Responsible data sharing in international health research: a systematic review of principles and norms

BACKGROUND

Large-scale linkage of international clinical datasets could lead to unique insights into disease aetiology and facilitate treatment evaluation and drug development. Hereto, multi-stakeholder consortia are currently designing several disease-specific translational research platforms to enable international health data sharing. Despite the recent adoption of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the procedures for how to govern responsible data sharing in such projects are not at all spelled out yet. In search of a first, basic outline of an ethical governance framework, we set out to explore relevant ethical principles and norms.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of literature and ethical guidelines for principles and norms pertaining to data sharing for international health research.

RESULTS

We observed an abundance of principles and norms with considerable convergence at the aggregate level of four overarching themes: societal benefits and value; distribution of risks, benefits and burdens; respect for individuals and groups; and public trust and engagement. However, at the level of principles and norms we identified substantial variation in the phrasing and level of detail, the number and content of norms considered necessary to protect a principle, and the contextual approaches in which principles and norms are used.

CONCLUSIONS

While providing some helpful leads for further work on a coherent governance framework for data sharing, the current collection of principles and norms prompts important questions about how to streamline terminology regarding de-identification and how to harmonise the identified principles and norms into a coherent governance framework that promotes data sharing while securing public trust.

Determinants of self-reported unacceptable outcome of intensive care treatment 1 year after discharge

PURPOSE

Survivors of critical illness often suffer from reduced health-related quality of life (HRQoL) due to long-term physical, cognitive, and mental health problems, also known as post-intensive care syndrome (PICS). Some intensive care unit (ICU) survivors even consider their state of health unacceptable. The aim of this study was to investigate the determinants of self-reported unacceptable outcome of ICU treatment.

METHODS

Patients who were admitted to the ICU for at least 48 h and survived the first year after discharge completed validated questionnaires on overall HRQoL and the components of PICS and stated whether they considered their current state of health an acceptable outcome of ICU treatment. The effects of overall HRQoL and components of PICS on unacceptable outcome were studied using multiple logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Of 1453 patients, 67 (5%) reported their health state an unacceptable outcome of ICU treatment. These patients had a lower score on overall HRQoL (EQ-5D-index value of 0.57 vs. 0.81; p < 0.001), but we could not determine a cutoff value of the EQ-5D-index value that reliably identified unacceptable outcome. In the multivariate analysis, only the hospital anxiety and depression scale was significantly associated with an unacceptable outcome (OR 2.06, 99% CI 1.18-3.61).

CONCLUSIONS

Although there is a strong association between low overall HRQoL and self-reported unacceptable outcome of ICU treatment, patients with low overall HRQoL may still consider their outcome acceptable. The mental component of PICS, but not the physical and cognitive component, is strongly associated with self-reported unacceptable outcome.

How the CIOMS guidelines contribute to fair inclusion of pregnant women in research

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.

A qualitative study on stakeholders' views on the participation of pregnant women in the APOSTEL VI study: a low-risk obstetrical RCT

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.

Organoids as hybrids: ethical implications for the exchange of human tissues

Recent developments in biotechnology allow for the generation of increasingly complex products out of human tissues, for example, human stem cell lines, synthetic embryo-like structures and organoids. These developments are coupled with growing commercial interests. Although commercialisation can spark the scientific and clinical promises, profit-making out of human tissues is ethically contentious and known to raise public concern. The traditional bioethical frames of gift versus market are inapt to capture the resulting practical and ethical complexities. Therefore, we propose an alternative approach to identify, evaluate and deal with the ethical challenges that are raised by the increasing commercialisation of the exchange of sophisticated human tissue products. We use organoid technology, a cutting-edge stem cell technology that enables the cultivation of 'mini-organs' in a dish, as an example. First, we examine the moral value of organoids and recognise them as hybrids that relate to persons and their bodies as well as to technologies and markets in ambiguous ways. Second, we show that commercialisation of organoids is legitimised by a detachment of the instrumental and commercial value of organoids from their associations with persons and their bodies. This detachment is enacted in steps of disentanglement, among which consent and commodification. Third, we contend that far-reaching disentanglement is ethically challenging: (1) Societal interests could be put under pressure, because the rationale for commercialising organoid technology, that is, to stimulate biomedical innovation for the good of society, may not be fulfilled; (2) The interests of donors are made subordinate to those of third parties and the relational moral value of organoids may be insufficiently recognised. Fourth, we propose a 'consent for governance' model that contributes to responsible innovation and clinical translation in this exciting field.

