Home  |  About us  |  Editorial board  |  Ahead of print  | Current issue  |  Archives  |  Submit article  |  Instructions |  Search  |   Subscribe  |  Advertise  |  Contacts  |  Login 
  Users Online: 565Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Analysis of serious adverse events reports: Review by an Institutional Ethics Committee of a tertiary care teaching hospital


1 Department of Pharmacology, AIIMS, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India
2 Department of Pharmacology, Government Medical College, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Mrunalini Vinay Kalikar,
Department of Pharmacology, Government Medical College, Nagpur, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/picr.PICR_293_20

Background: Managing of SAE by all stakeholders i.e. principal investigator (PI), sponsor, and Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC), in an ethical manner is the most important indicator of participant safety during clinical trial. The present study was conducted with the objectives to assess the extent of regulatory compliance in reporting SAEs, relatedness and financial compensation given/recommended by various stakeholders. Methods: This was a retrospective observational study which involved analysis of SAE's reviewed by IEC. Administrative approval for accessing the documents was obtained and complete confidentiality was maintained. A total of 66 SAE of 34 regulatory clinical trials reported from January 2014 to March 2020 were analyzed. Result: When analyzed for relatedness, 16 (24.24%) of the reported SAEs were found related to the clinical trial and out of these, 7 were SAE of death. Among the remaining 50 SAEs, 48 (72.7 %) were not related to clinical trial .65 (98.48%) SAEs, initial report and final report were submitted to EC within timelines. All the 66 SAE reports were sent by EC within stipulated time as required by regulation. Conclusion: The study concludes that 66 SAE reports were identified and there was no deviation in reporting timelines in initial reporting and due analysis report by PI and initial review by IEC in 65 SAE's. Similarly, analysis of SAE by IEC for relatedness, and provision of compensation to participant was achieved in majority of SAE. The study is unique in a way that qualitative and quantitative analysis of SAE reports was performed.
    
 

  Search Pubmed for
 
    -  Dakhale GN
    -  Kalikar MV
    -  Giradkar AB
    -  Sinha VV
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed140    
    PDF Downloaded1    

Recommend this journal