1 of 52

CITA ROSITA SIGIT PRAKOESWA

Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga

Dr. Soetomo General Academic Hospital

Ethical Aspect:

Human Subject Research

2 of 52

OUTLINE

ETHICS & ETHICAL REVIEW

(Medical Service & Clinical Research)

ETHICAL ISSUE IN ETHICAL REVIEW

1

2

3

IMPLEMENTATION OF ETHICAL REVIEW PROCESS

3 of 52

ETHICS & ETHICAL REVIEW

(Medical Service & Clinical Research)

1

4 of 52

Better Research = Better Health

Good Research

Good Evidence

Evidence-Based Healthcare

Better health status

    • Good Science
    • Good Ethics

5 of 52

CURRENT

SITUATION

Lawsuit Target

Hospitals

Doctors

Nurses, Midwives

Dentists

As legal subjects, doctors, nurses, midwives have been targeted for lawsuits over health services that are considered detrimental to patients.

6 of 52

  1. Withdrawing unreasonable service fee
  2. Taking over patients without colleagues’ approval
  3. Self-praise
  4. Discriminatory service
  5. Collusion with pharmaceutical companies
  6. Not participating in sustainable education
  7. Neglecting self health
  1. Substandard medical services
  2. Publishing false information
  3. Performing illegal medical procedures
  4. Performing medical procedures without indication
  5. Sexual harassment
  6. Divulge patient’s confidentiality

CLINICAL PROBLEMS

Pure Ethics

Ethico-legal

Profession

Legal

Legal Sectors

Suit to applicable regulations

7 of 52

ADMISSION

OUT

General

Consent

Patient & Family Right

Education

Protection

Security and safety

Patients and Belongings

Protection

Patient’s

Privacy and Secret

Informed

Consent

DNR

Life End

Patient & Family Right

Clinical Trial

Screening

registration

Initial assessment

(Medical-nursing-discharge plan

Pain-fall-special risk)

Follow up plan

Summary

Education

Intervention / Procedure

Integrated Patient Services

Hospital Service Process

8 of 52

IMPLEMENTATION of

3 PRINCIPLES

7 ETHICAL STANDARDS

in The Ethical Review Process

2

9 of 52

10 of 52

HISTORY

  • 1947. The Doctor’s trial Nuremberg, Jerman World War II. Nuremberg Code a ten point statement delimiting permissible medical experimentation on human subjects.
  • 1948: United Nations: Universal Declaration of Human Rights
  • 1966: United Nations: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
  • 1964. General Assembly, World Medical Association the Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects.
  • 1930-1972: Tuskegee Syphilis Study, Alabama, USA
  • 1979: Belmont Report: THREE BASIC ETHICAL PRINCIPLES
  • 2000. WHO: Operational Guidelines for Ethics Committees that Review Biomedical Research.
  • 2002. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS): The International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects.
  • 2008. CIOMS: The International Ethical Guidelines for Epidemiological Studies
  • 2011. Standards and Operational Guidance Ethic Review of Health-Related Research with human Participants
  • 2016. CIOMS: The International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Huma

11 of 52

R

B

J

Beneficence

Respect for persons

Ethical Principles

Researchers must respect human rights and dignity as subjects, give their best and act fairly

Justice

  1. Social Value / Clinical Value
  2. Scientific Value
  3. Burden-Benefit Equity
  4. Benefits – Risks
  5. Persuasion
  6. Privacy and confidentiality
  7. Informed consent

Recognize 3 ethical principles, 7 WHO ethical standards & 25 WHO-CIOMS ethical guidelines

25

Guidelines

12 of 52

Social

vs Clinical value

Scientific Validity

  • Accuracy of tests
  • Accuracy of scientific design
  • Controlled experiment
  • One variable tested
  • Other factors constant
  • Scientific measurement system

Fair Subject Selection

Favorable Risk-Benefit Ratio

Privacy & Confidentiality

Seven Principles of Good Ethics

Seduction / Persuasion

13 of 52

1

1. SOCIAL VALUE/ CLINICAL VALUE

THERE IS NOVELTY

In the study, there is a novelty value, namely there is at least one of the following 3 characteristics:

a. Potential to generate valid information

b. Have meaningful relevance to health problems

c. Contribute to a creation/benefit in evaluating policy interventions, or as part of implementing activities that promote individual or community health

14 of 52

2

2. SCIENTIFIC VALUE

Research design follows scientific logic :

  • Research design;
  • Place and time of research;
  • Type of sample, sampling procedure, sample size, inclusion and exclusion criteria;
  • Research variables and operational definitions;
  • Research instruments/tools to collect data/research materials;
  • Research procedure;
  • Intervention given/done.

