The ethics and regulatory landscape of including vulnerable populations in pragmatic clinical trials

Algorithmic identification of persons with dementia for research recruitment: ethical considerations

Underdiagnosis, misdiagnosis, and patterns of social inequality that translate into unequal access to health systems all pose barriers to identifying and recruiting diverse and representative populations into research on Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease related dementias. In response, some have turned to algorithms to identify patients living with dementia using information that is associated with this condition but that is not as specific as a diagnosis. This paper explains six ethical issues associated with the use of such algorithms including the generation of new, sensitive, identifiable medical information for research purposes without participant consent, issues of justice and equity, risk, and ethical communication. It concludes with a discussion of strategies for addressing these issues and prompting valuable research.

Establishing a Pregnancy Lyme Disease Biobank

Availability of relevant biological samples supports both basic science research and patient-centered clinical studies. Establishing a biorepository faces challenges at multiple levels. These tasks include defining mission definition and scope; selection of subjects and sample types; recruitment strategies; timing of collection in the patient's journey; sample logistics and processing; determining what clinical data to collect; ensuring sample integrity on transport, processing, and storage; defining governance structures and oversight responsibilities; clarifying sample provenance and ownership; establishing procedures for sample and data access; selecting testing to be performed routinely versus upon request, and management of results; data security; funding sources; and regulatory compliance. Establishing and maintaining a biorepository therefore requires careful planning, diligent and sustained execution, technical and financial resources, stakeholder support, and flexible and resilient management to respond to changing environments and needs.

Why do people take part in vaccine trials? A mixed methods narrative synthesis

OBJECTIVES

To understand why individuals do or do not take part in vaccine trials, exploring the motivators and barriers to identify effective strategies to optimise recruitment in vaccine research.

METHODS

Qualitative studies and quantitative surveys capturing data on reasons for trial participation/decline were included. Six databases were searched from 1996 to October 2021. Two reviewers independently screened and assessed risk of bias. Results were reported narratively and analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We included 32 studies (17 qualitative; 12 quantitative; 3 mixed-methods) that covered a wide range of populations, geographical areas and disease types. Eight themes were identified 1) altruism; 2) potential for personal benefit; 3) perceived risks; 4) trust or distrust; 5) social networks; 6) stigma; 7) practical implications; 8) research vanguard.

CONCLUSION

Our findings provide a detailed description of how potential participants weigh up their decisions to participate in vaccine trials, which could inform the planning and implementation of studies to enhance recruitment.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Clinical trial researchers should consider a patient-centered approach to recruitment, tailoring promoting material and attempt to understand fears, stigma and perceived risks. In addition, recognising the importance of trust and the key role friends, communities, family, and those in supervisory positions play in decisions.

IRBs and the Protection-Inclusion Dilemma: Finding a Balance

Institutional review boards, tasked with facilitating ethical research, are often pulled in competing directions. In what we call the protection-inclusion dilemma, we acknowledge the tensions IRBs face in aiming to both protect potential research participants from harm and include under-represented populations in research. In this manuscript, we examine the history of protectionism that has dominated research ethics oversight in the United States, as well as two responses to such protectionism: inclusion initiatives and critiques of the term vulnerability. We look at what we know about IRB decision-making in relation to protecting and including "vulnerable" groups in research and examine the lack of regulatory guidance related to this dilemma, which encourages protection over inclusion within IRB practice. Finally, we offer recommendations related to how IRBs might strike a better balance between inclusion and protection in research ethics oversight.

Establishing the safety of selective digestive decontamination within the ICU population: a bridge too far?

BACKGROUND

Infection prevention interventions within the intensive care unit (ICU) setting, whether studied within quality improvement projects or cluster randomized trials (CRT), are seen as low risk and grounded in an ethical imperative. Selective digestive decontamination (SDD) appears highly effective at preventing ICU infections within randomized concurrent control trials (RCCTs) prompting mega-CRTs with mortality as the primary endpoint.

FINDINGS

Surprisingly, the summary results of RCCTs versus CRTs differ strikingly, being respectively, a 15-percentage-point versus a zero-percentage-point ICU mortality difference between control versus SDD intervention groups. Multiple other discrepancies are equally puzzling and contrary to both prior expectations and the experience within population-based studies of infection prevention interventions using vaccines. Could spillover effects from SDD conflate the RCCT control group event rate differences and represent population harm? Evidence that SDD is fundamentally safe to concurrent non-recipients in ICU populations is absent. A postulated CRT to realize this, the SDD Herd Effects Estimation Trial (SHEET), would require > 100 ICUs to achieve sufficient statistical power to find a two-percentage-point mortality spillover effect. Moreover, as a potentially harmful population-based intervention, SHEET would pose novel and insurmountable ethical issues including who is the research subject; whether informed consent is required and from whom; whether there is equipoise; the benefit versus the risk; considerations of vulnerable groups; and who should be the gatekeeper?

CONCLUSION

The basis for the mortality difference between control and intervention groups of SDD studies remains unclear. Several paradoxical results are consistent with a spillover effect that would conflate the inference of benefit originating from RCCTs. Moreover, this spillover effect would constitute to herd peril.

Concordance of neonatal critical condition data between secondary databases: Florida and Texas birth certificate Linkage with medicaid analytic extract

BACKGROUND

Limited information is available about neonates' critical conditions data quality. The study aim was to measure the agreement regarding presence of neonatal critical conditions between Medicaid Analytic eXtract claims data and Birth Certificate (BC) records.

METHODS

Claims data files of neonates born between 1999-2010 and their mothers were linked to birth certificates in the states of Texas and Florida. In claims data, neonatal critical conditions were identified using medical encounter claims records within the first 30 days postpartum, while in birth certificates, the conditions were identified based on predetermined variables. We calculated the prevalence of cases within each data source that were identified by its comparator, in addition to calculating overall agreement and kappa statistics.

RESULTS

The sample included 558,224 and 981,120 neonates in Florida and Texas, respectively. Kappa values show poor agreement (< 20%) for all critical conditions except neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, which showed moderate (> 50%) and substantial (> 60%) agreement in Florida and Texas, respectively. claims data resulted in higher prevalences and capture of a larger proportion of cases than the BC, except for assisted ventilation.

CONCLUSIONS

Claims data and BC showed low agreement on neonatal critical conditions except for NICU admission. Each data source identified cases most of which the comparator failed to capture, with higher prevalences estimated within claims data except for assisted ventilation.

Ethical analysis of vulnerabilities in cluster randomized trials involving people living with dementia in long-term care homes

Cluster randomized trials (CRT) of non-pharmacological interventions are an important means of improving the quality of care and quality of life of people living with dementia (PLWD) in long-term care (LTC) homes. PLWD in LTC homes are, however, vulnerable in manifold ways. Therefore, researchers require guidance to ensure that the rights and welfare of PLWD are protected in the course of this valuable research. In this article, we introduce a framework for identifying vulnerabilities in randomized trials and apply it to three CRTs involving PLWD in LTC homes. CRTs may render PLWD in LTC homes vulnerable to three autonomy wrongs: inadequately informed consent, inadequately voluntary consent, and invasions of privacy; two welfare wrongs: risks of therapeutic procedure exceed potential benefits, and excessive risk of non-therapeutic procedures; and one justice wrong: unjust impact of research activities on care. We then discuss appropriate, feasible additional protections that can be implemented to mitigate vulnerability while preserving the scientific validity of the CRT. Corresponding additional protections that can be feasibly implemented include capacity assessments, substitute decision-makers, assent, insulation from LTC home employees during the consent process, patient advocates, utilizing LTC home employees for data collection, stakeholder engagement, additional supervision during study procedures, using caregivers to complete questionnaires by proxy, and gatekeeper permission. Reassuringly, many of these additional protections promote, rather than imperil, the scientific validity of these trials.

Preparing for pandemics: a systematic review of pandemic influenza clinical management guidelines

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of evidence-based clinical decision-making. Clinical management guidelines (CMGs) may help reduce morbidity and mortality by improving the quality of clinical decisions. This systematic review aims to evaluate the availability, inclusivity, and quality of pandemic influenza CMGs, to identify gaps that can be addressed to strengthen pandemic preparedness in this area.

METHODS

Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, TRIP (Turning Research Into Practice), and Guideline Central were searched systematically from January 2008 to 23rd June 2022, complemented by a grey literature search till 16th June 2022. Pandemic influenza CMGs including supportive care or empirical treatment recommendations were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data from the included studies and assessed their quality using AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation). The findings are presented narratively.

RESULTS

Forty-eight CMGs were included. They were produced in high- (42%, 20/48), upper-middle- (40%, 19/48), and lower-middle (8%, 4/48) income countries, or by international organisations (10%, 5/48). Most CMGs (81%, 39/48) were over 5 years old. Guidelines included treatment recommendations for children (75%, 36/48), pregnant women (54%, 26/48), people with immunosuppression (33%, 16/48), and older adults (29%, 14/48). Many CMGs were of low quality (median overall score: 3 out of 7 (range 1-7). All recommended oseltamivir; recommendations for other neuraminidase inhibitors and supportive care were limited and at times contradictory. Only 56% (27/48) and 27% (13/48) addressed oxygen and fluid therapy, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data highlights the limited availability of up-to-date pandemic influenza CMGs globally. Of those identified, many were limited in scope and quality and several lacked recommendations for specific at-risk populations. Recommendations on supportive care, the mainstay of treatment, were limited and heterogeneous. The most recent guideline highlighted that the evidence-base to support antiviral treatment recommendations is still limited. There is an urgent need for trials into treatment and supportive care strategies including for different risk populations. New evidence should be incorporated into globally accessible guidelines, to benefit patient outcomes. A 'living guideline' framework is recommended and further research into guideline implementation in different resourced settings, particularly low- and middle-income countries.

The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing the incidence, hospitalization, and mortality from COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Vaccination, one of the most important and effective ways of preventing infectious diseases, has recently been used to control the COVID-19 pandemic. The present meta-analysis study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing the incidence, hospitalization, and mortality from COVID-19.

Methods

A systematic search was performed independently in Scopus, PubMed via Medline, ProQuest, and Google Scholar electronic databases as well as preprint servers using the keywords under study. We used random-effect models and the heterogeneity of the studies was assessed using I ² and χ² statistics. In addition, the Pooled Vaccine Effectiveness (PVE) obtained from the studies was calculated by converting based on the type of outcome.

Results

A total of 54 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The PVE against SARS-COV 2 infection were 71% [odds ratio (OR) = 0.29, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.23-0.36] in the first dose and 87% (OR = 0.13, 95% CI: 0.08-0.21) in the second dose. The PVE for preventing hospitalization due to COVID-19 infection was 73% (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.18-0.41) in the first dose and 89% (OR = 0.11, 95% CI: 0.07-0.17) in the second dose. With regard to the type of vaccine, mRNA-1273 and combined studies in the first dose and ChAdOx1 and mRNA-1273 in the second dose had the highest effectiveness in preventing infection. Regarding the COVID-19-related mortality, PVE was 68% (HR = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.23-0.45) in the first dose and 92% (HR = 0.08, 95% CI: 0.02-0.29) in the second dose.

Conclusion

The results of this meta-analysis indicated that vaccination against COVID-19 with BNT162b2 mRNA, mRNA-1273, and ChAdOx1, and also their combination, was associated with a favorable effectiveness against SARS-CoV2 incidence rate, hospitalization, and mortality rate in the first and second doses in different populations. We suggest that to prevent the severe form of the disease in the future, and, in particular, in the coming epidemic picks, vaccination could be the best strategy to prevent the severe form of the disease.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier [CRD42021289937].

