欧洲药物临床试验伦理治理的差距。

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Frontiers in Medicine Pub Date : 2025-01-07 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fmed.2024.1507021
Rosemarie D L C Bernabe, Shereen A Dawkins-Cox, Christine C Gispen-de Wied
{"title":"欧洲药物临床试验伦理治理的差距。","authors":"Rosemarie D L C Bernabe, Shereen A Dawkins-Cox, Christine C Gispen-de Wied","doi":"10.3389/fmed.2024.1507021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The ethical governance of pharmaceutical clinical trials in Europe, particularly under Regulation 536/2014, is intended to ensure the safety, rights, and well-being of participants. Despite this regulatory framework, significant gaps in ethical oversight remain. This paper identifies five key deficiencies: (1) European regulations only partially address ethical imperatives set by international guidelines, thereby restricting the ethical mandate of relevant entities; (2) the role of research ethics committees is largely limited to pre-approval activities, reducing continuous oversight during trials; (3) GCP inspectors operate within a narrow scope regarding ethical oversight, which limits their ability to identify a broad range of unethical practices; (4) there is insufficient transparency and collaboration between RECs and regulators, specifically GCP inspectorates, leading to fragmented oversight; and (5) there is minimal integration of ethical findings into the marketing authorization decision process by entities such as clinical assessors and the CHMP. To bridge these gaps, the paper suggests a shift from a prospective ethics review to a comprehensive end-to-end model of ethical governance.</p>","PeriodicalId":12488,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Medicine","volume":"11 ","pages":"1507021"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11749250/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gaps in the ethical governance of pharmaceutical clinical trials in Europe.\",\"authors\":\"Rosemarie D L C Bernabe, Shereen A Dawkins-Cox, Christine C Gispen-de Wied\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fmed.2024.1507021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The ethical governance of pharmaceutical clinical trials in Europe, particularly under Regulation 536/2014, is intended to ensure the safety, rights, and well-being of participants. Despite this regulatory framework, significant gaps in ethical oversight remain. This paper identifies five key deficiencies: (1) European regulations only partially address ethical imperatives set by international guidelines, thereby restricting the ethical mandate of relevant entities; (2) the role of research ethics committees is largely limited to pre-approval activities, reducing continuous oversight during trials; (3) GCP inspectors operate within a narrow scope regarding ethical oversight, which limits their ability to identify a broad range of unethical practices; (4) there is insufficient transparency and collaboration between RECs and regulators, specifically GCP inspectorates, leading to fragmented oversight; and (5) there is minimal integration of ethical findings into the marketing authorization decision process by entities such as clinical assessors and the CHMP. To bridge these gaps, the paper suggests a shift from a prospective ethics review to a comprehensive end-to-end model of ethical governance.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12488,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Medicine\",\"volume\":\"11 \",\"pages\":\"1507021\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11749250/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1507021\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1507021","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

欧洲药物临床试验的伦理治理,特别是536/2014法规,旨在确保参与者的安全、权利和福祉。尽管有这样的监管框架,但在道德监督方面仍然存在重大差距。本文指出了五个主要缺陷:(1)欧洲法规仅部分解决了国际准则设定的道德要求,从而限制了相关实体的道德授权;(2)研究伦理委员会的作用主要局限于批准前的活动,减少了试验过程中的持续监督;(3) GCP检查员在道德监督方面的工作范围很窄,这限制了他们识别广泛的不道德行为的能力;(4) RECs与监管机构(特别是GCP检查员)之间的透明度和协作不足,导致监管分散;(5)临床评估人员和CHMP等实体将伦理研究结果整合到上市许可决策过程的程度最低。为了弥补这些差距,本文建议从前瞻性伦理审查转向全面的端到端伦理治理模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Gaps in the ethical governance of pharmaceutical clinical trials in Europe.

The ethical governance of pharmaceutical clinical trials in Europe, particularly under Regulation 536/2014, is intended to ensure the safety, rights, and well-being of participants. Despite this regulatory framework, significant gaps in ethical oversight remain. This paper identifies five key deficiencies: (1) European regulations only partially address ethical imperatives set by international guidelines, thereby restricting the ethical mandate of relevant entities; (2) the role of research ethics committees is largely limited to pre-approval activities, reducing continuous oversight during trials; (3) GCP inspectors operate within a narrow scope regarding ethical oversight, which limits their ability to identify a broad range of unethical practices; (4) there is insufficient transparency and collaboration between RECs and regulators, specifically GCP inspectorates, leading to fragmented oversight; and (5) there is minimal integration of ethical findings into the marketing authorization decision process by entities such as clinical assessors and the CHMP. To bridge these gaps, the paper suggests a shift from a prospective ethics review to a comprehensive end-to-end model of ethical governance.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Medicine
Frontiers in Medicine Medicine-General Medicine
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
5.10%
发文量
3710
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers in Medicine publishes rigorously peer-reviewed research linking basic research to clinical practice and patient care, as well as translating scientific advances into new therapies and diagnostic tools. Led by an outstanding Editorial Board of international experts, this multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians and the public worldwide. In addition to papers that provide a link between basic research and clinical practice, a particular emphasis is given to studies that are directly relevant to patient care. In this spirit, the journal publishes the latest research results and medical knowledge that facilitate the translation of scientific advances into new therapies or diagnostic tools. The full listing of the Specialty Sections represented by Frontiers in Medicine is as listed below. As well as the established medical disciplines, Frontiers in Medicine is launching new sections that together will facilitate - the use of patient-reported outcomes under real world conditions - the exploitation of big data and the use of novel information and communication tools in the assessment of new medicines - the scientific bases for guidelines and decisions from regulatory authorities - access to medicinal products and medical devices worldwide - addressing the grand health challenges around the world
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信