[Ethics Committee experience during COVID-19 emergency. A brief report.] / Experiencia de un Comité de Ética de la Investigación durante la pandemia por COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: The health crisis caused by COVID-19 required the prompt launch of research in order to generate scientific evidence pertaining to the new disease oriented to control its devastating effects and continuous spread. Therefore, it was essential to adapt the work flow of Research Ethics Committees, to prioritize and to accelerate the evaluation of projects related to this disease. METHODS: This work analyses the evaluation conducted by our Regional Ethics Committees during the initial period of the health emergency (between 13th March and 28th May 2020). RESULTS: 81 research projects were evaluated, 73 of them of regional scope (62 single-centre), 4 national and 4 international. 57 projects obtained a favourable opinion, 4 were withdrawn by the sponsors, 6 did not require ethics approval and 14 did not respond to the clarifications requested up to the date of the study's closure. CONCLUSIONS: The most important research procedures to be analysed in this context are those related to the methodology and informed consent process. It is also essential to address aspects related to the privacy of personal data, and to take into account the workload of the researchers. As an improvement proposal, we think that greater collaboration between the different research teams should be encourage to obtain more robust results.

OBJETIVO: La crisis sanitaria motivada por la COVID-19 hace necesaria la puesta en marcha, con celeridad, de investigaciones encaminadas a generar evidencias científicas que incidan en el control de sus devastadores efectos. Por ello, fue necesario realizar ajustes en la dinámica de trabajo de los Comités de Ética de la Investigación, así como priorizar y agilizar la evaluación de los proyectos relacionados con dicha enfermedad. Este trabajo pretendió analizar la actividad la actividad evaluadora del Comité de Ética de la Investigación con Medicamentos de Galicia (CEIm-G) durante dicho período de emergencia sanitaria. METODOS: Se evaluaron 81 proyectos de investigación, 73 de ellos de ámbito autonómico (62 unicéntricos), 4 nacionales y 4 internacionales. RESULTADOS: En 57 proyectos el dictamen fue favorable, 4 fueron retirados por los promotores, en 6 no procedía dictamen y 14 no respondieron a las aclaraciones solicitadas hasta la fecha del cierre del estudio. CONCLUSIONES: Las causas más frecuentes de solicitud de aclaraciones están relacionadas con la metodología y, a continuación, con la hoja de información al paciente y el consentimiento informado. También es imprescindible abordar los aspectos relacionados con la intimidad de los datos personales y las muestras, e igualmente tener en cuenta la carga de trabajo de los investigadores. Como propuesta de mejora, consideramos que se debe incidir en una mayor coordinación entre los diferentes equipos de investigación para tratar de obtener resultados más robustos.

Biologic Disease-modifying antirheumatic drug attributes in the first lines of treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. 2015 ACORDAR project. / Atributos del fármaco antirreumático modificador de la enfermedad biológico en las primeras líneas de tratamiento de la artritis reumatoide. Proyecto ACORDAR 2015.

OBJECTIVE: To date, between 17% and 35% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) do not respond as expected to the initial biological therapy. The objective of this project is to recognize and weigh the attributes of biologic DMARD (bDMARD) to identify the most appropriate for each case, in the first lines of treatment of RA (after inadequate response to at least one synthetic DMARD or previous bDMARD). METHODS: To recognize the possible attributes that could define the bDMARD, we performed a systematic search of the literature that recognized the possible attributes involving general aspects, pharmacology, efficacy, safety, management, and cost. Then a Delphi process was conducted with two rounds among a group of selected expert rheumatologists in the management of RA indicating the degree of agreement with the attributes identified in the literature. The project was completed between February and September 2015, indicating the degree of importance that was ascribed to each attribute. Two criteria were applied to determine the consistency of results: 1) based on the median and interquartile range; and 2) on the simultaneous compliance with mean, median, standard deviation, interquartile range and coefficient of variation. The agreement and final ratification of the expert panel were also determined. RESULTS: Eighty-three Spanish rheumatologists participated and completed both rounds of the Delphi process. In no case was the importance of the 77 attributes identified considered to be low; 75 of 77 (97.4%) were considered highly important and 76 of 77 (98.7%) were ratified. Fifteen attributes had the support of 100% of the working group. CONCLUSIONS: There was a high degree of agreement concerning the selected attributes. Fifteen of them had the support of 100% of the working group and could be considered the definition of the ideal bDMARD in the first lines of RA treatment.