
==== Front
J Family Med Prim Care
J Family Med Prim Care
JFMPC
J Family Med Prim Care
Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care
2249-4863
2278-7135
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow India

JFMPC-13-2834
10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1181_23
Review Article
Characterization of clinical trials in Ecuador and their association with disease burden: Are there research gaps?
Salgado Carla 123
Rivadeneira Josue 134
García Méndez Nayely 135
Manterola Carlos 135
1 Doctorate in Medical Sciences, Temuco, Chile
2 School of Medicine, Universidad del Azuay, Cuenca, Ecuador
3 Núcleo Milenio de Sociomedicina. Quito, Ecuador
4 Zero Biomedical Research. Quito, Ecuador
5 Center of Excellence in Morphological and Surgical Studies (CEMyQ), Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco, Chile
Address for correspondence: Dr. Nayely García Méndez, CEMyQ, Universidad de La Frontera, Manuel Montt 112, Office 408, Temuco, Chile. E-mail: ayeyigmendez@comunidad.unam.mx
8 2024
26 7 2024
13 8 28342840
20 7 2023
26 12 2023
26 12 2023
Copyright: © 2024 Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
ABSTRACT

This study offers a detailed analysis of clinical trials conducted in Ecuador from 2010 to 2022 to assess alignment with the country’s disease burden as indicated by the Global Burden of Disease study. Utilizing data from five registries, including ARCSA and Clinicaltrials.gov, we analyzed characteristics and coverage of 75 CTs after removing duplicates and ineligible studies. Findings reveal a 50% research gap across disease groups, with neoplasms being the only category matching disease burden. The scarcity of clinical research highlights the disparity between CTs and prevalent diseases such as cardiovascular and kidney diseases, diabetes, and other non-communicable conditions. Our results underscore the urgent need for increased clinical research investment addressing these critical health challenges in Ecuador.

Clinical trial
disability-adjusted life years
Ecuador
global burden of disease
health research evaluation
research
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Since the 1990s, the implementation of clinical trials (CTs) has increased dramatically due to two main factors: the implementation of evidence-based clinical practices, a paradigm that led to CT being considered one of the studies with the highest methodological quality, degree, and strength of recommendation[1] and changes in international regulations for the marketing of pharmaceutical products, in which the presentation of efficacy and safety results through CT are mandatory for their approval.[23] In light of this increase and to promote good clinical practices, ensure the publication of results, and guarantee compliance with research protocols, multiple organizations have implemented CT registry databases [Table 1].[4]

Table 1 CT registration base

Registration base	Responsible organization	Characteristics	Year of onset	Link	
International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)	World Health Organization (WHO). International Committee of Medical Journals Editors (ICMJE).	Free and accessible primary CTs registry. Grants a registration number. Accepts proposed, completed, and ongoing CTs.	2000	https://trialsearch.who.int/	
International Standard Registered Clinical/Social Study Number Registry (ISRCTN)	BioMed Central Ltd	Records of intervention efficacy studies (observational and CTs). It accepts registration of studies at any stage. It carries registration and search fees.	2005	https://www.isrctn.com/	
Clinicaltrials.gov	United States National Library of Medicine (NLM) National Institutes of Health (NIH)	The registry of CTs, studies, and observation programs in the USA. Free and accessible.	2000	https://clinicaltrials.gov/	
EU Clinical Trials Register (EU CTR)	European Medicines Agency (EMA).	Registration of CTs performed in the European Union or the European Economic Area. Free and accessible.	2004	https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/	
Pan African Clinical Trials Registry (PACTR)	Cochrane South Africa. South African Medical Research Council (SAMRC)	Open access platform. Regional registry of CTs performed in Africa. Allows manual registration (e-mail, letter, or fax) Free and accessible	2009	https://pactr.samrc.ac.za/	
Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChCTR)	Western China Hospital. Sichuan University	Nonprofit organization. It includes CTs of Western and oriental medicine (acupuncture and moxibustion) performed in China.	2005	https://www.chictr.org.cn/enIndex.aspx	
National Registry Agencies (Latin America)	Regulatory agencies in each country, for example, ARCSA* (Ecuador), ANIMAT** (Argentina), ANVISA*** (Brazil)	Registry of CTs performed in each country. Their registration usually carries a fee. Free access.	-	It depends on each country.	
*ARCSA: Agencia de Regulación y Control Sanitario. **ANIMAT: Agencia Nacional de Medicamentos, Alimentos y Tecnología Alimentaria. ***ANVISA: Agencia Nacional de Vigilancia Sanitaria

