• Shereen Cox, Jan Helge Solbakk, and BernabeRosemarie D L CRDLCCentre for Medical Ethics, Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.The Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University of South-Eastern Norway, Kongsberg, Norway..
• Centre for Medical Ethics, Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
• Curr Med Res Opin. 2022 Nov 1; 38 (11): 189719071897-1907.

ObjectiveTo explore the views of Research Ethics Committee (REC) representatives in the European Union (EU) on what the status quo is in terms of RECs' activities after the approval of trial protocols for clinical studies.MethodThis is a qualitative study. The participants in this study are members or representatives of a research ethics committee from the member countries of the European Network of Research Ethics Committees (EUREC) and the United Kingdom. Thematic analysis was the method to assess interview transcripts.ResultsInterviews of REC representatives from 19 countries across Europe reveals that REC post-approval activities are predominantly limited to review and approval of protocol amendments. The majority of the RECs do not have mandatory continuing reviews or receipt of notifications of adverse events or protocol violations. In fact, most post-approval activities are the remit of the regulatory authorities. The interviewed members were also of the opinion that RECs in the EU do not have the legislative support, the organizational structure, the expert staff nor time to do active post approval follow-up.ConclusionsPost-approval follow-up activities for clinical studies by RECs is a valuable resource and means for early detection and resolution of protocol deviations and violations. However, a majority of RECs within Europe do not have active post-approval follow-up of approved protocols. The interviews revealed that resource challenges such as time, personnel, and organizational structure contribute to the lack of follow-up by RECs. Some RECs in the represented countries do not identify post-approval follow-up as part of their mandate but instead place emphasis on the culture of trust between the RECs and researchers. Current EU Regulations do not directly address the role of the REC after the approval of clinical trials.

12 keywords...

hide…