, Dedier A, Samuel B J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2019; 14(2):95-106.

PMID: 30866722 PMC: 6448580. DOI: 10.1177/1556264619831888.

Ethical issues of informed consent in malaria research proposals submitted to a research ethics committee in Thailand: a retrospective document review.

Adams P, Prakobtham S, Limpattaracharoen C, Suebtrakul S, Vutikes P, Khusmith S BMC Med Ethics. 2017; 18(1):50.

PMID: 28807022 PMC: 5556624. DOI: 10.1186/s12910-017-0210-0.

Peer review comments on drug trials submitted to medical journals differ depending on sponsorship, results and acceptance: a retrospective cohort study.

van Lent M, IntHout J, Out H BMJ Open. 2015; 5(9):e007961.

PMID: 26423849 PMC: 4593154. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007961.

References

. ICH harmonized tripartite guideline: Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. J Postgrad Med. 2001; 47(1):45-50. View

Redmond S, von Elm E, Blumle A, Gengler M, Gsponer T, Egger M . Cohort study of trials submitted to ethics committee identified discrepant reporting of outcomes in publications. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66(12):1367-75. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.06.020. View

Stark A, Tyson J, Hibberd P . Variation among institutional review boards in evaluating the design of a multicenter randomized trial. J Perinatol. 2009; 30(3):163-9. PMC: 2924664. DOI: 10.1038/jp.2009.157. View

Angell E, Biggs H, Gahleitner F, Dixon-Woods M . What do research ethics committees say about applications to conduct research involving children?. Arch Dis Child. 2010; 95(11):915-7. DOI: 10.1136/adc.2009.172395. View

Martin-Arribas M, Rodriguez-Lozano I, Arias-Diaz J . Ethical review of research protocols: experience of a research ethics committee. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2012; 65(6):525-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.recesp.2011.12.017. View

Abbott L, Grady C . A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: what we know and what we still need to learn. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2011; 6(1):3-19. PMC: 3235475. DOI: 10.1525/jer.2011.6.1.3. View

Blumle A, Antes G, Schumacher M, Just H, von Elm E . Clinical research projects at a German medical faculty: follow-up from ethical approval to publication and citation by others. J Med Ethics. 2008; 34(9):e20. DOI: 10.1136/jme.2008.024521. View

Goodyear-Smith F, Lobb B, Davies G, Nachson I, Seelau S . International variation in ethics committee requirements: comparisons across five Westernised nations. BMC Med Ethics. 2002; 3:E2. PMC: 111059. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6939-3-2. View

Damen L, van Agt F, de Boo T, Huysmans F . Terminating clinical trials without sufficient subjects. J Med Ethics. 2012; 38(7):413-6. DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2011-100020. View

10.

. International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. Bull Med Ethics. 2004; (182):17-23. View

11.

Bueno M, Brevidelli M, Cocarelli T, Dos Santos G, Ferraz M, Mion Jr D . Reasons for resubmission of research projects to the research ethics committee of a university hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2009; 64(9):831-6. PMC: 2745136. DOI: 10.1590/S1807-59322009000900002. View

12.

Kasenda B, von Elm E, You J, Blumle A, Tomonaga Y, Saccilotto R . Prevalence, characteristics, and publication of discontinued randomized trials. JAMA. 2014; 311(10):1045-51. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.1361. View

13.

Jones R, Younie S, Macallister A, Thornton J . A comparison of the scientific quality of publicly and privately funded randomized controlled drug trials. J Eval Clin Pract. 2010; 16(6):1322-5. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2009.01335.x. View

14.

Helfand B, Mongiu A, Roehrborn C, Donnell R, Bruskewitz R, Kaplan S . Variation in institutional review board responses to a standard protocol for a multicenter randomized, controlled surgical trial. J Urol. 2009; 181(6):2674-9. PMC: 4720253. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.02.032. View

15.

Kent G . Responses by four Local Research Ethics Committees to submitted proposals. J Med Ethics. 1999; 25(3):274-7. PMC: 479223. DOI: 10.1136/jme.25.3.274. View

16.

Emanuel E, Wendler D, Grady C . What makes clinical research ethical?. JAMA. 2000; 283(20):2701-11. DOI: 10.1001/jama.283.20.2701. View

17.

Schott G, Pachl H, Limbach U, Gundert-Remy U, Ludwig W, Lieb K . The financing of drug trials by pharmaceutical companies and its consequences. Part 1: a qualitative, systematic review of the literature on possible influences on the findings, protocols, and quality of drug trials. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2010; 107(16):279-85. PMC: 2868984. DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2010.0279. View

18.

Angell E, Dixon-Woods M . Do research ethics committees identify process errors in applications for ethical approval?. J Med Ethics. 2009; 35(2):130-2. DOI: 10.1136/jme.2008.025940. View

19.

. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013; 310(20):2191-4. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053. View

20.

Dixon-Woods M, Angell E, Tarrant C, Thomas A . What do research ethics committees say about applications to do cancer trials?. Lancet Oncol. 2008; 9(8):700-1. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70184-0. View