Process trumps potential public good: better vaccine safety through linked cross‐jurisdictional immunisation data in Australia

Barriers and hurdles delaying governance approval for an ethically approved nationwide clinical trial in pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUNDS

Streamlined, expedited clinical research is fundamental to rapidly test, translate and implement novel treatments into routine care to improve patient outcomes. The National Mutual Acceptance (NMA) scheme was designed to expedite the ethics approval process, however, growing concerns exist about the fragmented time-consuming governance process needed to actually commence clinical research in Australia. This study reports hurdles and barriers encountered while seeking governance approval for the SCANPatient trial.

METHODS

SCANPatient is a nationwide multi-centre trial comparing standard narrative radiological reporting of CT scans for suspected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. with an alternative structured approach. SCANPatient was approved by a national Human Research Ethics Committee under the NMA. The documents, time, costs and platforms required to obtain governance approval and open the trial at 30 participating hospitals were analysed.

RESULTS

Wide variation exists in research governance office (RGO) requirements for local approval, resulting in extra costs (>$117 000), delays of up to 4 months in commencing the trial at some participating sites, unplanned adjustment of the study design, and ultimately the loss of several potential sites. There were inconsistencies among RGOs minimum requirements and processes across jurisdictions and sites, with delays in obtaining approval signatures, time-consuming processes, differing platforms used to submit governance reviews and inflexibility of RGO processes all contributing to delays in progressing the trial and obtaining governance approval.

CONCLUSION

The current governance process is time- and cost-consuming and undermines the NMA scheme's efforts to streamline the clinical trials review process.

Gestational diabetes mellitus screening and diagnosis criteria before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective pre-post study

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether perinatal outcomes after excluding gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) on the basis of fasting venous plasma glucose (FVPG) assessment during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in 2020 were similar to those during the preceding year after excluding GDM using the standard oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) procedure.

DESIGN

Retrospective pre-post study.

SETTING, PARTICIPANTS

All women who gave birth in Queensland during 1 July - 31 December 2019 and 1 July - 31 December 2020.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Perinatal (maternal and neonatal) outcomes for pregnant women assessed for GDM, by assessment method (2019: OGTT/glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c ] assessment; 2020: GDM could be excluded by an FVPG value below 4.7 mmol/L).

RESULTS

3968 of 29 113 pregnant women in Queensland during 1 July - 31 December 2019 (13.6%) were diagnosed with GDM, and 4029 of 28 778 during 1 July - 31 December 2020 (14.0%). In 2020, FVPG assessments established GDM in 216 women (1.1%) and excluded it in 1660 (5.8%). The frequencies of most perinatal outcomes were similar for women without GDM in 2019 and those for whom it was excluded in 2020 on the basis of FVPG values; the exception was caesarean delivery, for which the estimated probability increase in 2020 was 3.9 percentage points (95% credibility interval, 2.2-5.6 percentage points), corresponding to an extra 6.5 caesarean deliveries per 1000 births. The probabilities of several outcomes - respiratory distress, neonatal intensive care or special nursery admission, large for gestational age babies - were about one percentage point higher for women without GDM in 2020 (excluding those diagnosed on the basis of FVPG assessment alone) than for women without GDM in 2019.

CONCLUSIONS

Identifying women at low absolute risk of gestational diabetes-related pregnancy complications on the basis of FVPG assessment as an initial step in GDM screening could reduce the burden for pregnant women and save the health system substantial costs.

A guide to navigating administrative data linkage for research

Data linkage brings together information from various sources, including routinely collected administrative data or data from different research studies, to create a new, richer dataset. It provides insights into complex relationships between health and outcomes and evidence pathways to good health. However, when considering data linkage, there are several processes and practicality aspects that need to be explored. Some of these include understanding the costs, complexity of linkage, data storage requirements, required applications, and time lags. Taking these practicalities into consideration will lead to a more efficient process for data linkage.

"No Country Bureaucratised its way to Excellence": A Content Analysis of Comments on a Petition to Streamline Australian Research Ethics and Governance Processes

We created a petition for a national inquiry into the Australian system of research ethics and governance, to inform the politicians about the problems with the existing system. We analyzed the reasons that signatories offered for why signing the petition was important to them. A total of 409 comments (by 805 signatories) focused on five major themes: (1) views on previous changes to the system of research ethics and governance; (2) drawbacks of the existing system; (3) suggested changes to the system; (4) anticipated impacts of changing the system; and (5) miscellaneous/other comments. Comments ranged from several words to over 400 words in length, and most often focused on the procedural aspects, and commented on theme 2: drawbacks of the existing system.

From program suspension to the pandemic: A qualitative examination of Australia's vaccine pharmacovigilance system over 10 years

BACKGROUND

In 2010, the Australian seasonal influenza vaccination program for children under 5 years of age was suspended due to an unexpected increase in fever and febrile convulsions causally associated with one particular influenza vaccine brand. A subsequent national review made seven recommendations to improve vaccine pharmacovigilance. Ten years on, in advance of implementing the COVID-19 immunisation program, we evaluated views on the capacity of Australia's vaccine pharmacovigilance system to promptly detect, examine and communicate a signal.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted between July and October 2020 with individuals with expertise in vaccine safety in Australia using an interview guide informed by key Australian and international frameworks. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was used to code data using a deductive approach.