Applications of Blockchain in the Medical Field: Narrative Review

Background

As a distributed technology, blockchain has attracted increasing attention from stakeholders in the medical industry. Although previous studies have analyzed blockchain applications from the perspectives of technology, business, or patient care, few studies have focused on actual use-case scenarios of blockchain in health care. In particular, the outbreak of COVID-19 has led to some new ideas for the application of blockchain in medical practice.

Objective

This paper aims to provide a systematic review of the current and projected uses of blockchain technology in health care, as well as directions for future research. In addition to the framework structure of blockchain and application scenarios, its integration with other emerging technologies in health care is discussed.

Methods

We searched databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, IEEE, and Springer using a combination of terms related to blockchain and health care. Potentially relevant papers were then compared to determine their relevance and reviewed independently for inclusion. Through a literature review, we summarize the key medical scenarios using blockchain technology.

Results

We found a total of 1647 relevant studies, 60 of which were unique studies that were included in this review. These studies report a variety of uses for blockchain and their emphasis differs. According to the different technical characteristics and application scenarios of blockchain, we summarize some medical scenarios closely related to blockchain from the perspective of technical classification. Moreover, potential challenges are mentioned, including the confidentiality of privacy, the efficiency of the system, security issues, and regulatory policy.

Conclusions

Blockchain technology can improve health care services in a decentralized, tamper-proof, transparent, and secure manner. With the development of this technology and its integration with other emerging technologies, blockchain has the potential to offer long-term benefits. Not only can it be a mechanism to secure electronic health records, but blockchain also provides a powerful tool that can empower users to control their own health data, enabling a foolproof health data history and establishing medical responsibility.

OHSU Employees' Opinions of Receipt of Clinical Care and Participation in Clinical Research at Place of Employment

Academic medical centers conduct clinical research and provide patient care to the community and their workforce. Conflict may exist, as employees might expect benefits or feel pressured or coerced to participate in research studies or receive clinical care. Without evidence, some universities consider employees to be part of a vulnerable population for research consent at their institution, potentially restricting opportunities for employees to participate in clinical trials. At the same time, these universities encourage employees to receive health care at the same institution. We hypothesized that attitudes toward voluntary research participation and receipt of health care services at the site of employment are similar and favorable. To study this, we conducted a survey of employees at Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) that asked parallel questions focusing on attitudes regarding concerns with participation in research and receipt of clinical care. We found the majority of respondents reported favorable and similar attitudes regarding employee participation in clinical care 596/688 (87%) or research 605/639 (95%) and personally comfortable with the idea (614/688 (90%) for clinical care, 582/639 (92%) for research participation). Our findings support efforts to remove barriers that restrict participation in clinical research by employees at academic medical centers.

Justice and equity in pragmatic clinical trials: Considerations for pain research within integrated health systems

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Challenges in conducting paediatric trials with off-patent drugs

Introduction

For more than two decades several initiatives have emerged to increase recruitment of paediatric patients in drug trials. While trials of newly approved drugs have successfully included paediatric patients in their drug development plan, the collection of safety and efficacy data in paediatric patients treated with off-patent drugs poses a major challenge.

Aim

This paper aims to draw attention to problems and solutions across countries in investigator-initiated trials with off-patent drugs and recommendations for improvement.

Discussion

Off-patent drugs represent a particular challenge when they are included in a paediatric trial; these trials are frequently investigator-initiated and have limited resources, off-patent drugs are used in clinical settings and the trial protocol must accommodate e.g. flexible dosing and specimen sampling schedules, off-patent drugs typically exist in few formulations and concentrations which necessitates special or imported formulations. Paediatric trials are in some countries confined by e.g. consent from both parents, regardless of whether the Investigational Medicinal Product (IMP) is a well-known drug or a new experimental drug.

Conclusion

Facilitation of research in off-patent drugs can improve evidence-based and safe treatment for the paediatric population. The following supportive initiatives are recommended: Harmonised regulatory change that improves the consent process in low risk trials to prevent inadequate recruitment. Pharmaceutical expertise should be prioritized to secure the best choice of IMP and supply. Constant focus on flexibility in design to accommodate a multifaceted paediatric population and ensure that trial protocols fit in well with routine clinical care and family life.

'This could be my last chance': Therapeutic optimism in a randomised controlled trial for substance use disorders

In randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 'therapeutic optimism' describes a participant's belief they will benefit from the study treatment, despite the express goal of RCTs to test unknown aspects of interventions. Harbouring such expectations may interfere with RCT participation experiences, particularly among marginalised populations, such as people with substance use disorders (PSUD) who may experience social and structural barriers to participation that also increase their vulnerability to therapeutic optimism. However, little research explores therapeutic optimism within substance use trials. Thus, we conducted a nested qualitative study within an RCT testing a treatment for alcohol and opioid use disorders in HIV clinics. Using interviews with 22 participants in Vancouver, Canada, analysis revealed themes relevant to therapeutic optimism, that were specifically linked to intrinsic (e.g. health-related) or extrinsic motivations (e.g. stipend). First, compared to extrinsically motivated participants, intrinsically motivated participants held high expectations for the trial and attributed greater agency to the study medication. Second, intrinsically motivated participants expressing therapeutic optimism anticipated marked changes in their lives from the study/medication. Finally, some participants predicted the treatment would solve substance-related issues in their communities. These findings highlight the interplay between therapeutic optimism and complex interpretations of RCT objectives among PSUD.

