Las empresas en la investigación sobre las innovaciones en medicamentos

Propósito/Contexto. El papel de la industria farmacéutica se puede examinar desde múltiples ángulos. La presencia de estas empresas durante la pandemia ha sido obligada por la necesidad de contar, en el menor tiempo posible, con vacunas capaces de prevenir los contagios y medicamentos efectivos de tratar a los afectados, es decir, el desarrollo de productos innovadores. Metodología/Enfoque. Desde una perspectiva bioética se reflexiona sobre cuatro temas conexos con el rol de estas empresas en circunstancias análogas: las responsabilidades de los patrocinadores en los procesos de investigación; la contratación con las organizaciones de investigación por contrato (CRO); la relación con los investigadores y la interacción con los comités de ética en investigación (CEI) y, finalmente, sobre una manera de contener el doble estándar en investigación. Resultados/Hallazgos. Los patrocinadores tienen responsabilidades precisas que están orientadas por documentos y pautas internacionales. También hay una necesidad de tener una mayor claridad en el trabajo de las CRO y los investigadores pueden mejorar la interacción con los CEI; además, debe evitarse el dumping ético. Discusión/Conclusiones/Contribuciones. Se concluye que la industria farmacéutica tiene un papel de corresponsabilidad en los procesos de producción de medicamentos innovadores con los demás actores, con quienes ha de mantener un diálogo transparente y fluido, y debe orientarse no solo por las guías de buenas prácticas clínicas, sino principalmente por la Declaración de Helsinki. Un medio puede ayudar en la eliminación del doble estándar en investigación: el Código Trust, así las empresas farmacéuticas pueden contribuir a mejorar la cultura ética de la investigación.

Purpose/Background. The role of the pharmaceutical industry can be examined from multiple angles. The presence of these companies during the pandemic has been forced by the need to have, in the shortest possible time, vaccines capable of preventing infections and effective drugs to treat those affected, that is, the development of innovative products. Methodology/Approach. From a bioethical perspective, it reflects on four issues related to the role of these companies in analogous circumstances: the responsibilities of the Sponsors in the research processes; contracting with Contract Research Organizations; the relationship with researchers and interaction with the Research Ethics Committees (IRB); and, finally, on a way to contain the double standard in research. Results/Findings. The Sponsors have precise responsibilities that are guided by international documents and guidelines; there is a need for greater clarity in the work of CROs; researchers can improve interaction with IRBs; ethical dumping must be avoided. Discussion/Conclusions/Contributions. It is concluded that the pharmaceutical industry has a role of co-responsibility in the production processes of innovative medicines with other actors, with whom it must maintain a transparent and fluid dialogue and must be guided not only by the Good Clinical Practice Guidelines, but mainly because of the Declaration of Helsinki. One medium can help eliminate the double standard in research: the TRUST Code; thus, pharmaceutical companies can contribute to improving the ethical culture of research.

Objetivo/Contexto. O papel da indústria farmacêutica pode ser examinado de vários ângulos. A presença dessas empresas durante a pandemia foi forçada pela necessidade de se ter, no menor tempo possível, vacinas capazes de prevenir infecções e medicamentos eficazes para tratar os afetados, ou seja, o desenvolvimento de produtos inovadores. Metodologia/Abordagem. Do ponto de vista bioético, reflete sobre quatro questões relacionadas ao papel dessas empresas em circunstâncias análogas: as responsabilidades dos Patrocinadores nos processos de pesquisa; contratação de Organizações de Pesquisa Contratadas (CRO); o relacionamento com os pesquisadores e a interação com os Comitês de Ética em Pesquisa (CEP); e, por fim, uma forma de conter o duplo padrão na pesquisa. Resultados/Descobertas. Os Patrocinadores têm responsabilidades precisas que são guiadas por documentos e diretrizes internacionais; há necessidade de maior clareza no trabalho dos CROs; os pesquisadores podem melhorar a interação com as CEP; o dumping ético deve ser evitado. Discussão/Conclusões/Contribuições. Conclui-se que a indústria farmacêutica tem um papel de corresponsabilidade nos processos de produção de medicamentos inovadores com os demais atores, com os quais deve manter um diálogo transparente e fluido e deve ser pautada não apenas pelas Diretrizes de Boas Práticas Clínicas, mas principalmente por causa da Declaração de Helsinque. Um meio pode ajudar a eliminar o duplo padrão na pesquisa: o Código TRUST; assim, as empresas farmacêuticas podem contribuir para o aprimoramento da cultura ética da pesquisa.

Challenges of conducting clinical trials in Asia

Unlike North America and European Union (EU), Asian continent appears to be an ideal destination for conducting cost-effective clinical trials utilizing the pool of treatment naïve subjects. With a population approaching 4.5 billion, recruitment of subjects can be done without a fear of limited patient pool across Asia. The burden of infectious and chronic diseases is also higher in Asian countries. The emerging clinical trial markets particularly China, South Korea, and Taiwan offers genetic diversity in population group, thus promoting the quality and generalizability of clinical trial’s data. Nonetheless, several challenges also exist for the Western sponsors in majority of the Asian countries; regulatory, operational and infrastructural challenges are atthe forefront. Challenges under the heads regulatory, operational, infrastructural, language and cultural, ethics, and future challenges have been discussed. SWOT analysis of Asian clinical trial’s market exhibits enormous opportunities for study sponsorswith manageable threats.

The author and authorships in clinical trial: based on the interpretation and analysis of GPP3 / 中华医学科研管理杂志

Objective Clinical trial researches are sponsored by medical companies mostly,the research paper publishes in a potential publication bias inevitably.This paper discussed the author's and authorship's issues in clinical trials.Methods The Good Publication Practice for pharmaceutical companies (GPP) 3rd edition was interpreted,related literatures and domestic policies were analyzed.Results The issues including setting up publication steering committees,clarifying authorship,employing professional medical writers,personal fees,contributorship and acknowledgments,potential conflict of interest,and author's rights and obligations should be well panned and deal with in clinical trials.Conclusions Researchers who involved in clinical trials should treat the author's and authorship ’s issues with caution.

Current Status and Challenges of Cancer Clinical Trials in Korea / Journal of the Korean Cancer Association, 대한암학회지

PURPOSE: Cancer clinical trials in Korea have rapidly progressed in terms of quantity and quality during the last decade. This study evaluates the current status of cancer clinical trials in Korea and their associated problems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed the clinical trials approved by the Korea Food and Drug Administration (KFDA) between 2007 and 2013. A nationwide on-line survey containing 22 questions was also performed with several cooperative study groups and individual researchers in 56 academic hospitals. RESULTS: The number of cancer clinical trials approved by the KFDA increased almost twofold from 2007 to 2013. The number of sponsor-initiated clinical trials (SITs) increased by 50% and investigator-initiated clinical trials (IITs) increased by almost 640%. Three hundred and forty-four clinical trials were approved by the KFDA between 2012 and 2013. At the time of the on-line survey (August 2013), 646 SITs and 519 IITs were ongoing in all hospitals. Six high volume hospitals were each conducting more than 50 clinical trials, including both SITs and IITs. Fifty-six investigators (31%) complained of the difficulties in raising funds to conduct clinical trials. CONCLUSION: The number of cancer clinical trials in Korea rapidly increased from 2007 to 2013, as has the number of multicenter clinical trials and IITs run by cooperative study groups. Limited funding for IIT is a serious problem, and more financial support is needed both from government agencies and public donations from non-profit organizations.