Safety surveillance, using appropriately consistent review criteria, could improve human participants’ well-being in clinical trials. To establish a globally consistent framework, the quality of the current content for review by institutional review boards (IRBs), as mandatory oversight entities, requires evaluation. This study collected and analyzed forms reporting serious adverse events (SAEs) to IRBs/ Research Ethics Committees(RECs) to compare them with the well-structured form presented in the literature using completeness and accuracy scores. We found sub-optimal completeness and accuracy scores when compared with perfect scores (p < .05). Less than half of the retrieved forms had queries on causality assessment (≤43.1%). Thus, contents of SAE forms require improvement for IRB oversight and, further, there is a need to develop a well-structured form that could improve international consistency.
ArimoneY.Miremont-SalameG.HaramburuF.MolimardM.MooreN.Fourrier-ReglatA.BegaudB. (2007). Inter-expert agreement of seven criteria in causality assessment of adverse drug reactions. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 64(4), 482–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2125.2007.02937.x
2.
BankertE.AmdurR. (2000). The IRB is not a data and safety monitoring board. IRB: Ethics and Human Research, 22(6), 9–11. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3563586
3.
BelknapS. M.GeorgopoulosC. H.LagmanJ.WeitzmanS. A.QualkenbushL.YarnoldP. R.EdwardsB. J.McKoyJ. M.TrifilioS. M.WestD. P. (2013). Reporting of serious adverse events during cancer clinical trials to the institutional review board: An evaluation by the research on adverse drug events and reports (RADAR) project. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 53(12), 1334–1340. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcph.177
4.
BelknapS. M.GeorgopoulosC. H.WestD. P.YarnoldP. R.KellyW. N. (2010). Quality of methods for assessing and reporting serious adverse events in clinical trials of cancer drugs. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 88(2), 231–236. https://doi.org/10.1038/clpt.2010.79
5.
BennettC. L.NebekerJ. R.YarnoldP. R.TigueC. C.DorrD. A.McKoyJ. M.EdwardsB. J.HurdleJ. F.WestD. P.LauD. T.AngelottaC.WeitzmanS. A.BelknapS. M.DjulbegovicB.TallmanM. S.KuzelT. M.BensonA. B.EvensA.TrifilioS. M.. . . RaischD. W. (2007). Evaluation of serious adverse drug reactions: A proactive pharmacovigilance program (RADAR) vs safety activities conducted by the Food and Drug Administration and pharmaceutical manufacturers. Archives of Internal Medicine, 167(10), 1041–1049. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.167.10.1041
6.
BhattA. (2017). International Council for Harmonisation E6 (R2) addendum: Challenges of implementation. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 8(4), 162–166. https://doi.org/10.4103/picr.PICR_124_17
CheckD. K.WeinfurtK. P.DombeckC. B.KramerJ. M.FlynnK. E. (2013). Use of central institutional review boards for multicenter clinical trials in the United States: A review of the literature. Clinical Trials, 10(4), 560–567. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774513484393
9.
ComfortS.DorrellD.MeireisS.FineJ. (2018). MOdified NARanjo Causality Scale for ICSRs (MONARCSi): A decision support tool for safety scientists. Drug Safety, 41(11), 1073–1085. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-018-0690-y
10.
CrepinS.VilleneuveC.MerleL. (2016). Quality of serious adverse events reporting to academic sponsors of clinical trials: Far from optimal. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 25(6), 719–724. https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.3982
11.
DeMetsD. L.FostN.PowersM. (2006). An Institutional Review Board dilemma: Responsible for safety monitoring but not in control. Clinical Trials, 3(2), 142–148. https://doi.org/10.1191/1740774506cn137oa
12.
DorrD. A.BurdonR.WestD. P.LagmanJ.GeorgopoulosC.BelknapS. M.McKoyJ. M.DjulbegovicB.EdwardsB. J.WeitzmanS. A.BoyleS.TallmanM. S.TalpazM.SartorO.BennettC. L. (2009). Quality of reporting of serious adverse drug events to an institutional review board: A case study with the novel cancer agent, imatinib mesylate. Clinical Cancer Research, 15(11), 3850–3855. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-08-1811
13.
EbileA. W.AteudjieuJ.YakumM. N.DjuidjeM. N.WatchoP. (2015). Assessing the detection, reporting and investigation of adverse events in clinical trial protocols implemented in Cameroon: A documentary review of clinical trial protocols. BMC Medical Ethics, 16(1), 67. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-015-0061-5
14.
ErvinA. M.TaylorH. A.EhrhardtS. (2016). NIH policy on single-IRB review - A new era in multicenter studies. New England Journal of Medicine, 375(24), 2315–2317.