15 of 52

3

3. BALANCING BURDEN & BENEFIT

Subjects are selected based on scientific considerations, not recruited based on socioeconomic status, on the basis of authority, or ease of manipulation

16 of 52

4

4. POTENTIAL BENEFIT & RISKS

  • Risk to be accepted and balance of risk & benefit

  • Almost every study has consequences, for example: the risk of inconvenience, the sacrifice of time, or the cost.

  • Physical, social, financial, or psychological risks

The key: lies in the HREC, the decision is based on a balance of careful, fair judgment “Lay person” considerations

17 of 52

5

5. PERSUASION

It is ethically acceptable to compensate for the costs of participating in research, including transportation costs, lost income, replacing time spent participating in research 🡪 Fair

Avoid suspicion of “exploitation” claims

Caution 🡪 subject recruitment with low socioeconomic, benefits researchers, sponsors incur lower costs

18 of 52

6

6. PRIVACY & CONFIDENTIALITY

Violation of the privacy and confidentiality of research subjects is disrespectful to the subject and can lead to social stigma

Research using medical records, does it violate ethics?

19 of 52

7

7. INFORMED CONSENT

Communication process

The principle of respect for each individual

Consent is given by competent individuals who have received information, understood and made decisions without coercion, persuasion, or intimidation

Viewed as a process rather than document preparation

Informed consent

20 of 52

1. Scientific value, social value, and respect

2. Conducting research in health facilities

3. Distribution of benefits and burdens in the selection of research subjects

4. Benefits and risks of research

5. Selection of controls in clinical trials

6. Attention to the health of research subjects

7. Interest in society

8. Collaboration and research capacity building

9. Individual capacity of informed consent

10. Modification of informed consent

11. Collection, storage and use of biological materials

12. Collection, storage and use of data in health research

13. Reimbursement and compensation for research participants

14. Reimbursement and compensation for hazardous events in research

15. Vulnerable persons

16. Adult participants are unable to give informed consent

17. Children and youth participants

18. Female participant

19. Pregnant and breastfeeding participants

20. Disaster and outbreak research

21. Randomized cluster test

22. Use of online data and digital tools in health research

23. Requirements for establishing an ethics committee and reviewing protocol

24. Public accountability in health research

25. Conflicts of interest

25

21 of 52

RESEARCH

New Discoveries

No matter how good the results in the laboratory

or in animals, if the effect is not seen in HUMANS

MAN IS THE FINAL TEST TUBE

ETHICS

These findings have no clinical benefit

!

22 of 52

Have a balanced role in enforcing research ethics

RESEARCHER

REVIEWER (Human Research Ethics Committee)

23 of 52

Research’s Ethics

Proposal

Protocol

A written plan of research proposals that is compiled systematically

The research operational guidelines that explained each step of the research in detail

24 of 52

RESEARCH PROTOCOLS

  1. Research title
  2. Identity of research proposer
  3. Table of contents
  4. Research summary
  5. Introduction (background, problem, research question, purpose & benefits).
  6. Research methods (theoretical/concept framework, hypotheses, operational definitions etc.)
  7. Research’s ethics
  8. Bibliography,
  9. Attachment
  10. Research team composition
  11. Research schedule
  12. Cost recapitulation (Detailed Budget Plan)
  13. Biodata of the chief executive and researcher
  14. Authorized supervisor approval
  15. Willingness of research team members

25 of 52

Online

  • Researchers must know ethical issues in submitted research

  • For example: is there a risk in the submitted research?

  • Review peer group

HEALTH RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEE

(KEPK)

26 of 52

KEPK

HOW THE RESEARCH ETHICS REVIEW IS IMPLEMENTED?

