Search

The precautionary principle is often invoked in relation to pregnant women and may be one of the underlying reasons for their continuous underrepresentation in clinical research. The principle is appealing, because potential fetal harm as a result of research participation is considered to be serious and irreversible. In our paper, we explore through conceptual analysis whether and if so how the precautionary principle should apply to pregnant women. We argue that the principle is a decision-making strategy underlying risk-benefit decisions in clinical research, which can be applied to pregnant women. However, the current application is a strong one, leading to the promotion of absolute exclusion or, less often, absolute inclusion of pregnant women. In order to change this paralyzing situation, a shift toward weak precautionary thinking is necessary. Instead of automatic extreme precaution, a balance will be found between harms and potential benefits of including pregnant women in clinical research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the precision medicine research involving human biological material is becoming an increasingly central component of healthcare, and its potential is quickly growing due to rapid technological progress. It mentions that the infrastructural and governance groundwork is currently being laid to accommodate these developments.

Background: In the EU, clinical assessors, rapporteurs and the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use are obliged to assess the ethical aspects of a clinical development program and include major ethical flaws in the marketing authorization deliberation processes. To this date, we know very little about the manner that these regulators put this obligation into action. In this paper, we intend to look into the manner and the extent that ethical issues discovered during inspection have reached the deliberation processes.Methods: To gather data, we used the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board database and first searched for the inspections, and their accompanying site inspection reports and integrated inspection reports, related to central marketing authorization applications (henceforth, application/s) of drugs submitted to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) from 2011 to 2015. We then extracted inspection findings that were purely of ethical nature, i.e., those that did not affect the benefit/risk balance of the study (issues related to informed consent, research ethics committees, and respect for persons). Only findings graded at least major by the inspectorate were included. Lastly, to identify how many of the ethically relevant findings (ERFs) reach the application deliberation processes, we extracted the relevant joint response assessment reports and reviewed the sections that discussed inspection findings.Results: From 2011 to 2015, there were 390 processed applications, of which 65 had inspection reports and integrated inspection reports accessible via the database of the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board. Of the 65, we found ERFs in 37 (56.9%). The majority of the ERFs were graded as major and half of the time it was informed-consent related. A third of these findings were related to research ethics committee processes and requirements. Of the 37 inspections with ERFs, 30 were endorsed in the integrated inspection reports as generally GCP compliant. Day 150 joint response assessment reports and Day 180 list of outstanding issues were reviewed for all 37 inspections, and none of the ERFs were carried over in any of the assessment reports or list of outstanding issues.Conclusion: None of the ethically relevant findings, all of which were graded as major or critical in integrated inspection reports, were explicitly carried over to the joint assessment reports. This calls for more transparency in EMA application deliberations on how ERFs are considered, if at all, in the decision-making processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As early as 2002, CIOMS stated that pregnant women should be presumed eligible for participation in research. Despite this position and calls of other well‐recognized organizations, the health needs of pregnant women in research remain grossly under‐researched. Although the presumption of eligibility remains unchanged, the revision of the 2002 CIOMS International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects involved a substantive rewrite of the guidance on research with pregnant women and related guidelines, such as those on fair inclusion and vulnerability. However, close reading of the guidelines reveals morally relevant different approaches to fair inclusion of pregnant women and other under‐represented groups, such as children and incompetents. Where CIOMS sets out that children and adolescents must be included unless a good scientific reason justifies their exclusion, no such claim of having to justify exclusion appears in the guideline on pregnant women. Instead, CIOMS claims that research relevant to pregnant women's health needs must be promoted. This paper analyses how and to what extent the guideline on pregnant women differs from other guidance on fair inclusion in the document. Accordingly, the paper evaluates to what extent the current phrasing may contribute to fair inclusion of pregnant women in research. We will conclude that a system change towards a learning health system is essential to break down the status quo of knowledge generation in the field of medication use during pregnancy and argue that the CIOMS guidelines allow for this system change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Since pregnant women are severely underrepresented in clinical research, many take the position that the exclusion of pregnant women from research must be