RESULTS

Interviews with seventeen participants enabled six themes to be identified. Participants described improvement and significant innovation within Australia's vaccine pharmacovigilance system over the decade since 2010, particularly through establishment of a new active, cohort event monitoring system using short message service surveys. Participants thought Australia had a good foundation for COVID-19 vaccine safety surveillance; implementation of the COVID-19 immunisation program was seen as a potential driver for ongoing enhancement through: a) improved integration of the active surveillance and spontaneous reporting systems, and; b) development of population-level active surveillance, including through data linkage. Transparent communication was considered essential to address the unprecedented challenges of COVID-19 and broader vaccine safety concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Vaccine safety experts in Australia convey confidence in the innovative pharmacovigilance systems implemented over the past 10 years. While Australia has a multifaceted system incorporating both active surveillance and spontaneous reporting systems, COVID-19 vaccine implementation represents an opportunity to enhance current systems and to develop new, systematic approaches to vaccine pharmacovigilance that should make both a local and global contribution.

Perspectives of Singaporean biomedical researchers and research support staff on actual and ideal IRB review functions and characteristics: A quantitative analysis

Background

Biomedical research is overseen by numerous Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in Singapore but there has been no research that examines how the research review process is perceived by the local research community nor is there any systematic data on perceptions regarding the review process or other research ethics processes and IRB characteristics. The aim of this study was to ascertain general views regarding the overall perceived value of ethics review processes; to measure perceptions about local IRB functions and characteristics; to identify IRB functions and characteristics viewed as important; and to compare these views with those of other international studies.

Methods

An online survey was used with the main component being the IRB-Researcher Assessment Tool (IRB-RAT), a validated tool, to evaluate perceptions of ideal and actual IRB functions and characteristics held by Singaporean researchers and research support staff. Data were analysed descriptively first, with mean and SD of each item of IRB-RAT questionnaire reported, excluding the respondents whose answers were unknown or not applicable. The Wilcoxon Sign Rank test was used to compare the ideal and actual ratings of each IRB-RAT item, while the Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the ratings of each IRB-RAT item between respondents with different characteristics. The Z-test was used to compare the mean ratings of our cohort with the mean ratings reported in the literature. The correlation between our mean ideal scores and those of two international studies also employing the IRB-RAT was examined.

Results

Seventy-one respondents completed the survey. This cohort generally held positive views of the impact of the ethics review process on: the quality of research; establishing and maintaining public trust in research; the protection of research participants; and on the scientific validity of research. The most important ideal IRB characteristics were timeliness, upholding participants’ rights while also facilitating research, working with investigators to find solutions when there are disagreements, and not allowing biases to affect reviews. For almost all 45 IRB-RAT statements, the rating of the importance of the characteristic was higher than the rating of how much that characteristic was descriptive of IRBs the respondents were familiar with. There was a significant strong correlation between our study’s scores on the ideal IRB characteristics and those of the first and largest published study that employed the IRB-RAT, the US National Validation (USNV) sample in Keith-Spiegel et al. [19].

Conclusions

An understanding of the perceptions held by Singaporean researchers and research support staff on the value that the ethics review process adds, their perceptions of actual IRB functions and characteristics as well as what they view as central to high functioning IRBs is the first step to considering the aspects of the review process that might benefit from improvements. This study provides insight into how our cohort compares to others internationally and highlights strengths and areas for improvement of Singapore IRBs as perceived by a small sample of the local research community. Such insights provide a springboard for additional research and may assist in further enhancing good relations so that both are working towards the same end.

Challenges in obtaining research ethics and governance approvals for an Australian national intersector, multisite audit study

Objective The aim of this study was to describe timelines and challenges encountered in obtaining ethics and governance approvals for an Australian multicentre audit study involving 100 public (n=22) and private (n=78) sites from three health sectors and all eight Australian states and territories. Methods We determined and compared the processes, documentation and number of business days required to prepare applications and obtain research ethics and governance approvals. Results In total, the full ethics and governance process (calculated from the date the first application was started to the date the final approval was granted) took 203 business days (79% of the study timeline). Standard risk ethics applications (n=4) took a median of 17 business days (range 3-35 days) to prepare and 32 business days (range 17-67 days) to be approved; expedited ethics applications (n=4) took a median of 5 business days (range 1-20 days) to prepare and 10 business days (range 1-44 days) to be approved. Governance approvals (n=23) took a median of 27 business days (range 4-63 days) to prepare and 20 business days (range 4-61 days) to be approved. Challenges included the lack of a nationwide single-site ethical review process, the extensive time required to duplicate content across applications, variability in application requirements and submission systems, and contract negotiations. Conclusion Further improvements are needed to reduce duplication and increase the efficiency of Australian ethics and governance review processes. What is known about the topic? The process for obtaining ethics approval for multicentre research has been streamlined through the introduction of single-site ethics review. However, the process of gaining ethics and governance approvals for national multicentre research continues to be time-consuming, resource-intensive and duplicative. What does this paper add? This is the first study to examine the challenges of obtaining ethics and governance approvals for a non-interventional multicentre study involving three health sectors (hospital, aged care, general practice), both private and public services and all eight Australian jurisdictions. Previous examinations of Australian multicentre studies have considered only one health sector, focused on the public system and/or were not national in scope. What are the implications for practitioners? Researchers and funders need to be aware of the considerable time, resources and costs involved in gaining research ethics and governance approvals for multicentre studies and include this in budgets and study timelines. Policy makers and administrators of ethics and governance review processes must address barriers to conducting multicentre research in Australia.