27 of 52

The profile

Health Research Ethics Committee

Dr Soetomo General Academic Hospital

(HREC-DSGAH)

28 of 52

Academic Medical Center Standards�Human Subject Research Program

Coord Research & Development

Coord Medical Service

Coord Education & Training

Health Research Ethics Committee

Researcher

Director

Human Subjects (Patient)

Medical Staff Group

Sponsor &

Research Contract

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

29 of 52

What, who, why, when, where & How

Health Research Ethics Committee Dr Soetomo General Academic Hospital

is an independent committee which conducting ethical review for every protocol of researches which will be done by civitas hospitalica & academica of DSGAH

The members are from internal and external institution, lay persons and administration staffs

to ensure that human subject research in DSGAH would be studied in accordance with ICH-GCP (International Convention on Harmonization of GCP) principles, refer to WHO-CIOMS guidelines

HREC-SGAH start on 2005

Jl. Prof. Dr. Moestopo No 6-8 Surabaya

How to contact :

Hotline : Whatsup - 082143729965, Phone number - 031 550 1164, Link Web KEPK : http://komiteetik-rsudrsoetomo.com

30 of 52

The History �of HREC Dr Soetomo General Academic Hospital

199x

2005

2008

2018

2019

April 2020

Fac of Med Unair

+ DSGAH

Guidelines book of HREC DSGAH

Separated from HREC of FM

Unair

Online ethics submission was started

Renewed guideline of HREC

Online ethics submission was revised referred to FERCAP

standard

Only Human Research Subject that must submit ethical clearance approval

All researches should submit ethical clearance approval

31 of 52

Organization Chart of HREC

Panel 1

Panel 2

Panel 3

Panel 4

Chairman

Prof Dr Hendy Hendarto dr SpOG(K)

Vice chairman

Dr Dominicus Husada dr MCTM SpA(K)

Secretary (2)

Dr Achmad Suryawan dr SpA(K)

Dr Laksmi Wulandari dr SpP(K) FCCP

32 of 52

Male Female Senior

EC Composition

Name

Profession & Credentials

Field

Med Non-Med

Affiliation Yes No

Gender

M F

Joni Wahyuhadi

Advisor / Director

Cita Rosita SP

Advisor / Director

Hendy Hendarto

Gynecologist

Dominicus Husada

Pediatrician

Ahmad Suryawan

Pediatrician

Laksmi Wulandari

Pulmonologist

Elizius Hanindito

Anesthesiogist

Tri Wahyu Martanto

Orthopedic Surgeon

Fany Arsyad

Research Development

Imam Mu’if

Research Development

Ferdiansyah

Orthopedic Surgeon

Siti Farida

Pharmacist

Arie Utarianie

Anesthesiogist

Damayanti Tinduh

Physic & Rehabilitation

Endang Martiniani

Pharmacist

Alpha Fardah

Pediatrician

Evelyn Komaratih

Ophthalmologist

Septiana Widyanta

Dermatologist

Eddy Bagus Wasito

Microbiologist

Eddy Rahardjo

Anesthesiogist

Aryati

Clinical Pathologist

Jusak Nugroho

Clinical Pathologist

Doddy M Soebadi

Urologist

Gatot Soegiarto

Internist

M Arifin Parenrengi

Neurosurgeon

Yulianto Listiawan

Dermatologist

Suharjono

Pharmacist

Agus Santoso Budi

Plasticsurgeon

Awalia

Internist

Khairina

Psychiatrist

Lindawati Alimsardjono

Microbiologist

Margarita M Maramis

Psychiatrist

Iswinarno

Plasticsurgeon

Andi Darma

Pediatrician

Dwi Reno Pawarti

ENT doctor

Christijogo Sumartono

Anesthesiogist

Hardiono

Anesthesiogist

Christinari Ratih

Dentist

Tutik Rahayu Ningsih

Lay person

Prilian Cahyanai

Lay person

Meigire Triassunu

Lay person

Dwi Novi Kartika K

Lay person

Astri Nur Amalia

Lay person

Zahra Fatimah Yuniar

Lay person

Dien Mardiyah

Lay person

Fuad Hasan

Lay person

Eys Dedeh Herawati

Secretary staffs

Lintang Ayu Prayogi

Secretary staffs

Wini Damayanti

Secretary staffs

Dyah Adriyani

Secretary staffs

Syailendra Balindo

Secretary staffs

: 25

: 25

: 20

Junior : 30 Medical staffs : 32

  • Internist
  • Pulmonologist
  • Pediatrician
  • Gynecologyst
  • Anesthesiologist
  • ENT
  • Ophthalmologist
  • Surgeons
  • PM&R
  • Dermatologist
  • Psychiatrist
  • Clinical Pathologist
  • Microbiologist
  • Dentist

