Data sharing: A viable resource for future

Clinical trials and research studies are being conducted worldwide at a rampant pace leading to generation of large amount of data. However, to reap the benefits of the data generated it is important that this data is shared with the general public without which it can be deemed useless. Despite its importance being known to us, data sharing does not come without its share of problems and it is not as easy to execute as it sounds on-paper. Over the past few years, multiple coveted organizations around the world involved in research activities have come up with their respective guidelines and initiatives to make sure the sharing of research data is smooth and ethical. Developing countries like India have made a few strides in the right direction with some initiatives in-place, but there still seems a long way to go before unanimous data sharing can be a reality. The stakeholders may have to face certain possible repercussions due to data sharing but there is no doubt that if done in the right way, it can lead to universal development

Knowledge, attitude, and practices toward ayurvedic medicine use among allopathic resident doctors: A cross-sectional study at a tertiary care hospital in India

Context: Ayurveda is most commonly practiced form of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in India. There are very few studies showing the knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAP) of allopathic doctors about Ayurvedic drugs and its use. Aims: The study was initiated to assess KAP toward Ayurvedic medicine use among allopathic resident doctors. Settings and Design: Cross-sectional and prospective study. Materials and Methods: After obtaining permission from the Institutional Ethics Committee, allopathic resident doctors from clinical departments were approached personally. They were given pre-formed validated questionnaire to assess KAP toward Ayurvedic medicine use. Statistical Analysis Used: Descriptive statistics. Results: Allopathic residents had little knowledge about basic concepts of Ayurveda, that is, ′panchakarma′ and ′tridosha′. Majority residents (99%) had no opportunity to learn basics of Ayurveda, but 67% residents prescribed Ayurvedic medicines to patients. However, many residents (76%) mentioned that cross practice should not be allowed due to lack of knowledge. One resident knew that cross-practice was not allowed by law. The commonly prescribed proprietary Ayurvedic medicines were Liv-52 (39%), Shatavari (13%), Cystone (12%) and common ailments for which these medicines prescribed were liver disorders (34%), arthritis (18%), cough and cold (13%), kidney stones (11%), and piles (10%). Nearly 76% residents felt incorporation of Ayurveda with modern medicine would attract more patients and at the same time most residents (92%) agreed that Ayurvedic medicines need scientific testing before use. Though 50% of the residents agreed for voluntary training in Ayurveda, 80% denied compulsory training. Nearly 63% residents recommended Ayurveda among all CAMs. Most of residents heard of Ayurveda from their colleagues. Conclusions: This study reveals that allopathic resident doctors had little knowledge about Ayurveda and Ayurvedic medicine use but engaged in prescription of Ayurvedic medicines. So some interventions should be taken to increase the knowledge and awareness of allopathic resident doctors about Ayurvedic medicine use

Are institutional review boards prepared for active continuing review?

Continuing review is an important responsibility of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). Though being mentioned by many of the national and international guidelines, it is carried out routinely only in UK. The reasons may be inadequate training, overworked IRBs, less enthusiasm among the IRB members, cost bearing, etc. So, the oversight mechanism at the local site, which is the responsibility of IRB is not fulfilled. Are there any solutions to overcome these difficulties? The IRBs should have a Standard operating procedure for continuing review, members can be regularly trained, institutions can create their own internal Data and Safety Monitoring Boards who will only monitor studies where monitoring systems are non-existing and there can be budget allocated at the start of the study by the sponsor or the institution. In this way, we can try to safeguard the rights and well-being of the study participants

A study to assess completeness of project application forms submitted to Institutional Ethics Committees (IEC) of a tertiary care hospital