Most commonly, CTs have been implemented in developed countries with high economic and technological power, mainly related to the need for infrastructure, research centers, qualified personnel, supply of volunteers, and national regulations.[5] However, the globalization and internationalization of medicine, associated with the delocalization of CTs (multicenter-multinational studies), has increased the participation in these types of studies to countries in Latin America, Asia, and the East,[6] with sponsors being attracted mainly by the existence of less strict regulations, lower labor and infrastructure costs and different epidemiological conditions.[7]

In 2020, Latin America and the Caribbean were home to 4.6% of the world’s CT, with Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico standing out with 1.3%, 1.0%, and 0.7%, respectively; however, the predominance of the major powers remains (USA: 38.8%; China: 5.2%, Spain: 4.8%).[8]

In Ecuador, between 2010–2017, scientific production sharply increased, demonstrating a more significant association between the percentage of scientific publications and the leading causes of mortality (diabetes, ischemic heart disease, arterial hypertension, cerebrovascular accident, pneumonia, among others).[9] However, the association between CT execution and disease burden, which is of great importance, has yet to be assessed since there is evidence of a low association between the number of CTs and the most prevalent pathologies or disease burden in low and middle-income countries.[1011]

Primary care physicians play a crucial role in understanding research gaps and advocating for the reallocation of resources to address these gaps in medical research. As the first point of contact in the healthcare system, they possess deep knowledge about the health challenges faced by their communities. Primary care physicians can become influential advocates for reallocating resources to align with local and national health needs by identifying areas lacking research. This advocacy effort has the potential to bring about positive changes in policy formulation and the allocation of funds for medical research, ensuring that critical health issues receive the attention they deserve.

However, the critical role of primary care physicians in research advocacy goes beyond identifying deficiencies in research. They actively shape policies and financial priorities that govern medical research funding. This involvement is particularly crucial in environments where research resources are limited and need to be directed to where they can significantly impact public health.

By actively supporting research that addresses the prevalent health conditions in their communities, primary care physicians can ensure that clinical research is relevant and beneficial to patient care. This alignment between research and community needs enhances the translation of research findings into practical clinical interventions that improve individual and public health outcomes.

Materials and Methods

We searched the database of the Ecuadorian Registry of Approved Clinical Trials of the National Agency for Regulation, Control and Health Surveillance[12]; International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)[13]; European Union Clinical Trials Register (EUCTR)[14]; Clinicaltrials.gov[15]; BioMed Central International Standard Randomized Controlled Trials Number Registry (ISRCTN).[16] We identified all clinical trials registered from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2022. Results were downloaded to Excel.

Based on the official title of the registered study, trials were categorized according to disease group, sponsor, year of registration, and ranked according to disease burden. In cases where the title suggested more than one disease group, the CT was included in all relevant categories.

Definitions

Disease burden: It was measured in disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), a value that represents the number of years lost due to illness, disability, or premature death.[17] To identify Ecuador’s disease burden, we based ourselves on the study Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2019,[18] which measures the global disease burden tendency of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries between 1990 and 2019. Results according to each country are available on the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) website, and the independent health research center located at Washington University, USA.[19]

Two types of disease classification were used, specific to the GBD 2019 study: level 1 aggregation, which groups them into seven categories, and level 2 aggregation, which groups them into 22 categories.

