Harmonisation of ethics committees' practice in 10 European countries

Ethics committees for clinical experimentation at international level with a focus on Italy

Guiding legislation and associated bureaucracy for the ethical review of clinical trials observational studies and food related research play an important role in the competitiveness of a nation in the face of tough global competition to attract sponsors and investigators. This is of particular relevance in the case of multicentre trials and multidisciplinary research. Accordingly, in this report we tried to gather in-depth knowledge of the current role and practices of ethics committees nationwide in both clinical and research settings. This mini-review aims to describe the formulation and organization of ethical committees in Italy in order to provide a focus for deliberations on ethical issues in medical and scientific research in line with human rights, as set out in the European Union charter. Furthermore, we evaluated the impact of an institution’s ethical committee intervention on reducing the time required to obtain an opinion from Research Ethics Committees by guiding investigators in addressing ethical issues in their proposed studies. (www.actabiomedica.it)

Methodological challenges in European ethics approvals for a genetic epidemiology study in critically ill patients: the GenOSept experience

BACKGROUND

During the set-up phase of an international study of genetic influences on outcomes from sepsis, we aimed to characterise potential differences in ethics approval processes and outcomes in participating European countries.

METHODS

Between 2005 and 2007 of the FP6-funded international Genetics Of Sepsis and Septic Shock (GenOSept) project, we asked national coordinators to complete a structured survey of research ethic committee (REC) approval structures and processes in their countries, and linked these data to outcomes. Survey findings were reconfirmed or modified in 2017.

RESULTS

Eighteen countries participated in the study, recruiting 2257 patients from 160 ICUs. National practices differed widely in terms of composition of RECs, procedures and duration of the ethics approval process. Eight (44.4%) countries used a single centralised process for approval, seven (38.9%) required approval by an ethics committee in each participating hospital, and three (16.7%) required both. Outcomes of the application process differed widely between countries because of differences in national legislation, and differed within countries because of interpretation of the ethics of conducting research in patients lacking capacity. The RECs in four countries had no lay representation. The median time from submission to final decision was 1.5 (interquartile range 1-7) months; in nine (50%) approval was received within 1 month; six took over 6 months, and in one 24 months; had all countries been able to match the most efficient approvals processes, an additional 74 months of country or institution-level recruitment would have been available. In three countries, rejection of the application by some local RECs resulted in loss of centres; and one country rejected the application outright.

CONCLUSIONS

The potential benefits of the single application portal offered by the European Clinical Trials Regulation will not be realised without harmonisation of research ethics committee practices as well as national legislation.

Research approvals iceberg: how a 'low-key' study in England needed 89 professionals to approve it and how we can do better

BACKGROUND

The red tape and delays around research ethics and governance approvals frequently frustrate researchers yet, as the lesser of two evils, are largely accepted as unavoidable. Here we quantify aspects of the research ethics and governance approvals for one interview- and questionnaire-based study conducted in England which used the National Health Service (NHS) procedures and the electronic Integrated Research Application System (IRAS). We demonstrate the enormous impact of existing approvals processes on costs of studies, including opportunity costs to focus on the substantive research, and suggest directions for radical system change.

MAIN TEXT

We have recorded 491 exchanges with 89 individuals involved in research ethics and governance approvals, generating 193 pages of email text excluding attachments. These are conservative estimates (e.g. only records of the research associate were used). The exchanges were conducted outside IRAS, expected to be the platform where all necessary documents are provided and questions addressed. Importantly, the figures exclude the actual work of preparing the ethics documentation (such as the ethics application, information sheets and consent forms). We propose six areas of work to enable system change: 1. Support the development of a broad range of customised research ethics and governance templates to complement generic, typically clinical trials orientated, ones; 2. Develop more sophisticated and flexible frameworks for study classification; 3. Link with associated processes for assessment, feedback, monitoring and reporting, such as ones involving funders and patient and public involvement groups; 4. Invest in a new generation IT infrastructure; 5. Enhance system capacity through increasing online reviewer participation and training; and 6. Encourage researchers to quantify the approvals processes for their studies.

CONCLUSION

Ethics and governance approvals are burdensome for historical reasons and not because of the nature of the task. There are many opportunities to improve their efficiency and analytic depth in an age of innovation, increased connectivity and distributed working. If we continue to work under current systems, we are perpetuating, paradoxically, an unethical system of research approvals by virtue of its wastefulness and impoverished ethical debate.

Barriers to the conduct of randomised clinical trials within all disease areas

Background

Randomised clinical trials are key to advancing medical knowledge and to enhancing patient care, but major barriers to their conduct exist. The present paper presents some of these barriers.

Methods

We performed systematic literature searches and internal European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (ECRIN) communications during face-to-face meetings and telephone conferences from 2013 to 2017 within the context of the ECRIN Integrating Activity (ECRIN-IA) project.

