Academic Clinical Trials Submitted to an Institutional Ethics Committee at a Tertiary Care Center: A Retrospective Analysis.

Background The role of academia in clinical research has given rise to the concept of academic clinical trials (ACTs), which are vital in generating evidence. Through the implementation of the New Drugs and Clinical Trials Rules-2019 (NDCTR-2019) rules, the Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) has obtained a quasi-regulatory role. The study aims to assess the challenges the IEC faced when processing, approving, and monitoring ACTs. The other objectives included the number of ACTs submitted to the IEC, as well as administrative, scientific, and ethical issues stated by the IEC and the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) authorities. We also aimed to provide some insight into the type of decision made by IEC and DCGI - the delay or inconsistency between the queries. Methods This retrospective study was conducted in the IEC of a tertiary care hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. A comprehensive search of the IEC database was carried out by the study team, and only those protocols of ACTs submitted to IEC between January 2015 and December 2021 were included. The studies submitted between January 2015 and February 2019, i.e., before the release of NDCTR-2019, were classified as the "Before" category. All subsequently submitted protocols were grouped together as the "After" group. Descriptive statistics were used to represent the data, while comparison between the two timeframes were made using the Mann-Whitney U test with a level of significance at 5%. Results This six-year study showed that merely 1.4% (34/2400) trials fulfilled the criteria of an ACT. An increase in the ACT protocol submission was noted in the "After" group (20 vs. 14). Most ACTs were drug trials, with 67.6% (23/34) trials conducted majorly in the Department of Anesthesiology. There was a statistical increase in time query reply by the principal investigator to IEC and the time between submission and approval in the "After" group (p<0.05). IEC sent out 94 administrative, 565 scientific, and 216 ethical queries. On IEC monitoring, protocol deviations were noted; nonetheless, no ACTs reported protocol deviations or serious adverse events. Conclusions Since the implementation of NDCTR-2019, IEC has taken on a quasi-regulatory function, and there has been an increase in the caliber of IEC monitoring and adherence to ethical norms.

Impact of the COVID pandemic on functioning of the institutional ethics committee: A comparison study.

Purpose and Aim: In COVID 19 pandemic, it was essential to document the functioning of the institutional ethics committee (IEC), how the organization adapted and faced challenges posed, thus forming the rationale behind this particular audit. The objectives were to assess the impact of the pandemic on the structure, review process, outcomes, and administration of IEC and to compare the same during its functioning in the prepandemic stage. Subject and Methods: The study was conducted as a retrospective audit. After exemption from ethics review, the data were collected from the IEC office situated in KEM Hospital and were segregated into four domains: structure, review process, outcomes, and administration. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Mann-Whitney U-test was used to compare the turnover time for approval of projects between the two study periods at 5% level of significance. SPSS software version 22 was used to analyze the data. Results: Constitution changed , more protocols pertaining to COVID 19 studies were reviewed, meetings frequency doubled, and Standard Operating Procedures was amended to incorporate the changes faced during pandemic. Significant decrease in turnover time was noticed with respect to submission to query letter and study completion. There were more protocol deviations. Financial burden and expenditure decreased due to less paperwork and meetings being held online. Conclusion: The ethics committee infrastructure and functioning had to undergo a paradigm shift to adapt to the various changes and overcome the various hurdles occurring during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A Retrospective Study of Ethics Committee Monitoring Checklists of the Audiovisual Consent Process: An Ethical Perspective.

Clinical trial regulations for new drugs in India released a gazette notification for obtaining audiovisual (AV) consent from all trial participants in November 2013. The reports of AV recordings of the studies from October 2013 to February 2017 submitted to the institutional ethics committee were analyzed in view of the Indian regulations on AV consenting. The reports of AV recording were checked: number of AV consents for each project, adequacy of AV recording, number of persons in the video, informed consent document elements (ICD) covered as per Schedule Y, confirmation of understanding by the participant, the time taken to complete the procedure, maintenance of confidentiality, and whether reconsent was taken. Seven studies of AV consent were monitored. Eighty-five (85) AV-consented and filled checklists were evaluated. The AV recording was not clear in 31/85, ICD elements were missing in 49/85 consents, time taken to complete the procedure was 20.03 ± 10.83 with the number of pages being 14.24 ± 7.52 (R= 0.29 p<0.041). In 19/85 consents, privacy was not maintained and on 22 occasions, reconsent were taken. There were deficits found in the AV consent process.

