Dataset Information

Ethical challenges in preclinical Alzheimer's disease observational studies and trials: Results of the Barcelona summit.

ABSTRACT: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is among the most significant health care burdens. Disappointing results from clinical trials in late-stage AD persons combined with hopeful results from trials in persons with early-stage suggest that research in the preclinical stage of AD is necessary to define an optimal therapeutic success window. We review the justification for conducting trials in the preclinical stage and highlight novel ethical challenges that arise and are related to determining appropriate risk-benefit ratios and disclosing individuals' biomarker status. We propose that to conduct clinical trials with these participants, we need to improve public understanding of AD using unified vocabulary, resolve the acceptable risk-benefit ratio in asymptomatic participants, and disclose or not biomarker status with attention to study type (observational studies vs clinical trials). Overcoming these challenges will justify clinical trials in preclinical AD at the societal level and aid to the development of societal and legal support for trial participants.

SUBMITTER: Molinuevo JL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4861656 | biostudies-literature | 2016 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Ethical challenges in preclinical Alzheimer's disease observational studies and trials: Results of the Barcelona summit.

Molinuevo José L JL Cami Jordi J Carné Xavier X Carrillo Maria C MC Georges Jean J Isaac Maria B MB Khachaturian Zaven Z Kim Scott Y H SY Morris John C JC Pasquier Florence F Ritchie Craig C Sperling Reisa R Karlawish Jason J

Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 20160315 5

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is among the most significant health care burdens. Disappointing results from clinical trials in late-stage AD persons combined with hopeful results from trials in persons with early-stage suggest that research in the preclinical stage of AD is necessary to define an optimal therapeutic success window. We review the justification for conducting trials in the preclinical stage and highlight novel ethical challenges that arise and are related to determining appropriate ris ...[more]

PMID: 26988427

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Novel precision oncology trial designs, such as basket and umbrella trials, are designed to test new anticancer agents in more effective and affordable ways. However, they present some ethical concerns referred to scientific validity, risk-benefit balance and informed consent. Our aim is to discuss these issues in basket and umbrella trials, giving examples of two ongoing cancer trials: NCI-MATCH (National Cancer Institute - Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice) and Lung-MAP (Lung Cancer Master Protocol) study. MAIN BODY:We discuss three ethical requirements for clinical trials which may be challenged in basket and umbrella trial designs. Firstly, we consider scientific validity. Thanks to the new trial designs, patients with rare malignancies have the opportunity to be enrolled and benefit from the trial, but due to insufficient accrual, the trial may generate clinically insignificant findings. Inadequate sample size in study arms and the use of surrogate endpoints may result in a drug approval without confirmed efficacy. Moreover, complexity, limited quality and availability of tumor samples may not only introduce bias and result in unreliable and unrepresentative findings, but also can potentially harm patients and assign them to an inappropriate therapy arm. Secondly, we refer to benefits and risks. Novel clinical trials can gain important knowledge on the variety of tumors, which can be used in future trials to develop effective therapies. However, they offer limited direct benefits to patients. All potential participants must wait about 2 weeks for the results of the genetic screening, which may be stressful and produce anxiety. The enrollment of patients whose tumors harbor multiple mutations in treatments matching a single mutation may be controversial. As to informed consent - the third requirement we discuss, the excessive use of phrases like "personalized medicine", "tailored therapy" or "precision oncology" might be misleading and cause personal convictions that the study protocol is designed to fulfill the individual health-related needs of participants. CONCLUSIONS:We suggest that further approaches should be implemented to enhance scientific validity, reduce misunderstandings and risks, thus maximizing the benefits to society and to trial participants.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a concern that the apparent effectiveness of interventions tested in clinical trials may not be an accurate reflection of their actual effectiveness in usual practice. Pragmatic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are designed with the intent of addressing this discrepancy. While pragmatic RCTs may increase the relevance of research findings to practice they may also raise new ethical concerns (even while reducing others). To explore this question, we interviewed key stakeholders with the aim of identifying potential ethical challenges in the design and conduct of pragmatic RCTs with a view to developing future guidance on these issues.MethodsInterviews were conducted with clinical investigators, methodologists, patient partners, ethicists, and other knowledge users (e.g., regulators). Interviews covered experiences with pragmatic RCTs, ethical issues relevant to pragmatic RCTs, and perspectives on the appropriate oversight of pragmatic RCTs. Interviews were coded inductively by two coders. Interim and final analyses were presented to the broader team for comment and discussion before the analytic framework was finalized.ResultsWe conducted 45 interviews between April and September 2018. Interviewees represented a range of disciplines and jurisdictions as well as varying content expertise. Issues of importance in pragmatic RCTs were (1) identification of relevant risks from trial participation and determination of what constitutes minimal risk; (2) determining when alterations to traditional informed consent approaches are appropriate; (3) the distinction between research, quality improvement, and practice; (4) the potential for broader populations to be affected by the trial and what protections they might be owed; (5) the broader range of trial stakeholders in pragmatic RCTs, and determining their roles and responsibilities; and (6) determining what constitutes "usual care" and implications for trial reporting.ConclusionsOur findings suggest both the need to discuss familiar ethical topics in new ways and that there are new ethical issues in pragmatic RCTs that need greater attention. Addressing the highlighted issues and developing guidance will require multidisciplinary input, including patient and community members, within a broader and more comprehensive analysis that extends beyond consent and attends to the identified considerations relating to risk and stakeholder roles and responsibilities.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials require enrollment of a participant and a study partner, whose role includes assessing participant cognitive and functional performance. AD trials now investigate early stages of the disease, when participants are not cognitively impaired. This gives rise to the question of whether study partners or participants provide more information in these trials. METHODS:We used data from the AD Cooperative Study Prevention Instrument Project (ADCS-PI) to compare participant and study partner predictions of the participant's current and future cognitive state. We used the Cognitive Function Instrument (CFI) as a measure of evaluation of the participant's cognitive status and the modified ADCS Preclinical Alzheimer's Cognitive Composite (mADCS-PACC) as an objective measure of cognition. Stratifying by cognitive status and study partner type and adjusting for other predictors of the participant's cognitive state, we used random forests along with estimated mean variable importance (eMVI) to assess how well each member of the dyad can predict cognitive state at current and later visits. We also fit linear regression models at each time point and for each scenario. RESULTS:Participants were better at predicting future cognitive status compared to their study partners regardless of study partner type, though the difference between participants and partners was greatest for non-spousal dyads in the lowest-performing quartile. Cross-sectional assessments differed substantially by dyad type. Within the lowest cognitive performance quartile, participants having a non-spousal study partner outperformed their partners in assessing cognition at later times. Spousal partners, in contrast, outperformed participants later in the study in predicting current cognitive performance. CONCLUSIONS:These results indicate that participants tend to be better at predicting future cognition compared to their study partners regardless of the study partner type. When assessing current cognition, however, spousal study partners perform better at later time points and non-spousal study partners do not provide as much information regarding participant cognitive state.

Dataset Information

Ethical challenges in preclinical Alzheimer's disease observational studies and trials: Results of the Barcelona summit.

Publications

Ethical challenges in preclinical Alzheimer's disease observational studies and trials: Results of the Barcelona summit.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure