Article Text
Abstract
Objectives To analyse the perspective of clinical research stakeholders concerning post-trial access to study medication.
Methods Questionnaires and informed consents were sent through e-mail to 599 ethics committee (EC) members, 290 clinical investigators (HIV/AIDS and Diabetes) and 53 sponsors in Brazil. Investigators were also asked to submit the questionnaire to their research patients. Two reminders were sent to participants.
Results The response rate was 21%, 20% and 45% in EC, investigators and sponsors’ groups, respectively. 54 patients answered the questionnaire through their doctors. The least informative item in the consent form was how to obtain the study medication after trial. If a benefit were demonstrated in the study, 60% of research participants and 35% of EC answered that all patients should continue receiving study medication after trial; 43% of investigators believed the medication should be given to participants, and 40% to subjects who participated and benefited from treatment. For 50% of the sponsors, study medication should be assured to participants who had benefited from treatment. The majority of responders answered that medication should be provided free by sponsors; investigators and sponsors believed the medication should be kept until available in the public health sector; EC members said that the patient should keep the benefit; patients answered that benefits should be assured for life.
Conclusions Due to the study limitations, the results cannot be generalised; however, the data can contribute to discussion of this complex topic through analysing the views of stakeholders in clinical research in Brazil.
- Clinical Ethics
- Informed Consent
- Research Ethics
- Scientific Research
- Public Health Ethics
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Request Permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information:
Linked Articles
- The concise argument
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Implementing post-trial access plans for HIV prevention research
- It is time to revise the international Good Clinical Practices guidelines: recommendations from non-commercial North – South collaborative trials
- A comparison of justice frameworks for international research
- Subjects ’ views of obligations to ensure post-trial access to drugs, care and information: qualitative results from the Experiences of Participants in Clinical Trials (EPIC) study
- Ancillary care duties: the demands of justice
- Medical researchers ' ancillary clinical care responsibilities
- Launching a New Fellowship for Medical Students: The First Years of the Doris Duke Clinical Research Fellowship Program
- Regulating international clinical research: an ethical framework for policy - makers
- Ethical issues raised by cluster randomised trials conducted in low - resource settings: identifying gaps in the Ottawa Statement through an analysis of the PURE Malawi trial
- How to write a systematic review of reasons