首页> 外文期刊>Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology. >EC2 ADMINISTRATIVE INTERVENTION ON OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES WITH MEDICINES: A NIGHTMARE WITH NO ADDED VALUE
【24h】

EC2 ADMINISTRATIVE INTERVENTION ON OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES WITH MEDICINES: A NIGHTMARE WITH NO ADDED VALUE

机译:EC2对药物观察性研究的行政干预:无附加值的噩梦

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Objective: Description of the administrative procedures requested by Health Authorities (HA) and Research Ethics Committees (REC) to perform an observational study with medicines, based on a real example.Setting and Method: We decided to carry out a Spanish muiti-centre prospective observational study that, according to medicines regulations, is considered a post authorisation study (EPA).The study was to be performed in 62 Spanish-hospitals involving 15 different Autonomous-Governments. Health Authorities: The study was submitted to 13 different HA.Results: In a period of 9 months, we obtained 9 favourable opinions and 2 refusals. Prior to get the positive opinion, 6 of the 9HA requested clarifications on the proposed study and 1 formally rejected the study. The 2 HA that refused the study did it without requesting clarifications. We were not given option to answer the objections, which is not the standard administrative procedure in Spain. Research Ethics committees: The study was submitted initiallyto review by 6 REC, all approved the study without requesting major objections. Once the study approved by those REC and the HA we informed the local REC of the involved centres that the study was to be done and that, although there was no payment to participant investigators, an agreement with the centre will be signed according to local regulations. Answers from the 53 REC notified has been disparate. Up to 17 (32%) requested a formal submission of the study to be evaluated, in spite it was an observational study approved by REC and their respective HA and that there was no local regulation requesting their approval. Requisites of these REC were heterogeneous and complex, demanding non-applicable requirements such as a specific insurance or cumbersome number of copies and specific documents. Some REC have changed their opinion after personal phone conversations but most of them insist in that this is a requirement of the hospital manager, as if the role of the REC was to be an advisor to the manager.
机译:目标:描述卫生当局(HA)和研究伦理委员会(REC)要求的以真实示例为基础进行药物观察性研究的行政程序设置和方法:我们决定开展一个西班牙多种族中心前瞻性研究观察性研究,根据药品法规,被认为是授权后研究(EPA)。该研究将在62家西班牙医院中进行,涉及15个自治政府。卫生当局:该研究已提交给13个不同的HA。结果:在9个月的时间里,我们获得了9条赞成和2条拒绝。在获得正面意见之前,9HA中的6个要求对拟议的研究进行澄清,而1个正式拒绝该研究。拒绝该研究的2 HA无需进行澄清就进行了研究。我们没有办法回答反对意见,这不是西班牙的标准行政程序。研究伦理委员会:该研究最初是提交给6 REC进行审查的,所有研究均批准了该研究,而没有提出重大异议。一旦研究获得了这些REC和HA的批准,我们就会通知所涉及中心的当地REC该研究将要进行,并且尽管没有向参与研究者付款,但将根据当地法规与该中心签署协议。 。通知的53 REC的答案截然不同。尽管这是一项由REC及其各自的HA批准的观察性研究,并且没有当地法规要求批准,但仍有多达17个(32%)要求正式提交研究进行评估。这些REC的要求是异类且复杂的,要求不适用的要求,例如特定的保险或繁琐的副本和特定的文档。一些REC在个人电话交谈后改变了看法,但大多数人坚持认为这是医院经理的要求,就好像REC的角色是担任经理的顾问一样。

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