Trascendencia de los Comités de Ética de Investigación en Seres Humanos en el Ecuador / Research Ethics Committees of Human Beings in Ecuador

INTRODUCCIÓN. Los Comités de Ética de Investigación en Seres Humanos deben proteger la dignidad, los derechos, el bienestar y la seguridad de los sujetos investigados; evalúan aspectos éticos, metodológicos y jurídicos de los protocolos de investigación, competencia otorgada por el ente sanitario del país que ameritó observar si se cumplió. OBJETIVO. Evaluar la situación de los Comités de Ética de Investigación en Seres Humanos, basados en la percepción del cursillista, la normativa, las repercusiones y consecuencias para mantener su condición activa y su trascendencia. MATERIALES Y MÉTODOS. Estudio descriptivo, transversal y ambispectivo con un universo de 1 327 profesionales del área de la salud y una muestra de 385 encuestados que expresaron su percepción sobre trece Comités de Ética de Investigación en Seres Humanos a nivel nacional, con revisión bibliográfica nacional e internacional, se excluyeron los suspendidos. Se aplicó encuesta validada online, período abril a octubre de 2019. Data analizada en Excel y SPSS versión 23. RESULTADOS. El 76,92% Comités de Ética de Investigación en Seres Humanos fueron de la ciudad de Quito. Los cursillistas percibieron que el 64,16%, no trascendieron en su labor; desconocieron que: la Dirección Nacional de Inteligencia de la Salud, cuestionó el nombramiento de algún miembro un 97,14%; el cuestionamiento estuvo basado en la norma vigente un 79,48%; sobre la aprobación del plan anual de capacitación en investigación, 2019, un 95,06%; el plan anual de capacitación específico un 77,40%, y no recibieron directrices ni retroalimentación en temas de capacitación en calidad de investigador, un 90,39%. Además, percibieron que los Comités fueron responsables de capacitar otros Comités de ética de Investigación en Seres Humanos, un 81,82% y a los investigadores, un 85,71%; que deben elaborar el plan anual de educación específica para los miembros del comité, un 89,35%. CONCLUSIÓN. Se identificó entre los problemas que los investigadores casi no los conocen y hay necesidad de actualizar la norma que afectó el funcionamiento. Los justificativos para mantener la condición activa no se cumplieron, se evidenció la necesidad de asesoría para los comités por parte de las autoridades competentes, sin lograr conformación consolidada con actores y repercutió en su trascendencia.

INTRODUCTION. The Research Ethics Committees on Human Beings must protect the dignity, rights, well-being and safety of the research subjects; evaluate ethical, methodological and legal aspects of the research protocols, a competence granted by the health entity of the country that merited see if it is done. OBJECTIVE. Evaluate the situation of the Ethics Committees for Research in Human Beings, based on the perception of the trainee, the regulations, the repercussions and consequences to maintain their active condition and their transcendence. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Descriptive, cross-sectional and ambispective study with a universe of 1,327 professionals in the health area and a sample of 385 respondents who expressed their perception of thirteen Research Ethics Committees on Human Beings at the national level, with national and international bibliographic review. those suspended were excluded. An online validated survey was applied, from April to October 2019. Data analyzed in Excel and SPSS version 23. RESULTS. 76.92% Human Research Ethics Committees were from the city of Quito. The trainees perceived that 64,16%, did not transcend in their work; they did not know that: the National Directorate of Health Intelligence, questioned the appointment of a member 97,14%; the questioning was based on the current norm 79,48%; on the approval of the annual research training plan, 2019, 95,06%; the specific annual training plan 77,40%, and did not receive guidelines or feedback on training issues as a researcher, 90,39%. In addition, they perceived that the Committees were responsible for training other Human Beings Research Ethics Committees, 81,82% and the researchers, 85,71%; that they must prepare the annual specific education plan for the members of the committee, 89,35%. CONCLUSION. It was identified among the problems that the researchers hardly know them and there is a need to update the norm that affected the operation. The justifications to maintain the active condition were not fulfilled, the need for advice for the committees by the competent authorities was evidenced, without achieving a consolidated conformation with actors and had repercussions on its importance. hardly know them and there is a need to update the norm that affected the operation. The justifications to maintain the active condition were not fulfilled, the need for advice for the committees by the competent authorities was evidenced, without achieving a consolidated conformation with actors and had repercussions on its importance.

