Ethics of DNA Vaccine Transfer for Clinical Research.

Several experimental human DNA vaccines are currently undergoing Phase I, II, and III clinical trials in order to investigate their efficacy and safety. Human clinical trials must follow guidelines and procedures that have been approved by the regulatory authorities and ethics committees. Ethical clinical research is much more than applying an informed consent to participants. In this chapter we will review the ethical standards and provide a framework to evaluate and design ethical clinical research. Despite being universal standards supported by universal guidelines, they must be adapted to the conditions in each country where the clinical research is being conducted.

Informed consent procedures for emergency interventional research in patients with traumatic brain injury and ischaemic stroke.

Health-care professionals and researchers have a legal and ethical responsibility to inform patients before carrying out diagnostic tests or treatment interventions as part of a clinical study. Interventional research in emergency situations can involve patients with some degree of acute cognitive impairment, as is regularly the case in traumatic brain injury and ischaemic stroke. These patients or their proxies are often unable to provide informed consent within narrow therapeutic time windows. International regulations and national laws are criticised for being inconclusive or restrictive in providing solutions. Currently accepted consent alternatives are deferred consent, exception from consent, or waiver of consent. However, these alternatives appear under-utilised despite being ethically permissible, socially acceptable, and regulatorily compliant. We anticipate that, when the requirements for medical urgency are properly balanced with legal and ethical conduct, the increased use of these alternatives has the potential to improve the efficiency and quality of future emergency interventional studies in patients with an inability to provide informed consent.

Regulatory aspects of prospective and retrospective clinical research in France in 2018.

In France, the so-called "Jardé law" (named for its proposer) on human research, implemented since 2016, defines the regulatory and legal framework for "prospective" studies, formerly known as "biomedical research" or "common care". Three categories are distinguished: type 1 is at-risk drug or non-drug interventional research, type 2 is low-risk, low-burden interventional research, and type 3 is non-interventional research. The decrees of April 12, 2018 precisely define a list of research categories for types 2 and 3, thereby clarifying the regulatory procedures. The Sponsor registers the trial on the database of the National Drug Safety Agency (ANSM), or the European EudraCT database for drug studies, to obtain an identification number. Regulatory procedures are undertaken with the IRB and ANSM and then the Data Protection Commission (CNIL). Retrospective research on previously collected data (other than genetic) does not come under the Jardé law, and is governed by the 1978 data protection law, updated by the application decree of December 2016 and the law No. 2018-493 of June 20, 2018 on protection of personal data. This article presents a clarification of the key methodologic and regulatory steps.

Lay Summaries of Clinical Study Results: An Overview.

The European Union Clinical Trials Regulation (EU CTR) 536/2014 includes a requirement for the submission of lay summaries. Study participants, advocacy groups, and, to a lesser extent, the general public have called for greater transparency in their quest for information on clinical studies. As a complement to other forms of clinical study disclosure such as registry postings and scientific publications, lay summaries may aid in the transparency of a sponsor's clinical study results, thereby promoting trust, partnership, and patient engagement throughout the clinical study process. The data transparency field is changing rapidly; therefore, data owners should strive to stay abreast of the changes and deliver meaningful tools to their study participants and the public. Points to consider when developing lay summaries of clinical study results include regulatory drivers, the target audience, communication of complex data in a lay manner, and efficient processes for the development of lay summaries within one's company.

There is a rule in Europe that clinical studies (experiments in humans) must have a summary written in plain language. Summaries written in plain language help people who are not scientists or doctors understand complex medical information. People who participate in clinical studies, and others, may want to know information about clinical study results. Lay summaries are a way to share clinical study results, but they do not replace other ways that information is shared. Lay summary writers must think about how they can help readers understand the information. It is hard to describe the results of clinical studies in a way that everyone can understand. This article gives some ideas to think about when writing lay summaries.

Charting Regulatory Stewardship in Health Research: Making the Invisible Visible.

This section focuses on the ethical, legal, social, and policy questions arising from research involving human and animal subjects.