15.
FalbeJ.KenneyE. L.HendersonK. E.SchwartzM. B. (2011). The wellness child care assessment tool: A measure to assess the quality of written nutrition and physical activity policies. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 111(12), 1852–1860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2011.09.006
GewandterJ. S.KittR. A.HunsingerM. R.PokuJ.LozanoJ.ChaudariJ.EvansS.GrossR. AMcDermottM. P.RowbothamM. C.TurkD. C.DworkinR. H. (2017). Reporting of data monitoring boards in publications of randomized clinical trials is often deficient: ACTTION systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 83, 101–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.12.018
JimenezE. B.VirtudazoJ. M. P.TorresC. E.BernabeR. D. (2019). Availability of post-trial access in clinical trials: A review of clinical trial protocols submitted to the research ethics board of the University of the Philippines Manila. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 35(11), 1849–1855. https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2019.1644851
LapidM. I.ClarkeB. L.WrightR. S. (2019). Institutional review boards: What clinician researchers need to know. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 94(3), 515–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2019.01.020.
22.
LidzC. W.PivovarovaE.AppelbaumP.StilesD. F.MurrayA.KlitzmanR. L. (2018). Reliance agreements and single IRB review of multisite research: Concerns of IRB members and staff. AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 9(3), 164–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2018.1510437.
23.
MacedoA. F.MarquesF. B.RibeiroC. F. (2006). Can decisional algorithms replace global introspection in the individual causality assessment of spontaneously reported ADRs?Drug Safety, 29(8), 697–702. https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200629080-00006
24.
MeerpohlJ. J.LangerG.PerlethM.GartlehnerG.Kaminski-HartenthalerA.SchunemannH. (2012). [GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence (confidence in the estimates of effect)]. Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen, 106(6), 449–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zefq.2012.06.013
Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. (2019). Guide for reporting adverse events during clincal trials. https://nedrug.mfds.go.kr/index
27.
MolL.KoopmanM.OttevangerP. B.PuntC. J. (2010). A prospective monitoring of fatal serious adverse events (SAEs) in a Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group (DCCG) phase III trial (CAIRO) in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Annals of Oncology, 21(2), 415–418. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdp330
28.
MorseM. A.CaliffR. M.SugarmanJ. (2001). Monitoring and ensuring safety during clinical research. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285(9), 1201–1205. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.285.9.1201
29.
PalS. N.DuncombeC.FalzonD.OlssonS. (2013). WHO strategy for collecting safety data in public health programmes: Complementing spontaneous reporting systems. Drug Safety, 36(2), 75–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-012-0014-6
30.
ParkS.NohY. H.RhaS. Y.KimW. H.CheonJ. H. (2015). Institutional board review for clinical investigations on inflammatory bowel diseases: A single-center study. Intestinal Research, 13(3), 274–281. https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2015.13.3.274
31.
PuliyelJ.NaikP. (2018). Revised World Health Organization (WHO)’s causality assessment of adverse events following immunization: A critique. F1000Research, 7, 243. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.13694.2
32.
ResnikD. B.TaylorJ.MorrisK.MinS. (2018). A study of reliance agreement templates used by U.S. Research Institutions. IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 40(3), 6–10.
33.
QuinnG. P.KoskanA.WellsK. J.GonzalezL. E.MeadeC. D.PozoC. L.JacobsenP. B. (2012). Cancer patients’ fears related to clinical trial participation: A qualitative study. Journal of Cancer Education, 27(2), 257–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-012-0310-y
34.
ShettyY. C.JadhavK. S.SaiyedA. A.DesaiA. U. (2014). Are institutional review boards prepared for active continuing review?Perspectives in Clinical Research, 5(1), 11–15. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.124553
35.
SilvermanH.HullS. C.SugarmanJ. (2001). Variability among institutional review boards’ decisions within the context of a multicenter trial. Critical Care Medicine, 29(2), 235–241. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-200102000-00002
36.
VaralloF. R.PlanetaC. S.HerdeiroM. T.MastroianniP. C. (2017). Imputation of adverse drug reactions: Causality assessment in hospitals. PLoS One, 12(2), e0171470. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171470
37.
VieraA. J.GarrettJ. M. (2005). Understanding interobserver agreement: The kappa statistic. Family Medicine, 37(5), 360–363.
38.
WongB.NorthS. A.TranB.SridharS. S. (2019). Comparison of investigator-initiated and industry-initiated trials in Canada and other countries. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 37(Suppl 7), 464. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2019.37.7_suppl.464
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