Challenges and Best Practices in Ethical Review of Human and Organizational Factors Studies in Health Technology: a Synthesis of Testimonies.

OBJECTIVE: Human and Organizational Factors (HOF) studies in health technology involve human beings and thus require Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. Yet HOF studies have specific constraints and methods that may not fit standard regulations and IRB practices. Gaining IRB approval may pose difficulties for HOF researchers. This paper aims to provide a first overview of HOF study challenges to get IRB review by exploring differences and best practices across different countries. METHODS: HOF researchers were contacted by email to provide a testimony about their experience with IRB review and approval. Testimonies were thematically analyzed and synthesized to identify and discuss shared themes. RESULTS: Researchers from seven European countries, Argentina, Canada, Australia, and the United States answered the call. Four themes emerged that indicate shared challenges in legislation, IRB inefficiencies and inconsistencies, general regulation and costs, and lack of HOF study knowledge by IRB members. We propose a model for IRB review of HOF studies based on best practices. CONCLUSION: International criteria are needed that define low and high-risk HOF studies, to allow identification of studies that can undergo an expedited (or exempted) process from those that need full IRB review. Enhancing IRB processes in such a way would be beneficial to the conduct of HOF studies. Greater knowledge and promotion of HOF methods and evidence-based HOF study designs may support the evolving discipline. Based on these insights, training and guidance to IRB members may be developed to support them in ensuring that appropriate ethical issues for HOF studies are considered.

Misrepresenting "Usual Care" in Research: An Ethical and Scientific Error.

Comparative effectiveness studies, referred to here as "usual-care" trials, seek to compare current medical practices for the same medical condition. Such studies are presumed to be safe and involve only minimal risks. However, that presumption may be flawed if the trial design contains "unusual" care, resulting in potential risks to subjects and inaccurately informed consent. Three case studies described here did not rely on clinical evidence to ascertain contemporaneous practice. As a result, the investigators drew inaccurate conclusions, misinformed research participants, and subjects' safety was compromised. Before approving usual-care protocols, IRBs and scientific review committees should evaluate the quality and completeness of information documenting usual-care practices. Guidance from governmental oversight agencies regarding evidence-based documentation of current clinical practice could prevent similar occurrences in future usual-care trials. Accurate information is necessary to ensure that trials comply with government regulations that require minimizing research risks to subjects and accurate informed consent documents.

Melhorando a qualidade do processo de revisão por pares: instruções para os revisores da GGA / Improving the quality of peer review: GGA instructions for reviewers

A revisão por pares (peer review) é parte essencial e indissociável do processo editorial e de publicação acadêmica, contribuindo para a validação dos textos submetidos para revistas biomédicas. Boas revisões melhoram sobremaneira a qualidade dos manuscritos publicados e, por conseguinte, a reputação, o valor e a relevância da revista para os leitores. Este artigo especial incluiu as principais recomendações do Conselho Editorial da revista Geriatrics, Gerontology and Aging aos seus atuais e futuros revisores, almejando a contínua evolução dos padrões de qualidade do processo de revisão por pares adotado pelo periódico. Além de discorrer sobre a importância e tipos de processos de revisão, como se dão o fluxo editorial e a seleção dos revisores, apresentamos recomendações gerais e específicas para a condução de um bom parecer.

Peer review is an essential and integral part of the editorial and academic publication process that contributes to validate manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. A good review can greatly improve the quality of published manuscripts, thereby improving the journal's reputation, value, and relevance to the reader. This special article includes the main recommendations of the editorial board of Geriatrics, Gerontology and Aging to its current and future reviewers, aiming at a continuous improvement of quality standards in the peer review process used by the journal. In addition, the importance and types of review processes are discussed, as well as the editorial flow and selection of reviewers, and general and specific recommendations are presented for carrying out good reviews.

Rethinking the Regulatory Triggers for Prospective Ethics Review.

Under the Common Rule, federally-supported activities involving human participants are presumptively required to undergo prospective ethics review if they are "designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge." However, the "generalizable knowledge" standard is inherently ambiguous; moreover, it is both over- and under-inclusive of the type of activities that warrant prospective ethical oversight. Rather than conditioning prospective ethics review on an ethically irrelevant criterion like the generalizable knowledge standard, this article proposes that prior ethics review should be required when some individuals are exposed to greater-than-minimal risks for the potential benefit of others, at least when the activity in question is conducted or supported by federal agencies. Under such an approach, the fact that an activity constitutes research would be neither necessary nor sufficient to trigger prospective ethical oversight.

