Encontro nacional de Comitês de Ética em Pesquisa - ENCEP bloco 1

Research on emerging infectious diseases: pros and cons of centralised government controls.

As the world grapples with the constant threat of new pathogens, the role of government oversight in research and response efforts has become a topic of considerable debate in the academic community. In the recently released "SOP [standard operating procedure] for Nipah virus research in Kerala for studies involving human participants / human samples" by the Government of Kerala, the SOP, apart from administrative permission, requires the proposal to be cleared by the Institutional Research Committee at a Government Medical College, and the inclusion of an investigator from a government institution [1]. In these challenging times, it is crucial to weigh the pros and cons of stringent administrative controls to ensure an effective and ethical approach to tackling emerging infectious diseases.

Nippon Medical School's Ethical Review Processes for Studies Involving Human Subjects.

All life science and medical research involving human subjects must be conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the relevant laws and guidelines. Additionally, its scientific and ethical suitability must be reviewed by a committee well versed in the nature and content of the research. Failure to comply with these requirements when conducting research involving human subjects is a serious violation of Japanese laws, guidelines, and local regulations, so several ethics committees and institutional review boards have been established within the Nippon Medical School (NMS) Foundation and its affiliated institutions. It is essential for investigators to keep up to date with the latest developments in the ethical review process and to ensure that any projects they propose to embark on are subjected to an appropriate ethical review before the research is initiated. To help researchers and other staff affiliated with the NMS Foundation keep abreast of these developments, this report outlines NMS's current ethical review processes for research involving human subjects.

Cross-border data sharing through the lens of research ethics committee members in sub-Saharan Africa.

BACKGROUND: Several factors thwart successful data sharing-ambiguous or fragmented regulatory landscapes, conflicting institutional/researcher interests and varying levels of data science-related expertise are among these. Traditional ethics oversight mechanisms and practices may not be well placed to guarantee adequate research oversight given the unique challenges presented by digital technologies and artificial intelligence (AI). Data-intensive research has raised new, contextual ethics and legal challenges that are particularly relevant in an African research setting. Yet, no empirical research has been conducted to explore these challenges. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We explored REC members' views and experiences on data sharing by conducting 20 semi-structured interviews online between June 2022 and February 2023. Using purposive sampling and snowballing, we recruited representatives across sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). We transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed the data with Atlas.ti V22. RESULTS: Three dominant themes were identified: (i) experiences in reviewing data sharing protocols, (ii) perceptions of data transfer tools and (iii) ethical, legal and social challenges of data sharing. Several sub-themes emerged as: (i.a) frequency of and approaches used in reviewing data sharing protocols, (i.b) practical/technical challenges, (i.c) training, (ii.a) ideal structure of data transfer tools, (ii.b) key elements of data transfer tools, (ii.c) implementation level, (ii.d) key stakeholders in developing and reviewing a data transfer agreement (DTA), (iii.a) confidentiality and anonymity, (iii.b) consent, (iii.c) regulatory frameworks, and (iii.d) stigmatisation and discrimination. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicated variability in REC members' perceptions, suboptimal awareness of the existence of data protection laws and a unanimously expressed need for REC member training. To promote efficient data sharing within and across SSA, guidelines that incorporate ethical, legal and social elements need to be developed in consultation with relevant stakeholders and field experts, along with the training accreditation of REC members in the review of data-intensive protocols.

Exercise oncology clinical trials during treatments: a commentary to address the safety concerns of human subjects regulatory reviewers and committees.

Exercise oncology clinical trials contribute to the advancement of our scientific knowledge and to the safety and care of patients diagnosed with cancer. Nevertheless, regulatory reviewers and committees may not be familiar with the well-documented long-term health benefits and safety of the regular practice of physical activity. Moreover, they may not see how the benefits outweigh the risks in the context where patients diagnosed with cancer are typically seen as vulnerable. Therefore, we would like to provide a purpose-built overview of exercise oncology clinical trials for members involved in institutional review committees, including the Scientific Review Committee (SRC), the Institutional Review Board (IRB), and the Data Safety Monitoring Committee (DSMC) to facilitate a greater understanding of the safety and benefits of physical activity during cancer treatments. Communication is key to improve the success of exercise oncology clinical trials, which are vital for patients diagnosed with cancer.

What Is "Key Information"? Consideration of the Reasons People Do or Do Not Take Part in Research.

We performed a qualitative review of 50 consent forms posted on Clinicaltrials.gov, examining the content of key information sections. We found that key information disclosures are typically focused on procedures, risks, potential benefits, and alternatives. Drawing upon reviews of the large literature examining the reasons people do or do not take part in research, we propose that these disclosures should be based more directly on what we know to be the real reasons why people choose to take part or refuse participation. We propose key information language for consideration by researchers and institutional review boards.

Challenges and Lessons from Conducting a Community-Engaged Evaluation of a Community Advisory Board-A Case Study from Flint.

