我国药物临床试验风险管理研究现状与建议——基于共词分析和社会网络分析视角

目的 深入了解中国药物临床试验风险管理研究现状与热点。方法 使用共词分析和社会网络分析法梳理中国药物临床试验风险管理研究成果。结果 中国药物临床试验风险研究态势总体呈上升的趋势;研究热点聚焦于药物监管及药物警戒、药物临床试验机构风险管理、药物临床试验伦理审查、药物临床试验风险管理等四个领域。结论 中国未来应逐步完善药物临床试验风险管理制度及监管体系,探索建立基于风险的药物临床试验质量管理与伦理审查体系,提高机构风险评估与应对能力。     

乙型肝炎临床科研中的伦理问题及措施

为了更好地保护乙型肝炎临床科研中的受试者,通过探讨受试者为弱势人群的伦理问题、研究人员和伦理审查人员资质的伦理问题、受试者招募的伦理问题、对照选择的伦理问题和风险与受益比的伦理问题等,提出伦理委员会加强伦理过程管理的相关措施:完善知情同意的过程,提高受试者的理解度;提高跟踪审查频率,尤其加强SAE的风险管理;加强不良反应的处理;结合开展医院“伦理查房”,推进现场检查.     

医药创新战略下临床试验伦理审查的角色与定位

伦理审查贯穿药物临床试验全过程，是保障受试者权益的重要环节。医药创新形势下，伦理审查面临全新的问题与挑战。从伦理审查在新药临床试验中的角色与定位进行分析与探讨，明确伦理审查的原则，明辨伦理审查的职责，厘清伦理审查批件的权限。伦理审查应当主要聚焦于项目的伦理性，并非是替代其他专业机构对于项目的合规性和科学性进行审查。伦理审查通过只是开展临床试验的必要条件之一，并非唯一因素。建议加强科技伦理意识宣传与普及，健全临床试验审批机制，优化伦理审查批件文字表述。提升伦理审查质量，完善伦理审查体系建设，最终达成促进创新与防范风险相统一，从而切实实现科技创新高质量发展与高水平安全良性互动。     

43例活体器官移植医学伦理审查回顾性研究与探讨

分析了人体器官移植技术临床应用与伦理委员会对43例活体器官移植的医学伦理审查资料,通过研究这些案例的临床情况、供受构成、伦理审查内容和伦理审查结果,分析活体器官移植的伦理审查规范和伦理审查现状,并对目前活体器官移植中存在的伦理问题进行探讨,为规范器官移植伦理审查流程、完善器官移植相关法规制度提出了实质性建议,认为要加强并完善活体器官移植的医学伦理审查,不仅要着眼于相关法律法规和规章制度的修订,更要着眼于医学伦理委员会审查能力的建设和审查方式的探索。     

医学伦理审查在临床科研中的实践

在临床科研管理中,通过对科研课题的医学伦理审查实践,提出了在伦理审查中采取快速审查、常规审查“两条通道”审查及会议审查与书面审查相结合的方法,既方便了临床,又达到简化程序,提高效率的目的。伦理委员会办公室设在科研部,秘书由科研管理人员担任,保证了科研课题申报工作与伦理审查工作的协调一致。同时,也提出了在医学伦理审查中目前迫切需要解决的问题：制定统一的涉及人体的生物医学研究伦理审查规范;对伦理审查委员进行系统地伦理知识培训;在医务人员及科研管理人员中普及伦理知识。     

伦理再前置提高临床试验伦理审查效率和质量的研究

为加快我国药物和医疗器械的研发,避免重复伦理审查是缩短临床试验启动前阶段的一个重要环节。已有的伦理审查前置措施能提高审查效率,但无法保障更关键的伦理审查质量。为解决申办者、研究者制定试验方案不完善导致伦理审查的效率和质量问题,除申办者和研究者需重视并加强沟通外,类似于统计学专家、伦理委员会委员或资深伦理办公室秘书介入试验方案的制定是关键一环。即伦理委员会委员或资深伦理办公室秘书同统计学专家一样提前介入试验方案的制定、优化运行管理流程,将试验方案和临床试验中可能出现的科学和伦理问题消除在临床试验启动前期阶段,避免试验方案不完善、不合理导致初始审查的复审,有助于提高伦理审查效率和质量,也可为未来新法规的制定提供借鉴。伦理委员会审查时也应注意由此带来的利益冲突。     

