Governance frameworks for COVID-19 research ethics review and oversight in Latin America: an exploratory study.

BACKGROUND: Research has been an essential part of the COVID-19 pandemic response, including in Latin American (LA) countries. However, implementing research in emergency settings poses the challenge of producing valuable knowledge rapidly while upholding research ethical standards. Research ethics committees (RECs) therefore must conduct timely and rigorous ethics reviews and oversight of COVID-19 research. In the LA region, there is limited knowledge on how countries have responded to this need. To address this gap, the objective of our project is to explore if LA countries developed policies to streamline ethics review and oversight of research in response to the pandemic while ensuring its adherence to ethical standards, and to analyze to what extent these governance frameworks are in accordance with international guidance. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive and exploratory study assessing the COVID-19 research ethics governance frameworks of 19 LA countries, considering 4 dimensions based on international COVID-19 ethics guidance documents: (i) ethics review organizational model adopted, (ii) measures to coordinate between RECs and other research stakeholders, (iii) operational guidance for RECs, and (iv) key ethical issues for review and oversight of COVID-19 research. RESULTS: 10 out of 19 LA countries have some policy to streamline ethics review of COVID-19 research. Of these countries only 6 issued comprehensive documents following international guidance that contemplate strategies with recommendations for concrete actions for a timely and rigorous review. CONCLUSION: LA countries adopted partial strategies and operational guidance that may demonstrate a lack of a comprehensive view of research ethics for the review and oversight of COVID-19 research. Continuing efforts should be directed to strengthen LA countries' research capacity to respond timely and ethically to future health emergencies. Past lessons and the ones from this pandemic should be the basis to develop international standards and operational guidelines for ethics review and oversight of any research for public health emergencies.

Preprints in times of COVID19: the time is ripe for agreeing on terminology and good practices.

Over recent years, the research community has been increasingly using preprint servers to share manuscripts that are not yet peer-reviewed. Even if it enables quick dissemination of research findings, this practice raises several challenges in publication ethics and integrity. In particular, preprints have become an important source of information for stakeholders interested in COVID19 research developments, including traditional media, social media, and policy makers. Despite caveats about their nature, many users can still confuse pre-prints with peer-reviewed manuscripts. If unconfirmed but already widely shared first-draft results later prove wrong or misinterpreted, it can be very difficult to "unlearn" what we thought was true. Complexity further increases if unconfirmed findings have been used to inform guidelines. To help achieve a balance between early access to research findings and its negative consequences, we formulated five recommendations: (a) consensus should be sought on a term clearer than 'pre-print', such as 'Unrefereed manuscript', "Manuscript awaiting peer review" or ''Non-reviewed manuscript"; (b) Caveats about unrefereed manuscripts should be prominent on their first page, and each page should include a red watermark stating 'Caution-Not Peer Reviewed'; (c) pre-print authors should certify that their manuscript will be submitted to a peer-review journal, and should regularly update the manuscript status; (d) high level consultations should be convened, to formulate clear principles and policies for the publication and dissemination of non-peer reviewed research results; (e) in the longer term, an international initiative to certify servers that comply with good practices could be envisaged.

[The landscape of COVID-19 clinical trials in Latin America and the Caribbean: assessment and challenges]. / El panorama de los ensayos clínicos sobre COVID-19 en América Latina y el Caribe: evaluación y desafíos.

A considerable number of clinical trials is being conducted globally in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including in low- and middle-income countries such as those in the Latin America and Caribbean region (LAC). Yet, an abundance of studies does not necessarily shorten the path to find safe and efficacious interventions for COVID-19. We analyze the trials for COVID-19 treatment and prevention that are registered from LAC countries in the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and identify a trend towards small repetitive non-rigorous studies that duplicate efforts and drain limited resources without producing meaningful conclusions on the safety and efficacy of the interventions being tested. We further assess the challenges to conducting scientifically sound and socially valuable research in the LAC region in order to inform recommendations to encourage clinical trials that are most likely to produce robust evidence during the pandemic.

The landscape of COVID-19 clinical trials in Latin America and the Caribbean: assessment and challenges.

A considerable number of clinical trials is being conducted globally in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including in low- and middle-income countries such as those in the Latin America and Caribbean region (LAC). Yet, an abundance of studies does not necessarily shorten the path to find safe and efficacious interventions for COVID-19. We analyze the trials for COVID-19 treatment and prevention that are registered from LAC countries in the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and identify a trend towards small repetitive non-rigorous studies that duplicate efforts and drain limited resources without producing meaningful conclusions on the safety and efficacy of the interventions being tested. We further assess the challenges to conducting scientifically sound and socially valuable research in the LAC region in order to inform recommendations to encourage clinical trials that are most likely to produce robust evidence during the pandemic.

