• 한국의료질향상학회지
• /
• 제27권1호
• /
• pp.20-25
• /
• 2021

Purpose: The ability to access clinical trials for cancer treatment is important. This study investigated whether regional differences exist in oncologic clinical trial protocols conducted in South Korea. Methods: Records of all approved oncologic clinical trials conducted in 2019 were downloaded from the Republic of Korea Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. The study covered Seoul, the capital area, other metropolitan cities, and provincial areas. Descriptive statistics summarized the distribution patterns of clinical trials by region. Results: A total of 202 oncologic clinical trials were conducted in 63 institutions in 2019. Of these protocols, 186 (92%) were available in Seoul, 120 (59%) in the capital area, 64 (32%) in metropolitan cities, and 66 (33%) in provincial areas. More regional differences in protocol availability were observed in domestic trials, investigator-initiated trials, phase 1 and 2 trials, and smaller-scale trials. Conclusion: Most oncologic clinical trials were conducted in medical institutions located in Seoul, with the rest conducted in the capital area, metropolitan cities, and provincial areas. The findings reveal clear differences in protocol availability between Seoul and the other regions. Measures designed to improve geographical access to oncologic clinical trials may be needed given their growing importance in cancer treatment.

• 대한기관윤리심의기구협의회지
• /
• 제5권1호
• /
• pp.14-20
• /
• 2023

Purpose: To obtain fundamental data on selection tools for an internal audit and develop a new guideline. We scored the indicated points from the internal audit, identified the research progress and problems that occurred, and confirmed the validity of the risk factors involved. Methods: Of the 63 internal audits conducted by Keimyung University Dongsan Hospital from 2014 to 2021, we analyzed 55 clinical trials with an inspection checklist. We excluded 8 that failed to transfer data and refused to comply with the internal audit. The statistical summary of the collected data was verified and interpreted by using frequency analysis and a chi-square test. Result: Of total 55 cases included in the internal audit, sponsor-initiated trial (SIT) was 63.6% (vs. investigator-initiated trial [IIT]), clinical trial for investigational drug was 71.0% (vs. nonclinical or clinical trial for investigational device), domestic multicenter trial was 60.0% (vs. single center or multinational multicenter trial), and trial requisition for MFDS approval was 69.1% (vs. exception for MFDS approval). The 10 areas of the clinical trial inspection checklist (reports, protection of subjects, compliance with protocols, records, management of investigational drug and/or device, delegation of duties, qualification of investigators, management of specimen, contract-agreement and approval of protocols, and preservation of recorded documents) were weighted between 2 to 5 points. The average of the total points was 16.09±13.2 and 20 clinical trials were above the average. As a result of comparing the average of the total points weighted by year, the highest score was in 2020. The 4 factors that play significant roles in determining the internal quality were (1) principal subjects that initiated the clinical trials (p=0.049), (2) type (p=0.003), (3) phase of clinical trials (p=0.024), and (4) number of registered subjects reported at the time of continuing deliberation (p=0.019). Of the 10 areas of the clinical trial inspection checklist, 'record' was the most inappropriate and insufficient. We found more indicated points; the quality of performance declined in IIT, nonclinical trials, and other clinical trials that were not in phase I1-IV4, and the study of more than 30 registered subjects at the time of continuing review. Conclusion: If an institution has an internal audit selection tool that reflects the aforementioned risk factors, it will be possible to effectively manage high-risk studies; thereby, contributing to an efficient internal audit and improving the quality of clinical trials.

• 대한한의학원전학회지
• /
• 제23권4호
• /
• pp.63-102
• /
• 2010

Purpose : To propose various types of clinical research which is feasible for botanical new drug (IND) development processes, and suggest essential steps to development of study protocol for IND. Methods : Literature-based discussions and one research group's experience is given regarding domestic act, regulation, and system. Results : In order to get an approval of IND for botanical drug in Korea there are several types of clinical research to conduct. In quality control steps for standardized medicinal herbs, case reports or case series can be conducted, and for good manufacturing practice(GMP) steps, we can conduct case reports, case series, and retrospective cohort studies. In addition, as long as we gathered good laboratory practice(GLP) data we can conduct up to quasi-experimental studies and clinical trials including investigator initiated trials. In order to conduct these studies development of study protocol is essential. First, we obtain historical evidence including target disease and indication, efficacy, safety, and endpoints by reviewing medical classics. Second, we obtain clinically and statistically important data by conducting non-clinical studies, observation studies, and quasi-experimental studies. Third, we generate research hypotheses and purposes and explore methodologies, endpoints, clinical practice guidelines, cost-effectiveness, and commercial potential. Finally, we develop study protocol with aid of biostatistician or expert in contract research organization. Discussions and conclusions : This study have obvious limitations in that most thoughts, suggestions, and proposes are from one research group's experience. Therefore, we hope to see various types of research in this topic and process from other research group as well.

• 대한한의학회지
• /
• 제31권1호
• /
• pp.122-129
• /
• 2010

Objective: To investigate institutional review boards and approved clinical trials of Oriental medical hospitals in Korea Methods: We e-mailed 16 Oriental medical hospitals a survey consisting of questions that addressed two topics, institutional review boards and the clinical trials they approved. The first part included questions about whether each hospital had an institutional review board, that board's staffing and education, reviews, and expedited reviews. The clinical trials portion covered the number and types of approved clinical trials, treatment methods, whether an investigator or a sponsor initiated the trials, diseases, time frame, and clinical trial fee. Results: We received a response to our e-mail from 14 hospitals, all of which had an institutional review board. The average number of institutional review board members was 13.57. Of these Oriental medical hospitals, 70% and 49% said that they regularly educated their institutional review board staff and clinical trial, investigators, respectively. 79% of the hospitals claimed to conduct regular reviews, and 50% said that they did so monthly. The number of approved clinical trials increased sharply from 11 in 2005 to 102 in 2008. 68% of these clinical trials were randomized, and the most-used treatment methods were herbal medicine (35%) and acupuncture (29%). The most common target diseases were circulatory (19%), urinogenital (14%), and musculoskeletal (13%) disease. Conclusions: Despite the rapid increase in clinical research in oriental medical hospitals, many more efforts including raising IRB quality, varying research diseases and increasing clinical trials in the hospitals located in non-metropolitan area, should be made.