Title |
Capacity for ethical and regulatory review of herbal trials in developing countries: a case study of Moringa oleifera research in HIV-infected patients
|
---|---|
Published in |
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, February 2017
|
DOI | 10.1186/s40545-017-0099-5 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Tsitsi G. Monera-Penduka, Charles C. Maponga, Gene D. Morse, Charles F. B. Nhachi |
Abstract |
Lack of regulatory capacity limits the conduct of ethical and rigorous trials of herbal medicines in developing countries. Sharing ethical and regulatory experiences of successful herbal trials may accelerate the field while assuring human subjects protection. The methods and timelines for the ethical and regulatory review processes for the first drug regulatory authority approved herbal trial in Zimbabwe are described in this report. The national drug regulatory authority and ethics committee were engaged for pre-submission discussions. Six applications were submitted. Application procedures and communications with the various regulatory and ethics review boards were reviewed. Key issues raised and timelines for communications were summarized. There was no special framework for the approval of herbal trials. One local institutional review committee granted an exemption. Key issues raised for revision were around pre-clinical efficacy and safety data, standardization and quality assurance of the intervention as well as consenting procedures. Approval timelines ranged between eight and 72 weeks. In the absence of a defined framework for review of herbal trials, approval processes can be delayed. Dialogue between researchers and regulators is important for successful and efficient protocol approval for herbal trials in developing countries. The study was registered prospectively on August 3, 2011 with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01410058). |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 17% |
Student > Master | 6 | 17% |
Unspecified | 4 | 11% |
Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
Researcher | 3 | 9% |
Other | 5 | 14% |
Unknown | 7 | 20% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 23% |
Unspecified | 4 | 11% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 9% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 9% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 9% |
Other | 6 | 17% |
Unknown | 8 | 23% |