Se está llevando a cabo un número considerable de ensayos clínicos en todo el mundo en respuesta a la pandemia de COVID-19, incluso en países de ingresos bajos y medios como los de la región de América Latina y el Caribe. Sin embargo, la abundancia de estudios no necesariamente acorta el camino para encontrar intervenciones seguras y eficaces frente a la COVID-19. Se analizaron los ensayos para el tratamiento y la prevención de la COVID-19 de los países de América Latina y el Caribe que están registrados en la Plataforma de Registros Internacionales de Ensayos Clínicos de la Organización Mundial de la Salud, y se identificó una tendencia hacia la realización de estudios pequeños, repetitivos y no rigurosos que duplican los esfuerzos y merman recursos limitados sin producir conclusiones significativas sobre la seguridad y la eficacia de las intervenciones evaluadas. Se evaluaron asimismo los desafíos que plantea la realización de investigaciones científicamente sólidas y socialmente valiosas en la región de América Latina y el Caribe a fin de brindar recomendaciones que alienten la realización de ensayos clínicos que tengan más probabilidades de producir evidencia sólida durante la pandemia.

Spanish versions of assessment tools for functioning and activities daily living in schizophrenia: What do they measure?

From the psychosocial rehabilitation perspective, the use of instruments based on a theoretical framework to assess the level of functioning in activities of daily living with good clinimetric properties is essential for people diagnosed with schizophrenia. In Spain, scales translated from other languages, usually English, are very frequently used; this involves a process of adaptation, beyond translation. The objective of this study was to review and compare a series of different scales used in psychosocial functioning assessment in the Spanish population focused on daily living activities. The selected instruments have been adapted into Spanish over the last 19 years and are aimed at people diagnosed with a severe mental disorder, usually schizophrenia. The results showed that the number of instruments adapted to the Spanish population was small, with several shortcomings in the adaptation process, either in translation, the confusion of concepts or metric properties of the scale. In conclusion, the conceptualisation and assessment of functioning in this field remains a complex and controversial issue. The development of new instruments based on a theoretical approach, such as the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)1 may be a great help in improving the psychosocial treatment of people diagnosed with a psychotic disorder.

Corrigendum Research priority-setting is an ethics exercise: lessons from the Global Forum on Bioethics in Research for the Region of the Americas / Corrigendum La priorización de la investigación es un ejercicio ético: lecciones del Foro Global de Bioética en la Investigación para la Región de las Américas / Corrigendum à Priorização da pesquisa é um exercício ético: lições do Fórum Global de Bioética em Pesquisa para a Região das Américas

The Pan American Journal of Public Health draws readers' attention to an error in the following article, pointed out by the authors: Saenz C, Carracedo S, Caballero C, Hurtado C, Leite Ribeiro A, Luna F, et al. Research priority-setting is an ethics exercise: lessons from the Global Forum on Bioethics in Research for the Region of the Americas. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2024;48:e32. https://doi.org/10.26633/RPSP.2024.32 In article published on March 2024, reference 2 appears as follows: Global Forum on Bioethics in Research. GFBR 2023 Key- note presentation [Internet video]. Youtube. 2024 Feb 01 [cited 2024 Feb 13]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=HlPgN6n6i8M The correct way to reference 2 is: Millum J. Ethics of health research priority setting [video]. Uploaded by Global Forum on Bioethics in Research, 1 February 2024. [Accessed on 13 February 2024] Available from: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=HlPgN6n6i8M.

Corrigendum La priorización de la investigación es un ejercicio ético: lecciones del Foro Global de Bioética en la Investigación para la Región de las Américas / Corrigendum Research priority-setting is an ethics exercise: lessons from the Global Forum on Bioethics in Research for the Region of the Americas / Corrigendum à Priorização da pesquisa é um exercício ético: lições do Fórum Global de Bioética em Pesquisa para a Região das Américas

La Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública llama la atención de los lectores sobre un error en el siguiente artículo, señalado por los autores: Saenz C, Carracedo S, Caballero C, Hurtado C, Leite Ribeiro A, Luna F, et al. La priorización de la investigación es un ejercicio ético: lecciones del Foro Global de Bioética en la Investigación para la Región de las Américas. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2024;48:e26. https://doi.org/10.26633/RPSP.2024.26 En el artículo publicado en marzo 2024, la referencia 2 aparece de la siguiente manera: Global Forum on Bioethics in Research. GFBR 2023 Keynote presentation [video en internet]. Youtube. 1 de febrero de 2024 [citado 13 de febrero de 2024]. Disponible en: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlPgN6n6i8M La forma correcta para la referencia 2 debe ser: Millum J. Ethics of health research priority setting [video]. Subido por Global Forum on Bioethics in Research, 1 de febrero de 2024. [citado 13 de febrero de 2024] Disponible en: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=HlPgN6n6i8M

Research priority-setting is an ethics exercise: lessons from the Global Forum on Bioethics in Research for the Region of the Americas

This manuscript has been revised in accordance with the corrections outlined in the DOI: https://doi.org/10.26633/RPSP.2024.46 Following the 2023 meeting of the Global Forum on Bioethics in Research (GFBR), this letter to the editor makes a call to consider health research priority-setting as an ethical exercise in Latin America and the Caribbean. This implies that research priority-setting processes are not limited to a matter of procedures, but rather include an explicit discussion of the substantive ethical criteria that guide prioritization.

La priorización de la investigación es un ejercicio ético: lecciones del Foro Global de Bioética en la Investigación para la Región de las Américas

Este manuscrito ha sido corregido como se indica en el DOI: https://doi.org/10.26633/RPSP.2024.45 A raíz de la reunión del 2023 del Foro Global de Bioética en la Investigación (GFBR por su sigla en inglés), esta carta al editor hace un llamado a considerar la priorización de la investigación en salud como un ejercicio ético en América Latina y el Caribe. Ello implica que los procesos de priorización de la investigación no se limiten a cuestiones procedimentales, sino que incluyan una discusión explícita sobre los criterios éticos sustantivos que guían la priorización.

Spanish multicentre study on morbidity and pathogenicity of tracheal bronchus in children.

Tracheal bronchus (TRB) has been generally considered an anatomical variant of the tracheobronchial tree without a precise pathological effect. Its prevalence is estimated to be between 0.2% to 3% of all children undergoing bronchoscopy and scientific information has been limited to case reports or small case series. Our working hypothesis was that TRB could trigger by itself recurrent or persistent respiratory symptoms. The objective of this retrospective and multicentre study of children with a diagnosis of TRB, coming from the main paediatric pulmonology units of Spain, was to determine the anatomical and clinical characteristics, including comorbidities, of TRB in childhood and their impact in the patients' clinical outcomes. One hundred thirty-three patients from 13 institutions were included in the study. Mean diagnostic age was 3.4 years and flexible bronchoscopy was the initial diagnostic method in 85% of cases. All TRB were located on the right wall of the trachea: 76% in the lower third and 24% in the carina. The most common clinical manifestations were obstructive bronchitis (53.3%) and recurrent pneumonia (46.6%), usually affecting the right upper lobe. Regarding associated anomalies, 33% had tracheomalacia, 32% congenital cardiovascular malformations, 28% gastroesophageal reflux, 22.5% congenital tracheal stenosis, and 8.3% Down syndrome. This series appears to be the most extensive published to date addressing this topic and, according to our data, TRB does not appear to be a mere incidental finding but is more likely linked to a wide range of congenital anomalies and contributes by itself to the recurrent respiratory symptomatology that these children exhibit.

El panorama de los ensayos clínicos sobre COVID-19 en América Latina y el Caribe: evaluación y desafíos / The landscape of COVID-19 clinical trials in Latin America and the Caribbean: assessment and challenges

RESUMEN Se está llevando a cabo un número considerable de ensayos clínicos en todo el mundo en respuesta a la pandemia de COVID-19, incluso en países de ingresos bajos y medios como los de América Latina y el Caribe. Sin embargo, la abundancia de estudios no necesariamente acorta el camino para encontrar intervenciones seguras y eficaces frente a la COVID-19. Se analizaron los ensayos para el tratamiento y la prevención de la COVID-19 de los países de América Latina y el Caribe que están registrados en la Plataforma de Registros Internacionales de Ensayos Clínicos de la Organización Mundial de la Salud, y se identificó una tendencia hacia la realización de estudios pequeños, repetitivos y no rigurosos que duplican los esfuerzos y merman recursos limitados sin producir conclusiones significativas sobre la seguridad y la eficacia de las intervenciones evaluadas. Se evaluaron asimismo los desafíos que plantea la realización de investigaciones científicamente sólidas y socialmente valiosas en América Latina y el Caribe a fin de brindar recomendaciones que alienten la realización de ensayos clínicos que tengan más probabilidades de producir evidencia sólida durante la pandemia.