justified unless there are compelling "scientific reasons" for their exclusion. However, it is questionable whether this approach renders research with pregnant women fair. This paper analyzes and evaluates when research with pregnant women can be considered as fair and what constitutes scientific reasons for exclusion.Methods: Conceptual ethical and methodological analysis and evaluation of fair inclusion.Results: Fair inclusion of pregnant women means (1) that pregnant women who are eligible are not excluded solely for being pregnant and (2) that the research interests of pregnant women are prioritized, meaning that they ought to receive substantially more attention. Fairness does not imply that pregnant women should be included in virtually every research project, as including only a few pregnant women in a population consisting only of women will not help to determine the effectiveness and safety of a treatment in pregnant women. Separate trials in pregnant women may be preferable once we assume, or know, that effects of interventions in pregnant women differ from the effects in other subpopulations, or when we assume, or know, that there are no differences. In the latter case, it may be preferable to conduct post-marketing studies or establish registries. If there is no conclusive evidence indicating either differences or equivalence of effects between pregnant and non-pregnant women, yet it seems unlikely that major differences or exact equivalence exist, the inclusion of pregnant women should be sufficient. Depending on the research question, this boils down to representativeness in terms of the proportion of pregnant and non-pregnant women, or to oversampling pregnant women.Conclusions: Fair inclusion of pregnant women in research implies that separate trials in pregnant women should be promoted. Inclusion of pregnant women has to be realized at the earliest phases of the research process. In addition to researchers and research ethics committees, scientific advisory councils, funders, drug regulatory agencies, pharmaceutical companies, journal editors and others have a joint responsibility to further develop the evidence base for drug use in pregnant women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is ambiguity with regard to what counts as an acceptable level of risk in clinical research in pregnant women and there is no input from stakeholders relative to such research risks. The aim of our paper was to explore what stakeholders who are actively involved in the conduct of clinical research in pregnant women deem an acceptable level of risk for pregnant women in clinical research. Accordingly, we used the APOSTEL VI study, a low-risk obstetrical randomised controlled trial, as a case-study.Methods: We conducted a prospective qualitative study using 35 in-depth semi-structured interviews and one focus group. We interviewed healthcare professionals, Research Ethics Committee members (RECs) and regulators who are actively involved in the conduct of clinical research in pregnant women, in addition to pregnant women recruited for the APOSTEL VI case-study in the Netherlands.Results: Three themes characterise the way stakeholders view risks in clinical research in pregnant women in general. Additionally, one theme characterises the way healthcare professionals and pregnant women view risks with respect to the case-study specifically. First, ideas on what constitutes an acceptable level of risk in general ranged from a preference for zero risk for the foetus up to minimal risk. Second, the desirability of clinical research in pregnant women in general was questioned altogether. Third, stakeholders proposed to establish an upper limit of risk in potentially beneficial clinical research in pregnant women in order to protect the foetus and the pregnant woman from harm. Fourth and finally, the case-study illustrates that healthcare professionals' individual perception of risk may influence recruitment.Conclusions: Healthcare professionals, RECs, regulators and pregnant women are all risk adverse in practice, possibly explaining the continuing underrepresentation of pregnant women in clinical research. Determining the acceptable levels of risk on a universal level alone is insufficient, because the individual perception of risk also influences behaviour towards pregnant women in clinical research. Therefore, bioethicists and researchers might be interested in changing the perception of risk, which could be achieved by education and awareness about the actual benefits and harms of inclusion and exclusion of pregnant women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pediatric biobanking is considered important for generating biomedical knowledge and improving (pediatric) health care. However, the inclusion of children's samples in biobanks involves specific ethical issues. One of the main concerns is how to appropriately engage children in the consent procedure. We suggest that children should be involved through a personalized assent procedure, which means that both the content and the process of assent are adjusted to the individual child. In this paper we provide guidance on how to put personalized assent into pediatric biobanking practice and consider both the content and process of personalized assent. In the discussion we argue that the assent procedure itself is formative. Investing in the procedure should be a requirement for pediatric biobank research. Although personalized assent will require certain efforts, the pediatric (biobank) community must be aware of its importance. The investment and trust earned can result in ongoing engagement, important longitudinal information, and stability in/for the research infrastructure, as well as increased knowledge among its participants about research activity. Implementing personalized assent will both respect the child