Dementia and advance directives: some empirical and normative concerns

The authors of the paper 'Advance euthanasia directives: a controversial case and its ethical implications' articulate concerns and reasons with regard to the conduct of euthanasia in persons with dementia based on advance directives. While we agree on the conclusion that there needs to be more attention for such directives in the preparation phase, we disagree with the reasons provided by the authors to support their conclusions. We will outline two concerns with their reasoning by drawing on empirical research and by providing reasons that contradict their assumptions about competence of people with dementia and the (un)importance of happiness in reasoning about advance directives of people with dementia. We will draw attention to the important normative questions that have been overstepped in their paper, and we will outline why further research is required.

The willingness to participate in biomedical research involving human beings in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Objectives

To systematically review reasons for the willingness to participate in biomedical human subjects research in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs).

Methods

Five databases were systematically searched for articles published between 2000 and 2017 containing the domain of ‘human subjects research’ in ‘LMICs’ and determinant ‘reasons for (non)participation’. Reasons mentioned were extracted, ranked and results narratively described.

Results

Ninety‐four articles were included, 44 qualitative and 50 mixed‐methods studies. Altruism, personal health benefits, access to health care, monetary benefit, knowledge, social support and trust were the most important reasons for participation. Primary reasons for non‐participation were safety concerns, inconvenience, stigmatisation, lack of social support, confidentiality concerns, physical pain, efficacy concerns and distrust. Stigmatisation was a major concern in relation to HIV research. Reasons were similar across different regions, gender, non‐patient or patient participants and real or hypothetical study designs.

Conclusions

Addressing factors that affect (non‐)participation in the planning process and during the conduct of research may enhance voluntary consent to participation and reduce barriers for potential participants.

Parental experiences and coping strategies when caring for a child receiving paediatric palliative care: a qualitative study

Parenting and providing extensive care to a child with a life-limiting or life-threatening disease while being aware of the future loss of the child are among the most stressful parental experiences. Due to technical and medical improvements, children are living longer and are increasingly cared for at home. To align healthcare professionals' support with the needs of parents, a clear understanding of prominent experiences and main coping strategies of parents caring for a child in need of palliative care is needed. An interpretative qualitative study using thematic analysis was performed. Single or repeated interviews were undertaken with 42 parents of 24 children with malignant or non-malignant diseases receiving palliative care. Prominent reported parental experiences were daily anxiety of child loss, confrontation with loss and related grief, ambiguity towards uncertainty, preservation of a meaningful relationship with their child, tension regarding end-of-life decisions and engagement with professionals. Four closely related coping strategies were identified: suppressing emotions by keeping the loss of their child at bay, seeking support, taking control to arrange optimal childcare and adapting to and accepting the ongoing change(s).Conclusion: Parents need healthcare professionals who understand and carefully handle their worries, losses, parent-child relationship and coping strategies. What is Known: • In paediatric palliative care, parents have a daunting task in fulfilling all caregiving tasks while striving for control of their child's symptoms, a life worth living and a family balance. What is New: • Prominent experiences were: continuous management of anxiety of child loss, feelings of uncertainty, tension with end-of-life decision making and engagement with professionals. Parents experienced unique significance to their child, reinforcing a meaningful parent-child relationship. • Relevant coping strategies were: suppressing emotions, seeking support, taking control to arrange optimal care and adapting to the ongoing changes. • To provide tailored support, professionals need to understand parents' perceptions, relationship with their child and coping strategies.

Developments in euthanasia practice in the Netherlands: Balancing professional responsibility and the patient's autonomy

In 2015, euthanasia accounted for 4.5% of deaths in the Netherlands, of which 93% were performed by a GP. Historically, a conflict of physician’s duties—to alleviate unbearable suffering and at the same time preserve the patient’s life—is central to the justification of euthanasia practice in the Netherlands. However, there seems to be a shift towards a greater emphasis on the patient’s autonomous wish as the primary basis for euthanasia. This shift has consequences for the role and interpretation of the physician’s duties in end-of-life care. This paper aims to describe these developments in euthanasia practice and end-of-life decision-making. We describe important relevant developments and look into the role and the meaning of two dimensions of the concept of ‘patient autonomy’ regarding end-of-life decisions, in particular, the euthanasia request. We claim that the concept of autonomy ‘as a right,’ which can be distinguished from autonomy ‘as an ideal,’ narrows the physician’s window of opportunity to offer end-of-life care other than euthanasia.

Facilitators and barriers to pregnant women's participation in research: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Although there is consensus among many that exclusion of pregnant women from clinical research should be justified, there is uncertainty as to whether and why pregnant women themselves would be willing to participate even if they were found to be eligible. The objective was to identify the reasons why pregnant women participate in clinical research and thereby to distinguish between facilitators and barriers.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of articles regarding pregnant women's reasons for participation in clinical research. We used the PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases and retrieved additional articles through manually searching the reference lists. We included all articles that reported on pregnant women's reasons for participation in clinical research. We accumulated all reasons that were mentioned in the total of articles and collated them to themes, classifying these themes as a facilitator or a barrier.

RESULTS

The search identified thirty articles that met the inclusion criteria. Themes classified as facilitators: aspirational benefits, collateral benefits, direct benefits, third party influence and lack of inconvenience. Themes classified as barriers: inconveniences, risks, randomisation, lack of trust in research enterprise, medical reasons and third party influence.

CONCLUSIONS

Pregnant women report mostly altruistic and personal reasons for their willingness to participate in clinical research, while barriers primarily relate to inconveniences. It appears that pregnant women's described reasoning is similar to the described reasoning of non-pregnant research subjects. Enhancing the facilitators and overcoming the barriers is the next step to increase the evidence-base underlying maternal and foetal health.

Value-based evaluation of dialysis versus conservative care in older patients with advanced chronic kidney disease: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

Conservative care is argued to be a reasonable treatment alternative for dialysis in older patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, comparisons are scarce and generally focus on survival only. Comparative data on more patient-relevant outcomes are needed to truly foster shared decision-making on an individual level, and cost comparison is needed to assess value of care.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective observational single-center cohort study in 366 patients aged ≥70 years with advanced CKD, who chose dialysis (n = 240) or conservative care (n = 126) after careful counselling by a multidisciplinary team in a non-academic teaching hospital in The Netherlands. Using a value-based health care approach (value = outcomes/cost): survival, health-related quality of life-cross-sectionally assessed with the Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short Form™-treatment burden, and treatment costs were evaluated.

RESULTS

The overall survival benefit of patients on a dialysis pathway compared with patients on conservative care diminished or lost significance in patients aged ≥80 years or with severe comorbidity. There were no differences between patients managed conservatively and dialysis patients on physical and mental health summary scores (all P > 0.1). Patients on conservative care had 352.7 hospital free days per year versus 282.7 in patients on a dialysis pathway, calculated from treatment decision (adjusted incidence rate ratio: 1.15, 95% confidence interval: 1.09 to 1.21, P <  0.001). Annual treatment costs were lower in patients on conservative care (adjusted cost ratio: 0.43, 95% confidence interval: 0.28 to 0.67, P <  0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, conservative care is shown to be a viable treatment option in older patients with advanced CKD, particularly in the oldest old and those with severe comorbidity. By achieving similar outcomes at lower treatment burden and treatment costs, value was generated for older patients choosing conservative care and society.

