Shortcomings of protocols of drug trials in relation to sponsorship as identified by Research Ethics Committees: Analysis of comments raised during ethical review

BMC Medical Ethics

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Van Lent, Marlies ^a   Rongen, Gerard A ^a   Out, Henk J ^a,b  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Drug trials; Ethical review; Pharmaceutical industry; Research ethics committees; Research protocols; Shortcomings; Sponsorship

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); DRUG INDUSTRY; ETHICS; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; METHODOLOGY; NETHERLANDS; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; STANDARDS;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; CONSENT FORMS; DRUG INDUSTRY; ETHICAL REVIEW; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; NETHERLANDS; RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH SUPPORT AS TOPIC; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 84924336093     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726939     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6939-15-83     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Friedman L, Furberg C, DeMets D: Fundamentals of Clinical Trials. 4th edition. New York: Springer-Verlag New York Inc; 2010.
2. World Medical Association: Declaration of Helsinki - Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. Fortaleza: 2013.
3. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO): International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. Geneva: 2002.
4. Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C: What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA 2000, 283(20):2701-2711.
5. Martin-Arribas MC, Rodriguez-Lozano I, Arias-Diaz J: Ethical review of research protocols: experience of a research ethics committee. Rev Esp Cardiol 2012, 65(6):525-529.
6. Bueno M, Brevidelli MM, Cocarelli T, Santos GM, Ferraz MA, Mion D Jr: Reasons for resubmission of research projects to the research ethics committee of a university hospital in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Clinics 2009, 64(9):831-836.
7. Kent G: Responses by four Local Research Ethics Committees to submitted proposals. J Med Ethics 1999, 25(3):274-277.
8. Angell E, Dixon-Woods M: Do research ethics committees identify process errors in applications for ethical approval? J Med Ethics 2009, 35(2):130-132.
9. Dixon-Woods M, Angell E, Tarrant C, Thomas A: What do research ethics committees say about applications to do cancer trials? Lancet Oncol 2008, 9(8):700-701.
10. Angell E, Biggs H, Gahleitner F, Dixon-Woods M: What do research ethics committees say about applications to conduct research involving children? Arch Dis Child 2010, 95(11):915-917.
11. Goldacre B: Bad Pharma. How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients. 4th Estate, London: 2012.
12. Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, Busuioc OA, Bero L: Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012, 12:MR000033.
13. Schott G, Pachl H, Limbach U, Gundert-Remy U, Ludwig WD, Lieb K: The financing of drug trials by pharmaceutical companies and its consequences. Part 1: A qualitative, systematic review of the literature on possible influences on the findings, protocols, and quality of drug trials. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2010, 107(16):279-285.
14. Jones R, Younie S, Macallister A, Thornton J: A comparison of the scientific quality of publicly and privately funded randomized controlled drug trials. J Eval Clin Pract 2010, 16(6):1322-1325.
15. Damen L, van Agt F, de Boo T, Huysmans F: Terminating clinical trials without sufficient subjects. J Med Ethics 2012, 38(7):413-416.
16. Kasenda B, Von Elm E, You J, Blumle A, Tomonaga Y, Saccilotto R, Amstutz A, Bengough T, Meerpohl JJ, Stegert M, Tikkinen KA, Neumann I, Carrasco-Labra A, Faulhaber M, Mulla SM, Mertz D, Akl EA, Bassler D, Busse JW, Ferreira-Gonzalez I, Lamontagne F, Nordmann A, Gloy V, Raatz H, Moja L, Rosenthal R, Ebrahim S, Schandelmaier S, Xin S, Vandvik PO, et al: Prevalence, characteristics, and publication of discontinued randomized trials. JAMA 2014, 311(10):1045-1051.
17. Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (CCMO): Annual Report 2011 Research Involving Human Subjects. The Hague: 2012.
18. Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO). The Hague: 1998.
19. Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council - EU Directive Good Clinical Practice. Luxembourg: 2001.
20. International conference on harmonisation of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use: ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline - Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6. 1996.
21. Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (CCMO): Revised Directive on the Assessment of Clinical Trial Agreements. The Hague: 2011.
22. Stukart MJ, Olsthoorn-Heim ETM, van de Vathorst S, van der Heide A, Tromp K, de Klerk C: Second Evaluation Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO). The Hague: ZonMw; 2012.
23. Redmond S, von Elm E, Blumle A, Gengler M, Gsponer T, Egger M: Cohort study of trials submitted to ethics committee identified discrepant reporting of outcomes in publications. J Clin Epidemiol 2013, 66(12):1367-1375.
24. Blumle A, Antes G, Schumacher M, Just H, von Elm E: Clinical research projects at a German medical faculty: follow-up from ethical approval to publication and citation by others. J Med Ethics 2008, 34(9):e20.
25. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC on behalf of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group and the Cochrane Bias Methods Group: Chapter 8: Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies. In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
26. Abbott L, Grady C: A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: what we know and what we still need to learn. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2011, 6(1):3-19.
27. Angell E, Sutton AJ, Windridge K, Dixon-Woods M: Consistency in decision making by research ethics committees: A controlled comparison. J Med Ethics 2006, 32(11):662-664.
28. Helfand BT, Mongiu AK, Roehrborn CG, Donnell RF, Bruskewitz R, Kaplan SA, Kusek JW, Coombs L, McVary KT, on behalf of the MIST investigators: Variation in institutional review board responses to a standard protocol for a multicenter randomized, controlled surgical trial. J Urol 2009, 181(6):2674-2679.
29. Stark AR, Tyson JE, Hibberd PL: Variation among institutional review boards in evaluating the design of a multicenter randomized trial. J Perinatol 2010, 30(3):163-169.
30. Goodyear-Smith F, Lobb B, Davies G, Nachson I, Seelau SM: International variation in ethics committee requirements: comparisons across five Westernised nations. BMC Med Ethics 2002, 3:E2.
31. Dovey S, Hall K, Makeham M, Rosser W, Kuzel A, Van Weel C, Esmail A, Phillips R: Seeking ethical approval for an international study in primary care patient safety. Br J Gen Pract 2011, 61(585):197-204.