When and how to include vulnerable subjects in clinical trials

There has been a good deal of discussion in the literature regarding which subjects are vulnerable in the context of clinical trials. There has been significantly less discussion regarding when and how to include vulnerable subjects in clinical trials. This lack of guidance is a particular problem for trials covered by the US regulations, which mandate strict requirements on the inclusion of three groups: pregnant women/fetuses, prisoners, and children. For the past 30 years, funders, investigators, and institutional review boards have frequently responded to these regulations by excluding pregnant women/fetuses, prisoners, and children from clinical trials. More recent work has emphasized the extent to which a default of exclusion can undermine the value of clinical trials, especially pragmatic trials. A default of exclusion also has the potential to undermine the interests of vulnerable groups, in both the short and the long term. These concerns raise the need for guidance on how to satisfy existing US regulations, while minimizing their negative impact on the value of clinical trials and the interests of vulnerable groups. The present manuscript thus describes a six-step decision procedure that institutional review boards can use to determine when and how to include vulnerable subjects in clinical trials, including pragmatic trials, that are covered by US regulations.

Blockchain, consent and prosent for medical research

Recent advances in medical and information technologies, the availability of new types of medical data, the requirement of increasing numbers of study participants, as well as difficulties in recruitment and retention, all present serious problems for traditional models of specific and informed consent to medical research. However, these advances also enable novel ways to securely share and analyse data. This paper introduces one of these advances-blockchain technologies-and argues that they can be used to share medical data in a secure and auditable fashion. In addition, some aspects of consent and data collection, as well as data access management and analysis, can be automated using blockchain-based smart contracts. This paper demonstrates how blockchain technologies can be used to further all three of the bioethical principles underlying consent requirements: the autonomy of patients, by giving them much greater control over their data; beneficence, by greatly facilitating medical research efficiency and by reducing biases and opportunities for errors; and justice, by enabling patients with rare or under-researched conditions to pseudonymously aggregate their data for analysis. Finally, we coin and describe the novel concept of prosent, by which we mean the blockchain-enabled ability of all stakeholders in the research process to pseudonymously and proactively consent to data release or exchange under specific conditions, such as trial completion.

Ethics of Conducting Clinical Research in an Outbreak Setting

The conduct of clinical trials during the West Africa Ebola outbreak in 2014 highlighted many ethical challenges. How these challenges were addressed, what clinical studies were conducted during that outbreak, and the lessons learned for dealing with future outbreaks were the subject of a National Academy of Medicine committee report titled Integrating Clinical Research into Epidemic Response: The Ebola Experience. This report suggested improvements for research during subsequent emerging or re-emerging outbreaks and is summarized in this review. We also discuss the current Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and highlight how the dialogue has changed and how successful clinical trials have been implemented. We conclude with a description of productive efforts to include pregnant women and children in therapeutic and vaccine trials during outbreaks that are currently ongoing.

The ethical challenges raised in the design and conduct of pragmatic trials: an interview study with key stakeholders

Background

There is a concern that the apparent effectiveness of interventions tested in clinical trials may not be an accurate reflection of their actual effectiveness in usual practice. Pragmatic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are designed with the intent of addressing this discrepancy. While pragmatic RCTs may increase the relevance of research findings to practice they may also raise new ethical concerns (even while reducing others). To explore this question, we interviewed key stakeholders with the aim of identifying potential ethical challenges in the design and conduct of pragmatic RCTs with a view to developing future guidance on these issues.

Methods

Interviews were conducted with clinical investigators, methodologists, patient partners, ethicists, and other knowledge users (e.g., regulators). Interviews covered experiences with pragmatic RCTs, ethical issues relevant to pragmatic RCTs, and perspectives on the appropriate oversight of pragmatic RCTs. Interviews were coded inductively by two coders. Interim and final analyses were presented to the broader team for comment and discussion before the analytic framework was finalized.

Results

We conducted 45 interviews between April and September 2018. Interviewees represented a range of disciplines and jurisdictions as well as varying content expertise. Issues of importance in pragmatic RCTs were (1) identification of relevant risks from trial participation and determination of what constitutes minimal risk; (2) determining when alterations to traditional informed consent approaches are appropriate; (3) the distinction between research, quality improvement, and practice; (4) the potential for broader populations to be affected by the trial and what protections they might be owed; (5) the broader range of trial stakeholders in pragmatic RCTs, and determining their roles and responsibilities; and (6) determining what constitutes “usual care” and implications for trial reporting.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest both the need to discuss familiar ethical topics in new ways and that there are new ethical issues in pragmatic RCTs that need greater attention. Addressing the highlighted issues and developing guidance will require multidisciplinary input, including patient and community members, within a broader and more comprehensive analysis that extends beyond consent and attends to the identified considerations relating to risk and stakeholder roles and responsibilities.

Electronic Informed Consent to Facilitate Recruitment of Pregnant Women Into Research

Methods to obtain informed consent digitally or electronically may increase the participation of racially and geographically diverse pregnant women in prospective research, which is essential to improve the evidence base for maternity care. We evaluated the feasibility and utility of e-consent in the first year of a multiyear clinical trial involving pregnant women. Of the 86 women screened, 71 were eligible, 65 (93% of eligible) agreed to review the e-consent form, and 61 (86% of eligible) completed the e-consent process. Of the interested women who were sent the e-consent link, all were able to complete the e-consent process, even those who reported low health literacy. Women of all racial and ethnic groups were equally likely to consent, and the sample of women who consented was consistent with practice demographics. E-consent is feasible and easy to use with pregnant women and may expedite enrollment of a representative sample.

The ethical justification for inclusion of neonates in pragmatic randomized clinical trials for emergency newborn care

BACKGROUND

Research guidelines generally recognize vulnerable populations to include neonates with the aim of enhancing protections from harm. In practice, such guidance results in limiting participation in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Yet while medical care of neonates should be based on best research evidence to ensure that safe, efficacious treatment or procedures are used, this seldom happens in contemporary practice.