Advance Care Planning in a Multicultural Family Centric Community: A Qualitative Study of Health Care Professionals', Patients', and Caregivers' Perspectives

CONTEXT

Advance care planning (ACP) has been shown to improve end-of-life care, but it was developed in the U.S., and most research has been conducted in western communities.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to study the attitudes and perceptions of patients with life-limiting illnesses, informal caregivers, doctors, nurses, and medical social workers regarding ACP in a multicultural family centric community.

METHODS

We conducted an explorative qualitative study, using focus groups and individual in-depth interviews. We used purposive sampling techniques to recruit 61 adults (15 doctors, 13 nurses, 5 medical social workers, 15 patients, and 13 caregivers) from multiple health care settings across the country.

RESULTS

The participants are genuinely anxious about the implementation of ACP. They had positive and negative expectations of ACP. Many were confused about the legal framework for health care decision-making and expected ACP to be of limited value because family members, rather than the patient, were usually the key decision makers.

CONCLUSION

A nuanced approach to ACP that considers the family network is required in multicultural family centric communities. Policies should be reconciled to create a more consistent message that respects patients, the family, and is legally coherent. Further research could focus on adaptations of ACP to promote its acceptance in such communities.

Introducing PALETTE: an iterative method for conducting a literature search for a review in palliative care

Background

In the rapidly developing specialty of palliative care, literature reviews have become increasingly important to inform and improve the field. When applying widely used methods for literature reviews developed for intervention studies onto palliative care, challenges are encountered such as the heterogeneity of palliative care in practice (wide range of domains in patient characteristics, stages of illness and stakeholders), the explorative character of review questions, and the poorly defined keywords and concepts. To overcome the challenges and to provide guidance for researchers to conduct a literature search for a review in palliative care, Palliative cAre Literature rEview iTeraTive mEthod (PALLETE), a pragmatic framework, was developed. We assessed PALETTE with a detailed description.

Methods

PALETTE consists of four phases; developing the review question, building the search strategy, validating the search strategy and performing the search. The framework incorporates different information retrieval techniques: contacting experts, pearl growing, citation tracking and Boolean searching in a transparent way to maximize the retrieval of literature relevant to the topic of interest. The different components and techniques are repeated until no new articles are qualified for inclusion. The phases within PALETTE are interconnected by a recurrent process of validation on ‘golden bullets’ (articles that undoubtedly should be part of the review), citation tracking and concept terminology reflecting the review question.

To give insight in the value of PALETTE, we compared PALETTE with the recommended search method for reviews of intervention studies.

Results

By using PALETTE on two palliative care literature reviews, we were able to improve our review questions and search strategies. Moreover, in comparison with the recommended search for intervention reviews, the number of articles needed to be screened was decreased whereas more relevant articles were retrieved. Overall, PALETTE helped us in gaining a thorough understanding of the topic of interest and made us confident that the included studies comprehensively represented the topic.

Conclusions

PALETTE is a coherent and transparent pragmatic framework to overcome the challenges of performing a literature review in palliative care. The method enables researchers to improve question development and to maximise both sensitivity and precision in their search process.

Mini-guts in a dish: Perspectives of adult Cystic Fibrosis (CF) patients and parents of young CF patients on organoid technology

BACKGROUND

Organoid technology enables the cultivation of human tissues in a dish. Its precision medicine potential could revolutionize the Cystic Fibrosis (CF) field. We provide a first thematic exploration of the patient perspective on organoid technology to set the further research agenda, which is necessary for responsible development of this ethically challenging technology.

METHODS

23 semi-structured qualitative interviews with 14 Dutch adult CF patients and 12 parents of young CF patients to examine their experiences, opinions, and attitudes regarding organoid technology.