Research gap: Following previous studies by Aguilera[20] and Atal et al.,[11] a research gap was considered for a disease group when the proportion of clinical trials corresponding to this group (registered during the observed period) was less than 50% of the proportional disease burden that can be attributed to this group. For example, if in Ecuador, 10% of the disease burden corresponds to neoplasm, and the proportion of corresponding CTs to this disease group is less than 5%, there is a research gap. A partial research gap was identified when the clinical trial proportion in relation to the local disease burden was between 50% and 75%. Therefore, we consider that the research was aligned with the local disease burden when the proportion was over 75%.

Results

General description of the sample: A total of 122 registered CTs were found during the studied period; after the elimination of 47 duplicated items or those that did not meet the selection criteria, a total of 75 CTs were analyzed, out of which 24 were identified and included in the ARCSA official registry. The distribution of annual production is shown in Figure 1, which offers an increase in 2022.

Figure 1 Percentage of CT registered by year 2010-2022

Group and subgroup analysis: Regarding the sponsorship of the studies, it was verified that 47% of the CTs carried out in Ecuador were sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. The main sponsor was the National Institute of Digestive Diseases (Instituto Ecuatoriano de Enfermedades Digestivas [IECED]) (20%), while other national institutions were responsible for 7% [Table 2].

Table 2 Amount of CT registered between 2010–2022 according to their sponsor

Sponsor	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	Total (%)	
IECED	-	-	-	-	1	1	1	-	1	3	-	1	7	15 (20)	
Hoffmann-La Roche	-	3	3	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	7 (9)	
Sanofi	2	-	1	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-		4 (5)	
Merck Scharp &Dohme	2	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-		3 (4)	
Gynuity Health Projects	1	-	1	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-		3 (4)	
University of Concepcion (Chile)	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	2	-	3 (4)	
Melinta Therapeutics, Inc.	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-		2 (3)	
Eli Lilly	-	1	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-		2 (3)	
Novartis	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	1	-	-	-		2 (3)	
PHRI (Canada)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	1	-		2 (3)	
Other pharmaceutical companies	1	1	1	3	1	2	2	1	-	-	2	-	1	15 (20)	
Other international institutions	-	-	-	-	1	1	-	2	-	2	1	3	2	12 (16)	
Other national institutions	-	-	-	-	1	1	-	-	-	-	1	1	1	5 (7)	
Total	6	6	8	4	8	5	3	4	2	5	6	7	11	75	
IECED: Instituto Ecuatoriano de Enfermedades Digestivas; PHRI: Population Health Research Institute

Regarding research gaps, it was found that when considering level 1 of disease burden aggregation, there is a research gap in five out of the seven disease groups [Table 3], with only the categories of infectious diseases, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional diseases, and cancer being the only ones to be addressed in the surveyed CT.

Table 3 The proportion of clinical trials registered between 2010–2022 that studied each of the seven disease groups at level 1 and 2 of aggregation and proportion of disease burden

Disease group	% Disease burden	% Clinical Trials	% Gap	Aggregation level	
NCD (not neoplasm)	58.5	43.0	26.4+	1	
Lesions	16.0	1.0	93.8*	1	
CD, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional diseases.	14.5	34.0	0.0	1	
Cancer total	10.0	22.0	0.0	1	
Total burden by hepatitis B (VHB)	0.3	0.0	100*	1	
Total burden by hepatitis C (VHC)	0.3	0.0	100*	1	
Total non-alcoholic fatty liver disease burden	0.4	0.0	100*	1	
Cardiovascular diseases	10.0	7.0	30.0+	2	
Neoplasm	10.0	22.0	0.0	2	
Other NCD	8.0	3.0	62.5*	2	
Diabetes and kidney disease	8.0	1.0	87.5*	2	
Mental disorders	7.0	5.0	28.6+	2	
Musculoskeletal disorders	6.0	12.0	0.0	2	
Neonatal and maternal disorders	6.0	7.0	0.0	2	
Transportation injuries	6.0	0.0	100*	2	
Neurological disorders	5.0	1.0	80.0*	2	
Unintentional injuries	5.0	1.0	80.0*	2	
Digestive disorders	5.0	9.0	0.0	2	
Self-inflicted injuries and interpersonal violence	5.0	0.0	100*	2	
Respiratory infections and tuberculosis	5.0	12.0	0.0	2	
Sensory organs diseases	3.0	0.0	100*	2	
Skin and subcutaneous tissue diseases	2.0	3.0	0.0	2	
Chronic respiratory diseases	2.0	3.0	0.0	2	
HIV/AIDS and STD	2.0	4.0	0.0	2	
Other CD	1.0	0.0	100*	2	
Substance abuse disorders	1.0	0.0	100*	2	
Intestinal infections	1.0	3.0	0.0	2	
Nutritional deficiencies	1.0	5.0	0.0	2	
Neglected tropical diseases and malaria	1.0	3.0	0.0	2	
CD=communicable diseases, NCD=non-communicable diseases. *Total gap/+Partial gap

Likewise, the level 2 aggregation analysis allowed the observation of a research gap in 50% of disease groups, of which 82% present a total gap [Table 3]. Within the first five groups with the most disease burden, it was verified that the neoplasm group is the only one that does not present a gap.

Other analyses: Of the CT sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry, 63.6% of the disease groups were found to have a research gap, with 92.9% having a total gap. [Table 4].

Table 4 The proportion of CTs sponsored by the industry registered between 2010-2022 that studied each of the 22 disease groups at level 2 of aggregation and proportion of disease burden

Disease group	% Disease burden	% Industry CT	% Gap	
Cardiovascular diseases	10.0	26.0	0.0	
Neoplasm	10.0	18.0	0.0	
Other NCD	8.0	0.0	100 *	
Diabetes and kidney disease	8.0	20.0	0.0	
Mental disorders	7.0	0.0	100 *	
Musculoskeletal disorders	6.0	12.0	0.0	
Neonatal and maternal disorders	6.0	0.0	100 *	
Transportation injuries	6.0	0.0	100 *	
Neurological disorders	5.0	0.0	100 *	
Unintentional injuries	5.0	3.0	40	
Digestive disorders	5.0	0.0	100 *	
Self-inflicted injuries and interpersonal violence	5.0	0.0	100 *	
Respiratory infections and tuberculosis	5.0	9.0	0.0	
Sensory organs diseases	3.0	0.0	100 *	
Skin and subcutaneous tissue diseases	2.0	0.0	100 *	
Chronic respiratory diseases	2.0	3.0	0.0	
HIV/AIDS and STD	2.0	6.0	0.0	
Other CD	1.0	0.0	100 *	
Substance abuse disorders	1.0	0.0	100 *	
Intestinal infections	1.0	0.0	100 *	
Nutritional deficiencies	1.0	0.0	100 *	
Neglected tropical diseases and malaria	1.0	3.0	0.0	
CD=communicable diseases, NCD=non-communicable diseases. *Total gap/+Partial gap

Discussion

This is the first report of this nature to be made in Ecuador, with the overall burden of disease using DALYs. Previous research has addressed the relationship between health studies in Ecuador and the leading causes of death in the country[9]; however, this does not evaluate disease burden entirely since it does not consider diseases that cause disability.