DISCUSSION

The compelling need to generate information on effectiveness and safety of procedures and medications that are already in use during neonatal care has led to increase in calls for pragmatic randomized clinical trials (PCTs). This raises ethical concerns as to whether exclusion of the vulnerable populations from research participations constitutes harm. First, neonates are denied access to both potentially beneficial research outputs and an opportunity to generate data on how interventions or medications perform in diverse clinical settings and inform clinical decision-making. Secondly, risks and harms in PCTs may differ from traditional RCTs, and can be reduced by modifications in study designs. The latter may involve assessment of effectiveness of comparable medication, devices or practices (whose safety data is available), randomization at the group level rather than at the individual level, avoidance of invasive and innovative study procedures, reliance on locally available data on relevant patient outcomes, and employment of procedures that tend to meet the criteria of minimal risk for human subject research. Thirdly, informed consent procedures should be modified from those of traditional RCTs, as neonates in traditional RCTs may be vulnerable to different extents in PCTs. Lastly, regulatory and oversight procedures designed for traditional RCT settings need modification, as they may not be translatable, feasible, appropriate or even ethical to apply in PCTs.

CONCLUSION

The principle of justice, commonly interpreted as preventing an inequitable burden of research, should also allow fair access to potential benefits from PCTs for neonates and other vulnerable populations. Under certain conditions, prospective randomized trials involving neonates should be ethically permissible to allow inclusion of neonates in research. This may require modification of the research design, consent procedures or regulations for research oversight.

Lessons from PrEP: A Qualitative Study Investigating How Clinical and Policy Experts Weigh Ethics and Evidence When Evaluating Preventive Medications for Use in Pregnant and Breastfeeding Women

This study explored how multinational HIV experts weigh clinical, evidential, and ethical considerations regarding pre-exposure prophylaxis in pregnant/breastfeeding women. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with experts in HIV policy, research, treatment, and implementation from three global regions. A constant comparative approach identified major themes. Experts noted that exclusion of pregnant women from research limits evidence regarding risks/benefits, emphasizing that underinclusion of pregnant women in RCTs shifts the onus of evidence-building to clinical care. Experts discussed approaches for weighing evidence to make decisions, including triangulating evidence from sources other than RCTs. Likelihood and severity of disease strongly influenced decisions. Less effective interventions with limited fetal risk were preferred over interventions of uncertain safety, unless the disease was serious. Experts resisted the dichotomous choice between protecting maternal and fetal interests, arguing that these interests are intertwined and that more holistic approaches to maternal–fetal balance support greater inclusion of pregnant women in research.

Advances in Biomarker-Guided Therapy for Pediatric- and Adult-Onset Neuroinflammatory Disorders: Targeting Chemokines/Cytokines

The concept and recognized components of “neuroinflammation” are expanding at the intersection of neurobiology and immunobiology. Chemokines (CKs), no longer merely necessary for immune cell trafficking and positioning, have multiple physiologic, developmental, and modulatory functionalities in the central nervous system (CNS) through neuron–glia interactions and other mechanisms affecting neurotransmission. They issue the “help me” cry of neurons and astrocytes in response to CNS injury, engaging invading lymphoid cells (T cells and B cells) and myeloid cells (dendritic cells, monocytes, and neutrophils) (adaptive immunity), as well as microglia and macrophages (innate immunity), in a cascade of events, some beneficial (reparative), others destructive (excitotoxic). Human cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) studies have been instrumental in revealing soluble immunobiomarkers involved in immune dysregulation, their dichotomous effects, and the cells—often subtype specific—that produce them. CKs/cytokines continue to be attractive targets for the pharmaceutical industry with varying therapeutic success. This review summarizes the developing armamentarium, complexities of not compromising surveillance/physiologic functions, and insights on applicable strategies for neuroinflammatory disorders. The main approach has been using a designer monoclonal antibody to bind directly to the chemo/cytokine. Another approach is soluble receptors to bind the chemo/cytokine molecule (receptor ligand). Recombinant fusion proteins combine a key component of the receptor with IgG1. An additional approach is small molecule antagonists (protein therapeutics, binding proteins, and protein antagonists). CK neutralizing molecules (“neutraligands”) that are not receptor antagonists, high-affinity neuroligands (“decoy molecules”), as well as neutralizing “nanobodies” (single-domain camelid antibody fragment) are being developed. Simultaneous, more precise targeting of more than one cytokine is possible using bispecific agents (fusion antibodies). It is also possible to inhibit part of a signaling cascade to spare protective cytokine effects. “Fusokines” (fusion of two cytokines or a cytokine and CK) allow greater synergistic bioactivity than individual cytokines. Another promising approach is experimental targeting of the NLRP3 inflammasome, amply expressed in the CNS and a key contributor to neuroinflammation. Serendipitous discovery is not to be discounted. Filling in knowledge gaps between pediatric- and adult-onset neuroinflammation by systematic collection of CSF data on CKs/cytokines in temporal and clinical contexts and incorporating immunobiomarkers in clinical trials is a challenge hereby set forth for clinicians and researchers.

Doing Research with Vulnerable Populations: The Case of Intravenous Drug Users

This review article considers ethical concerns when doing research on potentially vulnerable people who inject drugs (PWID) in a Canadian context. The Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans broadly addresses many of the traditional ethical principles of research on vulnerable persons, but does so at the cost of clarity and precision. Vulnerability is contextual rather than absolute. When doing research with vulnerable persons, informed consent should be obtained from an independent person, and comprehension should be checked using questioning. Participants can be vulnerable due to many factors, including addiction, chronic disease, socioeconomic and racial status, and lack of education. The ability of PWID to give informed consent can be compromised by undue influence or intoxication, but existing research shows that neither the mode nor the magnitude of compensation has a significant effect on new rates of drug use. Compensation can also help dispel the therapeutic misconception. Intoxication rather than undue influence is the main concern when obtaining informed consent from PWID. The stigmatization of PWID as incapable of consent should be avoided. Paternalistic exclusion from research can harm PWID and exacerbate their vulnerability by reducing our knowledge of and ability to specifically treat them. As such, we must collect better data about the effects of research ethics policies. Studies to this effect should focus on experiences, perspectives and needs of potentially vulnerable research participants. Research ethics boards in Canada should adopt an evidence-based approach when applying discretionary power to proposals for clinical research.