Results

The following barriers to randomised clinical trials were identified: inadequate knowledge of clinical research and trial methodology; lack of funding; excessive monitoring; restrictive privacy law and lack of transparency; complex regulatory requirements; and inadequate infrastructures. There is a need for more pragmatic randomised clinical trials conducted with low risks of systematic and random errors, and multinational cooperation is essential.

Conclusions

The present paper presents major barriers to randomised clinical trials. It also underlines the value of using a pan-European-distributed infrastructure to help investigators overcome barriers for multi-country trials in any disease area.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2099-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effects of EU harmonization policies on national public supervision of clinical trials: A dynamic cycle of institutional change and institutional work

BACKGROUND

The EU Clinical Trials Directive (EUCTD) and the EU Clinical Trials Regulation aim to harmonize good clinical practice (GCP) of clinical trials across Member States. Using the Netherlands as a case study, this paper analyzes how endeavours to implement the EUCTD set in motion a dynamic process of institutional change and institutional work. This process lead to substantial differences between policy and actual practice; therefore, it is important to learn more about the implementation of harmonization policies.

METHODS

Relevant documents, such as legal texts and previous research, were analyzed. Interviews were conducted with stakeholders in clinical trials and inspectors from (inter)national supervisory bodies (n=33), and Dutch Health Care Inspectorate inspections were observed (n=4).

RESULTS

Dutch legislators' efforts to implement the EUCTD created a new level of governance in an already multilevel legislative framework. Institutional layering caused a complex and fragmented organizational structure in public supervision, leading to difficulties in achieving GCP. This instigated institutional work by actors, which set in motion further incremental institutional change, principally drift and conversion.

CONCLUSIONS

Harmonization processes can create dynamic cycles between institutional change and institutional work, leading to significant divergence from the intended effects of legislation. If legislation intended to strengthen harmonization is not carefully implemented, it can become counterproductive to its aims.

Informed consent for paediatric clinical trials in Europe

OBJECTIVE

Paediatric clinical trials are often conducted as multinational trials. Informed consent or assent is part of the ethics committee approval for clinical trials. The consent requirements vary between countries due to national laws and regulations, which are not harmonised in Europe. These discrepancies can present challenges for paediatric clinical trials. The aim of this study was to assemble these consent and assent requirements across the European Economic Area. The collated national requirements have not been publicly available before, despite a real need for this data.

METHODS

National consent and assent requirements for paediatric clinical trials were analysed and collated for 25 European Union Member States and 2 European Free Trade Association countries until the end of 2014. The data were retrieved from existing databases and through communication with the competent authorities and selected ethics committees. Results from a literature search for international or national guidelines, declarations and conventions and academic societies' publications served as comparison material.

RESULTS

Consent and assent requirements are heterogeneous across these countries. We compiled our findings in 'The Informed Consent and Assent Tool Kit', a table including 27 national consent and assent requirements listed by individual country.

CONCLUSIONS

Wide variation in paediatric consents and assents presents challenges for multinational paediatric trials in Europe. The toolkit is available for all those involved in paediatric clinical trials and ethics committees, providing a new platform for proactive feedback on informed consent requirements, and may finally lead to a needed harmonisation process, including uniform standards accepted across Europe.

Research ethics committees in the regulation of clinical research: comparison of Finland to England, Canada, and the United States

Background

The aim of this paper is to compare common features and variation in the work of research ethics committees (RECs) in Finland to three other countries – England, Canada, the United States of America (USA) – in the late 2000s.

Methods

Several approaches and data sources were used, including semi- or unstructured interviews of experts, documents, previous reports, presentations in meetings and observations. A theoretical framework was created and data from various sources synthesized.

Results

In Finland, RECs were regulated by a medical research law, whereas in the other countries many related laws and rules guided RECs; drug trials had specific additional rules. In England and the USA, there was a REC control body. In all countries, members were voluntary and included lay-persons, and payment arrangements varied. Patient protection was the main ethics criteria, but other criteria (research advancement, availability of results, payments, detailed fulfilment of legislation) varied. In all countries, RECs had been given administrative duties. Variations by country included the mandate, practical arrangements, handling of multi-site research, explicitness of proportionate handlings, judging scientific quality, time-limits for decisions, following of projects, role in institute protection, handling conflicts of interests, handling of projects without informed consent, and quality assurance research. The division of work between REC members and secretariats varied in checking of formalities. In England, quality assurance of REC work was thorough, fairly thorough in the USA, and not performed in Finland.

