[Time of ethics review of research proposals: results of an observational study]. / Tiempos de evaluación ética de protocolos de investigación: resultados de un estudio observacional.

The review of research protocols by Research Ethics Committees (RECs), essential to ensure the protection of participants, has been managed in the City of Buenos Aires through the PRIISA.BA electronic platform since January 2020. The aim of the present study was to describe ethical review times, their temporal evolution, and predictors of their duration. We conducted an observational study that included all the protocols reviewed between January 2020 and September 2021. Times to approval and to first observation were calculated. Temporal trends in times, and the multivariate association between these and protocol and IRB characteristics were evaluated. 2,781 protocols reviewed in 62 RECs were included. The median time to approval was 29.11 (RIQ 11.29 to 63.35) days, and time to first observation was 8.92 (RIQ 2.05 to 18.18) days. The times were significantly reduced throughout the study period. We detected as variables independently associated with shorter time to approval to be a COVID proposal, having funding and the number of centers to perform the study and having been reviewed by an RECs with more than 10 members. Making observations to the protocol was associated with more time. The results of the present work suggest that ethical review times were reduced during study period. In addition, variables associated with time were identified that could be the object of interventions to improve the process.

Variability in Ethics Review for Multicenter Protocols in Buenos Aires, Argentina. An Observational Study.

It has been reported that significant variability in the ethics review process affects multisite studies. We analyzed 1,305 applications for multicenter studies (409 unique protocols), from 1st January 2020 to 20th September 2021. We examined the variability in the times to approval and the first observation and the variation in the level of risk assigned. The median [IQR] variabilities were 42.19 [15.23-82.36] days and 8.00 [3.12-16.68] days, for the times to approval and to the first observation, respectively. There was disagreement in the level of risk assigned by the Research Ethics Committee (REC) in 24.0% of cases. Independent predictors of variability included the number of REC members. In our study, we found substantial variability in the ethics review process among health research protocols. Also, we describe methods to readily measure the delays and the variations in the ethics review process.

Assessment of an electronic system for research ethics committees document management: An observational study.

Since 1 January 2020, the Central Research Ethics Committee of the Health Ministry implemented PRIISA.BA, an in-house developed electronic system for online submission of health research applications to the 63 public and private research ethics committees (RECs) of Buenos Aires City, Argentina. This study though to compare the times to first review and the time to approval among applications submitted prior to PRIISA.BA and thereafter, across public RECs. All public RECs of the city were invited to participate. Overall, 453 applications from 10 RECs (242 pre- and 211 post-PRIISA.BA) were available for the analyses. There was a decrease in the time to first review and an increase in the time to approval after PRIISA.BA implementation. The increase in time to approval was transient and limited to the first three months. The results were consistent with analyses limited to non-COVID applications. Our results show an increase in the times to approval after the implementation of an electronic system for online submission of health research applications that, although transient, was significant. These data could be relevant to other RECs implementing this technology since it emphasizes the need of monitoring potential unnecessary delays in reviews during the critical initial period.

El estado del sistema de evaluación ética de las investigaciones en Argentina y su adaptación a la pandemia de la COVID-19 / Research ethics review system state in Argentina and the adaptation in response to the COVID-19 pandemic

RESUMEN INTRODUCCIÓN un sistema de evaluación ética de las investigaciones en seres humanos es esencial para proteger los derechos de los participantes. Los desafíos impuestos por la pandemia de la COVID-19 para conducir investigaciones éticas que produzcan resultados con rapidez demuestran la necesidad de fortalecerlo. El objetivo de este estudio fue describir el estado de situación de los sistemas de evaluación ética de las provincias de Argentina y las adaptaciones realizadas por la pandemia. MÉTODOS se realizó una encuesta a los comités provinciales de ética en investigación o áreas similares de los ministerios de Salud que ejercen la vigilancia sobre la evaluación ética de las investigaciones de su jurisdicción. RESULTADOS respondieron 16 de las 17 provincias encuestadas. El 93,7% de los comités provinciales evalúa investigaciones en seres humanos y tiene procedimientos operativos estandarizados (POE). El 68,7% lleva un registro de los comités de ética en investigación (CEI) de su jurisdicción. Un 75% acredita a los CEI y un 68,7% los supervisa. El 100% tiene un registro de las investigaciones en salud; en 56,2% de los casos este registro es público. Del total, 81,2% realizan actividades de capacitación. El 100% adaptó los POE para evaluar estudios sobre la COVID-19. DISCUSIÓN los resultados muestran sistemas provinciales consolidados. Se requiere fortalecer la transparencia en la investigación mediante el registro público de las investigaciones. Se identificaron posibilidades de mejora para proponer acciones a futuro.