RESULTS

Four themes emerged: (1) Respondents express a close as well as a distant relationship to organoids; (2) the open-endedness of organoid technology sparks hopes and concerns, (3) commercial use evokes cautiousness. (4) Respondents mention the importance of sound consent procedures, long-term patient engagement, responsible stewardship, and stringent conditions for commercial use.

CONCLUSIONS

The precision medicine potential of organoid technology can only be realized if the patient perspective is taken adequately into account.

Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a paediatric palliative care team

BACKGROUND

Over the last decade, paediatric palliative care teams (PPCTs) have been introduced to support children with life-limiting diseases and their families and to ensure continuity, coordination and quality of paediatric palliative care (PPC). However, implementing a PPCT into an organisation is a challenge. The objective of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators reported by healthcare professionals (HCPs) in primary, secondary or tertiary care for implementing a newly initiated multidisciplinary PPCT to bridge the gap between hospital and home.

METHODS

The Measurement Instrument for Determinants of Innovations (MIDI) was used to assess responses of 71 HCPs providing PPC to one or more of the 129 children included in a pilot study of a PPCT based at a university children's hospital. The MIDI (29 items) assessed barriers and facilitators to implementing the PPCT by using a 5-point scale (completely disagree to completely agree) and additional open-ended questions. Items to which ≥20% of participants responded with 'totally disagree/disagree' and ≥80% responded with 'agree/totally agree' were considered as barriers and facilitators, respectively. A general inductive approach was used for open-ended questions.

RESULTS

Reported barriers to implementing a PPCT were related to the HCP's own organisation (e.g., no working arrangements related to use of the intervention [PPCT] registered, other organisational changes such as merger going on). Reported facilitators were mainly related to the intervention (correctness, simplicity, observability and relevancy) and the user scale (positive outcome expectations, patient satisfaction) and only once to the organisation scale (information accessibility). Additionally, HCPs expressed the need for clarity about tasks of the PPCT and reported having made a transition from feeling threatened by the PPCT to satisfaction about the PPCT.

CONCLUSION

Positive experiences with the PPCT are a major facilitator for implementing a PPCT. Tailored organisational strategies such as working arrangements by management, concrete information about the PPCT itself and the type of support provided by the PPCT should be clearly communicated to involved HCPs to increase awareness about benefits of the PPCT and ensure a successful implementation. New PPCTs need protection and resources in their initial year to develop into experienced and qualified PPCTs.

Fair inclusion of pregnant women in clinical trials: an integrated scientific and ethical approach

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.

Parental Attitude Toward the Prenatal Diagnosis of Oral Cleft: A Prospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

The prenatal diagnosis of oral clefts (OCs) by ultrasound can pose an ethical dilemma. The purpose of this study was to obtain insight into the psychosocial and moral considerations of prospective parents concerning OCs, the burden of OCs and parents' attitude toward possible termination of pregnancy (TOP) in order to improve counseling in the future.

DESIGN

Between August 2011 and August 2014, a prospective cohort questionnaire study was administered.

SETTING

Prenatal care clinic of the Wilhelmina's Children hospital, a Tertiary Care Centre.

PARTICIPANTS

Parents expecting a child with an OC.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Expectation of OCs in general and attitudes toward the impact and expected burden of the OC of their child. Furthermore, parents were asked if they had considered TOP.

RESULTS

Most of the parents described an OC as a cosmetic disability (50.6%) or as "just a little different" (29.4%). These parents expected that the OC would not affect their own happiness and have only minor influence on the happiness of their future child. Health professionals had a considerable influence on parental opinion. A minority (6.4%, 5/85) of the respondents considered TOP, and none of the responders chose to terminate the pregnancy.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that future parents have very few negative perceptions of OC after prenatal counseling. Caregivers should be aware that their counseling is important for decision-making of parents.

Is It Our Duty To Hunt for Pathogenic Mutations?

Should professionals systematically screen whole-genome sequencing (WGS) data to check for life-threatening mutations? Alternatively, should genome analysis focus on the primary reason for testing - that is, aiming to achieve precision medicine? We present an ethical review of the arguments and compare the act of searching for mutations with disclosing mutations that are discovered incidentally.