Objectives: To review Ethics Committee (EC) application forms and to find out similarities and differences in content of five ECs forms in India. Materials and Methods: The completeness of EC application forms was assessed on the following themes: title, study team, sponsor responsibility, scientific aspects, patient safety, regulatory permissions, Informed consent process from 2008-2009. Application forms (available online) of 5 ECs were studied and compared. Results: A total of 445 application forms were analyzed, 382 were academic, 63 were sponsored. The common deficiencies in academic studies were inappropriate titles (25.13%), lack of budget details (90%). More than 95% studies had not mentioned the method of recruitment. The issue of vulnerability was not marked in more than 50% of studies. Compensation for participation/injury was poorly stated in academic (99%) studies. Among industry sponsored studies, 98% were compliant with regulatory permissions and 41% were CTRI registered. The information pertaining to Informed Consent was mentioned in all forms. Comparative analysis of application forms of 5 ECs showed that the requirements for submission were similar except 1-2 ECs asked for additional information like percentage of time allotted by investigator for studies, GCP training of study team, certification by investigator regarding accuracy of local versions of Informed consent. Conclusion: Our study recommends that increased awareness and vigilance by investigators of academic studies regarding submission of applications to EC will increase efficiency and speed of review process. A common application form for all ECs across India would be an important step to achieve uniformity in functioning of ethics committees

Payment for participation in clinical research: Review of proposals submitted to the ethics committees

Objective: In view of dearth of information in national and international guidelines on payment practices in research, the present study was done to find out payments for participation allowed by 3 Ethics committees (ECs) and reasons for payment. Method: This was a retrospective observational study which analysed research proposals reviewed by 2 institutional and 1 non-institutional ECs over a period of 2 years. The permission of ECs was obtained and confidentiality of data was maintained. Results: Of the 73 studies requiring payment, 89.04% were interventional and 10.96% observational. Reimbursement of travel expenses (60%) was the major reason for payment followed by inconvenience due to participation, loss of wages and time spent. The queries raised by EC in more than 50 % of studies were related to informing patients about the payment in the informed consent document. The investigators complied with the EC requirements regarding payment (15/21) and the remaining provided explanations. The median amount of payment in pharmaceutical sponsored studies was higher compared to investigator initiated studies. Higher payments were approved by ECs on case to case basis in a few studies. The ECs did not have any policy/ standard operating procedure for payment practices. Conclusion: The present study first of its kind in India, demonstrated that quantum of payment was not uniform for pharmaceutical sponsored and investigator initiated studies and payments were not considered for majority of observational studies. Travel reimbursement was the most common reason for payment. There is a need to develop guidelines for determining appropriate payment/incentives to participants for specific types of research related activities

An Audit of Protocol Deviations Submitted to an Institutional Ethics Committee of a Tertiary Care Hospital.

Protocol deviations (PDs) may jeopardize safety, rights, and welfare of subjects and data integrity. There is scarce literature and no guidelines for Institutional Ethics Committees (IECs) to process PD reports. The PD reports submitted to IECs from Jan 2011 to August 2014 were analyzed retrospectively. Types of studies reporting PDs, category and type of PDs, PD rate per participant, time of reporting PD since its occurrence and corrective actions stated by principal investigator (PI) for major deviations were noted. Out of 447 PDs from 73/1387 total studies received during study period, 402 were from 126 pharma studies. Investigator initiated studies and dissertations reported negligible PDs. Median number of PDs was 4 per protocol. Out of 447 PDs, 304 were related to study procedure, 87, 47 and 9 were from safety, informed consent document (ICD) and eligibility category respectively. The most common reason for PDs was incomplete ICD (22/47). Maximum study procedure related PDs were due to patient visiting outside window period (126/304). Thirty five of 87 PDs were due to missed safety assessment. The overall PD reporting rate per participant was 0.08. In 90% of reports, date of occurrence of PD was not specified. The median delay for reporting PDs after occurrence was 94 days. PDs classified as Major were 73% (323/447). The most common corrective actions stated by PI were participant counseling (85/323) and caution in future (70/323). The study findings emphasize the need for GCP training at regular interval of study team members. IEC have to be vigilant and visit sites frequently, take initiative and formulate guidelines regarding PD reporting

Distribution of corrective actions as reported by the PIs.

<p>Distribution of corrective actions as reported by the PIs.</p

Distribution of major and minor deviations for the study procedure category.

<p>Distribution of major and minor deviations for the study procedure category.</p

Distribution of PDs according to different categories.

<p>Distribution of PDs according to different categories.</p