Somkiat_Wattanasirichaigoon

PDF Upload


Professor
 Somkiat
 Wa/anasirichaigoon,
 MD,
 FRCST
 
Chairman,
 Medical
 Educa?on
 Sec?on,
 
 
Medical
 Associa?on
 of
 Thailand

Expert
 Conference
 on
 Revision
 of
 Declara?on
 of
 Helsinki
 
Tokyo,
 Japan.
 
 
 On
 March
 1,
 2013

50
 years

1964
1975
1983

1
2

1989

3

1996

2000

4
5

2008

2013

6

1964
1975
1983

1996

2000

2008

2013

1989

1
2
3
4
5
6

1947,
 Nuremberg
 Code

1948,
 Declara?on
 of
 Geneva

1992:
 HIV

1982:
 Human
 subjects

1998:
 Human
 genome
 project

Scien,fic
 Research
 and
 

 Biomedical
 Regula,on
 and
 Policy

Execu,ve
 Branch
 
 
Departments
 /
 Agencies

All
 Federal
 Government’s
 work
 

Forum
 for
 Ethical
 Review
 CommiIee
 in
 Thailand
 (FERCIT)
 
Established
 in
 2001
 
h/p://www.fercit.org
 

 
FERCIT

NECAST

Research
 
 
manager

Facility
 
 support

CREC

Na,onal
 Research
 
 
Council
 of
 Thailand
 
(NRCT)

CREC
 
Secretariat
 
 
office

IRB

F
 
E
 
R
 
C
 
A
 
P

Health
 System
 
 
Research
 Ins,tute

Financial
 
 
 
support

Managerial
 

 
 
 
 
support

Accredita?on

Budget

University/Ins,tu,on

Staff
 
 
 
support

Submission
 

Human
 research
 
 
 
Mul?-­‐centered
 projects

FERCIT

NECAST

Research
 
 
manager

Facility
 
 support

CREC

Na,onal
 Research
 
 
Council
 of
 Thailand
 
(NRCT)

CREC
 
Secretariat
 
 
office

IRB

F
 
E
 
R
 
C
 
A
 
P

Health
 System
 
 
Research
 Ins,tute

Financial
 
 
 
support

Managerial
 

 
 
 
 
support

Accredita?on

Budget

University/Ins,tu,on

Staff
 
 
 
support

Submission
 

Human
 research
 
 
 
Mul?-­‐centered
 projects

•  No
 Na?onal
 IRB
 established
 
•  No
 legal
 Na?onal
 Bioethic
 Advisory
 
Commi/ee
 (NBAC)
 
•  There
 is
 a
 well-­‐recognized
 human
 ethics
 
associa?on,
 Forum
 for
 Ethical
 Research
 
Commi/ee
 in
 Thailand
 (FERCIT)
 
•  FERCIT:
 Ethical
 prac?ce
 guidelines
 
FERCIT:
 The
 Ethical
 Guidelines
 for
 Research
 on
 
 
Human
 Subject
 in
 Thailand,
 2007
 
Thai
 version
  English
 version
 
adapted
 
 from
 the
 revised
 edi?on
 of
 the
 Na?onal
 Guidelines
 for
 
 
Ethical
 Research
 on
 Human
 Subject,
 2002
 
•  24
 Ins?tu?onal
 Review
 Boards
 (IRBs):
 14
 
Medical
 schools
 and
 10
 Medical
 centers.
 
•  Mul?-­‐ins?tu?onal
 Review
 Board
 
 
1.  Central
 Research
 Ethics
 Commi/ee
 (CREC),
 
sponsored
 by
 Na?onal
 Research
 Council
 of
 
Thailand
 
 
2.  Ministry
 of
 Public
 Health
 
 
3.  Thai
 Medical
 Council
 (only
 stem
 cell
 research
 
project)
 
•  “……
 including
 those
 who
 in
 need
 to
 depend
 on
 
others,
 and
 are
 unable
 to
 express
 their
 opinion
 
freely
 or
 to
 make
 their
 own
 decisions.
 
– Hospitalized
 paEents,
 prisoners,
 children,
 the
 
mentally
 impaired,
 criEcally
 ill
 paEents,
 psychoEc
 
paEents,
 pregnant
 woman,
 and
 the
 
 economically
 
disadvantaged.”
 
17

 We
 provided
 space
 for
 open-­‐ended
 
answers
 responsible
 to
 the
 following
 
ques?ons:
 