Our analysis found that the three most frequently studied diseases in Ecuador are non-communicable diseases (43%), CD, maternal, perinatal, and nutritional lesions (34%), and cancer (22%). According to Viergever et al.,[21] in their comparison between the registered CT and disease burden (measured through DALY), reported that the three most frequently studied pathologies worldwide are non-communicable diseases (52.4%), infectious diseases, maternal, perinatal, and nutritional (7.4%), and pathologies caused by injury (6.0%); which shows that, for the exception of cancer, the research areas covered in CTs mostly correlates with worldwide research. In Ecuador, the distribution of cancer research is led by breast cancer, with an incidence rate of 38.2 individuals per 100,000 people, followed by prostate cancer at a rate of 35.7 patients per 100,000, and cervical cancer with an incidence rate of 16 per 100,000. These rates are similar to those reported in Latin America and the Caribbean.[2223] This focus on cancer aligns with the primary level of healthcare and underscores the importance of studying these conditions in line with the broader disease burden of the region.

The alignment between clinical research and primary care is critical. As the foundation of health systems, direct care services serve as the initial point of contact for individuals, families, and communities. They are well-positioned to address a wide range of health issues in an accessible, continuous, and coordinated manner. Due to frequent patient interactions, primary care providers have a unique understanding of community health needs and can advocate for research prioritizing prevalent and burdensome diseases.

Ensuring that clinical trials, especially in countries like Ecuador, are designed to address prevailing health challenges is imperative. By emphasizing research on diseases that constitute a significant portion of the local disease burden, such as the leading cancers, primary care practices can be informed and improved to detect, manage, and possibly prevent these diseases more effectively. Integrating research insights into primary care strategies allows healthcare systems to enhance outcomes across populations, demonstrating the value and necessity of research that prioritizes and reflects specific community health priorities.

In Ecuador, there is a marked research gap in common pathologies such as diabetes, renal diseases, neurological diseases, and even injuries, conditions that, despite having been considered priorities for health research, have not been correlated with research efforts in CT.[24] However, we must assume that, as of 2020, the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV2) has changed the global disease burden. Unfortunately, this could not be addressed in this study, as there is no official data regarding the magnitude of the change; however, the research gap should be similar to that reported in this study.

Due to the high costs involved in running a CT, it is essential to describe the impact of pharmaceutical sponsors on them. Thus, Atal et al.[7] reported that during the 2006–2013 period, the industry-sponsored an average of 75.1% of CT in South America and 71.2% in Ecuador, being one of the countries with the lowest pharmaceutical sponsorship in the region.[724252627] Our study found that 47% of the CT had pharmaceutical sponsorship, a difference that could be due to the different time periods analyzed.

The industry’s economic contribution in middle and low-income countries helps to strengthen health systems, increases research capacity, and allows extrapolation of CT results; however, it increases the risk that the production of knowledge is directed to market forces, leaving aside the most relevant health problems for these countries.[28] In 1997, the Global Forum for Health Research adopted the term “10/90 gap” and highlighted that somebody put less than 10% of worldwide resources devoted to research were put towards health in developing countries, where over 90% of all preventable deaths worldwide occurred.[2930] In our study, we can see that, although the pharmaceutical industry covers the needs in the areas of cardiovascular diseases, neoplasms, diabetes, and renal disease, at a general level, it presents more deficiencies when compared with the total number of performed CTs (63.6% vs. 50.0%).

Our study presents significant limitations. The data from the registries are self-reported, so the integrity of the information entered from each CT cannot be determined. On the other hand, there could be discrepancies between the declared CT locations and the locations that enrolled patients, as well as the existence of CT performed without notification or report: only 24 of the 75 CTs identified were found in the ARCSA (national) registry, which demonstrates the lack of follow-up and knowledge of the current regulations.[31] Clinical trial reporting is essential to verify compliance with good clinical practices and bioethical principles[32] and to monitor international rules,[33] which requires a more in-depth analysis that is not part of the objective of this study.

Conclusion

In Ecuador, despite the increase in everyday spending on health from 6.1% in 2010 to 7.8% in 2019[34] and the slight increase in research and development spending from 0.4% in 2010 to 0.44% in 2014 (last report),[35] production related to CTs has been undermined. The overall analysis shows that scientific low output developed in Ecuador is not adequately correlated to the pathologies with the most significant burden, leaving aside frequent and severe diseases such as diabetes, renal diseases, and chronic non-communicable diseases (hypertension, dyslipidemias, among others), demonstrating the need to increase the development of CT directed towards the study of these conditions through the generation and promotion of external or internal investment.

