Ethical issues in competing clinical trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Paquette M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6461579 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Ethical issues in competing clinical trials.
Paquette Miney M Kelecevic Julija J Schwartz Lisa L Nieuwlaat Robby R
Contemporary clinical trials communications 20190403
The proliferation of clinical trials in the last decade and the relatively limited number of experienced clinical trial sites in comparison has created in some sites an environment of clinical trial abundance. As clinical trial protocols typically restrict patients from concurrent clinical trial participation, and patients may be eligible for more than one trial at any given time, selecting the best trial for an individual patient requires evaluation of not only the merits of the individual tria ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Several promising experimental pathways exist for long-term control of HIV in the absence of antiretroviral therapy (HIV 'remission') and are now being tested in early clinical studies. These studies can be invasive and pose a host of distinctive risks to participants, as well as to nonparticipants, especially to participants' fetuses, and sexual partners.Ethical analyses of these studies have mainly focused on the risks to study participants. They recommend, and some investigators implement, procedures to mitigate risks for participants or to offset them with direct, indirect, and nonmedical benefits. They also suggest ways to keep participants' consent highly voluntary and informed. Rarely do ethicists propose keeping the social value of studies high. Of these recommended responses, only the latter, rarer proposals help address the risk to nonparticipants, as would some novel ways to address that risk.HIV remission studies pose a number of ethical dilemmas. Many current investigative approaches put the participant at significant risk, but well established guidelines exist for mitigating this risk. Ethical issues that are not being fully addressed include risk to nonparticipants and the need to consider the societal value of studies, for example, their prospective impact on the global HIV burden. VIDEO ABSTRACT.
| S-EPMC6112842 | biostudies-other
Project description:Scientifically rigorous clinical trials are needed to test continuous positive airway pressure's (CPAP) effect on important clinical endpoints known to be associated with obstructive sleep apnea, such as myocardial infarction, cardiac arrhythmias, stroke, mortality, seizures, and cognitive function. In this "Special Article," we review the regulatory and ethical issues that surround the design and conduct of CPAP trials, including selection of the appropriate control condition, exclusion criteria, and follow-up duration.
| S-EPMC3041615 | biostudies-other
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC4345948 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cluster randomized trials randomly assign groups of individuals to examine research questions or test interventions and measure their effects on individuals. Recent emphasis on quality improvement, comparative effectiveness, and learning health systems has prompted expanded use of pragmatic cluster randomized trials in routine health-care settings, which in turn poses practical and ethical challenges that current oversight frameworks may not adequately address. The 2012 Ottawa Statement provides a basis for considering many issues related to pragmatic cluster randomized trials but challenges remain, including some arising from the current US research and health-care regulations. In order to examine the ethical, regulatory, and practical questions facing pragmatic cluster randomized trials in health-care settings, the National Institutes of Health Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory convened a workshop in Bethesda, Maryland, in July 2013. Attendees included experts in clinical trials, patient advocacy, research ethics, and research regulations from academia, industry, the National Institutes of Health Collaboratory, and other federal agencies. Workshop participants identified substantial barriers to implementing these types of cluster randomized trials, including issues related to research design, gatekeepers and governance in health systems, consent, institutional review boards, data monitoring, privacy, and special populations. We describe these barriers and suggest means for understanding and overcoming them to facilitate pragmatic cluster randomized trials in health-care settings.
| S-EPMC4498459 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The field of public health includes a wide scope of activities and professional disciplines, ranging from sanitation, health protection, epidemiology, environmental health, financing, health promotion, including supervision, or the provision of clinical care. Each of these disciplines works in systems that face ethical dilemmas, making it important that public health workers have motivation to understand and practice within the ethical guidelines of their profession, thus making ethics an important component of training and practice. The dangers of ethical lapses are overwhelmingly apparent in the case of the Eugenics movement of the early 20th century which metamorphosed from forced sterilizations in many liberal democratic countries into mass murder of physically and mentally handicapped children and adults in Nazi Germany. Between 1939 and 1941, 180 thousand psychiatric patients along with an equivalent number of handicapped children and adults were killed in an organized extermination program in Germany by lethal gassing. This method was then applied to the industrialized murder or Holocaust of six million Jews and millions of other “untermenschen” (sub human) in the greatest genocide in human history. Shortly after World War II ended the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals were conducted including medical doctors, and some were executed for crimes against humanity. This was followed by the 1948 United Nations Declaration on Human Rights and by the World Medical Association’s Helsinki Declaration. Both are widely accepted as cornerstone documents—the latter specifically governing ethical standards related to human experimentation—and are revised regularly since being issued in 1964. But genocide has not disappeared, nor has unscrupulous experimentation such as the Tuskegee experiment on black Americans infected with syphilis and left untreated even after the availability of a cure, penicillin. Ethical standards are now required by “Helsinki Committees”—ethical review boards—in most medical facilities worldwide. Ethical frameworks have evolved in part due to bitter experience of ethical failures later recognized and affecting public health standards of practice. Future generations of public health leaders and staff will face many ethical issues such as mandatory immunization of health workers and school children, and assisted death of terminally ill patients.
