Clinical trials in pregnancy and the "shadows of thalidomide": Revisiting the legacy of Frances Kelsey

Overheard at a conference: an in-class activity to foster classroom discussion on ethics and experimental systems in microbiology research

Responsible conduct of research and ethics are key components of microbiology and are carefully considered at all steps from project conception, design, data analysis to publication, and post-publication use of samples. Yet stand-alone courses covering these topics are not always core components of undergraduate biomedical education curricula. Here, we describe a classroom activity for undergraduate students designed to promote increased understanding of ethics and experimental design in biomedical research.

The power-and complexity-of policy to drive advances in women's health

As international investments in women's health increase, funders are adopting sex and gender policies and regulators are requiring disaggregated data, actions which impact research design.

Eliminating gender bias in biomedical research requires fair inclusion of pregnant women and gender diverse people

Systematic under-representation of pregnant women and gender diverse pregnant people in clinical research has prevented them from benefitting fairly from biomedical advances. The resulting lack of pharmacological safety and efficacy data leads to medicine discontinuation, sub-optimal dosing, and reliance on repurposed therapies. We identify four roadblocks to fair inclusion. First, investment and research are inhibited by protectionist attitudes among research gatekeepers who view pregnancy as a vulnerable state. Second, exclusion ignores human-specific biological variations affecting medication absorption and impacts on the pregnant body. Third, pregnant populations in low-and middle-income countries face a double disadvantage due to gender and location, despite bearing a disproportionate maternal mortality burden. Fourth, perspectives and experiences of pregnant populations are undervalued in clinical intervention design. We propose five actions to optimize fair inclusion: fostering reciprocal partnerships, prioritizing multi-disciplinary research, awareness-raising of the need for pharmaceutical innovation, conducting regulatory analyses, and promoting responsible inclusion over presumptive exclusion.

Challenges of designing and conducting cohort studies and clinical trials in populations of pregnant people

Rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases often affect individuals of childbearing age. The incidence and prevalence of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases is rising. More pregnancies in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases are anticipated and some rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases are associated with pregnancy complications (eg, miscarriages, fetal deaths, preterm births, and hypertensive disorders in pregnancy). Despite the need to understand the use of drugs to treat rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases in pregnancy, clinical trials in pregnancy are rare, therapeutics in pregnancy are understudied, and pregnant individuals are routinely excluded as premarketing trial participants. Data on the effectiveness and safety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs are most often based on post-marketing observational data. Observational studies assessing the bidirectional relationship between rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases and pregnancy, as well as interventional studies of treatments during pregnancy, are scarce. Historical reluctance to perform studies in what was deemed an at-risk group persists in pharmaceutical companies, regulatory bodies, and ethics boards. Additionally, patients must be engaged partners, which requires trust that the research respects the needs and interests of the patient and complies with the rules intended to protect the pregnant person and the fetus from harm. In this Series paper, we share challenges we have encountered in conducting prospective cohort studies and interventional trials of postmarketing approved medications, assessing pregnancy specific outcomes in pregnant women with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases in the EU, the UK, and the USA. We discuss the changing landscape around trials in pregnancy and present possible solutions to our challenges.

A Systematic Patent Review (2008-2023) for Treatment in Pregnancy

INTRODUCTION

During pregnancy, the woman's body undergoes anatomical and physiological changes, making this period susceptible to maternal-fetal diseases and complications. The consequences of not treating pregnant women include premature birth, low birth weight fetuses, and postnatal behavior disorders. Developing new therapies can accelerate the discovery of safe and effective drugs, contributing to designing novel natural and synthetic products to treat complications the pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to carry out a patent review to identify and explore trends in innovation and therapeutic strategies for treating pregnant women.

METHODS

The Espacenet and WIPO databases were used, with the inclusion criteria being the keywords "pregnancy and drug" and code A61k, from 2008 to 2023, and as exclusion were the access to the patent and focus on human pregnant women.

RESULTS

After the final screening, 32 patents were selected, with strategies for the treatment of diseases in pregnant women. Of these, 20 patents are on preclinical studies on animals and 12 on pregnant women. It was observed that universities lead the ranking of applications (17/32), and China has the highest number of patents (18/32). Most findings contain herbal medicines and/or the association of natural extracts with synthetic drugs.