Financial support and sponsorship

DIUFRO No. 44/22 UNIVERSIDAD DE LA FRONTERA, CHILE.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

ANID - MILENIO - NCS2021_013.
==== Refs
1 Djulbegovic B Guyatt GH Progress in evidence-based medicine: A quarter century on Lancet 2017 390 415 23 28215660
2 European Medicines Agency The European system of medicines regulation 2016 Available from:https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/leaflet/european-regulatory-system-medicines-european-medicines-agency-consistent-approach-medicines_es.pdf Last accessed on 2023 Feb 12
3 Buckman S Huang SM Murphy S Medical product development and regulatory science for the 21st century: The critical path vision and its impact on health care Clin Pharmacol Ther 2007 81 141 4 17259935
4 Cuervo LG Valdés A Clark ML The international registry of clinical trials Pan Am J Public Health 2006 19 365 70
5 Lanzarini Gouy CM Porto TF Penido C Avaliação de ensaios clínicos no Brasil: Histórico e atualidades Rev Bioét 2018 26 350 9
6 Viergever RF Li K Trends in global clinical trial registration: An analysis of numbers of registered clinical trials in different parts of the world from 2004 to 2013 BMJ Open 2015 5 e008932 doi:10.1136/BMJOPEN-2015-008932
7 Atal I Trinquart L Porcher R Ravaud P Differential globalization of industry- and non-industry–sponsored clinical trials PLoS One 2015 10 e0145122 doi:10.1371/JOURNAL. PONE.0145122 26658791
8 Goldstein E Monzón J Barcos N Ensayos clínicos: Oportunidades para generar inversiones en investigación y desarrollo, promover el ingreso de divisas y disponer de tratamiento innovadores Buenos Aires 2021. (CCE). Report No.:12 Available from:https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/files/2021/03/dt_12_-_ensayos_clinicos.pdf Last accessed on 2023 Feb 12
9 Sisa I Abad A Espinosa I Martinez-Cornejo I Burbano-Santos P A decade of Ecuador´s efforts to raise its health research output: A bibliometric analysis Glob Health Action 2021 14 1855694 doi:10.1080/16549716.2020.1855694 33357085
10 Joseph PD Caldwell PHY Barnes EH Craig JC Disease burden-research match?Registered trials in child health from low- and middle-income and high-income countries J Paediatr Child Health 2017 53 667 74 28383200
11 Atal I Trinquart L Ravaud P Porcher R A mapping of 115,000 randomized trials revealed a mismatch between research effort and health needs in non–high-income regions J Clin Epidemiol 2018 98 123 32 29360559
12 Agencia Nacional de Regulación, Control y Vigilancia Sanitaria Registro Nacional de Ensayos clínicos Available from:https://www.controlsanitario.gob.ec/ensayos-clinicos-3/ Last accessed on 2023 Jan 30
13 World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICRTP) Available from:https://www.who.int/clinical-trials-registry-platform Last accessed on 2023 Jan 30
14 EU Clinical Trials Register Available from:https://euclinicaltrials.eu/ Last accessed on 2023 Jan 30
15 Clinicaltrials.gov Available from:https://clinicaltrials.gov/ Last accessed on 2023 Jan 30
16 BioMed Central International Standard Randomized Controlled Trials Number Registry (ISRCTN). gov [Internet] Available from:https://www.biomedcentral.com/p/isrctn Last accessed on 2023 Jan 30
17 World Health Organization WHO methods and data sources for global burden of disease estimates 2000-2011 2013 6 Available from:https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/gho-documents/global-health-estimates/ghe2019_daly-methods.pdf Last accessed on 2023 Feb 13