and support biobank research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We explored the views of key stakeholders to identify the ethical challenges of pragmatic trials investigating pharmaceutical drugs. A secondary aim was to capture stakeholders' attitudes towards the implementation of pragmatic trials in the drug development process.Methods: We conducted semistructured, in-depth interviews among individuals from different key stakeholder groups (academia and independent research institutions, the pharmaceutical industry, regulators, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies and patients' organizations) through telephone or face-to-face sessions. Interviews were structured around the question "what challenges were experienced or perceived during the design, conduct and/or review of pragmatic trials." Respondents were additionally asked about their views on implementation of pragmatic trials in the drug development process. Thematic analysis was used to identify the ethically relevant features across data sets.Results: We interviewed 34 stakeholders in 25 individual sessions and four group sessions. The four perceived challenges of ethical relevance were: (1) less controlled conditions creating safety concerns, (2) comparison with usual care potentially compromising clinical equipoise, (3) tailored or waivers of informed consent affecting patient autonomy, and (4) minimal interference with "real-world" practice reducing the knowledge value of trial results.Conclusions: We identified stakeholder concerns regarding risk assessment, use of suboptimal usual care as a comparator, tailoring of informed consent procedures and ensuring the social value of pragmatic trials. These concerns increased when respondents were asked about pragmatic trials conducted before market authorization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In paediatric oncology, research and treatments are often closely combined, which may compromise voluntary informed consent of parents. We identified two key scenarios in which voluntary informed consent for paediatric oncology studies is potentially compromised due to the intertwinement of research and care. The first scenario is inclusion by the treating paediatric oncologist, the second scenario concerns treatments confined to the research context. In this article we examine whether voluntary informed consent of parents for research is compromised in these two scenarios, and if so whether this is also morally problematic. For this, we employ the account of voluntary consent from Nelson and colleagues, who assert that voluntary consent requires substantial freedom from controlling influences. We argue that, in the absence of persuasion or manipulation, inclusion by the treating physician does not compromise voluntariness. However, it may function as a risk factor for controlling influence as it narrows the scope within which parents make decisions. Furthermore, physician appeal to reciprocity is not controlling as it constitutes persuasion. In addition, framing information is a form of informational manipulation and constitutes a controlling influence. In the second scenario, treatments confined to the research context qualify as controlling if the available options are restricted through manipulation of options. Although none of the influences is morally problematic in itself, a combination of influences may create morally problematic instances of involuntary informed consent. Therefore, safeguards should be implemented to establish an optimal environment for parents to provide voluntary informed consent in an integrated research-care context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In research ethics, the most basic question would always be, "which is an ethical issue, which is not?" Interestingly, depending on which ethics guideline we consult, we may have various answers to this question. Though we already have several international ethics guidelines for biomedical research involving human participants, ironically, we do not have a harmonized document which tells us what these various guidelines say and shows us the areas of consensus (or lack thereof). In this manuscript, we attempted to do just that.Methods: We extracted the imperatives from five internationally-known ethics guidelines and took note where the imperatives came from. In doing so, we gathered data on how many guidelines support a specific imperative.Results: We found that there is no consensus on the majority of the imperatives and that in only 8.2% of the imperatives were there at least moderate consensus (i.e., consensus of at least 3 of the 5 ethics guidelines). Of the 12 clusters (Basic Principles; Research Collaboration; Social Value; Scientific Validity; Participant Selection; Favorable Benefit/Risk Ratio; Independent Review; Informed Consent; Respect for Participants; Publication and Registration; Regulatory Sanctions; and Justified Research on the Vulnerable Population), Informed Consent has the highest level of consensus and Research Collaboration and Regulatory Sanctions have the least.Conclusion: There was a lack of consensus in the majority of imperatives from the five internationally-known ethics guidelines. This may be partly explained by the differences among the guidelines in terms of their levels of specification as well as conceptual/ideological differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The inherent uncertainty of first-in-human trials, combined with the technical complexity of pluripotent stem cells (PSCs), makes early phase PSC studies ethically challenging. Conducting parallel bioethics research based on experiences and views of professionals in the stem cell field is therefore important. Materials & methods: We conducted semistructured interviews with various stakeholders to get a lay of the land of ethical