BACKGROUND: Some investigators on receiving queries from Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC), either leave the queries unanswered or withdraw their studies. The present study was conducted to assess the queries raised by two IECs after reviewing studies that were not initiated and to identify reasons for the same. Clinical Trials Registry-India (CTRI) website was checked to review approval status of these studies at other sites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of studies (submitted between January 2006 and December 2011) not initiated by investigators on receiving queries from IECs were identified. The nature of of these studies: whether sponsored (pharmaceutical industry (pharma)/government/investigator initiated), single-centre/multi-centric, and queries raised were analyzed. Status of multi-centric trials; not initiated at our site was checked at CTRI. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 219/2075 (11%) studies were not initiated. The proportions in pharma sponsored, investigator initiated, and government sponsored were 33%. 7.4%, and 8%, respectively. Out of a total of 1676 queries, the maximum queries were related to ethics (42%) and the least were administrative (7%). The largest proportion of queries in the pharma studies was ethical (47%), whereas majority were scientific queries (45.5%) for the investigator initiated studies. Twenty-one of the 94 multi-centric studies not initiated at our site were found registered at the CTRI and were ongoing or completed at 2-55 sites. CONCLUSION: Inability of investigators to defend studies due to lack of good clinical research practice (GCP) and research methodology training or unwillingness of sponsors to comply with local IEC requirements could be potential reasons for studies remaining uninitiated. Continued GCP training of investigators and IEC members and development of uniform ethical review standards across IECs are strongly recommended.
BACKGROUND: Some investigators on receiving queries from Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC), either leave the queries unanswered or withdraw their studies. The present study was conducted to assess the queries raised by two IECs after reviewing studies that were not initiated and to identify reasons for the same. Clinical Trials Registry-India (CTRI) website was checked to review approval status of these studies at other sites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of studies (submitted between January 2006 and December 2011) not initiated by investigators on receiving queries from IECs were identified. The nature of of these studies: whether sponsored (pharmaceutical industry (pharma)/government/investigator initiated), single-centre/multi-centric, and queries raised were analyzed. Status of multi-centric trials; not initiated at our site was checked at CTRI. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 219/2075 (11%) studies were not initiated. The proportions in pharma sponsored, investigator initiated, and government sponsored were 33%. 7.4%, and 8%, respectively. Out of a total of 1676 queries, the maximum queries were related to ethics (42%) and the least were administrative (7%). The largest proportion of queries in the pharma studies was ethical (47%), whereas majority were scientific queries (45.5%) for the investigator initiated studies. Twenty-one of the 94 multi-centric studies not initiated at our site were found registered at the CTRI and were ongoing or completed at 2-55 sites. CONCLUSION: Inability of investigators to defend studies due to lack of good clinical research practice (GCP) and research methodology training or unwillingness of sponsors to comply with local IEC requirements could be potential reasons for studies remaining uninitiated. Continued GCP training of investigators and IEC members and development of uniform ethical review standards across IECs are strongly recommended.
Authors: Sangeetha Paramasivan; Philippa Davies; Alison Richards; Julia Wade; Leila Rooshenas; Nicola Mills; Alba Realpe; Jeffrey Pradeep Raj; Supriya Subramani; Jonathan Ives; Richard Huxtable; Jane M Blazeby; Jenny L Donovan Journal: BMJ Glob Health Date: 2021-05
Authors: Sharmila V Jalgaonkar; Shruti S Bhide; Raakhi K Tripathi; Yashashri C Shetty; Padmaja A Marathe; Janhavi Katkar; Urmila M Thatte Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-01-06 Impact factor: 3.240