RESUMO
Se realizó un estudio exploratorio a través de una encuesta a Comités de Ética en países de América Latina y el Caribede habla hispana, con el fin de relevar su situación frente a emergencias sanitarias y consultar los dilemas éticos enfrentados en las investigaciones para COVID-19. Se obtuvieron respuestas de 106 comités, pertenecientes a 14 países.Solamente el 24% respondió que existía una red de comunicación eficiente y efectiva entre comités, previa a la pandemia. El 45% respondió queno existían en su región comités específicos para evaluar proyectos vinculados a emergencias sanitarias con anterioridad a la pandemia. El porcentaje de CEI que disponía de procedimientos previos para evaluar investigaciones en situaciones de emergencias sanitarias, fue sólo de 7%, si bien el 52% estaba en proceso de elaboración a raíz de la pandemia.El porcentaje de CEI que consideró razonable un tiempo inferior a 5 días para la evaluación de proyectos de investigación, varió en virtud del diseño: 32% para los estudios observacionales y 12% para los ensayos clínicos con drogas o con vacunas.Los tres problemas éticos principales identificados en los estudios para COVID estuvieron relacionados con el consentimiento informado, los aspectos metodológicos y la poca información previa o falta de evidencia para los productos de investigación.Consideramos que debemos reformular la manera de pensar los problemas éticos de las emergencias hacia un abordaje global, con un enfoque preventivo, donde las redes de colaboración entre los CEI deberían convertirse en regla.(AU)
Es va realitzar un estudi exploratori a través d'una enquesta a Comitès d'Ètica a països d'Amèrica Llatina i el Carib de parla hispana, per rellevar la seva situació davant d'emergències sanitàries i consultar els dilemes ètics enfrontats a les investigacions per a COVID-19. S'obtingueren respostes de 106 comitès, pertanyents a 14 països. Només el 24% va respondre que existia una xarxa de comunicació eficient i efectiva entre comitès, prèvia a la pandèmia. El 45% va respondre que no existien a la seva regió comitès específics per avaluar projectes vinculats a emergències sanitàries amb anterioritat a la pandèmia. El percentatge de CEI que disposava de procediments previs per avaluar investigacions en situacions d'emergències sanitàries va ser només de 7%, si bé el 52% estava en procés d'elaboració arran de la pandèmia. El percentatge de CEI que va considerar raonable un temps inferior a 5 dies per a l'avaluació de projectes de recerca va variar en virtut del disseny: 32% per als estudis observacionals i 12% per als assaigs clínics ambdrogues o amb vacunes.Els tres problemes ètics principals identificats als estudis per a COVID van estar relacionats amb el consentiment informat, els aspectes metodològics i la poca informació prèvia o manca d'evidència per als productes de recerca. Considerem que cal reformular la manera de pensar els problemes ètics de les emergències cap a un abordatge global, amb un enfocament preventiu, on les xarxes de col·laboració entre els CEI haurien de convertir-se en regla.(AU)
An exploratory study was carried out through a survey of Ethics Committees in Spanish-speaking Latin American and Caribbean countries, to assess their situation in the face of health emergencies and consult the ethical dilemmas faced in research for COVID-19. Responses were obtained from 106 committees, belonging to 14 countries.Only 24% responded that there was an efficient and effective communication network between committees, before the pandemic. 45% responded that there were no specific committees in their regions to evaluate projects linked to health emergencies before the pandemic. The percentage of RECs that had prior procedures to evaluate research in health emergencies was only 7%, although 52% were in the process of being prepared as a result of the pandemic.The percentage of RECs that reasonably expected less than 5 days to evaluate research projects varied by design: 32% for observational studies and 12% for clinical drug or vaccine trials.The three main ethical problems identified in the studies for COVID were related to informed consent, methodological aspects, and little prior information or lack of evidence for investigational products.We believe that we must reformulate the way of thinking about the ethical problems of emergencies towards a global approach, with a preventive approach, where collaboration networks between the RECs will not become the rule.(AU)
Assuntos
Humanos , Ética Médica , Surtos de Doenças/legislação & jurisprudência , Surtos de Doenças/prevenção & controle , Pandemias/ética , Pandemias/legislação & jurisprudência , Comitês de Ética em Pesquisa , Bioética , Temas Bioéticos , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Coronavírus Relacionado à Síndrome Respiratória Aguda GraveRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Humanos , Revisão Ética , Comitês de Ética em PesquisaRESUMO
La evaluación de protocolos de investigación por Comités de Ética en Investigación (CEI), esencialpara garantizar la protección de los participantes, se gestiona en la Ciudad de Buenos Aires a través laplataforma electrónica PRIISA.BA desde enero del 2020. El objetivo del presente estudio fue describirlos tiempos de evaluación ética, su evolución temporal, y los predictores de su duración. Se realizóun estudio observacional que incluyó todos los protocolos evaluados entre enero de 2020 y septiem-bre de 2021. Se calcularon los tiempos al dictamen final y a la primera observación. Se evaluaron lastendencias temporales de los tiempos, y la asociación multivariada entre éstos y características de losprotocolos y de los CEI. Se incluyeron 2781 protocolos evaluados en 62 CEI. La mediana de tiempo aldictamen final fue de 29.11 (RIQ 11.29 a 63.35) días, y del tiempo a la primera observación de 8.92(RIQ 2.05 a 18.18) días. Los tiempos se redujeron significativamente a lo largo del período de estudio.Detectamos como variables independientemente asociadas a menor tiempo a la temática COVID, tenerfinanciamiento y el número de centros a realizarse el estudio y haber sido evaluado en un CEI con másde 10 miembros. La realización de observaciones al protocolo se asoció a mayor tiempo. Los resultadosdel presente trabajo sugieren que los tiempos de evaluación ética se redujeron durante el período deestudio. Además, se identificaron variables asociadas con los tiempos, que podrían ser objeto de inter-venciones para mejorar el proceso.(AU)
The review of research protocols by Research Ethics Committees (RECs), essential to ensure theprotection of participants, has been managed in the City of Buenos Aires through the PRIISA.BA elec-tronic 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 thatincluded all the protocols reviewed between January 2020 and September 2021. Times to approvaland to first observation were calculated. Temporal trends in times, and the multivariate associationbetween these and protocol and IRB characteristics were evaluated. 2,781 protocols reviewed in 62RECs were included. The median time to approval was 29.11 (RIQ 11.29 to 63.35) days, and time to firstobservation was 8.92 (RIQ 2.05 to 18.18) days. The times were significantly reduced throughout thestudy period. We detected as variables independently associated with shorter time to approval to bea COVID proposal, having funding and the number of centers to perform the study and having beenreviewed by an RECs with more than 10 members. Making observations to the protocol was associatedwith more time. The results of the present work suggest that ethical review times were reduced duringstudy period. In addition, variables associated with time were identified that could be the object ofinterventions to improve the process.(AU)
Assuntos
Humanos , Revisão Ética , Ética em Pesquisa , 35170 , Comissão de Ética , Bioética , PesquisaRESUMO
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.