4.5 Article

Clinical trials of medicines in neonates: the influence of ethical and practical issues on design and conduct

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
卷 79, 期 3, 页码 370-378

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.12467

关键词

clinical trials; ethics; neonate; patient and public involvment; pharmacokinetics; regulatory affairs

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [G1100158]
  2. European Commission Network of Excellence [261060]
  3. FP7 grant TINN [223614]
  4. FP7 grant TINN2 [260908]
  5. FP7 grant NeoCirc [282533]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the past, there has been a perception that ethical and practical problems limit the opportunities for research in neonates. This perception is no longer appropriate. It is now clear that research about the medicines used in neonates is an ethical requirement. It is possible to conduct high quality research in neonates if the research team adapt to the characteristics of this population. Good practice involves respecting the specific needs of newborn babies and their families by adopting relevant approaches to study design, recruitment, pharmacokinetic studies and safety assessment. Neonatal units have a unique culture that requires careful development in a research setting. Clinical investigators need to recognize the clinical and ethical imperative to conduct rigorous research. Industry needs to engage with neonatal networks early in the process of drug development, preferably before contacting regulatory agencies. Follow-up over 3-5 years is essential for the evaluation of medicines in neonates and explicit funding for this is required for the assessment of the benefit and risk of treatments given to sick newborn babies. The views of parents must be central to the development of studies and the research agenda. Ethical and practical problems are no longer barriers to research in neonates. The current challenges are to disseminate good practice and maximize capacity in order to meet the need for research among newborn babies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据