医学伦理委员会伦理审查程序、内容与方法述评

本文对医学伦理学委员会伦理审查的程序、内容与方法进行了评述。从已有文献来看,关于伦理审查的程序国内外已有成熟的研究,但如何对试验项目进行全过程监督,如何保障医学伦理委员会的独立性是亟待深入研究的问题。在伦理审查的内容方面,今后理论研究的趋向是研究问题的进一步细化和专门化。在伦理审查的方法方面,如何应用临床经济学和药物经济学的原理和方法,开展人体试验中风险与受益分析与评估是今后一项重要的基础性研究。     

中医药研究的伦理审查与实践

结合中医药研究的临床特点,在分析伦理审查的原则,伦理委员会在国内的发展基础上,重点结合中医药研究方法和在伦理审查中的特点,对如何建立一系列完整的伦理委员会审查管理制度,任命制度,委员继续教育制度,伦理审查程序,研究过程中不良反应的监测制度,文件的保存和归档制度,知情同意签署制度,对药品、临床研究项目等涉及人体的临床试验伦理审查与监督方面等问题进行了探讨,以便最大限度保护受试者利益。     

论医学研究知情同意的伦理审查

伦理委员会与知情同意书是保障受试者权益的主要措施。因此,伦理审查工作需要加大对知情同意的审查力度,注重研究受益和风险的平衡,维护受试者权益和安全。知情同意是人体生物医学研究的主要伦理要求之一。知情同意的伦理审查一般要考虑以下要点：信息的完整、充分性;知情同意书签署过程;用语的规范性;知情同意书风险处置等。     

加强伦理审查委员会实效性的对策探讨——基于黑龙江省伦理审查委员会现状的调研

通过对黑龙江省部分伦理审查委员会的问卷调查分析,发现目前伦理审查委员会的整体效果不甚理想,主要存在伦理审查内容混杂、伦理审查的全程性未得到相应重视、组织建设有待完善等问题.其制约因素有：现行相关法律位阶较低、监管制度不完善、操作流程不规范.在对制约因素进行分析的基础上,提出了加强伦理审查委员会实效性的对策：提高有关法律位阶并完善相关规定,建立统一的监管主体,完善伦理审查程序,改善组织建设.     

眼科新药临床试验中安慰剂对照的伦理审查问题探讨

一些研发中的眼科新药在进行临床试验时常常使用安慰剂作为对照。在眼科新药的临床试验中,使用安慰剂必须遵循两条原则,一是安慰剂的使用不能造成受试者视力不可逆或永久性的损害,二是研究者必须做好安慰剂的风险管控并将安慰剂的风险向受试者完全披露。对于安慰剂使用的伦理审查,应该从标准治疗的效果、安慰剂的风险、研究方案中风险的管理和知情同意书中风险的告知这几个方面进行综合评估。     

Issues in bioethics. Teaching research ethics

All research should meet the highest ethical and scientific standards, and so persons who may be involved in conducting research should be fully conversant with the relevant ethical principles of biomedical research and its requirements. Further, scientists, academicians, physician-researchers, student-researchers, and members of research ethics committees should be able to distinguish between therapy and research, evaluate risk and benefit, be sensitive to various forms of conflicts of interest, and be fully aware of the special provisions necessary for vulnerable populations. This article recommends a number of subject areas that should be addressed as a part of this academic process.     

Medical research in clinical emergency settings in Europe

Clinical emergencies necessitate immediate action to avert the danger to the patient's life or health. Emergency patients might be in greatest need of novel therapies, and even presumed willing to assume some risk, but research into emergency conditions should be conducted under commonly accepted principles that fulfil the scientific, ethical, and legal criteria. Such criteria already exist in the US, but are still under development in Europe. This article introduces criteria upon which trials in emergency settings may be ethically and legally justified in Europe. Based on both legal texts and professional guidelines, the author has established seven conditions for emergency research, of which informed consent and its substitutes, as well as the conditions of direct benefit requirement and necessity, are considered most problematic and therefore analysed more closely. Other conditions include absence of alternative methods, scientific validity, and approval by an ethics committee.     

Ethics of clinical trials in Nigeria

The conduct of clinical trials for the development and licensing of drugs is a very important aspect of healthcare. Drug research, development and promotion have grown to a multi-billion dollar global business. Like all areas of human endeavour involving generation and control of huge financial resources, it could be subject to deviant behaviour, sharp business practices and unethical practices. The main objective of this review is to highlight potential ethical challenges in the conduct of clinical trials in Nigeria and outline ways in which these can be avoided. Current international and national regulatory and ethical guidelines are reviewed to illustrate the requirements for ethical conduct of clinical trials. Past experiences of unethical conduct of clinical trials especially in developing countries along with the increasing globalisation of research makes it imperative that all players should be aware of the ethical challenges in clinical trials and the benchmarks for ethical conduct of clinical research in Nigeria.     

有关机构伦理审查委员会的若干伦理和管理问题

首先,讨论了黄金大米试验带来的两个教训：亟需加强伦理审查的能力,亟需加强对涉及人的研究和伦理审查委员会的监督管理。其次,讨论了伦理审查的研究伦理基础,即有益原则、尊重原则、公正原则。最后就机构伦理委员会的若干伦理和管理问题发表了意见,并提出请有权威性的多学科专家成立相应机构对机构伦理委员会进行考评活动的建议。     

Ethical challenges in conducting research in humanitarian crisis situations

Research is vital to accurately describe phenomena in humanitarian emergency situations and to evaluate the effectiveness and appropriateness of interventions. Although the ethical principles of justice, beneficence and respect for autonomy/ respect for persons should be upheld in research, their application in emergency situations may differ from non-emergency situations. Just like in non-emergency situations, research in emergency situations should be conducted in the best interest of the victims or future victims. The research should not unnecessarily expose human subjects and the researcher to careless harm, and should be of adequate scientific rigor. Victims of emergency situations are vulnerable populations that need special protection from exploitation. Technical competency to conduct research in emergency situations should include the ability to conduct a fair risk-benefit assessment in order to come up with a risk management plan, and being culturally sensitive to the needs of the victims of the humanitarian crisis. In emergency situations, the roles of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) may have to be modified without compromising the ethical standards that health researchers have globally attempted to achieve.     

浅析人类生殖细胞基因治疗的伦理学问题及对策

人类生殖细胞基因治疗是一个全新的医学领域,它可以从根本上治疗许多疾病,但是由于技术不完善以及存在众多伦理问题,所以该技术未能广泛应用于临床治疗和研究.人类生殖细胞基因治疗引发的伦理问题有：科学不可预知性的问题;生殖细胞基因治疗的社会风险问题;生殖细胞基因治疗改变人类多样性的问题;生殖细胞基因治疗的人权问题;如何判断基因“好”与“坏”的问题;生殖细胞基因治疗的经济价值问题.避免这些问题的对策有：政府应建立有效的管理和法律制度;生殖细胞治疗基因应符合国际技术规范和伦理规范;科学家和医学工作者应该加强道德修养,掌握应有的伦理学知识;加强教育宣传工作,使公众了解并接受该治疗方法.     

Proportional ethical review and the identification of ethical issues

Presently, there is a movement in the UK research governance framework towards what is referred to as proportional ethical review. Proportional ethical review is the notion that the level of ethical review and scrutiny given to a research project ought to reflect the level of ethical risk represented by that project. Relatively innocuous research should receive relatively minimal review and relatively risky research should receive intense scrutiny. Although conceptually attractive, the notion of proportional review depends on the possibility of effectively identifying the risks and ethical issues posed by an application with some process other than a full review by a properly constituted research ethics committee. In this paper, it is argued that this cannot be achieved and that the only appropriate means of identifying risks and ethical issues is consideration by a full committee. This implies that the suggested changes to the National Health Service research ethics system presently being consulted on should be strenuously resisted.