title: Evaluation of clinical trials by Ethics Committees in Germany: experience of applicants with the review of requests for opinion of the Ethics Committees - results of a survey among members of the German Association of Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (VFA).
abstract: The review of requests for a positive opinion of the ethics committees (application procedure) as a requirement to start a clinical trial in Germany has been completely redesigned with the transposition of EU Directive 2001/20/EC in the 12(th) Amendment of the German Medicines Act in August 2004. The experience of applicants (sponsors, legal representatives of sponsors in the EU and persons or organizations authorized by the sponsors to make the application, respectively) in terms of interactions with the ethics committees in Germany has been positive overall, especially with respect to ethics committee adherence to the statutory timelines applicable for review of requests. However, inconsistencies between ethics committees exist in terms of the form and content of the requirements for application documents and their evaluation. With the objective of further improving both the quality of applications and the evaluation of those applications by ethics committees, a survey among members of the German Association of Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (VFA) was conducted from January to April 2008. Based on reasoned opinions issued by the respective ethics committee in charge of the coordinating principal investigator (coordinating ethics committee), the type and frequency of formal and content-related objections to applications according to section sign 7 of the German Good Clinical Practice (GCP) Regulation were systematically documented, and qualitative and quantitative analyses performed. 21 out of 44 members of the VFA participated in the survey. 288 applications for Phase I-IV studies submitted between January and December 2007 to 40 ethics committees were evaluated. This survey shows that about one in six applications is incomplete and has formal and/or content objections, respectively, especially those that pertain to documents demonstrating the qualification of the investigator and/or suitability of the facilities. These objections are attributable to some extent to the differing and/or unclear requirements of the individual ethics committees on the content and comprehension of the submission documents. However, applicants also need to pay more attention to the completeness and validity of the submission documents. The majority of content-related objections apply to the patient information and consent documents and study protocols submitted. Applicants on average acted upon only 3 out of 4 objections, for various reasons: the relevant information was already given in the submitted documents, but had not been taken into consideration by the ethics committees; objections were not applicable; objections lacked a legal basis. In such cases the applicants made reference to the specific information already submitted or gave reasons for not acting on the objection. This course of action was accepted by the ethics committees, with few exceptions. The survey sheds light on the existing inconsistencies in the evaluations of applications by the various ethics committees and suggests ways in which the existing constructive dialogue between applicants and ethics committees may provide a basis to further harmonize both the requirements regarding form and content of application documents, and the criteria for evaluation of applications by ethics committees within the legal framework.
authors.affiliation: Lilly Deutschland GmbH, Bad Homburg, Germany. russ_hagen@lilly.com
authors.forename: Hagen
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Russ
authors.forename: Susanne
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Busta
authors.forename: Axel
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Riedel
authors.forename: Gereon
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Zöllner
authors.forename: Bertfried
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Jost
mesh_terms: D026661:Clinical Trials Data Monitoring Committees / Q000941:ethics*; D002986:Clinical Trials as Topic / Q000941:ethics*; D004341:Drug Evaluation / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D028744:Ethics Committees, Research / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D004992:Ethics, Medical; D005858:Germany; D033161:Government Regulation; D006801:Humans; D004364:Pharmaceutical Preparations / Q000592:standards*; D012189:Retrospective Studies
chemical_list: D004364:Pharmaceutical Preparations
references.citation: Med Etika Bioet. 2002 Spring-Summer;9(1-2):12-9
references.pmid: 16276663