| S-EPMC7149338 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRandomized controlled trial (RCT) trial designs exist on an explanatory-pragmatic spectrum, depending on the degree to which a study aims to address a question of efficacy or effectiveness. As conceptualized by Schwartz and Lellouch in 1967, an explanatory approach to trial design emphasizes hypothesis testing about the mechanisms of action of treatments under ideal conditions (efficacy), whereas a pragmatic approach emphasizes testing effectiveness of two or more available treatments in real-world conditions. Interest in, and the number of, pragmatic trials has grown substantially in recent years, with increased recognition by funders and stakeholders worldwide of the need for credible evidence to inform clinical decision-making. This increase has been accompanied by the onset of learning healthcare systems, as well as an increasing focus on patient-oriented research. However, pragmatic trials have ethical challenges that have not yet been identified or adequately characterized. The present study aims to explore the views of key stakeholders with respect to ethical issues raised by the design and conduct of pragmatic trials. It is embedded within a large, four-year project that seeks to develop guidance for the ethical design and conduct of pragmatic trials. As a first step, this study will address important gaps in the current empirical literature with respect to identifying a comprehensive range of ethical issues arising from the design and conduct of pragmatic trials. By opening up a broad range of topics for consideration within our parallel ethical analysis, we will extend the current debate, which has largely emphasized issues of consent, to the range of ethical considerations that may flow from specific design choices.MethodsSemi-structured interviews with key stakeholders (e.g. trialists, methodologists, lay members of study teams, bioethicists, and research ethics committee members), across multiple jurisdictions, identified based on their known experience and/or expertise with pragmatic trials.DiscussionWe expect that the study outputs will be of interest to a wide range of knowledge users including trialists, ethicists, research ethics committees, journal editors, regulators, healthcare policymakers, research funders and patient groups. All publications will adhere to the Tri-Agency Open Access Policy on Publications.
| S-EPMC6247737 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Healthcare professionals can be confronted with a wide range of ethical and regulatory issues in today's ever-changing practice environments. While achieving best practice standards, physical therapists may need to compromise what is best for patients due to fiscally driven rules, regulations, and limited benefits. Scenarios may surface where ethical issues and associated dilemmas become paramount between what is versus what should be. A challenge that should be in the forefront of professional endeavors is staying current with published rules, regulations, and conditions of participation, as applied to various practice models and environments while still adhering to ethical codes. Knowing and utilizing available resources especially American Physical Therapy Association (APTA), websites, documents, and references can strengthen practice patterns and treatment options.