issues professionals find relevant to the translation of PSCs. Results: We identified four themes in the interviews: the uniqueness of PSCs, the suitability of the current research paradigm, the justification for early phase PSC studies and the involvement of patients and research participants. Conclusion: We conclude that a debate should take place discussing the suitability of the current research paradigm for translational PSC studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Various papers have addressed pros and cons of the stepped wedge cluster randomized trial design (SWD). However, some issues have not or only limitedly been addressed. Our aim was to provide a comprehensive overview of all merits and limitations of the SWD to assist researchers, reviewers and medical ethics committees when deciding on the appropriateness of the SWD for a particular study.Methods: We performed an initial search to identify articles with a methodological focus on the SWD, and categorized and discussed all reported advantages and disadvantages of the SWD. Additional aspects were identified during multidisciplinary meetings in which ethicists, biostatisticians, clinical epidemiologists and health economists participated. All aspects of the SWD were compared to the parallel group cluster randomized design. We categorized the merits and limitations of the SWD to distinct phases in the design and conduct of such studies, highlighting that their impact may vary depending on the context of the study or that benefits may be offset by drawbacks across study phases. Furthermore, a real-life illustration is provided.Results: New aspects are identified within all disciplines. Examples of newly identified aspects of an SWD are: the possibility to measure a treatment effect in each cluster to examine the (in)consistency in effects across clusters, the detrimental effect of lower than expected inclusion rates, deviation from the ordinary informed consent process and the question whether studies using the SWD are likely to have sufficient social value. Discussions are provided on e.g. clinical equipoise, social value, health economical decision making, number of study arms, and interim analyses.Conclusions: Deciding on the use of the SWD involves aspects and considerations from different disciplines not all of which have been discussed before. Pros and cons of this design should be balanced in comparison to other feasible design options as to choose the optimal design for a particular intervention study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: International documents on ethical conduct in clinical research have in common the principle that potential harms to research participants must be proportional to anticipated benefits. The anticipated benefits that can justify human research consist of direct benefits to the research participant, and societal benefits, also called social value. In first-in-human research, no direct benefits are expected and the benefit component of the risks-benefit assessment thus merely exists in social value. The concept social value is ambiguous by nature and is used in numerous ways in the research ethics literature. Because social value justifies involving human participants, especially in early human trials, this is problematic. Discussion: Our analysis and interpretation of the concept social value has led to three proposals. First, as no direct benefits are expected for the research participants in first-in-human trials, we believe it is better to discuss a risk- value assessment instead of a risk - benefit assessment. This will also make explicit the necessity to have a clear and common use for the concept social value. Second, to avoid confusion we propose to limit the concept social value to the intervention tested. It is the expected improvement the intervention can bring to the wellbeing of (future) patients or society that is referred to when we speak about social value. For the sole purpose of gaining knowledge, we should not expose humans to potential harm; the ultimate justification of involving humans in research lies in the anticipated social value of the intervention. Third, at the moment only the validity of the clinical research proposal is a prerequisite for research to take place. We recommend making the anticipated social value a prerequisite as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background It is thought that a dependent relationship between patients and physicians who enroll their own patients in research compromises voluntary informed consent. Therefore, several ethical guidelines for human subjects research provide approaches to mitigate these compromises. Currently, these approaches have not been critically evaluated. In this article, we analyze the approaches of ethical guidelines to manage the influence of a dependent relationship between patients and physicians on voluntary informed consent and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches. Methods We performed a review of international ethical guidance documents on human subjects research, listed in the Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics and found through cross referencing. We also searched GEOBs and the WHO website. Guidelines from all years were eligible for inclusion. Date last searched was December 2013. Discussion We identified two basic guideline approaches. 1. A process approach, which focuses on the person who obtains informed consent, i.e. an independent individual, such as a research nurse or counselor. 