18 Vos T Lim SS Abbafati C Abbas KM Abbasi M Abbasifard M Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 Lancet 2020 396 1204 22 33069326
19 Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. GBD Results Tool Available from:https://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-results/ Last accessed on 2023 Feb 13
20 Aguilera B Trends in clinical trials performed in Chile, 149 Revista médica de Chile 2021 110 118 Available from:https://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0034-98872021000100110 34106142
21 Viergever RF Terry RF Karam G Use of data from registered clinical trials to identify gaps in health research and development Bull World Health Organ 2013 91 416 25C 24052678
22 Ferlay J Ervin M Lam F Colombet M Mery L Piñeros M Global Cancer Observatory: Cancer Today Lyon, France International Agency for Research on Cancer 2020 Available from:https://gco.iarc.fr/today Last accessed on 2022 Dec 05
23 Bray F Ferlay J Soerjomataram I Siegel RL Torre LA Jemal A Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries CA Cancer J Clin 2018 68 394 424 30207593
24 Ministry of Public Health of Ecuador Prioridades de investigación en salud 2013-2017 Quito 2013 1 Report No.:1 Available from:https://healthresearchwebafrica.org.za/es/ecuador/policies
25 Biopharmaceutical Competitiveness &Investment (BCI) Quantifying the Impact of Policy on the Biopharmaceutical Industry, Patients and the Economy Survey 2017 Aug Available from:http://www.pugatch-consilium.com/reports/BCI_2017_US_Brochure_-_Quantifying_the_Impact_of_Policy.pdf Last accessed on 2022 Nov 30
26 Minaya G Fuentes D Obregón C Ayala-Quintanilla B Yagui M Características de los ensayos clínicos autorizados en el Perú, 1995-2012 Rev Peru Med Exp Salud Publica 2012 29 431 6 23338626
27 Ramírez JH Lack of transparency in clinical trials: A call for action Colomb Méd 2013 44 243
28 Marshall IJ L’Esperance V Marshall R Thomas J Noel-Storr A Soboczenski F State of the evidence: A survey of global disparities in clinical trials BMJ Glob Health 2021 6 e004145 doi:10.1136/BMJGH-2020-004145
29 Adetokunbo L Abdullah R Bale H Berger M Cartman R Evans T Global Forum for Health Research: Helping to Correct the 10/90 Gap [Internet] Geneva 1999 cited 2023 Jan 8 (1). Report No.:1 Available from:www.globalforumheahh.org
30 Yegros-Yegros A van de Klippe W Abad-Garcia MF Rafols I Exploring why global health needs are unmet by research efforts: The potential influences of geography, industry and publication incentives Health Res Policy Sys 2020 18 47 doi:10.1186/S12961-020-00560-6
31 Ministry of Public Health of Ecuador. Reglamento Desarrollo, Vigilancia Y Control De Los Ensayos Clínicos Available from:www.lexis.com.ec Last accessed on 2021 Sep 14
32 Castro M Játiva E García N Otzen T Manterola C Aspectos Éticos Propios de los Diseños más utilizados en Investigación Clínica J. Health Med. Sci 2019 5 183 93
33 International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use Good Clinical Practice Standards ICHE6 r2 2016 01 18 Available from:https://es.scribd.com/document/480535639/normas-de-buena-practica-clinica-ich-e6-r2 Last accessed on 2021 Dec 16
34 World Health Organization Global Current health expenditure (% of GDP) - Ecuador World Bank 2022 Available from:https://datos.bancomundial.org/indicador/SH. XPD. CHEX. GD. ZS?end=2019&locations=EC&start=2010 Last accessed on 2023 Jan 03
35 UNESCO Research and development expenditure (% of GDP) - Ecuador 2022 Available from:https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GB. XPD. RSDV. GD. ZS?end=2019&locations=EC&start=2010 Last accessed on 2023 Jan 03