Community-engaged research often poses challenges due to exactly those qualities that make it desirable: it provides a new model of research that differs in many ways from top-down, university-led, prospectively designed approaches. While many have discussed the challenges to conducting community-engaged research, few have provided precise and generalizable lessons for how to surmount these challenges. Here we discuss the challenges experienced in a project that was community-engaged at three levels: 1) a research team consisting of an academic and a community partner as well as a community and academic research assistant, 2) the research team engaged with a Community Advisory Board called the CBOP-CERB (Community Based Organization Partners-Community Ethics Research Board) throughout the project, and 3) the research involved recruiting community participants from an area with a historical distrust of researchers and research: Flint Michigan. We also discuss administrative challenges that this multilevel community-engagement posed. Most important, we provide practical lessons in order for future community-engaged research to avoid or mitigate many of these challenges.

A comparative ethical analysis of the Egyptian clinical research law.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we examined the ethical implications of Egypt's new clinical trial law, employing the ethical framework proposed by Emanuel et al. and comparing it to various national and supranational laws. This analysis is crucial as Egypt, considered a high-growth pharmaceutical market, has become an attractive location for clinical trials, offering insights into the ethical implementation of bioethical regulations in a large population country with a robust healthcare infrastructure and predominantly treatment-naïve patients. METHODS: We conducted a comparative analysis of Egyptian law with regulations from Sweden and France, including the EU Clinical Trials Regulation, considering ethical human subject research criteria, and used a directed approach to qualitative content analysis to examine the laws and regulations. This study involved extensive peer scrutiny, frequent debriefing sessions, and collaboration with legal experts with relevant international legal expertise to ensure rigorous analysis and interpretation of the laws. RESULTS: On the rating of the seven different principles (social and scientific values, scientific validity, fair selection of participants, risk-benefit ratio, independent review, informed consent and respect for participants) Egypt, France, and EU regulations had comparable scores. Specific principles (Social Value, Scientific Value, and Fair selection of participants) were challenging to directly identify due to certain regulations embodying 'implicit' principles more than explicitly stated ones. CONCLUSION: The analysis underscores Egypt's alignment with internationally recognized ethical principles, as outlined by Emanuel et al., through its comparison with French, Swedish, and EU regulations, emphasizing the critical need for Egypt to continuously refine its ethical regulations to safeguard participant protection and research integrity. Key issues identified include the necessity to clarify and standardize the concept of social value in research, alongside concerns regarding the expertise and impartiality of ethical review boards, pointing towards a broader agenda for enhancing research ethics in Egypt and beyond.

Evaluating the Impact and Effectiveness of Flint's Community Ethics Review Board (CBOP-CERB): A Pilot Study.

In recognition of the importance of evaluation for funding, research, and quality improvement, a longstanding Community Advisory Board in Flint Michigan embarked on a process to evaluate their impact. The Community-Based Organization Partners (CBOP)-Community Ethics Review Board (CERB) engaged a research team composed of an academic researcher (Solomon Cargill) and a community partner (Spencer) to obtain funding, design and implement an evaluation of the CBOP-CERB. This evaluation study yielded two evaluations of the CBOP-CERB, one with researchers who had engaged with the CBOP-CERB and the other with Flint area community residents. The results of these two evaluations can serve to show other Community Advisory Boards how to establish and expand their impact, establish their worth for future funding, and how to articulate, evaluate, and achieve their goals.

Why and when should we cluster randomize?

A cluster randomized trial is defined as a randomized trial in which intact social units of individuals are randomized rather than individuals themselves. Outcomes are observed on individual participants within clusters (such as patients). Such a design allows assessing interventions targeting cluster-level participants (such as physicians), individual participants or both. Indeed, many interventions assessed in cluster randomized trials are actually complex ones, with distinct components targeting different levels. For a cluster-level intervention, cluster randomization is an obvious choice: the intervention is not divisible at the individual-level. For individual-level interventions, cluster randomization may nevertheless be suitable to prevent group contamination, for logistical reasons, to enhance participants' adherence, or when objectives pertain to the cluster level. An unacceptable reason for cluster randomization would be to avoid obtaining individual consent. Indeed, participants in cluster randomized trials have to be protected as in any type of trial design. Participants may be people from whom data are collected, but they may also be people who are intervened upon, and this includes both patients and physicians (for example, physicians receiving training interventions). Consent should be sought as soon as possible, although there may exist situations where participants may consent only for data collection, not for being exposed to the intervention (because, for instance, they cannot opt-out). There may even be situations where participants are not able to consent at all. In this latter situation a waiver of consent must be granted by a research ethics committee.

Risk Evaluation in Occupational Safety and Health Research: Results From a Benchmarking Exercise of Federal and Academic IRBs.

OBJECTIVE: Research involving working populations can pose unique ethical and risk evaluation challenges. The purpose of this benchmarking project was to assess how federal agencies and academic institutions approach the interpretation and application of key risk evaluation concepts in research involving workers in their places of employment. METHODS: Key informant interviews were conducted to ascertain current practices related to assessing soundness of research design, determining risk reasonableness and research relatedness of risks, and evaluating the risk of noninvasive clinical tests in occupational settings. RESULTS: There were noteworthy commonalities among the approaches described to review and address critical aspects of risk evaluation for occupational safety and health research involving human participants. CONCLUSIONS: The insights gleaned may help guide institutional review boards and Human Research Protection Programs as they consider the ethical issues of human subjects research in occupational settings.