Mode 2 Knowledge Production in the Context of Medical Research: A Call for Further Clarifications

The traditional researcher-driven environment of medical knowledge production is losing its dominance with the expansion of, for instance, community-based participatory or participant-led medical research. Over the past few decades, sociologists of science have debated a shift in the production of knowledge from traditional discipline-based (Mode 1) to more socially embedded and transdisciplinary frameworks (Mode 2). Recently, scholars have tried to show the relevance of Mode 2 knowledge production to medical research. However, the existing literature lacks detailed clarifications on how a model of Mode 2 knowledge production can be constructed in the context of medical research. This paper calls for such further clarifications. As a heuristic means, the advocacy for a controversial experimental stem cell therapy (Stamina) is examined. It is discussed that the example cannot be considered a step towards Mode 2 medical knowledge production. Nonetheless, the example brings to the fore some complexities of medical knowledge production that need to be further examined including: (1) the shifting landscape of defining and addressing vulnerability of research participants, (2) the emerging overlap between research and practice, and (3) public health implications of revising the standard notions of quality control and accountability.

Ethical issues in pragmatic randomized controlled trials: a review of the recent literature identifies gaps in ethical argumentation

BACKGROUND

Pragmatic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are designed to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in real-world clinical conditions. However, these studies raise ethical issues for researchers and regulators. Our objective is to identify a list of key ethical issues in pragmatic RCTs and highlight gaps in the ethics literature.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of articles addressing ethical aspects of pragmatic RCTs. After applying the search strategy and eligibility criteria, 36 articles were included and reviewed using content analysis.

RESULTS

Our review identified four major themes: 1) the research-practice distinction; 2) the need for consent; 3) elements that must be disclosed in the consent process; and 4) appropriate oversight by research ethics committees. 1) Most authors reject the need for a research-practice distinction in pragmatic RCTs. They argue that the distinction rests on the presumptions that research participation offers patients less benefit and greater risk than clinical practice, but neither is true in the case of pragmatic RCTs. 2) Most authors further conclude that pragmatic RCTs may proceed without informed consent or with simplified consent procedures when risks are low and consent is infeasible. 3) Authors who endorse the need for consent assert that information need only be disclosed when research participation poses incremental risks compared to clinical practice. Authors disagree as to whether randomization must be disclosed. 4) Finally, all authors view regulatory oversight as burdensome and a practical impediment to the conduct of pragmatic RCTs, and argue that oversight procedures ought to be streamlined when risks to participants are low.

CONCLUSION

The current ethical discussion is framed by the assumption that the function of research oversight is to protect participants from risk. As pragmatic RCTs commonly involve usual care interventions, the risks may be minimal. This leads many to reject the research-practice distinction and question the need for informed consent. But the function of oversight should be understood broadly as protecting the liberty and welfare interest of participants and promoting public trust in research. This understanding, we suggest, will focus discussion on questions about appropriate ethical review for pragmatic RCTs.

Combining value of information analysis and ethical argumentation in decisions on participation of vulnerable patients in clinical research

BACKGROUND

The participation of vulnerable patients in clinical research poses apparent ethical dilemmas. Depending on the nature of the vulnerability, their participation may challenge the ethical principles of autonomy, non-maleficence, or justice. On the other hand, non-participation may preclude the building of a knowledge base that is a prerequisite for defining the optimal clinical management of vulnerable patients. Such clinical uncertainty may also incur substantial economic costs.

MAIN TEXT

We present the participation of pre-menopausal women with atrial fibrillation in trials of novel oral anticoagulant drugs as a case study. Due to their non-participation in pivotal trials, it is uncertain whether for them, the risks that are associated with these drugs are outweighed by the advantages compared with conventional treatment. We addressed the question whether research of this new class of drugs in this subgroup would be appropriate from both, an ethical as well an economic perspective. We used the method of specifying norms as a wider framework to resolve the apparent ethical dilemma, while incorporating the question whether research of oral anticoagulants in premenopausal women with atrial fibrillation can be justified on economic grounds. For the latter, the results of a value-of-information analysis were used.

CONCLUSIONS

Further clinical research on NOACs in premenopausal women with atrial fibrillation can be justified on both, ethical and economic grounds. Addressing apparent ethical dilemmas by invoking a method such as specifying norms can improve the quality of public practical reasoning. As such, the method should also prove valuable to committees that have formally been granted the authority to review trial protocols and proposals for scientific research.

Applications for Bacteriophage Therapy during Pregnancy and the Perinatal Period

Pregnant women and their unborn children are a population that is particularly vulnerable to bacterial infection. Physiological changes that occur during pregnancy affect the way women respond to such infections and the options that clinicians have for treatment. Antibiotics are still considered the best option for active infections and a suitable prophylaxis for prevention of potential infections, such as vaginal/rectal Streptococcus agalactiae colonization prior to birth. The effect of such antibiotic use on the developing fetus, however, is still largely unknown. Recent research has suggested that the fetal gut microbiota plays a critical role in fetal immunologic programming. Hence, even minor alterations in this microbiota may have potentially significant downstream effects. An ideal antibacterial therapeutic for administration during pregnancy would be one that is highly specific for its target, leaving the surrounding microbiota intact. This review first provides a basic overview of the challenges a clinician faces when administering therapeutics to a pregnant patient and then goes on to explore common bacterial infections in pregnancy, use of antibiotics for treatment/prevention of such infections and the consequences of such treatment for the mother and infant. With this background established, the review then explores the potential for use of bacteriophage (phage) therapy as an alternative to antibiotics during the antenatal period. Many previous reviews have highlighted the revitalization of and potential for phage therapy for treatment of a range of bacterial infections, particularly in the context of the increasing threat of widespread antibiotic resistance. However, information on the potential for the use of phage therapeutics in pregnancy is lacking. This review aims to provide a thorough overview of studies of this nature and discuss the feasibility of bacteriophage use during pregnancy to treat and/or prevent bacterial infections.