The Role of Inclusion Benefits in Ethics Committee Assessment of Research Studies.

The relationship between risks and benefits is central to the ethics of research involving human participants. Traditionally, to be ethically justifiable, risks should be reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits (if any) to subjects and to the potential social benefits resulting from research. This calculus is being further complicated by findings from an increasing number of social science studies that reveal that prospective and actual research participants frequently describe various types of inclusion benefits (for example, personal benefits such as access to or improved health care, increased knowledge about their disease or condition, and greater solidarity with the local community) as important to them. What is the ethical significance of such inclusion benefits, particularly those nonmedical in nature, for research ethics committees' risk-benefit assessment of research studies? We argue that, unless participants are clearly mistaken in their perceptions, ethics committees should take these types of inclusion benefits into account, and we suggest a few ways this might look in practice.

A Framework for Assessing Scientific Merit in Ethical Review of Clinical Research.

Ethics guidelines and commentary suggest that a central function of research ethics committees is to assess the scientific merit of the protocols they review. However, some commentators object to this role, and evidence suggests that the assessment of scientific merit is a significant source of confusion and animosity between ethics committees and clinical investigators. In this essay, we argue that ethics committees should assess the scientific value and validity of research protocols and that new decision-making tools are needed to help them do so in a systematic, transparent, and reliable way. We present a novel ethical framework that can assist in this task.

Addressing procedural challenges of ethical review system: Towards a better ethical quality of clinical trials review in Malaysia.

The review of clinical trials with human participants in Malaysia is governed by a decentralized control system. The clinical trial protocols are reviewed by 13 registered research ethics committees (RECs) in Malaysia. A governmental body, the National Pharmaceutical Control Bureau, is responsible for the inspection and oversight of these registered RECs to ensure that they comply with the regulatory requirements. However, this study highlights that each REC in Malaysia has a different standard operating procedure and ethical review process. Other procedural challenges identified include inadequate membership, poor mechanism for research monitoring after ethical approval, and insufficient resources. Establishments of a national standard of REC and a central ethics committee are suggested to ensure procedural compliance in the oversight of clinical trials in Malaysia. While there is a growing concern that procedural compliance may not have a direct impact on the protection of human subjects, our key point is that an ethical review system compliant with the national standards could serve as a strong framework to support and enhance the ethical quality of decision-making and judgement. We believe that being aware of how influential procedural compliance can be would help committees improve the ethical quality of their research review.

[Nationwide Survey on Informed Consent and Ethical Review at Hospitals Conducting Post-marketing Studies Sponsored by Pharmaceutical Companies].

Under the Japanese drug regulatory system, post-marketing studies (PMS) must be in compliance with Good Post-marketing Study Practice (GPSP). The GPSP Ordinance lacks standards for the ethical conduct of PMSs; although only post-marketing clinical trials are subject to Good Clinical Practice. We conducted a web-based questionnaire survey on the ethical conduct of PMSs in collaboration with the Japanese Society of Hospital Pharmacists and pharmacists belonging to the Society. 1819 hospitals around Japan answered the questionnaire, of which 503 hospitals had conducted company-sponsored PMSs in 2015. 40.2% of the hospitals had obtained informed consent from participating patients in at least one PMS conducted in 2015, the majority of which was in written form. The first and second most frequent reasons for seeking informed consent in PMSs were to meet protocol requirements, followed by the requirement to meet institutional standard operational procedures and the request of the ethical review board of the hospital. Ethical review of PMSs was conducted in 251 hospitals. Despite a lack of standards for informed consent and ethical review in PMSs, a considerable number of study sites employed informed consent and ethical review for PMSs. While company policies and protocols are likely to be major determinants of the ethical conduct of PMSs, the governmental regulatory agency should also play a significant role in implementing a standardized ethical code for the conduct of PMSs.

Measuring inconsistency in research ethics committee review.