Conclusions

The work of RECs in the four countries varied notably. Various deficiencies in the system require action, for which international comparison can provide useful insights.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0078-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Evaluation of the work of hospital districts' research ethics committees in Finland

The main task of research ethics committees (RECs) is to assess research studies before their start. In this study, 24 RECs that evaluate medical research were sent questionnaires about their structure and functions. The RECs were divided into two separate groups: those working in university hospital districts (uRECs) and those in central hospital districts (non-uRECs). The two groups were different in many respects: the uRECs were bigger in size, covered a wider range of disciplines (both medical and non-medical), had better resources and more frequent and regular meetings. After the survey was performed and analysed, the Medical Research Act was amended so that only hospital districts with a medical faculty in their region had a duty to establish ethics committees. After the amendment, the number of RECs evaluating medical research in Finland decreased from 25 to 9. The ethics committees that remained had wider expertise and were better equipped already by the time of this survey. Only one non-uREC was continuing its work, and this was being done under the governance of a university hospital district. Simple measures were used for qualitative analysis of the work of RECs that evaluate medical research. These showed differences between RECs. This may be helpful in establishing an ethics committee network in a research field or administrational area.

Legislative regulation and ethical governance of medical research in different European Union countries

OBJECTIVE

To obtain information about the similarities and differences in regulating different types of medical research in the European Union (EU).

METHODS

Web searches were performed from September 2009 to January 2011. Notes on pre-determined topics were systematically taken down from the web pages. The analysis relied only on documents and reports available on the web, reflecting the situation at the end of 2010.

RESULTS

In several countries, regulatory legislation applied only to clinical trials on drugs and medical devices, in other states various types of research were also regulated but by laws different from those concerning trials, and in many countries, some research areas were not controlled by legislation at all. In very few countries was all medical research handled similarly from a legal point of view. The number of research ethics committees (RECs) in a single country varied from one to 264. Their areas of responsibility, working principles and length of time to grant research permission varied as well as the rules for obtaining informed consent from vulnerable groups. In 10 EU countries, there was no appeal mechanism after a negative decision by an REC. The RECs were not accountable to any organisation in five EU countries.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for a fundamental debate regarding whether and which kinds of changes are needed for the further harmonisation of medical research governance in the EU and how cross-country medical research could be facilitated in the future.

Institutional review boards: Challenges and opportunities

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are an important link in subject protection program, and their function defines ethical credentials of research. Of late there has been a furore in the country over the number of deaths in clinical research, and allegations of unethical research. Clinical trials have been discussed in medical and lay press and even in the parliament, these discussions called for strengthening the subject protection program. The Central Drug Standards and Control Organization (CDSCO), amended the Schedule Y, by issuing three amendments to introduce new compensation rules and registration of IRBs functioning in the country. IRBs in India face a variety of challenges, and need support from the regulators or independent experts. This is also an opportunity to revamp the subject protection program and strengthen the IRB functioning. An independent advisory body comprising of experts who have hands on experience in administering IRBs, is essential to provide support to IRBs in the country. This body should be independent of regulatory influence and work with IRBs to strengthen them.

Factors influencing clinical trial site selection in Europe: the Survey of Attitudes towards Trial sites in Europe (the SAT-EU Study)

OBJECTIVES

Applications to run clinical trials in Europe fell 25% between 2007 and 2011. Costs, speed of approvals and shortcomings of European Clinical Trial Directive are commonly invoked to explain this unsatisfactory performance. However, no hard evidence is available on the actual weight of these factors or has it been previously investigated whether other criteria may also impact clinical trial site selection.

DESIGN

The Survey of Attitudes towards Trial sites in Europe (SAT-EU Study) was an anonymous, cross-sectional web-based survey that systematically assessed factors impacting European clinical trial site selection. It explored 19 factors across investigator-driven, hospital-driven and environment-driven criteria, and costs. It also surveyed perceptions of the European trial environment.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Clinical research organisations (CROs), academic clinical trial units (CTUs) and industry invited to respond.

OUTCOME MEASURES

PRIMARY OUTCOME

weight assigned to each factor hypothesised to impact trial site selection and trial incidence. Secondary outcome: desirability of European countries to run clinical trials.

RESULTS

Responses were obtained from 485 professionals in 34 countries: 49% from BioPharma, 40% from CTUs or CROs. Investigator-dependent, environment-dependent and hospital-dependent factors were rated highly important, costs being less important (p<0.0001). Within environment-driven criteria, pool of eligible patients, speed of approvals and presence of disease-management networks were significantly more important than costs or government financial incentives (p<0.0001). The pattern of response was consistent across respondent groupings (CTU vs CRO vs industry). Considerable variability was demonstrated in the perceived receptivity of countries to undertake clinical trials, with Germany, the UK and the Netherlands rated the best trial markets (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Investigator-dependent factors and ease of approval dominate trial site selection, while costs appear less important. Fostering competitiveness of European clinical research may not require additional government spending/incentives. Rather, harmonisation of approval processes, greater visibility of centres of excellence and reduction of 'hidden' indirect costs, may bring significantly more clinical trials to Europe.