1.  Changes
 in
 some
 parts
 of
 DoH.
 
2.  Post-­‐study
 arrangements
 
3.  Best
 vs
 Op?mal
 treatments
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 (To
 confirm
 Item
 No.
 1)

2008 Version Proposal Commentary
The benefits, risks, burdens and
effectiveness of a new
intervention must be tested
against those of the best current
proven intervention, except in
the following circumstance
The benefits, risks, burdens and
effectiveness of a new intervention must
be tested against those of the best proven
intervention, except in the following
circumstance
We suggest to remove “current” because
it is difficult to precisely define what it
means (a period of time, and if so what?)
The use of placebo, or no
treatment, is acceptable in
studies where no current proven
intervention exists: or
Where for compelling and
scientifically sound
methodological reasons, the use
of placebo is necessary to
determine the efficacy or safety
of an intervention
and the patients who receive
placebo or no treatment will not
be subjected to any risk of
serious or irreversible harm.
Extreme care must be taken to
avoid abuse of this option.
Where for compelling and scientifically
sound methodological reasons, the use of
any intervention less effective than the
best proven one, placebo or no treatment is
necessary to determine the efficacy or
safety of an intervention and the patients
who receive any intervention less effective
than the best proven one, placebo, or no
treatment, will not be subjected to
additional risks of serious or irreversible
harm.
The use of any intervention less effective
than the best proven one, placebo, or no
treatment, is acceptable in studies where
both conditions above apply and research
is necessary to develop a treatment option
adapted to local health care resources and
health priorities
“any” should be deleted and “additional”
should be added, because “risk of serious
or irreversible harm” is unavoidable in
some cases of clinical research regardless
of question of placebo control
However, we have allowed biomedical
research to test an intervention in resource
poor setting countries. It is limited to
cases where there are scientifically sound
methodological reasons to do so, where
there would be no additional risk of
serious or irreversible harm. These
criteria would not be fit for resource rich
countries.
Q1. Changes in some parts of DoH.

Q2

Drug
 A
 
 vs
 
 Placebo
 
 

Clinical
 trial
 Phase
 III

Drug
 “A”
 is
 more
 effec?vely
 than
 placebo.
 

a)  No
 further
 sugges?on.
 
b)  Suggest
 a
 nego?a?on
 of
 free
 drug
 “A”
 to
 both
 
treatment
 and
 control
 groups
 for
 a
 certain
 
period
 of
 ?me.
 
 
c)  Suggest
 a
 nego?a?on
 of
 free
 drug
 “A”
 only
 to
 
the
 treatment
 group
 for
 a
 certain
 period
 of
 ?me.
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 In
 regards
 to
 post-­‐study
 arrangement,
 which
 of
 the
 following
 did
 your
 IRB
 
 
likely
 opt
 to
 do?

Q2. Post-study arrangements Most
 -­‐
 agree

Even
 though
 we
 have
 no
 SOP
 which
 states
 the
 
 
pracEce
 of
 Post-­‐study
 arrangements.

“Principle
 of
 distribuEve
 jusEce
 can
 also
 be
 applied
 at
 community
 
and
 country
 levels.”
 

 
–  A
 common
 problem
 examples:
 “the
 trial
 are
 conducted
 in
 
developing
 countries,
 but
 aLer
 the
 end
 of
 the
 trials,
 drugs
 or
 
vaccines
 or
 medical
 devices
 under
 the
 studied
 cannot
 be
 made
 
beneficial
 to
 the
 parEcipaEng
 populaEons
 or
 countries”
 due
 to
 
their
 high
 cost
 or
 lack
 of
 disease/illness
 for
 such
 drugs
 or
 vaccines
 
in
 those
 communiEes
 in
 developing
 countries”
 
–  “Thus,
 the
 principle
 must
 be
 carefully
 and
 thoroughly
 considered
 
to
 bring
 jusEce
 to
 all
 levels
 from
 the
 individuals
 to
 the
 society.”
 
Q2:
 Post-­‐study
 arrangements

Q3

Disease
 “B”
 
Bone
 marrow
 
 
transplanta?on

CURE
50%
 Death
 rate
+

Disease
 “B”
 

Life-­‐long
 treatment
 
 
with
 
 expensive
 drug
 
Not
 CURE
No
 mortality

One
 -­‐year
 
 
treatment
 
 
with
 
 
 
expensive
 
 
drug
 

Be/er
 
 
condi?on

New
 Protocol
 

Bone
 marrow
 
 
transplanta?on

CURE
10%
 Death
 rate
+

Disease
 “B”
 

Yes
 
 or
 
 No

IRB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

QuestionNo.
1. Changes in some
parts of DoH.

NA ×
NA NA NA √

×

2. Post-study
arrangements
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.1

3. Best vs Optimal
treatments

1/3
 -­‐
 yes

8/9
 -­‐
 2.2

All
-­‐
 yes

Q3. Best vs Optimal treatments All
 -­‐
 agree

 
 
 
 
 
 
 “It
 is
 generally
 unacceptable
 to
 use
 placebo
 in
 a
 control
 
group
 in
 a
 trial
 where
 standard
 treatments
 or
 medically
 
proven
 medicines
 are
 available,
 because
 paEents
 will
 loose
 
medical
 benefit
 enEtled
 from
 parEcipaEng
 in
 the
 clinical
 
trial.
 However,
 the
 use
 of
 a
 placebo
 in
 a
 control
 group
 may
 
be
 allowed
 in
 the
 following
 cases.
 
(1)
 no
 standard
 drug
 medically
 recognized
 for
 the
 treatment
 of
 the
 
disease
 is
 available”
 
best
 current
 proven…
 

best
 proven…
 

best
 locally
 available
 proven…
 

32

Thank you for your a