Non Medical staffs : 18

  • Pharmacist
  • Lay persons

- R&D

  • Administrations

SAE point persons

Member of

Health Research Ethics Committee Dr Soetomo General Academic Hospital 2021

33 of 52

Website - HREC Review

34 of 52

  • We have 4 panel groups, consist of 12 persons :
    • Panel Chief
    • Panel Co-chief
    • 2 panel secretaries
    • 5 medical & non medical staffs
    • 2 lay persons
    • 1 administrative staff

  • Every panel have 1 SAE point person (SAE point persons consist of 3 Pharmacist & 1 Internist)
  • Every panel works 1 week/month, review research protocol and conduct meeting

Panel of

Health Research Ethics Committee Dr Soetomo General Academic Hospital

35 of 52

Flowchart of Ethics Submission (New Version)

Researcher

Verificator / Adminatrator Classificator / Secretary Chief

Reviewer

Filling the research protocol form

Application submission

Document check

Forwarding to Classificator/Secretary

Document correction / completion

Classify the Application

Choose reviewers

Choose lay person

Asking Chief approval

Reviewing Protocol

Not complete

Complete

Exempted

Expedited

Pleno

Letter of Exemption

Preparing Board Meeting

Document correction / completion

Resubmission

Need correction

Approved

Ethical Clearance

Pleno

Exempted

Expedited

Major Revision

Resubmission check

Minor Revision Correct

Board Meeting

Board Meeting

36 of 52

3

&

ETHICAL ISSUE

IN

ETHICAL REVIEW

37 of 52

Ethical Aspects of Clinical Research Vulnerable subjects, RESPECT FOR PERSONS- AUTONOMY

RECRUITMENT

Was a representative sample of patients included in the study at the same time in the disease course (usually early)?

Are the diagnostic tests carried out covering the entire spectrum of patients (as would be used in practice)?

Does the subject represent?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Unclear

Inability to protect yourself can be caused by:

  • Age: infant / toddler / children
  • Disease: mental disorders
  • Hierarchy / work: students, soldiers
  • Condition: prisoners, the poor

Respecting the autonomy of the subject

  • Informed consent
  • Method of subjects recruitment
  • No coercive action
  • There is freedom of refuse / resign
  • Maintaining the confidentiality of data

38 of 52

Ethical Aspects of Clinical Research BENEFICENCE & NON MALEFFICIENT

BENEFIT

For the subjects

Free health care (physical examination, laboratory, X-ray, etc.)

The possibility that the drug or treatment studied is beneficial to cure their disease

Special attention

from doctors

For others/ society:

New knowledge

39 of 52

Example: Giving rewards to the subject

Excluding benefits because it can be manipulated to balance the risk-benefit considerations

Classified as research incentive

Intended to replace the time loss, transport costs and inconveniences

High honorarium should not be used as rewards for research with high risk

40 of 52

Various efforts to reduce the risk on the research subject

Good research methods

Competency / qualification of the research team

Approval of the Ethics Committee

Research place facilities

Sequential analysis for large studies

Security monitoring

Terminations research

Subject’s termination of participation

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Design and methodology

Research rationale

1

2

3

4

5

41 of 52

Various efforts to reduce the risk on the research subject

Good Monitoring of Adverse Events (AE)

Maintaining the confidentiality of the subject’s data

Give freedom to the subject to refuse in taking part and withdrew from the study

Avoid a repeat study

Anticipating the potential side effects

Avoid coercion

Preparing for help if side effects occur

6

7

8

9

10

42 of 52

Anticipating the potential side effects

For the drug research, potential side effects can be expected i.e by seeing the structure of the molecule, therapeutic class, toxicity data on experimental animals

    • Example: fluoroquinolones may induce ventricular arrhythmias and therefore care must be prepared if side effects occur

