Home  |  About us  |  Editorial board  |  Ahead of print  | Current issue  |  Archives  |  Submit article  |  Instructions |  Search  |   Subscribe  |  Advertise  |  Contacts  |  Login 
  Users Online: 438Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 13  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 189-193

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:
Dr. 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

Rights and Permissions

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.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2593    
    Printed53    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded256    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal