Requirements and special considerations for drug trials with children across six jurisdictions: 2. Ethics review in the regulatory approval process
Requirements and special considerations for drug trials with children across six jurisdictions: 2. Ethics review in the regulatory approval process
Background: conducting clinical drug trials (CTs) with children presents several challenges. A major challenge is the need to enroll participants at multiple sites across different jurisdictions. Recruiting the required number of children within a reasonable timeframe requires the study to be reviewed by Research Ethics Boards (REB) or Institutional Review Boards (IRB) at multiple sites across various jurisdictions. This work, undertaken by the Working Group (WG) on International Collaborations at the European Network of Pediatric Research at the European Medicines Agency (Enpr-EMA) aims to describe the research ethics review requirements including any pediatric specific requirements, as well as current or upcoming changes across six jurisdictions – the European Union (EU), United Kingdom (UK), United States of America (USA), Canada, Japan, and Australia.
Methods: an open questionnaire developed by the WG and directed at both the Competent Authorities (CA) and the national pediatric clinical trial networks arranged by jurisdictions.
Results: a synopsis of the current regulatory requirements covers centralized versus independent review, comparisons between investigator initiated and industry sponsored clinical trials, timelines, review board members requirements and the consenting/assent process for clinical trial (CT) applications, application submission processes and application requirements for each of the six jurisdictions. It also describes changes currently or soon to be implemented in some jurisdictions.
Conclusion: this environmental scan highlights the differences in ethics review for CTs in pediatric medicine development across six jurisdictions. While there is a growing trend for centralized ethics review, it is not universally permitted due to institutional, state/provincial, or national policies. Even where central review is allowed, local review may still be required for vulnerable populations like children. Harmonized and centralized ethics reviews offer advantages such as expert pediatric reviewers and efficient and consistent evaluations.
clinical trials, institutional review board, pediatrics, regulatory science, research ethics committee, research ethics review
Stewart, Breanne
318569a7-05f7-41d1-a36d-88aed10f035d
Nykanen, Pirkko
0a97718d-b0b7-45a1-94fb-638aa63e4748
Egger, Gunter F.
792eb86e-ed67-4a93-8182-cb270aba4845
Faust, Saul N.
f97df780-9f9b-418e-b349-7adf63e150c1
11 February 2025
Stewart, Breanne
318569a7-05f7-41d1-a36d-88aed10f035d
Nykanen, Pirkko
0a97718d-b0b7-45a1-94fb-638aa63e4748
Egger, Gunter F.
792eb86e-ed67-4a93-8182-cb270aba4845
Faust, Saul N.
f97df780-9f9b-418e-b349-7adf63e150c1
Stewart, Breanne, Nykanen, Pirkko and Egger, Gunter F.
,
et al.
(2025)
Requirements and special considerations for drug trials with children across six jurisdictions: 2. Ethics review in the regulatory approval process.
Frontiers in Medicine, 12, [1539787].
(doi:10.3389/fmed.2025.1539787).
Abstract
Background: conducting clinical drug trials (CTs) with children presents several challenges. A major challenge is the need to enroll participants at multiple sites across different jurisdictions. Recruiting the required number of children within a reasonable timeframe requires the study to be reviewed by Research Ethics Boards (REB) or Institutional Review Boards (IRB) at multiple sites across various jurisdictions. This work, undertaken by the Working Group (WG) on International Collaborations at the European Network of Pediatric Research at the European Medicines Agency (Enpr-EMA) aims to describe the research ethics review requirements including any pediatric specific requirements, as well as current or upcoming changes across six jurisdictions – the European Union (EU), United Kingdom (UK), United States of America (USA), Canada, Japan, and Australia.
Methods: an open questionnaire developed by the WG and directed at both the Competent Authorities (CA) and the national pediatric clinical trial networks arranged by jurisdictions.
Results: a synopsis of the current regulatory requirements covers centralized versus independent review, comparisons between investigator initiated and industry sponsored clinical trials, timelines, review board members requirements and the consenting/assent process for clinical trial (CT) applications, application submission processes and application requirements for each of the six jurisdictions. It also describes changes currently or soon to be implemented in some jurisdictions.
Conclusion: this environmental scan highlights the differences in ethics review for CTs in pediatric medicine development across six jurisdictions. While there is a growing trend for centralized ethics review, it is not universally permitted due to institutional, state/provincial, or national policies. Even where central review is allowed, local review may still be required for vulnerable populations like children. Harmonized and centralized ethics reviews offer advantages such as expert pediatric reviewers and efficient and consistent evaluations.
Text
Internat.WG IRB_REB_FINAL
- Accepted Manuscript
Text
fmed-1-1539787 (2)
- Version of Record
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 20 January 2025
Published date: 11 February 2025
Keywords:
clinical trials, institutional review board, pediatrics, regulatory science, research ethics committee, research ethics review
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 498384
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/498384
ISSN: 2296-858X
PURE UUID: e295cfe9-b0a3-4260-bd6f-9d4d94a0d98b
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 17 Feb 2025 17:57
Last modified: 22 Aug 2025 01:56
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Breanne Stewart
Author:
Pirkko Nykanen
Author:
Gunter F. Egger
Corporate Author: et al.
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics