1
|
Avinger AM, Sibold HC, Campbell G, Abernethy E, Bourgeois J, McClary T, Blee S, Dixon M, Harvey RD, Pentz RD. Improving oncology first-in-human and Window of opportunity informed consent forms through participant feedback. BMC Med Ethics 2023; 24:12. [PMID: 36803249 PMCID: PMC9938963 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-023-00890-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/07/2022] [Accepted: 01/31/2023] [Indexed: 02/21/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Although patient advocates have developed templates for standard consent forms, evaluating patient preferences for first in human (FIH) and window of opportunity (Window) trial consent forms is critical due to their unique risks. FIH trials are the initial use of a novel compound in study participants. In contrast, Window trials give an investigational agent over a fixed duration to treatment naïve patients in the time between diagnosis and standard of care (SOC) surgery. Our goal was to determine the patient-preferred presentation of important information in consent forms for these trials. METHODS The study consisted of two phases: (1) analyses of oncology FIH and Window consents; (2) interviews of trial participants. FIH consent forms were analyzed for the location(s) of information stating that the study drug has not been tested in humans (FIH information); Window consents were analyzed for the location(s) of information stating the trial may delay SOC surgery (delay information). Participants were asked about their preferred placement of the information in their own trial's consent form. The location of information in the consent forms was compared to the participants' suggestions for placement. RESULTS 34 [17 FIH; 17 Window] of 42(81%) cancer patients approached participated. 25 consents [20 FIH; 5 Window] were analyzed. 19/20 FIH consent forms included FIH information, and 4/5 Window consent forms included delay information. 19/20(95%) FIH consent forms contained FIH information in the risks section 12/17(71%) patients preferred the same. Fourteen (82%) patients wanted FIH information in the purpose, but only 5(25%) consents mentioned it there. 9/17(53%) Window patients preferred delay information to be located early in the consent, before the "Risks" section. 3/5(60%) consents did this. CONCLUSIONS Designing consents that reflect patient preferences more accurately is essential for ethical informed consent; however, a one-size fits all approach will not accurately capture patient preferences. We found that preferences differed for FIH and Window trial consents, though for both, patients preferred key risk information early in the consent. Next steps include determining if FIH and Window consent templates improve understanding.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anna M Avinger
- Wake Forest University School of Medicine, 475 Vine St, Winston-Salem, NC, 27101, USA
| | - Hannah Claire Sibold
- Duke University School of Medicine, 40 Duke Medicine Cir., Durham, NC, 27710, USA
| | - Gavin Campbell
- Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, 1518 Clifton Rd, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA
| | - Eli Abernethy
- Duke University School of Medicine, 40 Duke Medicine Cir., Durham, NC, 27710, USA
| | - John Bourgeois
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, 1365 E Clifton Rd, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA
| | - Tekiah McClary
- South University Orlando Campus, 5900 Lake Ellenor Dr., Orlando, FL, 32809, USA
| | - Shannon Blee
- Creighton University Medical School, 2621 Burt Street, Omaha, NE, 68178, USA
| | - Margie Dixon
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, 1365 E Clifton Rd, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.,Emory University School of Medicine, 201 Dowman Dr., Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA
| | - R Donald Harvey
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, 1365 E Clifton Rd, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.,Emory University School of Medicine, 201 Dowman Dr., Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA
| | - Rebecca D Pentz
- Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, 1365 E Clifton Rd, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA. .,Emory University School of Medicine, 201 Dowman Dr., Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA. .,Winship Cancer Institute, 2004 Ridgewood Dr., Office 301, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Schwietering J, Langhof H, Strech D. Empirical studies on how ethical recommendations are translated into practice: a cross-section study on scope and study objectives. BMC Med Ethics 2023; 24:2. [PMID: 36631789 PMCID: PMC9835353 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-022-00873-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/07/2022] [Accepted: 12/07/2022] [Indexed: 01/13/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Empirical research can become relevant for bioethics in at least two ways. First, by informing the development or refinement of ethical recommendations. Second, by evaluating how ethical recommendations are translated into practice. This study aims to investigate the scope and objectives of empirical studies evaluating how ethical recommendations are translated into practice. METHODS A sample of the latest 400 publications from four bioethics journals was created and screened. All publications were included if they met one of the following three criteria: (1) evaluative empirical research, (2) non-evaluative empirical research and (3) borderline cases. For all publications categorized as evaluative empirical research we analyzed which objects (norms and recommendations) had been evaluated. RESULTS 234 studies were included of which 54% (n = 126) were categorized as non-evaluative empirical studies, 36% (n = 84) as evaluative empirical studies, and 10% (n = 24) as borderline cases. The object of evaluation were aspirational norms in 5 of the 84 included evaluative empirical studies, more specific norms in 14 (16%) studies and concrete best practices in 65 (77%) studies. The specific best practices can be grouped under five broader categories: ethical procedures, ethical institutions, clinical or research practices, educational programs, and legal regulations. CONCLUSIONS This mapping study shows that empirical evaluative studies can be found at all stages in the translational process from theory to best practices. Our study suggests two intertwined dimensions for structuring the field of evaluative/translational empirical studies in bioethics: First, three broader categories of evaluation objects and second five categories for types of best practices. TRIAL REGISTRATION The methodology used was described in a study protocol that was registered publicly on the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/r6h4y/ ).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Johannes Schwietering
- grid.484013.a0000 0004 6879 971XQUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin Institute of Health (BIH) at Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, 10178 Berlin, Germany
| | - Holger Langhof
- grid.484013.a0000 0004 6879 971XQUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin Institute of Health (BIH) at Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, 10178 Berlin, Germany
| | - Daniel Strech
- grid.484013.a0000 0004 6879 971XQUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin Institute of Health (BIH) at Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, 10178 Berlin, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
[Transparency in clinical research: What contribution does the new EU Regulation 536/2014 make?]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 2023; 66:52-59. [PMID: 36512076 PMCID: PMC9832089 DOI: 10.1007/s00103-022-03631-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/07/2022] [Accepted: 11/18/2022] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
Clinical studies can be more or less transparent in four areas: (a) study registration, (b) results reporting, (c) data/code sharing, and (d) study-related documents. This discussion paper explains the extent to which the EU Regulation 536/2014 (Clinical Trials Regulation - CTR) has already positively impacted the area of results reporting in interventional drug trials and how it can improve the availability of study-related documents for independent research in the future.As this positive trend exists only for the area of results reporting and for the subset of interventional drug trials addressed by the CTR so far, a problematic two-class transparency seems to be developing that distinguishes between clinical studies addressed by the CTR and the other clinical studies. Independently of the CTR, academic institutions, funders, and ethics committees should therefore address all four abovementioned areas of transparency in all clinical studies. Monitoring the implementation of transparency in clinical studies would be an important first step in order to specify the need for action. An innovation in the context of transparency of clinical trials could also arise from the fact that the new EU Portal Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS) according to the CTR makes study-related informed consent documents, study protocols, and the investigator's brochures more transparent. This would for the first time open up the opportunity of independent research and quality assurance on issues of informed consent and harm-benefit assessment in clinical research.
Collapse
|
4
|
Schnarr A, Mertz M. States of Uncertainty, Risk-Benefit Assessment and Early Clinical Research: A Conceptual Investigation. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS 2022; 28:68. [PMID: 36512131 PMCID: PMC9747817 DOI: 10.1007/s11948-022-00418-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/27/2021] [Accepted: 11/09/2022] [Indexed: 06/17/2023]
Abstract
It can be argued that there is an ethical requirement to classify correctly what is known and what is unknown in decision situations, especially in the context of biomedicine when risks and benefits have to be assessed. This is because other methods for assessing potential harms and benefits, decision logics and/or ethical principles may apply depending on the kind or degree of uncertainty. However, it is necessary to identify and describe the various epistemic states of uncertainty relevant to such estimates in the first place. Therefore, this paper aims to develop a category system of different epistemic states of uncertainty which, although not exclusively, is primarily intended to be applied to early clinical trials. It is formed on the basis-and various combinations-of three dimensions of uncertainty that represent certain parts of incomplete knowledge: outcome (type of event), probability (of outcome) and evaluation (assessment of outcome). Furthermore, it is argued that uncertainty can arise from three different sources (the structure of the object of research, the state of the evidence, or individual handling of the research and already existing knowledge). The categories developed are applied to actual examples from gene therapy and genome editing to illustrate that they can be helpful for a more precise definition of the respective uncertainties, especially in the context of risk-benefit assessment. The categories allow a differentiated perspective of decision-making situations from the point of view of incomplete knowledge in general, but particularly, for example, in early clinical research, and may thereby support a more acceptable ethical assessment of potential harms and benefits.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Antje Schnarr
- Institute of Ethics, History and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany
| | - Marcel Mertz
- Institute of Ethics, History and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
de Jongh D, Massey EK, Cronin AJ, Schermer MHN, Bunnik EM. Early-Phase Clinical Trials of Bio-Artificial Organ Technology: A Systematic Review of Ethical Issues. Transpl Int 2022; 35:10751. [PMID: 36388425 PMCID: PMC9659568 DOI: 10.3389/ti.2022.10751] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/08/2022] [Accepted: 10/07/2022] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
Regenerative medicine has emerged as a novel alternative solution to organ failure which circumvents the issue of organ shortage. In preclinical research settings bio-artificial organs are being developed. It is anticipated that eventually it will be possible to launch first-in-human transplantation trials to test safety and efficacy in human recipients. In early-phase transplantation trials, however, research participants could be exposed to serious risks, such as toxicity, infections and tumorigenesis. So far, there is no ethical guidance for the safe and responsible design and conduct of early-phase clinical trials of bio-artificial organs. Therefore, research ethics review committees will need to look to related adjacent fields of research, including for example cell-based therapy, for guidance. In this systematic review, we examined the literature on early-phase clinical trials in these adjacent fields and undertook a thematic analysis of relevant ethical points to consider for early-phase clinical trials of transplantable bio-artificial organs. Six themes were identified: cell source, risk-benefit assessment, patient selection, trial design, informed consent, and oversight and accountability. Further empirical research is needed to provide insight in patient perspectives, as this may serve as valuable input in determining the conditions for ethically responsible and acceptable early clinical development of bio-artificial organs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dide de Jongh
- Department of Nephrology and Transplantation, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands,Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands,*Correspondence: Dide de Jongh,
| | - Emma K. Massey
- Department of Nephrology and Transplantation, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Antonia J. Cronin
- Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom,King’s College, London, United Kingdom
| | - Maartje H. N. Schermer
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Eline M. Bunnik
- Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Bittlinger M, Bicer S, Peppercorn J, Kimmelman J. Ethical Considerations for Phase I Trials in Oncology. J Clin Oncol 2022; 40:3474-3488. [PMID: 35275736 DOI: 10.1200/jco.21.02125] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Phase I trials often represent the first occasion where new cancer strategies are tested in patients. Various developments in cancer biology, methodology, regulation, and medical ethics have altered the ethical landscape of such trials. We provide a narrative review of contemporary ethical challenges in design, conduct, and reporting of phase I cancer trials and outline recommendations for addressing each. We organized our review around four topics, supplementing the first three with scoping reviews: (1) benefit/risk, (2) research biopsies, (3) therapeutic misconception and misestimation, and (4) reporting. The main ethical challenges of conducting phase I trials stem from three issues. First, phase I trials often involve higher research burden and scientific uncertainty compared with other cancer trials. Second, many patients arrive at phase I trials at a transitional point in their illness trajectory where they have exhausted standard survival-extending options. Third, phase I trial results play a major role in informing downstream drug development and regulatory decisions. Together, these issues create distinct pressures for study design, ethical review, informed consent, and reporting. Developments in methodology, regulation, cancer biology, and ethical awareness have helped mitigate some of these challenges, while introducing others. We conclude our review with a series of recommendations regarding trial design, ethical review, consent, and reporting. We also outline several unresolved questions that, if addressed, would strengthen the ethical foundation of phase I cancer trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Merlin Bittlinger
- Studies of Translation, Ethics and Medicine (STREAM), Department of Equity, Ethics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Selin Bicer
- Studies of Translation, Ethics and Medicine (STREAM), Department of Equity, Ethics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | | | - Jonathan Kimmelman
- Studies of Translation, Ethics and Medicine (STREAM), Department of Equity, Ethics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Wisgalla A, Hasford J. Four reasons why too many informed consents to clinical research are invalid: a critical analysis of current practices. BMJ Open 2022; 12:e050543. [PMID: 35246415 PMCID: PMC8900041 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050543] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Informed consent (IC) is a central ethical and legal requirement for clinical research that aims to protect the autonomy of participants. To enable an autonomous decision and valid consent, adequate understanding must be ensured. However, a considerable proportion of participants do not understand the relevant aspects about participation in research, for example, approximately 45% could not name at least one risk. As such, the inadequate understanding of IC has been known for several decades, and it still constitutes a severe problem for the ethical conduct of research. Through delineating the most pressing deficits of current IC procedures that lead to insufficient understanding, we aim to encourage the discussion among stakeholders, for example, clinical researchers, and to provide the grounds for practical solutions. MAIN ARGUMENTS: (1) IC documents are too long to be read completely, thus, make it very difficult for potential participants to identify the material facts about the trial. (2) The low readability of the IC documents disadvantages persons with limited literacy. (3) The therapeutic misconception frequently prevents participants to realise that the primary purpose of clinical research is to benefit future patients. (4) Excessive risk disclosures, insufficient information about expected benefits and framing effects compromise a rational risk/benefit assessment. CONCLUSION Due to these deficits, practices of IC in clinical research too often preclude adequate understanding of prospective participants, thus, invalidating IC. The gap between the well-specified ethical norm to enable IC and its insufficient translation into practice can no longer be accepted, as participant rights and the public trust in responsible research are at stake. Hence, immediate action is needed to address the prevailing deficits.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anne Wisgalla
- Association of Medical Ethics Committees in Germany, Berlin, Germany
| | - Joerg Hasford
- Association of Medical Ethics Committees in Germany, Berlin, Germany
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology, Ludwig Maximilians University Munich, Munich, Germany
| |
Collapse
|