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION a research ethics system is essential to protect the rights of research participants. The challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic to conduct research ethically to produce rapid results have demonstrated the need to strengthen this system. The objective of this study was to describe the state of the research ethics system of the Provinces of Argentina and the adaptations made due to the pandemic. METHOD: a survey was conducted with provincial research ethics committees or similar areas within the Ministries of Health of the provinces responsible for the oversight of research ethics review under their jurisdiction. RESULTS sixteen of the 17 provinces surveyed responded. 93.7% of the provincial committees review human research and have standard operating procedures (SOPs). 68.7% register the research ethics committees (REC) in their jurisdiction. Seventy-five percent accredit RECs and 68.7% supervise them. 100% have a registry of health research in the jurisdiction, only 56.2% have public access. 81.2% carry out training activities. 100% adapted the SOPs to evaluate studies on COVID-19. DISCUSSION the results show consolidated provincial systems. Transparency in research needs to be strengthened through public registration of research. Possibilities for improvement were identified to propose future actions.

El estado del sistema de evaluación ética de las investigaciones en Argentina y su adaptación a la pandemia de la COVID-19 / Research ethics review system state in Argentina and the adaptation in response to the COVID-19 pandemic

INTRODUCCIÓN: un sistema de evaluación ética de las investigaciones en seres humanos es esencial para proteger los derechos de los participantes. Los desafíos impuestos por la pandemia de la COVID-19 para conducir investigaciones éticas que produzcan resultados con rapidez demuestran la necesidad de fortalecerlo. El objetivo de este estudio fue describir el estado de situación de los sistemas de evaluación ética de las provincias de Argentina y las adaptaciones realizadas por la pandemia. MÉTODOS: se realizó una encuesta a los comités provinciales de ética en investigación o áreas similares de los ministerios de Salud que ejercen la vigilancia sobre la evaluación ética de las investigaciones de su jurisdicción. RESULTADOS: respondieron 16 de las 17 provincias encuestadas. El 93,7% de los comités provinciales evalúa investigaciones en seres humanos y tiene procedimientos operativos estandarizados (POE). El 68,7% lleva un registro de los comités de ética en investigación (CEI) de su jurisdicción. Un 75% acredita a los CEI y un 68,7% los supervisa. El 100% tiene un registro de las investigaciones en salud; en 56,2% de los casos este registro es público. Del total, 81,2% realizan actividades de capacitación. El 100% adaptó los POE para evaluar estudios sobre la COVID-19. DISCUSIÓN: los resultados muestran sistemas provinciales consolidados. Se requiere fortalecer la transparencia en la investigación mediante el registro público de las investigaciones. Se identificaron posibilidades de mejora para proponer acciones a futuro

INTRODUCTION: a research ethics system is essential to protect the rights of research participants. The challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic to conduct research ethically to produce rapid results have demonstrated the need to strengthen this system. The objective of this study was to describe the state of the research ethics system of the Provinces of Argentina and the adaptations made due to the pandemic. METHOD: a survey was conducted with provincial research ethics committees or similar areas within the Ministries of Health of the provinces responsible for the oversight of research ethics review under their jurisdiction. RESULTS: sixteen of the 17 provinces surveyed responded. 93.7% of the provincial committees review human research and have standard operating procedures (SOPs). 68.7% register the research ethics committees (REC) in their jurisdiction. Seventy-five percent accredit RECs and 68.7% supervise them. 100% have a registry of health research in the jurisdiction, only 56.2% have public access. 81.2% carry out training activities. 100% adapted the SOPs to evaluate studies on COVID-19. DISCUSSION: the results show consolidated provincial systems. Transparency in research needs to be strengthened through public registration of research. Possibilities for improvement were identified to propose future actions.