| S-EPMC4596180 | biostudies-other
Project description:ImportancePragmatic clinical trials that seek informed consent after randomization (ie, postrandomization consent) are increasingly used, but debate on ethics persists because control arm patients are not specifically informed about the trials and randomization occurs before consent for the trials. The public's attitude toward postrandomization consent trials is unknown, but the way the trials are described could bias people's views.ObjectivesTo assess the attitudes of the US general public toward postrandomization informed consent for pragmatic trials and to measure potential framing and other factors associated with those attitudes.Design, setting, and participantsAn online, 2 × 2 experimental survey (fielded between February 23 and April 3, 2018) portraying 4 scenarios of postrandomization informed consent (with prior broad consent for medical record use) was conducted. These scenarios included traditional randomized clinical trial language framing vs alternative framing in a high-stakes trial (ie, survival in leukemia) or low-stakes trial (ie, blood glucose level in diabetes). A total of 3793 individuals invited to participate were part of an existing panel representative of the US general public (GfK KnowledgePanel).Main outcomes and measuresThe proportion of participants who would recommend that an ethics review board approve a postrandomization consent pragmatic trial.ResultsA total of 2042 of 3739 invitees (54.6%) responded; after exclusion of 38 incomplete surveys, 2004 participants were included in the analysis. Of these, 997 (49.8%) were women, 1440 (71.9%) were white non-Hispanic, 199 (9.9%) were black non-Hispanic, and 233 (11.6%) were Hispanic. Mean (SD) age was 47.5 (17.4) years. Across scenarios, weighted data showed that 75.4% of the participants would recommend approval of the postrandomization consent pragmatic trial, 20.4% would probably not recommend approval, and 4.2% would definitely not recommend approval. Approval was not sensitive to framing language (traditional vs new framing in high-stakes scenario, 74.3% vs 76.8%, P = .40; in low-stakes scenario, 77.7% vs 72.9%, P = .10) or to the stakes (low vs high stakes in traditional framing, 77.7% vs 74.3%, P = .25; in new framing, 72.9% vs 76.8%, P = .18). Better understanding of the postrandomization consent design was associated with higher rate of approval (78.1% vs 65.0%, P = .002 for high-stakes scenario; 77.2% vs 64.9%, P = .004 for low-stakes scenario), especially among those with less education. However, opinions about personal involvement in the control arm were more cautious (range depending on scenario, 45.6%-59.7%) and sensitive to stakes but not to framing.Conclusions and relevanceThe public's generally high rate of approval of the ethics of postrandomization informed consent for pragmatic trial designs does not appear to be affected by whether postrandomization consent design is framed using traditional randomized clinical trial terminology, regardless of the stakes of the trial. Promoting better understanding of the design may increase its acceptance by the public.
| S-EPMC6324565 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Conducting clinical trials with pre-term or sick infants is important if care for this population is to be underpinned by sound evidence. Yet approaching parents at this difficult time raises challenges for the obtaining of valid informed consent to such research. This study asked: what light does the empirical literature cast on an ethically defensible approach to the obtaining of informed consent in perinatal clinical trials?A systematic search identified 49 studies. Analysis began by applying philosophical frameworks which were then refined in light of the concepts emerging from empirical studies to present a coherent picture of a broad literature.Between them, studies addressed the attitudes of both parents and clinicians concerning consent in neonatal trials; the validity of the consent process in the neonatal research context; and different possible methods of obtaining consent.Despite a variety of opinions among parents and clinicians there is a strongly and widely held view that it is important that parents do give or decline consent for neonatal participation in trials. However, none of the range of existing consent processes reviewed by the research is satisfactory. A significant gap is evaluation of the widespread practice of emergency 'assent', in which parents assent or refuse their baby's participation as best they can during the emergency and later give full consent to ongoing participation and follow-up. Emergency assent has not been evaluated for its acceptability, how such a process would deal with bad outcomes such as neonatal death between assent and consent, or the extent to which late parental refusal might bias results. This review of a large number of empirical papers, while not making fundamental changes, has refined and developed the conceptual framework from philosophy for examining informed consent in this context.
| S-EPMC4634156 | biostudies-literature
Project description:COVID-19 poses an extraordinary threat to global public health and an effective vaccine could provide a key means of overcoming this crisis. Human challenge studies involve the intentional infection of research participants and can accelerate or improve vaccine development by rapidly providing estimates of vaccine safety and efficacy. Human challenge studies of low virulence coronaviruses have been done in the past and human challenge studies with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 have been proposed. These studies of coronaviruses could provide considerable benefits to public health; for instance, by improving and accelerating vaccine development. However, human challenge studies of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in particular might be controversial, in part, for ethical reasons. The ethical issues raised by such studies thus warrant early consideration involving, for example, broad consultation with the community. This Personal View provides preliminary analyses of relevant ethical considerations regarding human challenge studies of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, including the potential benefits to public health and to participants, the risks and uncertainty for participants, and the third-party risks (ie, to research staff and the wider community). We argue that these human challenge studies can reasonably be considered ethically acceptable insofar as such studies are accepted internationally and by the communities in which they are done, can realistically be expected to accelerate or improve vaccine development, have considerable potential to directly benefit participants, are designed to limit and minimise risks to participants, and are done with strict infection control measures to limit and reduce third-party risks.
| S-EPMC7259898 | biostudies-literature