The Good Clinical Practice guideline and its interpretation - perceptions of clinical trial teams in sub-Saharan Africa

OBJECTIVES

To explore the advantages and challenges of working with the Good Clinical Practice (GCP)-International Conference of Harmonization (ICH) E6 guideline and its interpretation from the perspective of clinical trial teams based in sub-Saharan Africa.

METHODS

We conducted 60 key informant interviews with clinical trial staff at different levels in clinical research centres in Kenya, Ghana, Burkina Faso and Senegal and thematically analysed the responses.

RESULTS

Clinical trial teams perceived working with ICH-GCP as highly advantageous and regarded ICH-GCP as applicable to their setting and efficiently applied. Only for informed consent did some clinical trial staff (one-third) perceive the guideline as insufficiently applicable. Specific challenges included meeting the requirements for written and individual consent, conditions for impartial witnesses for illiterates or legally acceptable representatives for children, guaranteeing voluntary participation and ensuring full understanding of the consent given. It was deemed important to have ICH-GCP compliance monitored by relevant ethics committees and regulatory authorities, without having guidelines applied overcautiously.

CONCLUSION

Clinical trial teams in sub-Saharan Africa perceived GCP as a helpful guideline, despite having been developed by northern organisations and despite the high administrative burden of implementing it. To mitigate consent challenges, we suggest adapting GCP and making use of the flexibility it offers.

Assessing the detection, reporting and investigation of adverse events in clinical trial protocols implemented in Cameroon: a documentary review of clinical trial protocols

BACKGROUND

International guidelines recommend ethical and scientific quality standards for managing and reporting adverse events occurring during clinical trials to competent research ethics committees and regulatory authorities. The purpose of this study was to determine whether clinical trial protocols in Cameroon are developed in line with national requirements and international guidelines as far as detecting, reporting and investigating of adverse events is concerned.

METHODS

It was a documentary review of all approved clinical trial protocols that were submitted at the Cameroon National Ethics Committee for evaluation from 1997 through 2012. Data were extracted using a preconceived and validated grid. Protocol review process targeted the title, abstract, objectives, methodology, resources, and the chapter on safety.

RESULTS

In total, 106 (4.9 %) clinical trial protocols were identified from 2173 protocols seen in the archive and 104 (4.8 %) included for review. Seventy six (73.1 %) trials did not include the surveillance of adverse events as part of their objective. A total of 91 (87.5 %) protocols did not budget for adverse event surveillance, 76 (73.1 %) did not have a data safety management board (DSMB), 11(10.6 %) included insurance for participants, 47 (45.2 %) did not include a case definition for serious adverse events, 33 (31.7 %) described procedures to detect adverse events, 33 (31.7 %) described procedure for reporting and 22 (21.2 %) described procedure for investigating adverse events.

DISCUSSIONS

Most clinical trial protocols in Cameroon are developed to focus on benefits and pay little attention to harms. The development of national guidelines can improve the surveillance of adverse events in clinical trial research conducted in Cameroon. Adverse events surveillance tools and a budget are critical for an adequate planning for adverse event surveillance when developing trial protocols.

CONCLUSION

Clinical trial protocols submitted in the Cameroon National Ethics Committee do not adequately plan to assess adverse events in clinical trial protocols. In order to improve on the safety of participants and marketed drug, there is a need to develop national guidelines for clinical trials by the government, and to improve evaluation procedures and monitoring of ongoing trials by the ethics committee.

Development of a checklist of quality indicators for clinical trials in resource-limited countries: the French National Agency for Research on AIDS and Viral Hepatitis (ANRS) experience

BACKGROUND

Since 1994, the French National Agency for Research on AIDS and Viral Hepatitis (ANRS) has funded research sites in resource-limited countries (RLCs). These sites implement research on human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and Hepatitis C. In parallel, international regulations and recommendations for clinical trials have evolved and proliferated. However, little guidance exists on how these should be interpreted and applied within academic trials and in the context of RLCs. After developing a specific Ethical Charter for research in developing countries in 2002, ANRS developed a set of quality indicators (QIs) as a monitoring tool for assessing compliance to international guidelines.

PURPOSE

We describe here the development process, QIs adopted, and areas for improvement.

METHODS

In 2008, a group of experts was convened that included a researcher representing each ANRS site (Cote d'Ivoire, Senegal, Cameroun, Burkina Faso, Egypt, and Cambodia). Our structuring interaction development process combined evidence and expert opinion in two nominal group meetings to identify (1) clinical trial processes involved, (2) issues specific to RLCs in terms of Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and the application of ethical recommendations, and (3) checklists of QIs adapted to clinical trials conducted in RLCs.

RESULTS

The trial process reviewed and proposed for RLCs was mostly similar to the one produced in wealthier countries. The scheme generated by our work group added two further processes: 'drug management' and 'biological investigations'. Specific issues regarding trial management in RLCs were therefore described for eight trial steps (1) protocol conception and seeking authorizations, (2) participant enrollment and follow-up, (3) site monitoring, (4) drug management, (5) biological investigations, (6) record management, (7) data management, and (8) site closeout. A total of 58 indicators were identified with at least one indicator for each trial process.

LIMITATIONS

Some trial activities require further consideration, that is, in the case of vulnerable participants (children, pregnant women). Proposed indicators are the result of expert consensus and reflect their experience in the HIV field. Relevance to existing trials and extrapolation to other fields must be assessed.

CONCLUSIONS

This innovative program allowed ANRS sites located in RLCs to share their GCP implementation experiences in order to build a list of relevant indicators for clinical trials. The next step is to collect data from ongoing HIV and hepatitis C trials in these settings and will assess the relevance of these indicators to document current quality of performance among trials in resource-limited settings.