BACKGROUND: The review of human participant research by Research Ethics Committees (RECs) or Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) is a complex multi-faceted process that cannot be reduced to an algorithm. However, this does not give RECs/ IRBs permission to be inconsistent in their specific requirements to researchers or in their final opinions. In England the Health Research Authority (HRA) coordinates 67 committees, and has adopted a consistency improvement plan including a process called "Shared Ethical Debate" (ShED) where multiple committees review the same project. Committee reviews are compared for consistency by analysing the resulting minutes. METHODS: We present a description of the ShED process. We report an analysis of minutes created by research ethics committees participating in two ShED exercises, and compare them to minutes produced in a published "mystery shopper" exercise. We propose a consistency score by defining top themes for each exercise, and calculating the ratio between top themes and total themes identified by each committee for each ShED exercise. RESULTS: Our analysis highlights qualitative differences between the ShED 19, ShED 20 and "mystery shopper" exercises. The quantitative measure of consistency showed only one committee across the three exercises with more than half its total themes as top themes (ratio of 0.6). The average consistency scores for the three exercises were 0.23 (ShED19), 0.35 (ShED20) and 0.32 (mystery shopper). There is a statistically significant difference between the ShED 19 exercise, and the ShED 20 and mystery shopper exercises. CONCLUSIONS: ShED exercises are effective in identifying inconsistency between ethics committees and we describe a scoring method that could be used to quantify this. However, whilst a level of inconsistency is probably inevitable in research ethics committee reviews, studies must move beyond the ShED methodology to understand why inconsistency occurs, and what an acceptable level of inconsistency might be.

Do all services provided as part of a clinical trial require research ethics and governance review?

Appropriate ethical oversight underpins the conduct of all clinical trials in Australia. In addition, clinical trials require a suitable approach to research governance in order to ensure that research is appropriately governed. However, such governance processes are often onerous and time-consuming and are not required when trial practices are more appropriately understood as standard of care clinical services.

Confidence of IRB/REC Members in Their Assessments of Human Research Risk: A Study of IRB/REC Decision Making in Action.

Understanding how institutional review boards/research ethics committees (IRBs/RECs) perform risk/benefit assessment is important to help improve their function. In environmental ethics, uncertainty about potential outcomes and the precautionary principle play important roles in regulatory oversight but have received little attention in the context of human research ethics. We carried out an empirical study to gain insight into uncertainty by asking IRB/REC members about confidence in their risk assessments immediately after discussion of new protocols under review. Based on 12 meetings carried out by four IRBs/RECs over a 6-month period, we found a robust, inverse relationship between risk and confidence. As risk increased, confidence decreased. We detected different patterns of consensus between different IRBs/RECs and their members. Our study introduces a novel and relatively easy to implement approach to begin to understand IRB/REC decision making in real time that can be used within or across institutions.

Ethical standards for medical research in the Israeli military - review of the changes in the last decade.

BACKGROUND: The Israel Defense Forces Medical Corps (IDF MC) institutional review board (IRB) is one of approximately 50 IRBs active in Israel. In addition to routine IRB considerations it must also address in its deliberations specific safeguards in place in the IDF to protect research volunteers in the military environment. In this report, we present the characteristics of the IDF IRB, including the unique circumstances that led to a 2008 change in the pre-IRB advisory and preparatory process (APP). We also present quantitative data on the IRB's throughput and outcomes, in order to provide a benchmark for other IRBs. METHODS: We reviewed all relevant IDF regulations, both historical and current, pertaining to the structure, activity and oversight of the IRB and of medical research conducted in the IDF. Additionally, we analyzed the ethical review process for all research proposals submitted to the IDF APP between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2015. RESULTS: In 2008 the IDF implemented several major changes which have had a substantial impact on the ethical regulation of military medical research. The period following these changes has seen a rise in the number of research proposals submitted to the IDF IRB annually. During the years 2013-2015, 377 research proposals entered the APP, of which 329 were deemed appropriate for IRB deliberation. Eight study protocols were granted waivers, 19 were rejected, and the remaining 302 were authorized. Overall, 345 of the 377 research proposals submitted (92 %) were ultimately cleared for execution; 310 of 329 proposals (94 %) deliberated by the IRB were authorized. The IRB required protocol revisions for 47 % of the research proposals, one-third of which were revisions directly associated with military-specific ethical precautions. CONCLUSIONS: Guided by the principles of protecting personal autonomy in the complex military setting, the IDF has implemented several unique measures aimed at maintaining the highest ethical standards in medical research. By sharing research approval process data similar to those presented here, medical institutions can help build and support a peer-based benchmarking process through which individual IRBs can appraise their own processes and approval rates.

Still Human: A Call for Increased Focus on Ethical Standards in Cadaver Research.