Impact of regulatory assessment on clinical studies in Brazil / Impacto da avaliação regulatória em estudos clínicos no Brasil

SUMMARY Introduction: Despite the recent expansion of clinical studies allocated to Brazil, the delay of local regulatory deadlines directly impacts their completion. Objective: This article examines the allocation process of clinical studies to Brazil in comparison with other countries, as well as the financial impact of studies not completed due to interruption caused by the delay in the regulatory process. Method: The allocation processes of studies were compared in nine countries with similar stages of economic development and countries in Latin America using the websites http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/GDP-rankings-table and http://worldpopulationreview.com and clinicaltrials.gov, comprising 185 countries. The 46 studies sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry underwent an analysis of the regulatory review process. Results: 46 studies sponsored by the industry and submitted in the country between June 2007 and June 2013 were analyzed; 18 (39%) were discontinued due to the delay in obtaining the necessary approvals. For the approved studies, patient recruitment began an average of 11 months after the other countries. It is estimated that 530 Brazilians patients did not have the opportunity to participate in these studies. Financial losses were to the order of 14.6 million dollars for the country, including patient, medication and supplies costs, and expenses. Conclusion: Brazil has enormous potential for the realization of clinical studies. Researchers, associations of disabled people and patients with chronic diseases, sponsors and the authorities must work together to develop an approval process that is efficient, predictable and, most of all, transparent. The current regulatory environment must and can be improved and optimized in order to result in tangible benefits for patients, society and the country’s scientific development.

RESUMO Introdução: apesar da recente expansão de estudos clínicos alocados para o Brasil, a demora dos prazos regulatórios locais impacta diretamente em sua realização. Objetivo: este artigo analisa o processo de alocação de estudos clínicos para o Brasil em comparação a outros países, bem como o impacto financeiro dos estudos não realizados em decorrência da interrupção pela demora no processo regulatório. Método: foram comparados os processos de alocação de estudos em nove países com estágios semelhantes de desenvolvimento econômico e países da América Latina através dos siteshttp://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/GDP-ranking-table, http://worldpopulationreview.com e clinicaltrials.gov, que engloba 185 países. Os 46 estudos patrocinados pela indústria farmacêutica tiveram o processo de avaliação regulatória analisado. Resultados: foram analisados 46 estudos patrocinados pela indústria submetidos no país entre junho de 2007 e junho de 2013; 18 (39%) foram descontinuados pelo atraso na obtenção das aprovações necessárias. Para os estudos aprovados, o recrutamento de pacientes começou, em média, aos 11 meses após os demais países. Estima-se que 530 pacientes brasileiros não tiveram a oportunidade de participar desses estudos. As perdas financeiras foram da ordem de 14,6 milhões de dólares para o país, incluindo custos com paciente, medicação, suprimentos e despesas administrativas. Conclusão: o Brasil tem um enorme potencial para a realização de estudos clínicos. Investigadores, associações de deficientes e pacientes portadores de doenças crônicas, patrocinadores e autoridades devem trabalhar juntos para desenvolver um processo de aprovação eficiente, previsível e antes de tudo transparente. O atual ambiente regulatório deve e pode ser melhorado e aperfeiçoado, caso contrário não resultará em benefícios tangíveis para o paciente, para a sociedade e a evolução médico-científica do país.

Impact of regulatory assessment on clinical studies in Brazil.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the recent expansion of clinical studies allocated to Brazil, the delay of local regulatory deadlines directly impacts their completion. OBJECTIVE: This article examines the allocation process of clinical studies to Brazil in comparison with other countries, as well as the financial impact of studies not completed due to interruption caused by the delay in the regulatory process. METHOD: The allocation processes of studies were compared in nine countries with similar stages of economic development and countries in Latin America using the websites http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/GDP-rankings-table and http://worldpopulationreview.com and clinicaltrials.gov, comprising 185 countries. The 46 studies sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry underwent an analysis of the regulatory review process. RESULTS: 46 studies sponsored by the industry and submitted in the country between June 2007 and June 2013 were analyzed; 18 (39%) were discontinued due to the delay in obtaining the necessary approvals. For the approved studies, patient recruitment began an average of 11 months after the other countries. It is estimated that 530 Brazilians patients did not have the opportunity to participate in these studies. Financial losses were to the order of 14.6 million dollars for the country, including patient, medication and supplies costs, and expenses. CONCLUSION: Brazil has enormous potential for the realization of clinical studies. Researchers, associations of disabled people and patients with chronic diseases, sponsors and the authorities must work together to develop an approval process that is efficient, predictable and, most of all, transparent. The current regulatory environment must and can be improved and optimized in order to result in tangible benefits for patients, society and the country's scientific development.