Search

Background COVID-19 is a highly challenging infectious disease. Research ethics committees (RECs) have challenges reviewing research on this new pandemic disease under a tight timeline and public pressure. This study aimed to assess RECs’ responses and review during the outbreak in seven Asian countries where the Strategic Initiative for Developing Capacity in Ethical Review (SIDCER) networks are active. Methods The online survey was conducted in seven Asian countries from April to August 2021. Two sets of online questionnaires were developed, one set for the chairs/secretaries and another set for the REC members. The REC profiles obtained from the REC members are descriptive in nature. Data from the chairs/secretaries were compared between the RECs with external quality assessment (SIDCER-Recognized RECs, SR-RECs) and non-external quality assessment (Non-SIDCER-Recognized RECs, NSR-RECs) and analyzed using a Chi-squared test. Results A total of 688 REC members and 197 REC chairs/secretaries participated in the survey. Most RECs have standard operating procedures (SOPs), and have experience in reviewing all types of protocols, but 18.1% had no experience reviewing COVID-19 protocols. Most REC members need specific training on reviewing COVID-19 protocols (93%). In response to the outbreak, RECs used online reviews, increased meeting frequency and single/central REC. All SR-RECs had a member composition as required by the World Health Organisation ethics guidelines, while some NSR-RECs lacked non-affiliated and/or layperson members. SR-RECs reviewed more COVID-related product development protocols and indicated challenges in reviewing risk/benefit and vulnerability (0.010), informed consent form (0.002), and privacy and confidentiality (P = 0.020) than NSR-RECs. Conclusions Surveyed RECs had a general knowledge of REC operation and played a significant role in reviewing COVID-19-related product development protocols. Having active networks of RECs across regions to share updated information and resources could be one of the strategies to promote readiness for future public health emergencies.

Presence of Nepal in global clinical trials has been visibly negligible despite the history of conducting large scaled randomized controlled trial on Hepatitis E vaccine decades ago. Majority of the problem is attributed to the lack of collaborative work, financial and human resource constrains. COVID-19 pandemics seems to have triggered urgency among the authorities of Nepal leading to a substantial increase in the number of clinical trials in collaboration with national and international organizations/institutions. Immediately after detection of the first COVID-19 case on 13 January 2020, the Ethical Review Board (ERB) of NHRC received several research proposals, subsequently leading to the approval of the first clinical trial for COVID-19 on 01 July 2020 to investigate potential of traditional Ayurveda based medicine for COVID treatment. Soon, number of other clinical trial proposals received approval and implemented in the country, however budgetary allocation from the Government of Nepal (GON) was prioritized for COVID-19 outrage management and vaccination coverage only. Collaborations with various international institutions played a significant role in the successful implementation of large-scale clinical trials in the country and further laid the path for future. In this review paper we present the recent developments in clinical trials in Nepal, budgetary allocation from the government and the mechanisms in place for regulation of clinical research in the country along with challenges and way forward.

Background: Public health emergency is vulnerable time where maintaining ethical principles is obligatory while doing research, on the other hand, it is the same time when breach in ethics is much likely whenever a researcher is unaware, unprepared or hastens to do research. The aim of this study was to assess ethical issues of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related research proposals submitted during the early stages of pandemic in Nepal. Methods: Retrospective analysis of COVID-19 related research proposals and their informed consent document submitted to the ethical review board at Nepal Health Research Council was done for the study. The analysis was done as per the National Ethical Guidelines, Standard Operating Procedure for Health Research in Nepal and World Health Organization guidelines for infectious disease outbreak, 2016 under ethically relevant headings. Descriptive data were analyzed in SPSS v24. Results: The major issues were observed in the informed consent documents where 55% were lacking principal investigator’s contact information, 68% not having participant selection criteria, 70% without clear informed consent taking process, 57% without explanation of possible risks. Similarly, 68% of the interventional studies’ consent form didn’t mention possible adverse events and mitigation mechanisms. Conclusions: Most of the research proposals related to COVID-19 were devoid of major ethical elements which took longer time for receiving approval and eventually delayed the opportunity for evidence generation in critical time. More attention is needed to increase awareness and to develop capacity of researchers, reviewers, ethics committees and relevant stakeholders at the time of health emergencies.

Background: Preparedness, readiness, and response status of any country is integral in identifying, managing, and preventing COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of this study is to assess the status of the Government of Nepal designated COVID hospitals and COVID clinics to respond against COVID-19. Methods: A cross sectional study was conducted with the focal persons of COVID hospitals and COVID clinics using a semi-structured questionnaire from April 26, 2020 to May 27, 2020 via face to face interview with onsite observation and telephonic interview in few unreachable health facilities. Results: Government of Nepal designated COVID hospitals and COVID clinics demonstrated efforts in establishing preparedness plans and committees such as COVID management core team (96.7% and 86%), provision of coordination with the government authority (both 100% ), preparedness response plan (93.3% and 84%), and infection prevention and control committee (63.3% and 65.6%) to respond to COVID-19 respectively. The participants reported differences in training provided to their health care workers with maximum COVID hospitals (80%) providing training on use of personal protective equipment and least (43.3%) on handling dead bodies. Only half of the COVID clinics (49.5%) had provision of triage systems. Conclusions: COVID hospitals and COVID clinics in Nepal demonstrated different status of COVID pandemic preparedness and readiness. In case of surge, Nepalese hospitals would struggle due to lack of trained workforce and infrastructure. Interdisciplinary, multi-sectoral collaboration with various focused strategies, including in-service training to staff, is paramount to increase preparedness and readiness.

Background COVID-19 is a highly challenging infectious disease. Research ethics committees (RECs) have challenges reviewing research on this new pandemic disease under a tight timeline and public pressure. This study aimed to assess RECs’ responses and review during the outbreak in seven Asian countries where the Strategic Initiative for Developing Capacity in Ethical Review (SIDCER) networks are active. Methods The online survey was conducted in seven Asian countries from April to August 2021. Two sets of online questionnaires were developed, one set for the chairs/secretaries and another set for the REC members. The REC profiles obtained from the REC members are descriptive in nature. Data from the chairs/secretaries were compared between the RECs with external quality assessment (SIDCER-Recognized RECs, SR-RECs) and non-external quality assessment (Non-SIDCER-Recognized RECs, NSR-RECs) and analyzed using a Chi-squared test. Results A total of 688 REC members and 197 REC chairs/secretaries participated in the survey. Most RECs have standard operating procedures (SOPs), and have experience in reviewing all types of protocols, but 18.1% had no experience reviewing COVID-19 protocols. Most REC members need specific training on reviewing COVID-19 protocols (93%). In response to the outbreak, RECs used online reviews, increased meeting frequency and single/central REC. All SR-RECs had a member composition as required by the World Health Organisation ethics guidelines, while some NSR-RECs lacked non-affiliated and/or layperson members. SR-RECs reviewed more COVID-related product development protocols and indicated challenges in reviewing risk/benefit and vulnerability (0.010), informed consent form (0.002), and privacy and confidentiality (P = 0.020) than NSR-RECs. Conclusions Surveyed RECs had a general knowledge of REC operation and played a significant role in reviewing COVID-19-related product development protocols. Having active networks of RECs across regions to share updated information and resources could be one of the strategies to promote readiness for future public health emergencies.