CONCLUSION

From this perspective, new drug administration systems were also developed, which can be a promising source for obtaining new medicines for the treatment of pregnant women; however, research is still limited and shows a gap in stimulating the rapid development of safe drugs that improve the health of pregnant women.

Caring for Pregnant Patients by Including Pregnant Participants

AbstractPregnant research participants have long been excluded from early-stage clinical trials. This stance has been considered ethically justifiable because it upholds the principle of nonmaleficence by avoiding potential harm, using the fetus(es) as the point of reference. However, there are unintended consequences with this default approach. To illustrate these consequences, this article will review the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the Phase II and Phase III SARS-CoV-2 vaccine trials, demonstrating a downstream delay of vaccine recommendations, which hindered public health efforts. Incorporating ethical principles in addition to nonmaleficence, the authors propose an intentional effort to include pregnant participants in Phase II and Phase III designs. We consider the goals of Phase II and Phase III research of demonstrating safety and efficacy and propose that pregnant participants can potentially support these goals. Rather than reflexive exclusion, the gestational age of the participant or the pharmacology of the trial intervention may be considered as part of inclusion for pregnant participants. Expanding the principles beyond nonmaleficence, pregnancy may become a demographic variable rather than an exclusion criterion.

Teratology research in the shadow of the Dobbs decision

Following the 2022 US Supreme Court decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization, numerous states have passed laws banning or severely restricting abortion. The consequences of the decision stretch beyond abortion contexts, including progress on developing a more robust evidence base for care in pregnancy. In this Robert L. Brent lecture, I explore the impact of the Dobbs decision on teratology research, arguing that it is of importance even and perhaps especially for those concerned about the moral complexities of ending a pregnancy. For as abortion restrictions threaten teratology research, they also threaten its life-affirming aims. First, I show how teratology research and abortion are intertwined, highlighting the stories of Sherri Finkbine and Frances Kelsey, two courageous women whose lives intersected with both. Second, I describe how restrictions on abortion make teratology research more difficult and ethically complex, highlighting additional risks to research participants and staff, as well as new challenges to scientific validity and feasibility. And third, foregrounding yet another story of courage (and heartbreak), I highlight how abortion restrictions make teratology research more important than ever. Honoring Dr. Brent's legacy requires addressing-rather than avoiding-the ethical challenges of pregnancy-related research, especially now in the post-Dobbs era.

Raising concerns on questionable ethics approvals - a case study of 456 trials from the Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection

BACKGROUND

The practice of clinical research is strictly regulated by law. During submission and review processes, compliance of such research with the laws enforced in the country where it was conducted is not always correctly filled in by the authors or verified by the editors. Here, we report a case of a single institution for which one may find hundreds of publications with seemingly relevant ethical concerns, along with 10 months of follow-up through contacts with the editors of these articles. We thus argue for a stricter control of ethical authorization by scientific editors and we call on publishers to cooperate to this end.

METHODS

We present an investigation of the ethics and legal aspects of 456 studies published by the IHU-MI (Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection) in Marseille, France.

RESULTS

We identified a wide range of issues with the stated research authorization and ethics of the published studies with respect to the Institutional Review Board and the approval presented. Among the studies investigated, 248 were conducted with the same ethics approval number, even though the subjects, samples, and countries of investigation were different. Thirty-nine (39) did not even contain a reference to the ethics approval number while they present research on human beings. We thus contacted the journals that published these articles and provide their responses to our concerns. It should be noted that, since our investigation and reporting to journals, PLOS has issued expressions of concerns for several publications we analyze here.

CONCLUSION

This case presents an investigation of the veracity of ethical approval, and more than 10 months of follow-up by independent researchers. We call for stricter control and cooperation in handling of these cases, including editorial requirement to upload ethical approval documents, guidelines from COPE to address such ethical concerns, and transparent editorial policies and timelines to answer such concerns. All supplementary materials are available.

Inclusion of Pregnant and Lactating People in Clinical Research: Lessons Learned and Opportunities

Pregnant and lactating individuals historically have been excluded from research studies because of the ethical concerns surrounding potential harm to the fetus. Several National Institutes of Health and Food and Drug Administration initiatives have attempted to improve inclusion; however, clinical trials continue to exclude pregnant and lactating people. Drug labeling for safety and efficacy in pregnancy has thus been forced to rely on data from animal studies or limited case reports. Recent changes have sought to improve prescriber understanding of risks, benefits, and limitations of safety information on medications; however, confusion persists.