2. A content approach, emphasizing the voluntary nature of participation. Both approaches are valuable, either because the influence of the physician may diminish or because it empowers patients to make voluntary decisions. However, the approaches also face challenges. First, research nurses are not always independent. Second, physician-investigators will be informed about decisions of their patients. Third, involvement of a counselor is sometimes unfeasible. Fourth, the right to withdraw may be difficult to act upon in a dependent relationship. Summary Current guideline approaches to protect voluntary informed consent within a dependent relationship are suboptimal. To prevent compromises to voluntary informed consent, consent should not only be obtained by an independent individual, but this person should also emphasize the voluntary nature of participation. At the same time, dependency as such does not imply undue influence. Sometimes, the physician may be best qualified to provide information, e.g. for a very specialized study. Still, the research nurse should obtain informed consent. In addition, patients should be able to consult a counselor, who attends the informed consent discussions and is concerned with their interests. Finally, both physicians and research nurses should disclose research interests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Assent is a relatively young term in research ethics, but became an often mentioned ethical requirement in current pediatric research guidelines. Also, the European Society of Human Genetics considers assent an important condition for the inclusion of children in biobanks. However, although many emphasize the importance of assent, few explain how they understand the concept and few have elaborated on the underlying grounds. In this paper, we will discuss the different underlying ethical principles of assent. In the first category, assent appears to be derived from informed consent. This understanding is grounded in respect for autonomy and protection against harm. We conclude that this interpretation of assent is not of added value as a majority of children cannot be considered competent to make autonomous decisions. In addition, other safeguards are more appropriate to protect children against harm. The grounds from the second category can be classified as engagement grounds. These grounds do justice to the specifics of childhood and are of added value. Furthermore, we argue that it follows that both the content and the process of assent should be adjusted to the individual child. This can be referred to as personalized assent. Personalized assent is an appeal to the moral responsibility and integrity of the researcher. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study which examines the inclusive selection requirements for the justification of exclusion of study populations related to human subject research. Findings reveal that most ethical guidelines for these research studies concentrate on inclusive selection requirements and scientific reasons are considered more important than justice reasons. An overview of the study's methods, participants, and conclusion is given.

ABSTRACT It is often argued that clinical research should not violate the Kantian principle that people must not be used merely as a means for the purposes of others. At first sight, the practice of clinical research itself, however, seems to violate precisely this principle: clinical research is often beneficial to future people rather than to participants; even if participants benefit, all things considered, they are exposed to discomforts which are absent both in regular care for their diseases and in other areas of daily life. Therefore, in this paper we will consider whether people are used merely as a means by being enrolled in clinical research. On the basis of recent studies of Kantian scholars we will argue that clinical research is compatible with the Kantian principle if the conditions of possible consent and end-sharing have been met. Participants are not used merely as a means if they have sufficient reasons to consent to being enrolled in clinical research and can share the ends of the researchers who use them. Moreover, we will claim that even if people are used merely as a means by participating in clinical research, it may not always be morally wrong to use them in this way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past few decades the concept of (human) dignity has deeply pervaded medical ethics. Appeals to dignity, however, are often unclear. As a result some prefer to eliminate the concept from medical ethics, whereas others try to render it useful in this context. We think that appeals to dignity in medical ethics can be clarified by considering the concept from an historical perspective. Firstly, on the basis of historical texts we propose a framework for defining the concept in medical debates. The framework shows that dignity can occur in a relational, an unconditional, a subjective and a Kantian form. Interestingly, all forms relate to one concept since they have four features in common: dignity refers, in a restricted sense, to the ‘special status of human beings’; it is based on essential human characteristics; the subject of dignity should live up to it; and it is a vulnerable concept, it can be lost or violated. We argue that being explicit about the meaning of dignity will prevent dignity from becoming a conversation-stopper in moral debate. Secondly, an historical perspective on dignity shows that it is not yet time to dispose of dignity in medical ethics. At least Kantian and relational dignity can be made useful in medical ethics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the concept of broad consent in relation to consent for governance. Topics include an article by Christine Grady, et al. regarding the definition of broad consent, the need to inform donors regarding ethical oversight procedures and process restrictions and the importance of the substantial engagement of participants in biobanking. It also discusses ethical oversight, intellectual property rights (IPRs), and material transfer agreements (MTA).