Reports of site monitoring visits by institutional ethics committees in an Indian tertiary care hospital: A retrospective analysis.

The monitoring of clinical trials is an integral function of the institutional ethics committee (IEC)to ensure the ethical conduct of research. The National Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical and Health Research Involving Human Participants, 2017, of the Indian Council of Medical Research, underline a strong need for active monitoring of clinical trials. A previous study by the authors, of research studies initiated between 2008 and 2010, had found many lapses after site monitoring. In the present study, 12 clinical studies-both sponsored and investigator initiated-were monitored by members of the King Edward Memorial Hospital (Mumbai) IEC between 2011 and 2017. The most common violations seen were related to informed consent (8/12 sites). The other violation themes were lack of investigator understanding of protocol (6/12), deviation from the investigational plan (5/12), non-reporting of the study's progress to the IEC (4/12), and patient recruitment prior to IEC approval (2/12). The IEC took various corrective actions, such as ordering retaking of consent and good clinical practice (GCP) re-training and requiring interim reports, explanations for deviations, upgradation of facilities, and payment of pending compensation. The IEC even froze review of protocols from a frequently defaulting Principal Investigator's (PI) site and put study recruitment on hold for the same PI. This study demonstrates that active site monitoring by IECs is a must for ensuring the ethical conduct of studies.

Impact of recent regulatory notifications on an institutional ethics committee.

The Government of India came out with a slew of notifications to streamline clinical research in the beginning of 2013 in response to the Supreme Court's orders and a Parliamentary Standing Committee's report. The notifications greatly influenced the structure, review process, outcomes and administration of ethics committees across India. In this study, we attempted to objectively evaluate the impact of these notifications on our institutional ethics committee's (IEC) structure, review process, outcomes and administration. The results revealed that though the number of regulatory studies reviewed by our IEC remained the same, the number of studies actually approved decreased with an increase in the turnover time. The number of serious adverse events (SAEs) reported also fell, although the number of meetings held to discuss these SAEs increased significantly. The administrative workload rose with increased documentation. Though the annual income of the IEC fell marginally, the expenses shot up. We believe that the notifications definitely had an impact on the structure, review process, outcomes and administration of our IEC, although it remains to be seen whether they had a real impact on the research participants' safety and well-being.

An Audit of Protocol Deviations Submitted to an Institutional Ethics Committee of a Tertiary Care Hospital.

Protocol deviations (PDs) may jeopardize safety, rights, and welfare of subjects and data integrity. There is scarce literature and no guidelines for Institutional Ethics Committees (IECs) to process PD reports. The PD reports submitted to IECs from Jan 2011 to August 2014 were analyzed retrospectively. Types of studies reporting PDs, category and type of PDs, PD rate per participant, time of reporting PD since its occurrence and corrective actions stated by principal investigator (PI) for major deviations were noted. Out of 447 PDs from 73/1387 total studies received during study period, 402 were from 126 pharma studies. Investigator initiated studies and dissertations reported negligible PDs. Median number of PDs was 4 per protocol. Out of 447 PDs, 304 were related to study procedure, 87, 47 and 9 were from safety, informed consent document (ICD) and eligibility category respectively. The most common reason for PDs was incomplete ICD (22/47). Maximum study procedure related PDs were due to patient visiting outside window period (126/304). Thirty five of 87 PDs were due to missed safety assessment. The overall PD reporting rate per participant was 0.08. In 90% of reports, date of occurrence of PD was not specified. The median delay for reporting PDs after occurrence was 94 days. PDs classified as Major were 73% (323/447). The most common corrective actions stated by PI were participant counseling (85/323) and caution in future (70/323). The study findings emphasize the need for GCP training at regular interval of study team members. IEC have to be vigilant and visit sites frequently, take initiative and formulate guidelines regarding PD reporting.