ABSTRACT A considerable number of clinical trials is being conducted globally in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including in low- and middle-income countries such as those in the Latin America and Caribbean region (LAC). Yet, an abundance of studies does not necessarily shorten the path to find safe and efficacious interventions for COVID-19. We analyze the trials for COVID-19 treatment and prevention that are registered from LAC countries in the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and identify a trend towards small repetitive non-rigorous studies that duplicate efforts and drain limited resources without producing meaningful conclusions on the safety and efficacy of the interventions being tested. We further assess the challenges to conducting scientifically sound and socially valuable research in the LAC region in order to inform recommendations to encourage clinical trials that are most likely to produce robust evidence during the pandemic.

El panorama de los ensayos clínicos sobre COVID-19 en América Latina y el Caribe: evaluación y desafíos / The landscape of COVID-19 clinical trials in Latin America and the Caribbean: assessment and challenges

RESUMEN Se está llevando a cabo un número considerable de ensayos clínicos en todo el mundo en respuesta a la pandemia de COVID-19, incluso en países de ingresos bajos y medios como los de América Latina y el Caribe. Sin embargo, la abundancia de estudios no necesariamente acorta el camino para encontrar intervenciones seguras y eficaces frente a la COVID-19. Se analizaron los ensayos para el tratamiento y la prevención de la COVID-19 de los países de América Latina y el Caribe que están registrados en la Plataforma de Registros Internacionales de Ensayos Clínicos de la Organización Mundial de la Salud, y se identificó una tendencia hacia la realización de estudios pequeños, repetitivos y no rigurosos que duplican los esfuerzos y merman recursos limitados sin producir conclusiones significativas sobre la seguridad y la eficacia de las intervenciones evaluadas. Se evaluaron asimismo los desafíos que plantea la realización de investigaciones científicamente sólidas y socialmente valiosas en América Latina y el Caribe a fin de brindar recomendaciones que alienten la realización de ensayos clínicos que tengan más probabilidades de producir evidencia sólida durante la pandemia.

ABSTRACT A considerable number of clinical trials is being conducted globally in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including in low- and middle-income countries such as those in the Latin America and Caribbean region (LAC). Yet, an abundance of studies does not necessarily shorten the path to find safe and efficacious interventions for COVID-19. We analyze the trials for COVID-19 treatment and prevention that are registered from LAC countries in the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and identify a trend towards small repetitive non-rigorous studies that duplicate efforts and drain limited resources without producing meaningful conclusions on the safety and efficacy of the interventions being tested. We further assess the challenges to conducting scientifically sound and socially valuable research in the LAC region in order to inform recommendations to encourage clinical trials that are most likely to produce robust evidence during the pandemic.

El panorama de los ensayos clínicos sobre COVID-19 en América Latina y el Caribe: evaluación y desafíos

[RESUMEN]. Se está llevando a cabo un número considerable de ensayos clínicos en todo el mundo en respuesta a la pandemia de COVID-19, incluso en países de ingresos bajos y medios como los de América Latina y el Caribe. Sin embargo, la abundancia de estudios no necesariamente acorta el camino para encontrar intervenciones seguras y eficaces frente a la COVID-19. Se analizaron los ensayos para el tratamiento y la prevención de la COVID-19 de los países de América Latina y el Caribe que están registrados en la Plataforma de Registros Internacionales de Ensayos Clínicos de la Organización Mundial de la Salud, y se identificó una tendencia hacia la realización de estudios pequeños, repetitivos y no rigurosos que duplican los esfuerzos y merman recursos limitados sin producir conclusiones significativas sobre la seguridad y la eficacia de las intervenciones evaluadas. Se evaluaron asimismo los desafíos que plantea la realización de investigaciones científicamente sólidas y socialmente valiosas en América Latina y el Caribe a fin de brindar recomendaciones que alienten la realización de ensayos clínicos que tengan más probabilidades de producir evidencia sólida durante la pandemia.