Differentiating Research, Quality Improvement, and Case Studies to Ethically Incorporate Pregnant Women

Pregnant women have been called therapeutic orphans because data supporting common interventions, medications, health teaching, and models of care are meager. The generation of quality evidence benefits from proactive approaches that ensure ethical standards are met to protect participants. The purpose of this article is to differentiate among health care, quality improvement, and research and to discuss ethical involvement of women who are pregnant and potentially childbearing in these initiatives. Health care is provided to protect and improve individual health. Quality improvement aims to enhance delivery of care for all those receiving care in particular settings. Research, whether retrospective or prospective, is designed to contribute to generalizable knowledge. This review includes vignettes to distinguish between research, quality improvement, and case study dissemination and to highlight the value of publication of information with applicability beyond a single site. As a community, perinatal care providers will be able to contribute more evidence to guide care if they err on the side of seeking institutional review board approval for activities that examine the care and outcomes of pregnant women and the fetus. Traditional research activities, including clinical trials, remain crucial. However, to fill gaps in knowledge, we must expedite our ability to report informative cases, examine clinical data, share lessons learned during quality improvement campaigns, and publish and disseminate these findings. Accelerating improvements in care demands expansion of the evidence base.

Rethinking vulnerable groups in clinical research

Vulnerable groups are often excluded from clinical research on the basis of scientific, ethical and practical reasons. Although intended to protect vulnerable people and maintain study integrity, exclusion of vulnerable groups from research through use of standard exclusion criteria may not always be necessary and may result in findings that are not generalisable. Achieving a balance between the competing needs to protect vulnerable people and to make progress in our understanding of disorders and their management through research requires a reconsideration of exclusion criteria and consent processes to ensure vulnerable people are appropriately represented in clinical research. Reasons for development of broad exclusion criteria include both concrete barriers and intangible discouraging factors. This paper examines this situation and its consequences, perceived and real barriers to inclusion of vulnerable people in research, and suggests methods for overcoming these barriers and applying thoughtful exclusion criteria.

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.

Pragmatic clinical trials embedded in healthcare systems: generalizable lessons from the NIH Collaboratory

BACKGROUND

The clinical research enterprise is not producing the evidence decision makers arguably need in a timely and cost effective manner; research currently involves the use of labor-intensive parallel systems that are separate from clinical care. The emergence of pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) poses a possible solution: these large-scale trials are embedded within routine clinical care and often involve cluster randomization of hospitals, clinics, primary care providers, etc. Interventions can be implemented by health system personnel through usual communication channels and quality improvement infrastructure, and data collected as part of routine clinical care. However, experience with these trials is nascent and best practices regarding design operational, analytic, and reporting methodologies are undeveloped.

METHODS

To strengthen the national capacity to implement cost-effective, large-scale PCTs, the Common Fund of the National Institutes of Health created the Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory (Collaboratory) to support the design, execution, and dissemination of a series of demonstration projects using a pragmatic research design.

RESULTS

In this article, we will describe the Collaboratory, highlight some of the challenges encountered and solutions developed thus far, and discuss remaining barriers and opportunities for large-scale evidence generation using PCTs.

CONCLUSION

A planning phase is critical, and even with careful planning, new challenges arise during execution; comparisons between arms can be complicated by unanticipated changes. Early and ongoing engagement with both health care system leaders and front-line clinicians is critical for success. There is also marked uncertainty when applying existing ethical and regulatory frameworks to PCTS, and using existing electronic health records for data capture adds complexity.

Methodological and Ethical Issues in Pediatric Medication Safety Research

In May 2016, the Eshelman School of Pharmacy at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill convened the PharmSci conference to address the topic of "methodological and ethical issues in pediatric medication safety research." A multidisciplinary group of experts representing a diverse array of perspectives, including those of the US Food and Drug Administration, children's hospitals, and academia, identified important considerations for pediatric medication safety research and opportunities to advance the field. This executive summary describes current challenges that clinicians and researchers encounter related to pediatric medication safety research and identifies innovative and ethically sound methodologies to address these challenges to improve children's health. This article addresses 5 areas: (1) pediatric drug development and drug trials; (2) conducting comparative effectiveness research in pediatric populations; (3) child and parent engagement on study teams; (4) improving communication with children and parents; and (5) assessing child-reported outcomes and adverse drug events.

A pragmatic analysis of vulnerability in clinical research

Identifying which subjects are vulnerable, and implementing safeguards to protect them, is widely regarded as essential to clinical research. Commentators have endorsed a number of responses to these challenges and have thereby made significant progress in understanding vulnerability in clinical research. At the same time, this literature points to a central contradiction which calls into question its potential to protect vulnerable subjects in practice. Specifically, analysis suggests that all human subjects are vulnerable and vulnerability in clinical research is comparative and context dependent, in the sense that individuals are vulnerable relative to others and in some contexts only. Yet, if everyone is vulnerable, there seems to be no point in citing the vulnerability of some individuals. Moreover, the conclusion that everyone is vulnerable seems inconsistent with the claims that vulnerability is comparative and context dependent, raising concern over whether it will be possible to develop a comprehensive account of vulnerability that is internally consistent. The solution to this dilemma lies in recognition of the fact that the practical significance of claims regarding vulnerability depends on the context in which they are used. The claims that appear to lead to the central contradiction are in fact accurate conclusions that follow from different uses of the term 'vulnerability'. The present manuscript describes this 'pragmatic' approach to vulnerability in clinical research and considers its implications for ensuring that subjects receive appropriate protection.