The author discusses the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences and its International Ethical Guidelines for Health-Related Research Involving Humans.

Background: Bioethicists argue that inclusion of pregnant women in clinical research should be more routine to increase the evidence-base for pregnant women and foetuses. Yet, it is unknown whether pregnant women and others directly involved are willing to be routinely included. Therefore, we first need to establish what these stakeholders think about research participation in regular pregnancy-related research. However, studies on their views are scarce. In our study, we piggy-backed on a relatively conventional RCT, the APOSTEL VI study, to identify the views of stakeholders on inclusion of pregnant women in this study.Methods: We conducted a prospective qualitative study using 35 in-depth semi-structured interviews and one focus group. We interviewed pregnant women (n = 14) recruited for the APOSTEL VI study, in addition to healthcare professionals (n = 14), Research Ethics Committee members (RECs) (n = 5) and regulators (n = 7) involved in clinical research in pregnant women.Results: Three themes characterise stakeholders' views on inclusion of pregnant women in the APOSTEL VI study. Additionally, one theme characterises stakeholders' interest in inclusion of pregnant women in clinical research in general. First, pregnant women participate in the APOSTEL VI study for potential individual benefit and secondarily for altruistic motives, contrary to hypothetical studies. Second, a gatekeeping tendency hampers recruitment of pregnant women who might be eligible and willing, and questions about pregnant women's decisional capacities surface. Third, healthcare professionals sometimes use the counselling conversation to steer pregnant women in a direction. Fourth, all stakeholders are hesitant about inclusion of pregnant women in clinical research in general due to a protective sentiment.Conclusions: Pregnant women are willing to participate in the APOSTEL VI study for potential individual benefit and altruistic motives. However, an underlying protective sentiment, resulting in gatekeeping and directive counselling, sometimes hampers recruitment in the APOSTEL VI study as well as in clinical research in general. While bioethicists claim that inclusion of pregnant women should be customary, our study indicates that healthcare professionals, regulators, RECs and pregnant women themselves are not necessarily interested in inclusion. Advancing the situation and increasing the evidence-base for pregnant women and foetuses may require additional measures such as investing in the recruitment and feasibility of RCTs and stimulating pregnant women's decisional capacities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A response from the author of the article "Clarifying assent in pediatric research," in the previous issue is presented.

In the United States, doctors generally develop new cancer chemotherapy for children by testing innovative chemotherapy protocols against existing protocols in prospective randomized trials. In the Netherlands, children with leukemia are treated by protocols that are agreed upon by the Dutch Childhood Oncology Group. Periodically, the Dutch Childhood Oncology Group revises its protocols. Sometimes, these revisions are categorized as research, sometimes as treatment. In this Ethics Rounds, we analyze whether enrollment in a new protocol ought to be considered research and, if so, we discuss the implications of that designation. Our discussion highlights the different ways different countries approach complex issues of research ethics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]