Research on human cadavers is an important mechanism of scientific progress and comprises a large industry in the United States. However, despite its importance and influence, there is little ethical or regulatory oversight of cadaver-based research. This lack of transparency raises important ethical questions. Thus, this paper serves as a call for ethicists and regulators to pay increased attention to cadaver research. I argue that cadaver research ought to be considered a subset of human subjects research and held accountable to higher ethical standards. After describing current practices, I argue that oversight of cadaver research as a form of human subjects research is appropriate because cadaver research is similar to other types of human research, participants in cadaver research incur risks of harm, and a current lack of oversight has allowed the cadaver industry to entice research participation through ethically questionable practices. This paper urges greater dialogue among human subjects research ethicists and regulators about what constitutes appropriate protections for participants in cadaver research.

Inconsistencies and time delays in site-specific research approvals hinder collaborative clinical research in Australia.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The aim of this study was to describe the time and documentation needed to gain ethics and governance approvals in Australian states with and without a centralised ethical review system. METHODS: This is a prospective descriptive study undertaken between February 2012 and March 2015. Paediatric and adult hospitals (n = 67) in Australian states were approached to allow the review of their medical records. Participants included 15- to 24-year-olds diagnosed with cancer between 2008 and 2012. The main outcomes measures were time (weeks) to approval for ethics and governance and the number and type of documents submitted. RESULTS: Centralised ethics approval processes were used in five states, with approval taking between 2 and 18 weeks. One state did not use a centralised process, with ethics approval taking a median of 4.5 weeks (range: 0-15) per site. In four states using a centralised ethics process, 33 governance applications were submitted, with 20 requiring a site clinician listed as an investigator. Governance applications required the submission of 11 documents on average, including a Site-Specific Assessment form. Thirty-two governance applications required original signatures from a median of 3.5 (range: 1-10) non-research persons, which took a median of 5 weeks (range: 0-15) to obtain. Governance approval took a median of 6 weeks (range: 1-45). Twelve research study agreements were needed, each taking a median of 7.5 weeks (range: 1-20) to finalise. CONCLUSION: The benefits of centralised ethics review systems have not been realised due to duplicative, inflexible governance processes. A system that allowed the recognition of prior ethical approval and low-risk applications was more efficient than a central ethics and site-specific governance process.

Small is beautiful: demystifying and simplifying standard operating procedures: a model from the ethics review and consultancy committee of the Cameroon Bioethics Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Research ethics review is a critical aspect of the research governance framework for human subjects research. This usually requires that research protocols be submitted to a research ethics committee (REC) for review and approval. This has led to very rapid developments in the domain of research ethics, as RECs proliferate all over the globe in rhyme with the explosion in human subjects research. The work of RECs has increasingly become elaborate, complex, and in many cases urgent, necessitating supporting rules and procedures of operation. Guidelines for elaborating standard operating procedures (SOPs) for the functioning of RECs have also been proposed. The SOPs of well-placed and well-resourced RECs have tended to pay much attention to details, resulting, as a consequence, in generally long, elaborate, intricate and complex SOPs; a model that can hardly be replicated by other committees, equally under ethics review pressures, but working under much more constraining conditions in resource-destitute environments. METHODS: In this paper, we looked at the content and length of SOPs from African RECs and compared them to the World Health Organization (WHO)'s guidelines as the gold standard. We also looked at the SOPs from the Ethics Review and Consultancy Committee (ERCC) of the Cameroon Bioethics Initiative that we elaborated in a simplified way in 2013, and compared them to the WHO's guidelines and to the other SOPs. RESULTS: Sixteen SOPs from 14 African countries were collected from various sources. Their average length was of 30 pages. By comparison to the guidance of the WHO, only six of them were found acceptable with more than 70 % of the criteria from the gold standard that were fully described. Among those six, two of them were very long and detailed (65 and 102 pages), while the four remaining SOPs ranged from 16 to 24 pages. The ERCC SOPs are seven pages long but maintain all that is of essence for the rigorous, efficient and timely review of protocols. CONCLUSIONS: We are convinced that, because of their brevity, simplicity, clarity and user-friendliness, the ERCC SOPs recommend themselves as a model template to, at least, committees similarly situated and/or circumstanced as the ERCC of the Cameroon Bioethics Initiative is. In fact, brevity, clarity, simplicity and user-friendliness are recognized values. Whatever is brief and clear is better than what is not and saves time. What is simple and user-friendly is better than what is not even though the two have the same aims because it saves both time and mental energy. And if this be true in general, it is even truer of the context and its peculiar constraints that we are addressing.