Am I My Family's Keeper? Disclosure Dilemmas in Next-Generation Sequencing

Ever since genetic testing is possible for specific mutations, ethical debate has sparked on the question of whether professionals have a duty to warn not only patients but also their relatives that might be at risk for hereditary diseases. As next-generation sequencing (NGS) swiftly finds its way into clinical practice, the question who is responsible for conveying unsolicited findings to family members becomes increasingly urgent. Traditionally, there is a strong emphasis on the duties of the professional in this debate. But what is the role of the patient and her family? In this article, we discuss the question of whose duty it is to convey relevant genetic risk information concerning hereditary diseases that can be cured or prevented to the relatives of patients undergoing NGS. We argue in favor of a shared responsibility for professionals and patients and present a strategy that reconciles these roles: a moral accountability nudge. Incorporated into informed consent and counseling services such as letters and online tools, this nudge aims to create awareness on specific patient responsibilities. Commitment of all parties is needed to ensure adequate dissemination of results in the NGS era.

Vulnerability of pregnant women in clinical research

BACKGROUND

Notwithstanding the need to produce evidence-based knowledge on medications for pregnant women, they remain underrepresented in clinical research. Sometimes they are excluded because of their supposed vulnerability, but there are no universally accepted criteria for considering pregnant women as vulnerable. Our aim was to explore whether and if so to what extent pregnant women are vulnerable as research subjects.

METHOD

We performed a conceptual and empirical analysis of vulnerability applied to pregnant women.

ANALYSIS

A conceptual analysis supports Hurst's definition of vulnerability. Consequently, we argue that pregnant women are vulnerable if they encounter an identifiably increased likelihood of incurring additional or greater wrong. According to the literature, this increased likelihood could exist of four alleged features for pregnant women's vulnerability: (i) informed consent, (ii) susceptibility to coercion, (iii) higher exposure to risk due to lack of knowledge, (iv) vulnerability of the fetus.

DISCUSSION

Testing the features against Hurst's definition demonstrates that they all concern the same issue: pregnant women are only vulnerable because a higher exposure to risk due to lack of scientific knowledge comprises an increased wrong. Research Ethics Committees have a responsibility to protect the vulnerable, but a higher exposure to risk due to lack of scientific knowledge is a much broader issue and also needs to be addressed by other stakeholders.

CONCLUSIONS

The only reason why pregnant women are potentially vulnerable is to the extent that they are increasingly exposed to higher risks due to a lack of scientific knowledge. Accordingly, the discussion can advance to the development of practical strategies to promote fair inclusion of pregnant women in clinical research.

Ethics of Informed Consent for Pragmatic Trials with New Interventions

OBJECTIVES

Pragmatic trials evaluate the comparative benefits, risks, and burdens of health care interventions in real-world conditions. Such studies are now recognized as valuable to the perimarketing stage of drug development and evaluation, with early pragmatic trials (EPTs) being explored as a means to generate real-world evidence at the time of regulatory market approval. In this article, we present an analysis of the ethical issues involved in informed consent for EPTs, in light of the generally recognized concern that traditional ethical rules governing randomized clinical trials, such as lengthy informed consent procedures, could threaten the "real world" nature of such trials. Specifically, we examine to what extent modifications (waivers or alterations) to regulatory consent for EPTs would be ethical.

METHODS

We first identify broadly accepted necessary conditions for modifications of informed consent (namely, the research involves no more than minimal risk of harm, the research is impracticable with regulatory consent, and the alternative to regulatory consent does not violate legitimate patient expectations) and then apply those criteria to the premarket and early postmarket contexts.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The analysis shows that neither waivers nor alterations of regulatory consent for premarket EPTs will be ethically permissible. For postmarket EPTs with newly approved interventions, waivers of consent will be ethically problematic, but some studies might be conducted in an ethical manner with alterations to regulatory consent.