...
首页> 外文期刊>Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology: RTP >Review of procedures for protecting human subjects in recent clinical studies of pesticides.
【24h】

Review of procedures for protecting human subjects in recent clinical studies of pesticides.

机译:审查最近的农药临床研究中保护人类受试者的程序。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Arguments have been made for and against the regulatory use of data from human subjects on both scientific and ethical grounds. One argument against the use of data from human clinical studies involving pesticides asserts that such data are obtained from studies that do not follow the Common Rule (40 CFR 26), which provides procedures for protecting human subjects in studies funded by federal agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Although privately conducted studies using human subjects are not legally subject to or required to comply with the Common Rule, the protections of the Declaration of Helsinki and the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) Good Clinical Practice are commonly followed. We sought to answer the question of whether recent human clinical studies with insecticides performed according to Good Clinical Practice provided volunteers with the same protections as the Common Rule. All three sets of guidance have in common the intent to protect volunteer human subjects by providing standards for the conduct of studies in which they participate. This analysis compares the elements of the Common Rule with comparable elements from the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice to evaluate similarities and differences in procedural requirements. It then evaluates the documentation from 15 recent human studies of twelve insecticides conducted at four clinical laboratories in order to determine whether the conduct of those studies is consistent with the protections of the Common Rule. There were some cases for which we could not verify compliance with certain Common Rule elements; however, based on our evaluation it is apparent that the studies we reviewed were conducted in a manner substantially consistent with the fundamental protections of the Common Rule-voluntary participation, informed consent, and review by an ethical committee or institutional review board.
机译:已经从科学和道德的角度支持和反对人类受试者数据的监管使用。一种反对使用涉及杀虫剂的人类临床研究数据的论点断言,此类数据是从不遵循通用规则(40 CFR 26)的研究中获得的,该通用规则提供了保护由联邦机构资助的研究中的人类受试者的程序,包括美国环境保护署(US EPA)。尽管使用人类受试者进行的私人研究未在法律上受制于或未必遵守《通用规则》,但通常遵循《赫尔辛基宣言》和国际协调会议(ICH)良好临床实践的保护。我们试图回答一个问题,即最近根据《良好临床实践》进行的有关杀虫剂的人体临床研究是否为志愿者提供了与“通用规则”相同的保护措施。这三套指南的共同目的是通过提供志愿者参与的研究的标准来保护志愿者志愿者。该分析将《通用规则》的内容与《赫尔辛基宣言》和《良好临床实践》中的类似内容进行了比较,以评估程序要求的异同。然后,它评估了在四个临床实验室进行的对15种人类杀虫剂的最近15次人类研究的文献,以确定这些研究的进行是否与《通用规则》的保护相一致。在某些情况下,我们无法验证是否符合某些通用规则要素;但是,根据我们的评估,很明显,我们进行的研究与基本规则的自愿保护,知情同意和道德委员会或机构审查委员会的审查基本符合。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号