Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Preclinical efficacy in investigator's brochures: Stakeholders' views on measures to improve completeness and robustness.
Haslberger, Martin; Schorr, Susanne Gabriele; Strech, Daniel; Haven, Tamarinde.
Afiliação
  • Haslberger M; QUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
  • Schorr SG; QUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
  • Strech D; QUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
  • Haven T; QUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Br J Clin Pharmacol ; 89(1): 340-350, 2023 01.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35986927
ABSTRACT

AIMS:

Research ethics committees and regulatory agencies assess whether the benefits of a proposed early-stage clinical trial outweigh the risks based on preclinical studies reported in investigator's brochures (IBs). Recent studies have indicated that the reporting of preclinical evidence presented in IBs does not enable proper risk-benefit assessment. We interviewed different stakeholders (regulators, research ethics committee members, preclinical and clinical researchers, ethicists, and metaresearchers) about their views on measures to increase the completeness and robustness of preclinical evidence reporting in IBs.

METHODS:

This study was preregistered (https//osf.io/nvzwy/). We used purposive sampling and invited stakeholders to participate in an online semistructured interview between March and June 2021. Themes were derived using inductive content analysis. We used a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats matrix to categorize our findings.

RESULTS:

Twenty-seven international stakeholders participated. The interviewees pointed to several strengths and opportunities to improve completeness and robustness, mainly more transparent and systematic justifications for the included studies. However, weaknesses and threats were mentioned that could undermine efforts to enable a more thorough assessment The interviewees stressed that current review practices are sufficient to ensure the safe conduct of first-in-human trials. They feared that changes to the IB structure or review process could overburden stakeholders and slow drug development.

CONCLUSION:

In principle, more robust decision-making processes align with the interests of all stakeholders and with many current initiatives to increase the translatability of preclinical research and limit uninformative or ill-justified trials early in the development process. Further research should investigate measures that could be implemented to benefit all stakeholders.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Folhetos Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research / Systematic_reviews Aspecto: Ethics Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Br J Clin Pharmacol Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Alemanha

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Folhetos Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research / Systematic_reviews Aspecto: Ethics Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Br J Clin Pharmacol Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Alemanha