1 / 16

International Multi-Site and Multi-disciplinary Studies

International Multi-Site and Multi-disciplinary Studies. Thomas J. Coates PhD Director, UCLA Center for World Health Michael and Sue Steinberg Professor of Global AIDS Research. Leadership. Kamuzu Central Hospital, Lilongwe Malawi. DGSOM Program in Global Health Mozambique.

hauer
Download Presentation

International Multi-Site and Multi-disciplinary Studies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. International Multi-Site and Multi-disciplinary Studies Thomas J. Coates PhDDirector, UCLA Center for World Health Michael and Sue Steinberg Professor of Global AIDS Research

  2. Leadership

  3. Kamuzu Central Hospital, Lilongwe Malawi

  4. DGSOM Program in Global HealthMozambique

  5. DGSOM Program in Global HealthIquitos, Peru

  6. NIMH Project Accept (hptn 043) study sites Chiang Mai, Thailand Kisarawe, Tanzania Mutoko, Zimbabwe Soweto, South Africa Vulindlela, South Africa

  7. The COMPLETE INTERVENTION PACKAGE for community based VCT (CBVCT) Social networks are identified and secured for information sessions Community members mobilized: Social networks, door-to-door, mob talks, community events Testing Support S Testing Support Services Community Mobilization TSS club guests receive stigma and HIV/AIDS info: Mobilized for testing Participants tested, move on to TSS for support and referrals Mobile VCT brought to where people are Update from community members around caravan DATA Participants receive risk reduction information and mobilize partners for testing

  8. ALL of this resulted in: 86,720 HIV tests 69,987 in CBVCT communities 7,636in SVCT communities 50,000 individuals when repeat tests are excluded 140,755 post-test support visits Sweat et al, Lancet ID, 2011

  9. Issues • International research not addressed in Common Rule proposed changes; implications are vast and in some ways similar to other issues addressed in this panel • Remember Nuremberg and Guatemala syphilis experiments • Paternalism • Less stringent regulation and legislation • Failure to obtain informed consent or to ensure that indviduals are consenting for themselves • Lack of strict ethical oversight • Lack of concerns for confidentiality and privacy • Cost of regulatory oversight

  10. Issues • Blending of behavioral, social, and biomedical research in many venues; not recognized in proposed new regulations • If you want American money, then you have to follow American standards • Is this paternalism? • A good export? • Should foreign regulatory bodies be required to have FWA or should an equivalent be accepted? • Do the proposed changes have the same implications in the US as they might in a foreign country? • Is minimal risk the same here as elsewhere?

  11. Issues • Processes for strengthening local oversight should be taken into consideration as Common Rule changes are enacted • This may include, but not be restricted to, the levels of expertise needed; the requirement for community input; classes of participants requiring special protections; documentation, audit, and enforcement • Should the Common Rule be silent on training issues—for investigators and teams, for members and staff of the IRB?

  12. Changes and Proposed Alternatives • Would apply to funding from all Federal Agencies and clinical studies seeking FDA approval • Should they apply to studies funded entirely by other countries, multi-lateral agencies, or philanthropies? • Adverse event reporting systems, even for social and behavioral studies, should be designed to address issues arising in international studies and should be multi-national • Enhanced and simplified consent procedures would be useful and important; written consent not necessarily useful or central to international research

  13. Changes and Proposed Alternatives

  14. Changes and Proposed Alternatives • One IRB for multi-country studies? • A series of regional IRBs? • Who determines what is acceptable in a given country or region? • Which IRB takes precedence: The US IRB or the local IRB? • How can local IRBs be held to standards of efficiency and timeliness of approval? • Is minimal risk the same in all locations? • Childhood physical abuse ~ 4 to 30%; sexual abuse ~2 to 5% • Could reporting this abuse be greater than minimal risk? • Could multi-site IRBs have membership from all countries involved?

  15. Issues • Should US guidance be harmonized with international guidance and regulations? Should HHS be working actively with WHO, the EU, and other multinational bodies to harmonize recommendations and regulations? • Who determines minimal risk and expedited status? The US or the local IRB? • Would elimination of administrative review lead to harm and possibly ‘cutting corners?’ • Would the extension of exempt studies and those not requiring annual review lead to lax oversight in international studies?

  16. The UCLA Center for World HealthAt the David Geffen School of Medicine and UCLA Health Systems Thomas J. Coates PhDDirector J. Thomas Rosenthal MD Co-Director

More Related