Quality in ethics consultations

There is an increasing need for quality in ethics consultations, though there have been significant achievements in the United States and Europe. However, fundamental concerns that place the profession in jeopardy are discussed from the perspective of the U.S. in a manner that will be helpful for other countries. The descriptive component of the essay (the first two points) explains the achievements in ethics quality (illustrated by the IntegratedEthics program of the Veterans Health Administration) and the progress on standards and competencies for ethics consultations (represented by the Core Competencies of the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities). Based on these achievements, the analytical component of the essay (the final three points) identifies and seeks to resolve three fundamental concerns (with increasing levels of importance) that compromise quality in ethics consultations: standards of quality; professionalism; and credentialing. The analysis argues for clearer standards of quality in ethics consultation and urges further professionalism by explaining the need for the following: interpreting the ASBH core competencies in a normative manner, developing a Code of Ethics, and clarifying the meaning of best practices. However, the most serious concern that threatens quality in ethics consultations is the lack of a credentialing process. This concern can be resolved effectively by developing an independent Ethics Consultation Accreditation Council to accredit and standardize graduate degree programs, fellowship experiences, and qualifying examinations. This credentialing process is indispensable if we are to strategically enhance quality in ethics consultations.

Harmonization of the practice of independent ethics committees in Italy: project E-submission

Aim

The high variability of “centre-specific” documentation required by Independent Ethics Committee (IEC) plays a role in the time required for activation of participating centres of multicentre clinical trials. This study (a) provides a picture of the different activities, structural requirements and resources dedicated to the operation of the local IEC in Italy; (b) defines a detailed list of “centre-specific” documents considered as essential by the IEC for issuing its opinion and (c) suggests a “single document” to reduce the variability of the “centre-specific” documents required by the IEC.

Methodology

Two surveys were conducted through the portal of National Monitoring Centre of Clinical Trials (https://oss-sper-clin.agenziafarmaco.it/). The first survey focused on the local IEC resources and on the “centre-specific” documentation that local IEC required from the Sponsor and local Principal Investigator (PI). The second focused on “single document” required in the form of statements from the Sponsor and the PI. Answers were discussed and extended during regular scheduled teleconferences and plenary meeting.

Principal Findings

From 22/07/2009 to 15/12/2009, and from 19/04/2010 to 14/05/2010, 131 and 125 IECs responded to the first and the second surveys, respectively. 67% and 51% of IECs consider the structural requirements and the staff dedicated to the activity of the IECs as sufficient, respectively. Most of the IECs consider the “centre-specific” documentation as necessary for issuing the opinion, and a high percentage of IECs consider the proposed documentation as acceptable in substitution to any other “centre-specific” documentation already in use.

Conclusions

The harmonization of IECs practice in Italy is the first step to facilitate multicentre clinical trials. Similar efforts should be directed to reduce the total number of IECs and to standardize clinical trials approval procedures, focusing on administrative procedures as well.

Clinical research ethics in Irish healthcare: diversity, dynamism and medicalization

Gaining ethical clearance to conduct a study is an important aspect of all research involving humans but can be time-consuming and daunting for novice researchers. This article stems from a larger ethnographic study that examined research capacity building in Irish nursing and midwifery. Data were collected over a 28-month time frame from a purposive sample of 16 nurse or midwife research fellows who were funded to undertake full-time PhDs. Gaining ethical clearance for their studies was reported as an early 'rite of passage' in the category of 'labouring the doctorate'. This article penetrates the complexities in Irish clinical research ethics by describing the practices these nurse and midwife researchers encountered and the experiences they had. The key issue of representation that occurred in the context of 'medicalized' research ethics is further explored including its meaning for nursing or midwifery research.

Reflections on running training workshops for research ethics committee members in Spain between 2001 and 2008

AIM

To present the experience of running workshops for members of research ethics committees (REC) in Spain from 2001-2008 by a non-profit institution.

METHODS

We analyzed data from 7 sessions of the course, involving 165 health professionals. Data were taken from an opinion survey conducted at the end of each seminar and a deferred questionnaire sent after the workshops.

RESULTS

Opinions of 122 participants who completed the first questionnaire (84% of the 146 attendees) on these training courses were very positive (median, ≥ 4.5 out of 5). The second questionnaire was administered a few months after each session, and a total of 43 participants responded (36% of 118). The participants improved their knowledge, attitude, and skills (median, 4.0 out of 5) in most of the areas evaluated. Furthermore, they believed that training for REC members should be mandatory (median, 5.0 out of 5) and carried out regularly (median, 4.0 out of 5). The lack of communication between RECs and limitations in monitoring clinical trials (median, 4.5 out of 5) were the main problems according to respondents. Training was rated as a strong necessity (median, 4.0 out of 5).

CONCLUSION

The courses were well received, they contributed to the overall learning of the participants, and served to highlight some of the major problems faced by REC members. These results emphasize the importance of training.