[ABSTRACT]. A considerable number of clinical trials is being conducted globally in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including in low- and middle-income countries such as those in the Latin America and Caribbean region (LAC). Yet, an abundance of studies does not necessarily shorten the path to find safe and efficacious interventions for COVID-19. We analyze the trials for COVID-19 treatment and prevention that are registered from LAC countries in the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and identify a trend towards small repetitive non-rigorous studies that duplicate efforts and drain limited resources without producing meaningful conclusions on the safety and efficacy of the interventions being tested. We further assess the challenges to conducting scientifically sound and socially valuable research in the LAC region in order to inform recommendations to encourage clinical trials that are most likely to produce robust evidence during the pandemic.

Pautas éticas y operativas para la evaluación de investigaciones relacionadas con COVID-19 del Ministerio de Salud de la Nación / Ethical and operational guidelines for the ethics review of COVID19-related research of the Ministry of Health of Argentina

Realizar investigaciones para dar respuestas a la pandemia de COVID-19 es un deber moral. Con el objetivo de acelerar la evaluación de las investigaciones y asegurar su rigurosidad científica y ética, el Ministerio de Salud aprobó un documento de pautas éticas y operativas. El documento aborda los aspectos a los cuales se debe prestar especial atención durante la pandemia y brinda orientación a los Comités de Ética en Investigación para la elaboración de procedimientos operativos que acorten los plazos de la evaluación. Este artículo describe los puntos clave del documento

Acreditación de comités de ética de investigación de la provincia de Mendoza / Accreditation of Health Research Ethics Committees of Mendoza Province

La incorporación al Código Civil y Comercial de la Nación del requerimiento de evaluación de toda investigación en seres humanos por un Comité de Ética en Investigación (CEI) acreditado, junto a las acciones de la Dirección de Investigación en Salud (DIS) para fortalecer la regulación y vigilancia de los CEI por parte de las autoridades sanitarias de las provincias, originaron una serie de intervenciones de la Dirección de Investigación, Ciencia y Técnica (DICyT) del Ministerio de Salud de la Provincia de Mendoza. El objetivo del presente artículo es describir las intervenciones ejecutadas para la acreditación y regulación de los CEI de Mendoza mediante un trabajo colaborativo con la DIS

As the National Civil and Commercial Code incorporated the requirement that all research on human beings must be reviewed by an accredited Research Ethics Committee (REC), and the Directorate of Health Research (DIS) took actions to strengthen the regulation and surveillance of RECs by provincial health authorities, a series of interventions were introduced by the Directorate of Research, Science and Technology (DICyT) of the Ministry of Health of the Province of Mendoza. The aim of this article is to describe the interventions implemented for the accreditation and regulation of RECs in Mendoza through a collaborative work carried out with the DIS.

The landscape of COVID-19 clinical trials in Latin America and the Caribbean: assessment and challenges

[ABSTRACT]. A considerable number of clinical trials is being conducted globally in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including in low- and middle-income countries such as those in the Latin America and Caribbean region (LAC). Yet, an abundance of studies does not necessarily shorten the path to find safe and efficacious interventions for COVID-19. We analyze the trials for COVID-19 treatment and prevention that are registered from LAC countries in the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and identify a trend towards small repetitive non-rigorous studies that duplicate efforts and drain limited resources without producing meaningful conclusions on the safety and efficacy of the interventions being tested. We further assess the challenges to conducting scientifically sound and socially valuable research in the LAC region in order to inform recommendations to encourage clinical trials that are most likely to produce robust evidence during the pandemic.

[RESUMEN]. Se está llevando a cabo un número considerable de ensayos clínicos en todo el mundo en respuesta a la pandemia de COVID-19, incluso en países de ingresos bajos y medios como los de la región de América Latina y el Caribe. Sin embargo, la abundancia de estudios no necesariamente acorta el camino para encontrar intervenciones seguras y eficaces frente a la COVID-19. Se analizaron los ensayos para el tratamiento y la prevención de la COVID-19 de los países de América Latina y el Caribe que están registrados en la Plataforma de Registros Internacionales de Ensayos Clínicos de la Organización Mundial de la Salud, y se identificó una tendencia hacia la realización de estudios pequeños, repetitivos y no rigurosos que duplican los esfuerzos y merman recursos limitados sin producir conclusiones significativas sobre la seguridad y la eficacia de las intervenciones evaluadas. Se evaluaron asimismo los desafíos que plantea la realización de investigaciones científicamente sólidas y socialmente valiosas en la región de América Latina y el Caribe a fin de brindar recomendaciones que alienten la realización de ensayos clínicos que tengan más probabilidades de producir evidencia sólida durante la pandemia.

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.