43 of 52

Termination of research due to risk-benefit considerations

Large and planned research that take a long time sometimes to be stopped early because one treatment is far superior → other group is disadvantaged

    • Example:
      • research Pitt et al in New Engl. J. Med 1999 to determine whether the addition of spironolactone helpful in reducing mortality in patients with heart failure who received standard medicine
      • Plan:
        • Group A: Standard medicine+spironolactone (n = 822)
        • Group B: standard medicine alone (n = 841)
        • Standard drugs: ACE-inhibitors + + loop diuretics, digoxin
        • The study was stopped early because an interim analysis of mortality rate = 35% in Group A, while Group B = 46% (p <0.001)

44 of 52

Ethical Aspects of Clinical Research JUSTICE

1. RECRUITMENT

Was a representative sample of patients included in the study at the same time in the disease course (usually early)?

Are the diagnostic tests carried out covering the entire spectrum of patients (as would be used in practice)?

Does the subject represent?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Unclear

2. ALLOCATION

How is the patient treated? If there are subgroups with different prognoses, are adjustments made for important prognostic factors?

Is the placement of intervention and control groups hidden? so the intervention and control groups were comparable at the start of the study?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Unclear

3. MAINTENANCE

Was the group status maintained commensurate with the same management and adequate follow-up?

Is a standardized final test applied to all subjects?

Did the groups get the same co-intervention? Is there sufficient follow-up?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Unclear

    • Burdens and benefits equally divided on the subject (i.e gender, age, economic status)
    • Vulnerable subjects may be included if there is no other population in accordance with the purpose of research

45 of 52

Ethical Aspects of Experimental Research

Population of patients with condition

Sample

OUTCOME

OUTCOME

Time

RECRUITMENT

Benefecience

Non Maleficience

Autonomy

Justice

MEASUREMENT

RANDOMIZATION

Experimental

Intervention

Comparison

Intervention

HARM/RISK

Non malefecience

46 of 52

Ethical Aspects of Experimental Research

Population of patients with condition

Sample

OUTCOME

OUTCOME

Time

RECRUITMENT

Benefecience

Non Maleficience

Autonomy

Justice

MEASUREMENT

RANDOMIZATION

Experimental

Intervention

Comparison

Intervention

HARM/RISK

Non malefecience

47 of 52

Ethical Aspects of Experimental Research

Population of patients with condition

Sample

OUTCOME

OUTCOME

Time

RECRUITMENT

Benefecience

Non Maleficience

Autonomy

Justice

MEASUREMENT

RANDOMIZATION

Experimental

Intervention

Comparison

Intervention

HARM/RISK

Non malefecience

48 of 52

Ethical Aspects of Experimental Research

Population of patients with condition

Sample

OUTCOME

OUTCOME

Time

RECRUITMENT

Benefecience

Non Maleficience

Autonomy

Justice

MEASUREMENT

RANDOMIZATION

Experimental

Intervention

Comparison

Intervention

HARM/RISK

Non malefecience

49 of 52

  • Population (Subjects)

Medical personnel of a Class A hospital

  • Intervention

--

  • Control

--

  • Outcome

Profile of handwashing behavior

Is this research ethically worthy?

Problem statement .

Handwashing profile of a class A hospital medical personnel is unclear.

Case Example (1)

50 of 52

  • Population (Subjects)

Covid-19 patients

  • Intervention

New Antiviral (X)

  • Control

Standard of Care (Y)

  • Outcome

Clinic

Laboratory

Is this research ethically worthy?

Problem statement .

Benefits of new antiviral (X) in patients with Covid-19 in improvement of clinical & laboratory parameter is not yet clear

Case Example (2)

51 of 52

  • Population (Subjects)

Elderly who suffer from Bronchial asthma

  • Intervention

Sport (exercise)

  • Control

No sport (exercise)

  • Outcome

Clinical improvement

Is this research ethically worthy?

Problem statement .

The effect of exercise in the elderly who suffer from

Bronchial asthma is unclear.

Case Example (3)

52 of 52

In all areas of research and therapy,

nuanced consideration & discussion of the best translational pathways, as viewed by ethics as well as science, will play a vital role in balancing hope and hype now and in the future,

as the field continues its rapid progress

Thank YOU