Characterizing expanded access and compassionate use programs for experimental drugs

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine the characteristics of "expanded access" and "compassionate use" programs registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and to determine the percentage of drugs provided through these programs that ultimately received FDA marketing approval.

RESULTS

We identified 398 expanded access and compassionate use programs (hereafter referred to as expanded access programs) registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Industry funded 61% (n = 241) of programs individually or collaboratively, while NIH and the US Federal Government rarely funded programs (3% [n = 11] and 2% [n = 6], respectively). Most programs provided access to drugs (71% [n = 282]), 11% to biologics (n = 43), and 10% to medical devices (n = 40). These programs covered 460 unique conditions, the most common being HIV (n = 26), leukemia (22), and multiple myeloma (n = 14). Only 2% of programs reported results in ClinicalTrials.gov. Most programs (82%) were open to enrolling adults and seniors (n = 326). These programs provided access to 210 unique experimental drugs, of which 76% have received FDA approval.

Series: Pragmatic trials and real world evidence: Paper 3. Patient selection challenges and consequences

This paper addresses challenges of identifying, enrolling, and retaining participants in a trial conducted within a routine care setting. All patients who are potential candidates for the treatments in routine clinical practice should be considered eligible for a pragmatic trial. To ensure generalizability, the recruited sample should have a similar distribution of the treatment effect modifiers as the target population. In practice, this can be best achieved by including-within the selected sites-all patients without further selection. If relevant heterogeneity between subgroups is expected, increasing the relative proportion of the subgroup of patients in the heterogeneous trial could be considered (oversampling) or a separate trial in this subgroup can be planned. Selection will nevertheless occur. Low enrollment and loss to follow-up can introduce selection and can jeopardize validity as well as generalizability. Pragmatic trials are conducted in clinical practice rather than in a dedicated research setting, which could reduce recruitment rates. However, if a trial poses a minimal burden to the physician and the patient and routine clinical practice is maximally adhered to, the participation rate may be high and loss to follow-up will not be a specific problem for pragmatic trials.

Is It Worth It? Benefits in Research With Adults With Intellectual Disability

Including adults with intellectual disability in research promotes direct benefits to participants and larger societal benefits. Stakeholders may have different views of what count as benefits and their importance. We compared views on benefits in research with adults with intellectual disability among adults with intellectual disability, family and friends, service providers, researchers, and institutional review board members. We found that adults with intellectual disability value direct and indirect research benefits, and want to participate in research that offers them. Other stakeholders generally see less value in direct benefits and predict more tempered interest in research participation as compared to adults with intellectual disability. To promote respectful research participation, research policy and practice should incorporate the views of adults with intellectual disability.

Teens and Research

On seeing promising results in a small number of patients, some researchers are conducting trials to determine whether deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an effective treatment for anorexia nervosa (AN). This article asks whether we should open enrollment in trials of DBS for AN to adolescents. Despite concerns about informed consent, parental consent, and unforeseeable psychological sequelae, the article concludes that the risks to anorexic adolescents associated with participation in trials of DBS are reasonable considering the substantial risks of not enrolling teens with AN in research on DBS. The seriousness of AN, its high incidence in teens, and serious shortfalls in the AN treatment literature point to the need for improved, evidence-based treatments for teens with AN. This unmet need generates an obligation on the part of researchers and physicians to promote and conduct research on AN in adolescents.

Stakeholders' views on the ethical challenges of pragmatic trials investigating pharmaceutical drugs

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.

Is Safety in the Eye of the Beholder? Safeguards in Research With Adults With Intellectual Disability

Human subjects research has a core commitment to participant well-being. This obligation is accentuated for once exploited populations such as adults with intellectual disability. Yet we know little about the public's views on appropriate safeguards for this population. We surveyed adults with intellectual disability, family members and friends, disability service providers, researchers, and Institutional Review Board (IRB) members to compare views on safeguards. We found many points of convergence of views, particularly for decision-making and participation. One trend is that adults with intellectual disability perceive greater safety in being engaged directly in recruitment, and recruitment by specific individuals. Researchers and IRB members need to consider community views to facilitate the safe and respectful inclusion of adults with intellectual disability.

Exploring the ethical and regulatory issues in pragmatic clinical trials

The need for high-quality evidence to support decision making about health and health care by patients, physicians, care providers, and policy-makers is well documented. However, serious shortcomings in evidence persist. Pragmatic clinical trials that use novel techniques including emerging information and communication technologies to explore important research questions rapidly and at a fraction of the cost incurred by more "traditional" research methods promise to help close this gap. Nevertheless, while pragmatic clinical trials can bridge clinical practice and research, they may also raise difficult ethical and regulatory challenges. In this article, the authors briefly survey the current state of evidence that is available to inform clinical care and other health-related decisions and discuss the potential for pragmatic clinical trials to improve this state of affairs. They then propose a new working definition for pragmatic research that centers upon fitness for informing decisions about health and health care. Finally, they introduce a project, jointly undertaken by the National Institutes of Health Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory and the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet), which addresses 11 key aspects of current systems for regulatory and ethical oversight of clinical research that pose challenges to conducting pragmatic clinical trials. In the series of articles commissioned on this topic published in this issue of Clinical Trials, each of these aspects is addressed in a dedicated article, with a special focus on the interplay between ethical and regulatory considerations and pragmatic clinical research aimed at informing "real-world" choices about health and health care.