The ethics of clinical research in the era of COVID-19.

There is an urgent need for increased understanding of COVID-19 and strategies for its prevention, treatment, and mitigation. All participants in the research enterprise, including institutional review boards, have an ethical duty to protect participants and ensure that the benefits gained from such research do not conflict with the core principles that guided researchers prior to the pandemic. In this review, we discuss the ethical issues surrounding initiation and conduct of clinical trials, focusing on novel COVID-19 therapeutic, vaccine, or biospecimen research, using the principles of autonomy, beneficence, and justice. We discuss strategies to manage the practical challenges associated with the conduct of clinical trials, with an emphasis on maintaining the rights and welfare of research participants.

Returning Clinically Relevant Research Results to Participants: Guidelines for Investigators and the IRB.

In 2019, the revised Common Rule required informed consent documents for research to include a statement about whether clinically relevant research results would be returned to research participants. While there are national discussions regarding the return of results, these do not provide specific guidance about how institutional review boards (IRBs) should address this issue. Through a year-long process involving IRB staff and leadership, science and bioethics faculty members, community IRB members, and others, Indiana University's human research protection program created a framework that offers a clear categorization of types of results for researchers to consider returning, provides language for informed consent documents, and describes an active but intentionally limited role for the IRB. In this article, we describe this framework and its rationale as a model for other universities and, more generally, as a model for balancing the need to protect human subjects with efforts to limit the burdens on researchers and the IRB.

Ethical challenges in global research on health system responses to violence against women: a qualitative study of policy and professional perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Studying global health problems requires international multidisciplinary teams. Such multidisciplinarity and multiculturalism create challenges in adhering to a set of ethical principles across different country contexts. Our group on health system responses to violence against women (VAW) included two universities in a European high-income country (HIC) and four universities in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). This study aimed to investigate professional and policy perspectives on the types, causes of, and solutions to ethical challenges specific to the ethics approval stage of the global research projects on health system responses to VAW. METHODS: We used the Network of Ethical Relationships model, framework method, and READ approach to analyse qualitative semi-structured interviews (n = 18) and policy documents (n = 27). In March-July 2021, we recruited a purposive sample of researchers and members of Research Ethics Committees (RECs) from the five partner countries. Interviewees signposted policies and guidelines on research ethics, including VAW. RESULTS: We developed three themes with eight subthemes summarising ethical challenges across three contextual factors. The global nature of the group contributed towards power and resource imbalance between HIC and LMICs and differing RECs' rules. Location of the primary studies within health services highlighted differing rules between university RECs and health authorities. There were diverse conceptualisations of VAW and vulnerability of research participants between countries and limited methodological and topic expertise in some LMIC RECs. These factors threatened the timely delivery of studies and had a negative impact on researchers and their relationships with RECs and HIC funders. Most researchers felt frustrated and demotivated by the bureaucratised, uncoordinated, and lengthy approval process. Participants suggested redistributing power and resources between HICs and LMICs, involving LMIC representatives in developing funding agendas, better coordination between RECs and health authorities and capacity strengthening on ethics in VAW research. CONCLUSIONS: The process of ethics approval for global research on health system responses to VAW should be more coordinated across partners, with equal power distribution between HICs and LMICs, researchers and RECs. While some of these objectives can be achieved through education for RECs and researchers, the power imbalance and differing rules should be addressed at the institutional, national, and international levels. Three of the authors were also research participants, which had potential to introduce bias into the findings. However, rigorous reflexivity practices mitigated against this. This insider perspective was also a strength, as it allowed us to access and contribute to more nuanced understandings to enhance the credibility of the findings. It also helped to mitigate against unequal power dynamics.

Lessons from studies of medication reduction in psychosis: giving participants accurate information about risk in psychiatric research trials.

All research needs ethical regulation, which is institutionalized in research ethics committees. The patient information sheet, approved by a research ethics committee, sets out what patients need to know to make an informed choice about research participation. However, guidance from research ethics committees is much less explicit about risk communication. In this commentary, the balance of risk in the patient information sheets from protocols of 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of medication reduction in psychosis was compared with numbers needed to treat and harm from the literature. The patient information sheet omitted risk of excess death and incomplete recovery following relapse, and overestimated the anticipated benefits. All of these risks were demonstrated in the published results of 1 of the 2 RCTs. Quantifying and tabulating risk might improve patient information sheets.

The UK research ethics committee: Making the case for better serving the underserved - can we do better?

Research ethics committees exist internationally to review research proposals to protect the rights and safety of human participants and researchers involved in research. These committees recruit a panel of expert and lay members, mostly on an unpaid voluntary basis, with relevant scientific experience to appraise these studies. Contemporary data in the UK show that women and people over 55 years old are overrepresented in these committee panels in the Health Research Authority, suggesting that there are potential barriers to inclusivity and participation. A variety of global approaches to tackle these barriers include targeting specific populations, such as faith or community leaders, or implementing quotas have been adopted. Further research is needed to understand likely barriers preventing participation in research ethics committees in the UK and how they may be overcome.