How researchers define vulnerable populations in HIV/AIDS clinical trials

Factors Contributing to Exacerbating Vulnerabilities in Global Clinical Trials

Background: Although policies and guidelines make use of the concept of vulnerability, few define it. The European Union's directive for clinical trials does not include explanations for or the reasoning behind the designation of certain groups as vulnerable. Emerging economies from lower middle-income countries have, in recent years, had the largest average annual growth rate, as well as increase, in number of clinical trials registered in the US government's database. Nevertheless, careful supervision of research activities has to be ensured. Objective: To describe and analyze the features of the clinical trials involving vulnerable populations in various countries classified by development status and geographic region. Methods: Retrospective study that involved analysis of data obtained from the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) database between 01/2014 and 12/2014 from countries with (i) highest trial densities during 2005 to 2012, (ii) highest average growth rate in clinical trials, and (iii) greatest trial capabilities. Results: Statistical analysis of this study showed that patients incapable of giving consent personally are 11.4 times more likely to be vulnerable patients than patients who are capable, and that patients in upper-middle-income countries are 1.7 times more likely to be vulnerable patients than patients from high-income countries when participating in global clinical trials. Malaysia (21%), Egypt (20%), Turkey (19%), Israel (18%), and Brazil (17%) had the highest percentages of vulnerable populations involving children. Conclusions: Although the inability to provide consent personally was a factor associated with vulnerability, arbitrary criteria may have been considered when classifying the populations of clinical trials as vulnerable. The EU Clinical Trials Register should provide guidance regarding exactly what aspects or factors should be taken into account to frame given populations as vulnerable, because vulnerability is not applicable to all risk situations.

The concept of 'vulnerability' in research ethics: an in-depth analysis of policies and guidelines

BACKGROUND

The concept of vulnerability has held a central place in research ethics guidance since its introduction in the United States Belmont Report in 1979. It signals mindfulness for researchers and research ethics boards to the possibility that some participants may be at higher risk of harm or wrong. Despite its important intended purpose and widespread use, there is considerable disagreement in the scholarly literature about the meaning and delineation of vulnerability, stemming from a perceived lack of guidance within research ethics standards. The aim of this study was to assess the concept of vulnerability as it is employed in major national and international research ethics policies and guidelines.

METHODS

We conducted an in-depth analysis of 11 (five national and six international) research ethics policies and guidelines, exploring their discussions of the definition, application, normative justification and implications of vulnerability.

RESULTS

Few policies and guidelines explicitly defined vulnerability, instead relying on implicit assumptions and the delineation of vulnerable groups and sources of vulnerability. On the whole, we found considerable richness in the content on vulnerability across policies, but note that this relies heavily on the structure imposed on the data through our analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results underscore a need for policymakers to revisit the guidance on vulnerability in research ethics, and we propose that a process of stakeholder engagement would well-support this effort.