首页> 外文期刊>Contemporary clinical trials >A comparative method of evaluating quality of international clinical studies in China: Analysis of site visit reports of the Clinical Research Operations and Monitoring Center.
【24h】

A comparative method of evaluating quality of international clinical studies in China: Analysis of site visit reports of the Clinical Research Operations and Monitoring Center.

机译:评价中国国际临床研究质量的比较方法:临床研究运营和监控中心的现场访问报告分析。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Due to the extremely competitive market, the pharmaceutical industry has been conducting clinical drug studies in emerging markets such as Russia, India and China, and submits data for new drug approval. But whether or not they follow the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines remains a critical concern to FDA. Site visit reports of the Comprehensive International Program of Research on AIDS (CIPRA), an international research program on HIV/AIDS sponsored by the US National Institutes of Health, were pulled out to compare the studies of the China CIPRA program and the US studies for GCP adherence. To compare adherence, GCP data were abstracted from the reports and transcribed into an assessment tool, which recorded GCP activities. The frequency distribution for the responses to each individual item was examined. The generalized linear model was used to assess the adherence differences between the China CIPRA studies and US studies. In addition, a multinomial generalized linear regression model with GEE analysis was conducted on the assessment of the overall GCP performance using the variables - group (China vs. US) and three level of GCP adherence. The GCP adherence data of the two groups were similar in distribution pattern. The difference of the protocol adherence area was statistically significant between the two groups (p=0.0425). Specifically, the China group had less "failure to perform study procedures or to obtain authorization to deviate" than the US group (13(81.25%) vs. 8(47.06%, p=0.0488)). There was no significant difference (p=1.0000) on the overall GCP performance between the two groups (China vs. US), for three level of GCP adherence. As a preliminary study, our results showed that the China CIPRA program was at least equivalent to the US studies in overall from ICH/GCP perspective.
机译:由于市场竞争异常激烈,制药行业一直在俄罗斯,印度和中国等新兴市场进行临床药物研究,并提交新药批准数据。但是,它们是否遵循国际协调会议(ICH)和良好临床实践(GCP)指南仍然是FDA的关键问题。由美国国立卫生研究院发起的一项国际艾滋病综合研究计划(CIPRA)的现场访问报告被抽出,以比较中国CIPRA计划和美国针对艾滋病的研究。遵守GCP。为了比较遵守情况,从报告中提取了GCP数据,并将其转录为评估工具,该工具记录了GCP的活动。检查了对每个单独项目的响应的频率分布。广义线性模型用于评估中国CIPRA研究和美国研究之间的依从性差异。此外,还使用变量-组(中国对美国)和GCP依从性的三个等级,对GCP总体表现进行了评估,并通过GEE分析进行了多项式广义线性回归模型。两组的GCP依从性数据在分布模式上相似。两组之间协议遵守区域的差异具有统计学意义(p = 0.0425)。具体而言,与美国组相比,中国组的“执行研究程序或获得偏离授权的失败率”要少于美国组(13(81.25%)对8(47.06%,p = 0.0488))。在三个级别的GCP遵守情况下,两组(中国与美国)的总体GCP绩效没有显着差异(p = 1.0000)。作为一项初步研究,我们的结果表明,从ICH / GCP的角度来看,中国CIPRA计划至少在总体上与美国研究相当。

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