{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.034826974267968054, 'fraction_numerical': 0.015971606033717833, 'mean_word_length': 4.9485488126649075, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Ethical Issues and Barriers for Multi-National Paediatric Clinical Trials: The Challenging Experience of the DEEP Project

Introduction: The procedures and requirements for the clinical trial application (CTA) to Ethics Committees (ECs) and/or Competent Authorities (CAs) are not fully harmonised, and this is even more evident when non-EU countries are involved. This lack of harmonisation makes more difficult the approach in the case of 'small populations', such as children and patients affected by rare diseases. A phase III efficacy-safety comparative trial (DEEP-2) involving paediatric patients affected by transfusion dependent haemoglobinopathies from seven European and non-European countries (Albania, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, United Kingdom, Egypt, Tunisia) was carried out in the context of a FP7 project (HEALTH-F4-2010-G.A. n. 261483) and included in an agreed Paediatric Investigation Plan.
 Aims: The aims of this paper are to describe in a complex multi-national/multi-ethnic framework the different provisions and procedures to authorise a paediatric trial in EU/non-EU countries and to evaluate the possible impact of the following key indicators on the timing of ECs approval and CAs authorisation: complexity of the national/local provisions and procedures to authorise a paediatric trial, including the number of ECs and CAs to be addressed; number and type of additional local/national documentation; number of queries from CAs and ECs; geographic setting (EU and non-EU).
 Methods: The following information was collected from official websites and through a survey addressed to Principal Investigators: The regulatory and legal frameworks in force at the time of the submission of DEEP-2 in each involved country;The procedures required at local/national level (i.e. number of ECs and CAs to be addressed, parallel or subsequent submission to the CA and the EC, preparation of the CTA form and documents required from CAs and ECs);The timing of ECs approval and CAs authorisation, including number and types of queries, were collected from DEEP-2 Trial Master File.
 Descriptive analysis, Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test and General Linear Model (GLM) analysis were used to describe results and to analyse significance of the considered indicators.
 Results: In the EU countries, relevant legislative acts apply and include GCP and specific procedures for paediatric trials, in non-EU countries GCP guidelines apply but have not been implemented in the national laws regulating clinical trials. Moreover, within the 4 EU Member States a different approach was in place, even if under the same rules (i.e. Directive 2001/20/EC as implemented in the national law) with distinctive documents required for the CTA in almost all the EU countries compared with the EC provisions. The CTAs were performed in the period June 2012 - September 2015 in 23 trial sites. The EC approvals and CA authorisations were issued between January 2013 - September 2015. In the EU countries, the authorisation process was completed within 7,3 to 33,8 months (median = 15 months), while in non-EU countries, the authorisation process was completed by 7 months (median = 4 months) (figure 1). In particular, the comparison of the CA time authorisation shows a significant difference between EU and non-EU clusters (p = 0.001); however, if the statistical model is adjusted for the number of EC requests as covariate, the difference is not significant. Thus, it seems that the main factor influencing the time for EC approval is the number of requests for changes/clarifications (mainly on informed consent/assent, study protocol, insurance) (figure 2).
 Conclusion: Delays in completion of the authorisation phase in many countries seems to be a relevant issue and the timeframes for the authorisation in EU countries are not compliant with the European requirements (60 days for single opinion release and 30 days for its acceptance, as stated in Directive 2001/20/EC). The main reasons for delay is the complexity of the procedures and the requests from the ECs/CAs. In non-EU countries, procedures are different and faster with less requests from ECs and CAs. The upcoming application of a stronger set of rules, CT-Regulation (EU) 536/2014, is expected to harmonise practices in Europe and possibly outside Europe. The final aim of this change should be to assure a good balance between a timely approval and a high-level of children protection.
 
 
 
 Reggiardo: CVBF: Consultancy. Tricta:ApoPharma: Employment.
